I haven�t seen the new episode yet but there�s one thing I�d like to know: is there a noticeable tendency that the writers toned down the surrealism a little bit (as Al Jean promised) and made the episode more real. And what about the characters? Is there a tendency toward the old characterization or is it still the flat cartoonish characterization from the last seasons?
Chris
i think its on par with the past couple seasons but i think this is one of the leftovers of season 12
"Chris Pfeiler" wrote in message news:[email]...
is
little
the
still
You probably won't like it too much, Chris. It's not to bad... but it is a Mike Scully hold-over (CABF22)... we probably have to wait for the DABFs for any noticeable change. That said, I liked it. It wasn't a new classic by any means, but it was enjoyable. There wasn't any big surreal happenings (except for an anthropomorphic police dog and seal).
What about Moe's "I steal now" and the way that the judges were able to leave and take over their shifts in the middle of a court case? I know that the show has weird things all the time in various episodes, but these things seemed more weird than usual.
"GenericName98" wrote in message news:[email]...
leave
show
more
Surreal as in "cartoon physics", or liberties taken because of the cartoon medium is what I think Chris meant. Moe leveling his shotgun at people is nothing new, but Moe breaking character was right on the edge of being funny and being wrong. Taking over the court shift in the middle of the case was just creative liberty, and not all that surreal. The Simpsons has exaggerated reality throughout its run, and the court-shift thing could be considered political commentary if nothing else. Those scenes were still based in reality, and not based on fairy-tale physics or fiction.
Switching judges at the end of the episode (as well as the beginning) is not "creative liberty," and it's definately not "political commentary." It is sheer laziness on the part of the writers, and one of the major reasons why that episode was abysmal. Like so many episodes of the past two seasons, the show just ran out of steam with two minutes to go and the writers tacked on a cheap ending to bring things to a crashing halt. The other major problem with the episode was pacing. We just got one thing thrown at us after another. Most of them were unfunny sight gags that had little or no relevence to what preceded or followed. THAT is why the show was lousy last week, and why it has been lousy for most of the past two to three years.
Drunk and full of pie, Langdon Alger wrote:
The ending was set up by Judge Snyder *leaving* in much the same way; it's really the only way the episode could have ended--there would have been no story without the new judge, appearing right before Bart is to be sentenced.
the episode could have ended any other way - like the judge actually listening to bart, for one. the way the judge judy character left was not the same way judge snyder left. i don't think any judge leaves in the middle of the day to start a vacation, but i am sure no judge returns in the middle of a rulie like that. there's clearly a difference, and if the first switch was stupid, the second was insulting to the viewers.
and i am not full of pie.
Drunk and full of pie, Langdon Alger wrote:
I don't know, but after watching the tape early last week, that's what I saw. Snyder was about to give Bart an easy sentence when his vacation began, and his vacation ends right as the other judge is about to give her sentence.
Grampa: Suuuuuure you're not.
:)
maybe my memory lapsed, or maybe i am just trying to block out any memory of last week's episode, but if that's the case, then both instances were insulting to the viewers.
The Rack wrote in message news:[email]...
not
the
first
What? Those were relatively normal, compared to almost everything from S12:
Tale of Two Springfields--the Springfield Wall
Insane Clown Poppy--Homer stealing the violin from a mob conference, Krusty stopping the assassination of Hussein.
Lisa the Tree Hugger--Log rolling throughout the US
Homer vs. Dignity--do I have to specifiy?
The Computer Wore Menace Shoes--the entire episode!--particularly the island.
Great Money Caper--Fake trial for Bart and Homer
Skinner's Sense of Snow--the hamster wheeling throughout Springfield.
HOMR--the entire crayon in the brain thing, Moe as a surgeon.
Pokey Mom--OK, this was relatively normal.
Worst Episode Ever--The civil defense video.
Tennis the Menace--Buying a tennis court in the first place--plus, this was a particularly bad episode.
New Kids on the Blecch--Naval recruiting through boy bands?
Hungry, Hungry Homer--Homer on a hunger strike? The disappearing room? Blockoland being put away at night.
Simpson Safari--the monkey diamond mine.
Trilogy of Error--Linguo, W. Springfield, the whole "lost thumb" subplot.
I'm Goin to Praiseland--relatively normal.
Children of a Lesser Clod--relatively normal.
