I just read the "The Simpsons has lost its Cool" article by Jon Bonn� on SNPP again. Though I must say that I don�t agree with every critical statement in the article (I agree even less than I did some 2 years ago) it�s IMO still one of the best articles about the show�s decline with some good points.
Just in case some people don�t know the article, it can be found under
http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/lostitscool.html
Chris
Chris Pfeiler wrote in message news:[email]...
SNPP
in
one
If you don't like visiting Grampa anymore then don't, but quit asking for them to pull the plug. Some of us still like his stories.
"Ian Boothby" wrote in message news:...
Yeah, too bad some of those stories can't come from his comical Bongo-esque counterpart...
i agree... that is a good article.
"Chris Pfeiler" wrote in message news:[email]...
SNPP
in
one
There is no reason why the Simpsons should end now, there are loads of talented writers out there who could work for the show, there are all those supporting characters and of course exploring the OFF characters themselves has hardly been exhausted. Someone needs to shake up the Simpsons to start a second "golden age" or something, the writers are tired and lazy.....
anyhoo, i'd rather it didn't end now, i care much less how televisual history remembers it than I care about having more Simpsons episodes put on my TV, and as the article says, it's miles ahead of anything else beside it on the schedules. even Frasier, which has had longevity to rival the Simpsons, is dry and predictable these days. The last season produced some stinkers (Brand New Badge, Hunka Hunka Burns) but several were excellent (Big Ten, Homer The Moe, I Am Furious Yellow, Weekend At Burnsies) while admittedly not being near the otherworldly standard of most of seasons 1-6. I'd rather watch more Simpsons than have to make do with half-assed ripoffs of the Simpsons like Malcolm In The Middle (i noticed they were more blatant than usual in their borrowing of the 3 Men & A Comic Book story) or Family Guy....
I agree with you about Malcolm... but i liked the Family Guy... i think the humor was different then the Simpsons, it was more like "The Critic"; another show i think that was taken off the air much too soon...
"Adrunk" wrote in message news:...
it
Why? Because other shows don't have Homer in them?
Listen people, STOP comparing the ENTIRE run of the Simpsons against some new show, because any new show will look like shit, no matter how good it is. I know it's hard, but compare seasons 13/14 with a new show and see what you'd find funnier. Personally, I really couldn't care less if the show ended next week or five years from now. While I won't petition its cancellation, I won't petition to bring it back if it was suddenly axed by Fox.
So in conclusion--Meh.
Jake
where did I imply that was the case?
it's because other shows are not as clever or as funny, simple as that
seasons 13/14. out of interest, what relatively new shows do you find funnier than 13/14?
The Bernie Mac Show is pretty damn funny. I like Scrubs, though I wouldn't call it a great show. Its surreal style is a little distancing, which is one problem I have with Malcolm in the Middle. Hidden Hills is an oddly humorous show, though I've only seen a few episodes. I'd rather watch any of those shows than new Simpsons episodes. I would rather watch a new Simpsons, than an episode of According to Jim, though. What a putrid show. ________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.
TOGA! TOGA! TOGA! 2000
"Adrunk" wrote in message news:...
"Homer", meaning the characters from OFF.
The newer episodes of King of the Hill and Futurama are much more enjoyable. (
Jake
Jake Lennington wrote:
At least if there would be any new Futurama episodes. People often had no possibility to compare Futurama (as entire show) with the Simpsons and I blame FOX.
Chris
[email] (Chris Pfeiler) wrote in message news:...
Look on the bright side--it ended long before the episodes started to suck and will always be remembered a great show.
Jake
after the brilliance of the simpsons' character ensemble, futurama always seemed to have a very dull set of main individuals that always lowered the standard of every show for me......
I wrote:
Let me say some words about the article. I don�t agree with everything the writer says (he writes too subjective and in a too CBG-ish fashion sometimes and concentrates too much on a single problem) but I think he has some good points. The article is already 2 years old and I guess it was more valid in Season 11 than it is in Season 13 where we had at least some small improvement.
