have the current writers even SEEN any episodes from the earlier series?

or did they just realise they can churn out any 2-dimensional slapstick shit they want and still make loads of money?

It seems to me that most of the reason people don't like recent episodes is because of the one in which the Simpsons bought a new horse, Bart became a jockey, the other jockeys were elves, etc. I've seen this episode flamed on here multiple times. Granted, it isn't the best episode, but I think people don't like it because they were offended when Homer dissed the Comic Book Guy, who brought up the fact that there had already been another episode in which the Simpsons bought a horse. Homer then yelled, "Does anyone care what THIS guy thinks?" Some old-time fans have taken this as an insult to them and so now deride the show. Personally, I thought that line was hilarious - and I think it's even more hilarious that people were upset by it. And I'm a long-time fan myself.

"OneMonk909" wrote in message news:[email]...

is

on

people

Guy,

which

THIS

so

I

I think it's a combo of factors. I'm guessing most people were sub-conciously (or consciously) put-off by the meanness of both Homer and the Jockeys. When the unreal "Wizard of Oz, crossed with Keebler Elves" parody began, it was not only "unkind"... it was "unreal". Many people like the realism and humanity (kindness) that used to be shown on the show. The satire (exaggerating the arrogance of jockeys) wasn't probably strong enough, either. I didn't mind the "fantasy" part of it, at all. It was kind of creative. But, the overall episode seemed empty to me.

The CBG stuff was added on to that, but Homer acting like a jerk to get a song played probably had its effect too. Actually, that kind of bothered me... and Homer being a jerk usually doesn't so much. I suspect those like Jim Dyer and Darth Arada hate the episode because of the Clinton-slam at the end :) Overlooking the many strange/bizarre/weird things in this episode, there's some really good stuff in there--particularly the Surly scene (or, am I thinking of "Pygmoelian?") , or Homer's "Margaret Cho" line (Pygmoelian, again?), and the scene where Duncan's "dunker" gets away in the car.

At the end, the whole episode seemed pointless. What did it satirize? If it satirized jockeys, did it do a good job? Where was the heart and kindness? Completely gone. Half the audience was potentially offended by the episode's final line. Did any relationships between characters change--even during the episode? No. It was just a bunch of stuff that happened.

<Darth Arada hate the episode because of the Clinton-slam at the end>

I hated the entire episode. The Clinton thing was just the fly on the bouger.

~Paul Melnyk, too Laozi to come up with a witty nickname. "An autocrat is a facist that's loved, a dictator is a fascist that's hated."

"Darth Arada" wrote in message news:[email]...

bouger.

Heh heh heh. The "fly" was funny, and the "bouger" was the icing on the cake!

"The Rack" wrote in message news:SqM37.1761$[email]...

Bravo, Rack. Bravo! (Dr Music's Brain: "I woulda NEVER thought of that.")

Dr Music P.S. Parking was ample.

"drmusic" wrote in message news:hN747.25659$[email]...

I have a small part in a Broadway musical. It's not much, but it's a start. (Rack's Brain: "Oh, Bra-vo... [clap] ... [clap] ...... [clap]")

[email] (OneMonk909) wrote in :

They've done something similar with elephants. The first time was Barts elephant Stampy. The next elephant reference came at Apu's wedding and Bart remarks how he wishes he had an elephant. Then Lisa looks at him and says, "You did have an elephant. His name was Stampy."

One of the problems is that Homer is not very likeable anymore. He's inconsiderate of others most of the time, often to the point of actively trying to piss other characters off. And since when does Homer have the attention span of a retarded mosquito??? ________________________________________________________________

The Indian DVD Resource: http://www.fly.to/indiadvd

What happens when you delete the Recycle Bin?

"Gay" is not a synonym for "bad."

Remove "bination" to reply.

OneMonk909 wrote:

I think this may have been the straw that broke the camel's back for some people but I really don't think it's why fans are disappointed. I'm not a rabid Simpsons's fan (I don't collect things or remember much trivia) but I do enjoy the show a fair amount and I thought the comic boy guy comment was funny because the show was poking fun at itself for an inconsistency, not making fun of their fans for being pedantic.

The problem is that the credibility of the characters has been so shot full of holes that they aren't fun to watch anymore. Good characters are usually given a loose personality framework that they bump up against in different situations. When that framework is shattered, they aren't the same characters. They're different characters with the same name and face. This applies to any recurring character in any type of story whether it be a book, TV or movies. It's human nature to like to see characters act within the framework of their personalities. It's why sequels, serials, and series are so popular.

Any show that pushes a character too far out from its original framework will be disliked for that action, not only the Simpsons. This is because we want to be able to relate to the characters to a limited extent. It's not that people delude themselves into thinking they're real but rather that they want to hold some conceptualization of the character in their minds so that they have a reference point to judge their actions from. This is what creates the comedy. If someone has a certain personality, a baseline is created. When they act in different directions from the baseline, it creates the humor/interest. When the baseline keeps moving, it's no longer funny.

Have I lost you or taxed your attention span?

I think it's simplistic and pointlessly judgemental to say the fans don't like a show because they were insulted by one line. It's easier to say they're big babies rather than blame the writers for destroying the characterizations because they're too lazy or lacking in creativity to stretch the frameworks the characters originally had any further.

That doesn't mean the characters can't change and grow but they should evolve (or de-volve) slowly and steadily with direction and purpose, not revolutionize and/or dramatically de-evolve every week. Even the I Love Lucy/Lucy Show which was pretty whacky and introduced a zany situation for Lucy almost every week, kept the Lucy character herself intact.

The Simpsons is a T.V. show but it should be judged by the same criteria as any series of any sort. If Tarzan books had had him saying "you Tarzan, me Jane" and living in the jungle for 3 books and had him working as a tenured Cambridge professor in a suit in the next book, people wouldn't have continued to read those books. Writers *can* redefine a character as they please. It's their perogative. Good writers don't have to resort to that sort of thing to tell a good story and entertain.

Orchid