Simpsons Tall Tales--closer to a THOH than a regular episode.
I rest my case.
Brian
GenericName98 wrote:
"Brian Beck" wrote in message news:[email]...
S12:
island.
Ahem...the island was a Prisoner reference, you pre-pubescent ignoramus.
Leo Tokarski wrote:
Yeah, obviously--but it still wasn't exactly realistic.
Brian
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Brian Beck wrote:
Reference or no reference, there still must be some remote sense of realism. Of course, with a cartoon, one can be willing to suspend disbelief, but The Computer Wore Menace Shoes came across as a bloated THOH segment, rather than a "real" episode.
"david nathaniel werner" wrote in message news:[email]...
There "must" be some remote sense of realism? Not all of us need consistency and physical/cultural plausibility in our completely fictional animated humor. I could care less about realism/continuity/consistency - I just want creative writing and good jokes. And last time I checked, humor was a subjective thing. Not all of us need "realism" to enjoy a joke. Or a 13-season string of loosely-related jokes....
"Brian Beck" wrote in message news:[email]...
That's just the plot; something similar could happen in real life.
Same.
I agree. That was "zany".
That was just political satire; and, it was well done IMO.
Plot.
Joke.
Those human-like animals are at it again!
Why is West Springfield Elementary unbelieveable?
I didn't like that episode, but more because there was nothing very funny about it. "Me hungy". Sounds like something for the Barney set.
The thing that bothered me was the French immersion class in a school district that had to bulldoze their auditorium. However, it's also a tad puzzling how we've never seen a W. Springfield Elementary before, in 13 seasons--and you'd think that W. Springfield would be a much bigger rival than Shelbyville.
But that's not too zany--the thumb plot was much more zany.
Brian
"Brian Beck" wrote in message news:[email]...
Well, that's really a continuity issue, not a surrealism issue. True, a French immersion class in a poor elementary school is weird, but the school's finances (as well as OFF's finances) really seem to vary depending on what's needed for any particular episode. Sometimes Springfield Elementary School has surveillance cameras and monitoring systems for the heating ducts, and other times they can't even afford gas for the school bus. It could possibly be explained by saying that the school district spends its money in silly ways (I think the scoreboard in "Lisa Gets an A" is proof of that), but, as long as it's funny, I don't know that an explanation is really necessary.
I'd say that actually makes it funnier.
Are schools within the same district usually rivals, though?
Why does it have to be zany?
Getting back to the episode that started it all, I'd say that the fiber-optic tether is pretty zany and surreal.
Nathan
True. Now that I think about it, those incidents were actually "normal" compared to other things in the show. I guess I was just a little taken aback by Moe saying that he steals now. It's really no more abnormal than Homer saying that his pants cost hundreds of dollars. The episode with Flanders being 60 was more ridiculous though, since the episode in the psychiatric hospital has a flashback to 30 years before and he was obviously not 30 in the flashback. I won't stir up conversation about that again here, though. I'm sure it's been done to death by now on this NG.
"GenericName98" wrote in message news:[email]...
aback
the
I'm
the simpsons is always inconsistent like that. that's what makes it so great. anyone remember smithers was black? it doesn't matter if the facts are meddled with, but i do think it matters when a log slides across a country. that's just stupid.
Smithers was never black. the inkers goofed once and made his colour tannish, but maybe he just had gotten back from a Bermuda vacation. *shrugs*
You�re right. It is still Scully�s show so there won�t be any change before DABF. It�s just that we have daily season 11 and prime-time season 12 at the moment on TV and I could need something to cheer me up.
Chris
Drunk and full of pie, Nim wrote:
I don't care about continuity or consistency; but your term "good jokes" to me implies some basis in reality -- at least to begin with. When the Simpsons mocks something from culture, politics, or what have you, it usually does so very well. That's what I would call "good jokes." OTOH, stuff that begins in fantasy land (fish falling from space, for example) has only surprise or shock value. I really prefer humor with more levels than just a surface shock or surprise. That's not to say it's bad -- it's just done on every other cartoon. Some of us feel that "The Simpsons" was no ordinary cartoon. A fish falling from space wouldn't be out of place for a Bugs Bunny cartoon, but some fans felt it was too simple a joke for "The Simpsons".