I disagree for example with the writer�s criticism about Season 7 which is one of my favorite seasons (not as good as Seasons 2 and 3 but close). The writer calls "Homerpalooza" a bad episode and new low but he�s IMO missing the point. The episode may have some strange Homer characterization but it�s on the other hand also a brilliant example of popcultural satire and satire about value loss/commercialization.
The writer concentrates too much on single character problems (and especially on Homer) and neglects other important points of criticism, like the loss of subtle wit and true subversion and so much more. The loss of complex characterization is a big problem but it�s definetly not the only one.
I nevertheless think the article is good and important. Why? Because there are way too little critical articles and too many articles that simply praise the show but use mostly episode examples from Seasons 1 - 8 to back up the praise. So I rather have an even slightly CBG-ish critical article than some contradictive "still as good as ever" praise. A critical article is at least able to stir own thoughts about the quality.
BTW, one important line in the article is IMO "Whereas the original Simpsons writing posse was a mostly homogeneous group of Ivy League former class clowns, the current writing staff is a crazy quilt of comedians, sitcom writers and other assorted folks."
Chris
There was some pop culture satire in that episode, but the writers cancelled it out when they started parading in the celebrities playing themselves as a lazy way to spice up the show. I cringe and turn the channel whenever the Kim Basinger/Alec Baldwin episode is on. The Simpsons used to satirize pop culture and even create its own pop culture. Now, it just unabashedly revels in the worst aspects of it. ________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.
Sydney Assbasket wrote:
[Homerpalooza]
Right. There are some pretty bad examples for that, especially in recent seasons. The Kim Basinger/Alec Baldwin episode and the Mel Gibson episode and of course the truly bad N�Sync episode are maybe the worst.
In earlier years, celebrities came to the show to parody their own cultural image, to parody their role in our popular culture. Remember for example Michael Jackson as mental patient. Or James Woods and his Method Acting in the Kwik-E-Mart. That�s brilliant.
In recent seasons, celebrities come to spice up episodes, to have episodes written for and around them (tame episodes) and to fill some 20 minutes airtime with celebrity presence. That�s no longer the original idea of the show that made it unique. There was never any true satirical spirit and egde in the N�Sync episode, it was tame because the kids love N�Sync and the writers can�t mock them in a too serious way, it would anger the kids. And that�s what I called a betrayal of the original concept in one of my former ramblings.
To come back to "Homerpalooza". There are many celebrities but there�s also a lot of deep irony and satire that�s completely missing in newer episodes. Peter Frampton as guest at an alternative festival. The grunge band that discovers the simple joy of materialism. The alternative festival tickets with trademark chip. The entire commercialization and so on. And there are also many brilliant jokes, like Otto and his talking shoes and more (<= in your face, syndication viewers ;-)).
The writer of the critical article says its just some dull episode written for the Smashing Pumpkins and here I absolutely disagree. It�s an episode that tries to satirize pop culture through pop culture itself.
Chris
I really thought N'Sync were good sports and not a complete throwaway in terms of guest stars, as they completely skewered themselves in that episode. They played a satire of themselves; as adults, it's not too hard for them to realize that a gift basket containing stubble glitter and a crowd tazer is making fun of them. They fully recognize that they're a commercialized boy band (studio magic machine? to the bandanna republic? worrrrrd? close with the matrix?), but they're also laughing all the way to the bank.
Sounds pretty much like every geek who thought he was onto something cool pissing & moaning because his cool show has gotten popular. Sounds like the common as dirt laments from early fans when "their" band achieves popular success, i.e., they've sold out.
Three words: Get a life.
PS: I'll bet Jon Bonn� knows the combination to the safe in the landmark episode of "Star Trek".
Were you around during the early 90s? The show has ALWAYS been popular. The point here is that the writer (who by the way writes this stuff, I assume, partially because he's paid to write critical writings on current pop culture and media) feels that the show has changed (which it has; don't deny it), and they feel that much of the change was for the worse.
If every fan of every show expressed no criticism whatsoever, there would be even fewer good shows, because the writers wouldn't know what the viewers wanted. Aimless bashing ("that episode sucked!" "not very good. 3/5") certainly doesn't help anyone and to that extent I can't blame the writers for lashing out with the CBG stuff, but at the same time constructive criticism is an important part of any fandom.