Burns can throw a basketball?!

I thought he was more feeble than that.

Michael Morbius wrote:

Have you seen Christian Laetner? Sincerely, Little Girl

ha!

"Internet King" wrote in message news:[email]...

His level of feebility depends on the episode, as it is inconsistent between episode. Generally, he is shown to be exceptionally weak, but when the situation suits it, he has normal or even above average strenght.

In King Sized Homer, Burns is actually leading the calisthenics class, plus is strong enough to shove Homer along a slick of oil without breaking a sweat (Homer is significantly heavier than a bowling ball and a baseball, both of which Burns has shown difficulty throwing).

There is also a Hallowe'en Treeouse of Horror episode where Burns brutally bludgeons Homer with a shovel (but then, HTH are supposed to deviate from Simpsons logic and established continuity), and after receivning the blood transfusion from Bart in "Bloodfeud" (7F22), he is able to jump off walls (again, an exaggeration).

Generally, the writers will make exceptions if the storyline calls for it. There should be a few more, though...there's also one where Burns is shown to be an adept golf player (which does require a certain amount of physical strength).

But generally, you're right. Burns will have difficulty crushing a paper cup or even so much as standing under his own weight.

Peace, Vince Yim

"V. Yim" wrote:

Don't forget when he captured Nessie single handidly Sincerely, Little Girl

"Internet King" wrote in message news:[email]...

Or single handedly built the rocket, and went to the moon. What was his name?

Apollo Creed?

Oooh, there go my shinbones again.

"V. Yim" <"xieze-qilin"@[no spam please]telus.net> wrote in message news:rnSM6.28926$[email]...

All right, all right. But why is his "enfeebled state" seen more as something of a character description, instead of a running gag? This is why "continuity" is useless on The Simpsons; it defeats many new ideas. If someone had trouble enjoying the episode because Burns was shown hefting a basketball, that's a problem... IMO. Just ignore this great, yearning need for continuity, and we can have fresh ideas in every episode. Springfield could be on the shore in one episode, and in America's heartland the next.

There's a real "anality" some fans have; this need to align all details of every episode so that the universe balances out, or something. They need The Simpsons universe to have a real, technical realism to it... like many Star Trek fans. View the show as more of an allegory, and then idiotic details like character's ages and street addresses and telephone numbers and license plates and geography and a character's physical strength mean much less.

The Rack wrote:

LOL @ "anality." I would love to hear Shang Tsung have said that in the Mortal Kombat video game.

Seriously, though, there's nothing wrong with paying attention to details; in fact, if you didn't, you'd miss a ton of jokes and references. Furthermore, once you reach the point where you don't care about what's happening, the show isn't worth watching. I hit that point with another great comedy series famous for bad continuity, Red Dwarf, several years ago. I realized that nothing mattered, and they were just going to almost die every episode, and sort of make it out okay, and there was no point in actually caring what happened. And that's when it wasn't worth watching at all. Simpsons has already sort of reached that point; I go into that mode every time I see a character get injured or killed or arrested or left destitute. Episodes that "ruined" characters, like making Flanders a senior citizen, Skinner an impostor, or Apu a frazzled father of octuplets, or Kirk van Houten a miserable divorce', add to that feeling. Luckily, there's still a lot of other stuff left to enjoy.

Michael Morbius wrote:

...within *The Simpsons*, I mean. I just noticed it sounded like I meant "on other channels." No.