I like jokes that are exaggerations of our lives, even extreme exaggerations, because the clever observations about society give the jokes more depth. To me, these jokes more timeless (and funnier). I felt "The Simpsons" used to give us this every week in the early years, and that type of humor is harder to comeby in these later seasons.
Episodes strung together by self-references aren't very interesting to me. A few self-references are okay, but I'd like the show to take off in different directions sometimes and do new things.
"The Rack" wrote in message news:[email]...
To you, maybe, but not to everyone. Humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. There's no objective standard for "funny" other than what makes an audience laugh.
To equate the absurdism and meta-humor in the Simpsons with simple random surrealism is just inaccurate. Random strings of images, sounds, and words will not be as entertaining as the most "unrealistic" episode you can find. Clearly, there is something more going into the recipe. I would claim that it's creativity, wit, and intelligence. If you simply left it at "I just don't like that kind of humor as much as pointed, topical stuff," I'd agree. But writing it off as mindless off-the-wall randomness is patronizing and, simply, wrong.
This isn't about "depth," it's about difference. But if you want to frame it in terms of "depth," I could say that the "fractured take on modern life" school of comedy was already tired by the second time that Sinbad opened his mouth. I could also say that by experimenting with narrative and dramatic style in such radical ways, the show's writing is more creative, witty, and intelligent than ever, and that it's the "shallow" crowd who wants to be pandered to with jokes about stuff they recognize.
But it's not about that. It's about different kinds of humor. I know what random surrealism is. And that's not what the Simpsons has. Their absurdism and meta-humor are firmly grounded in wit and intelligence. I wouldn't patronize you by suggesting you are too witless to get the jokes. You just don't like them. Well, you're not alone but neither are those of us who enjoy the experimentation.
Well, if enough people feel the same way, I imagine the writers and studio will try to steer the show that direction. But in the meantime, some of us do actually enjoy the new stuff, and not just because of "shock value"....just don't confuse personal taste in a subjective medium with universal standards =p
"The 4-H club deserted?? Am I so out of touch?? No...it's the children who are wrong."
Drunk and full of pie, Nim wrote:
Well, that's all I was doing. Stating an opinion. There are some of us who miss the (mostly gone) hidden social satire.
I don't believe I did that. IMO, the fish from space was random surrealism.
Not disagreeing.
Often, that is true.
That may have been the original poster's intent. I said nothing of the sort. I liked Homer sliding down the cooling tower, and Homer and Bart sitting on the rim of the tower, because those scenes play with our perceptions. How many of us will ever visit a nuclear power plant in our lifetimes? Most people will never do that, so the opportunity is there to do some "plausibly deniable" things. I like that stuff, actually. How many of us will ever drive an electric car off a pier, and electrocute some mermaids? Same thing. The existence of mermaids is even plausibly deniable... so IMO that's fine. I like it when the writers try to pull the wool over some of the audience's eyes like that -- but random surreal happenings on the show (like the falling fish, for example) IMO are not clever nor as deserving of laughs as something that obviously took more creativity to write.
To me, it's about depth. It's how I see the two different types of jokes. One of the two types makes me laugh harder. Later, when thinking about why something was so funny, I usually find that it was an observational joke or satire, not something just put in for the shock value.
Some comedians are more observant than others, and the writers of The Simpsons used to show us these exaggerated observations through the plot very well. There was never a comedian like Seinfeld taking an aside every few minutes to make the observation for the audience -- we had to pick them out. This type of humor is difficult to find (tongue in cheek social satire), and it's what made The Simpsons great for me.
You may have a point; but there are just so many shows today that use the same narrative style... the sitcoms. Groups of characters generally stand around in one place, talking to each other. It's all about writing funny lines now, and to the Simpsons writers' credit, they very often do a good job. The Simpsons isn't a unique show any more, but the writers are still able to write good lines and create good slapstick. What I miss are the satiric observations integrated into a plot that to many outside observers is just a good story. I do appreciate The Simpsons in its current format, although not as much.
I hope I'm not that witless :) I think I can tell the difference between surrealism and wit. Genius is sometimes described as the increasing ability to find patterns between two seemingly different things. Wit requires a bit of genius and thought; a "wacky joke" is one that has no connection to anything (imagined or real) and thus no frame of reference.
I never implied I didn't like the new stuff. It's different, and I generally like most every episode for some reason or another.
I tried to make sure my observations were couched as opinions, not as dictionary definitions of "good jokes" or "bad jokes".