I was watching my DVDs tonight and I had a question and I need this group's help.. When the kids are bugging Homer to go to Mount Splashmore, in the bedroom scene, it appears that Marge was somewhat amused as she was trying to sleep. She seemed to be smiling, amused by the kids' bothering Homer. But then when Homer screams, she puts the pillow over her ears in frustration.
So my question is, in your opinion, was Marge at least partially amused or did she think it was "cute" or was she just as annoyed as Homer was.
In my opinion, you are trying too hard to get everything on too many levels. You don't need to read into everything so much. Just relax and enjoy the show :-)
Thank you for the advice, but I really believe that the show caters to those who pay super-attention to every little detail. It's part of the magic, but I guess you couldn't understand if you didn't already agree.
You *are* being ridiculously over-analytical. Clearly if Marge is smiling, she's amused. It was two seconds of animation using HUMAN COMMUNICATION CUES in the form of facial expression, and you nailed it. There's nothing to discuss. Welcome to killfile.
Sure there is. What is she smiling at? Is she amused with Homer and the kids, or is she simply happy to finally be in bed after a long day? Is she actually smiling or is it an animation "trick" or some sort of optical illusion?
My hope was that those who wished to participate in this discussion would actually look at the scene and then formulate and share their opinion.
There's nothing to discuss. There's no joke. Nobody cares. Marge was not the focus of the joke. The kids annoying Homer was the focus of the joke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"What? I don't see nothin'.... what.....is that it?"
"Hey Moe, can I look to?"
"Sure, but it'll cost ya."
"My wallets in the car!"
"He is so stupid. And now back to the wall....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hehe! Mule."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. It is. What's your point? If you think Marge's facial expression in that scene is funny, then laugh and enjoy. Why do you need it explained to you? Stop trying to look intellegent and sophisticated by looking for hidden meanings in every little trivial thing.
It's not that it's necessarily off-topic...It's just that you are constantly asking trivial questions all of the time...Which is fully in your right to do, but I don't find this out until I click on a thread and go through it.. There is no "thread-starter" displayed on the message list... I think I need to start getting into "killfile"- anyone got a link to a good free program? thanks.
Well, I can see what 888 is saying. If you are for real, you are incredibly dense. Or on drugs. You're asking questions about things that don't matter. You are hunting for hidden meanings in EVERYTHING! And getting more and more touchy with everyone because we won't tell you the hidden meanings that you are imagining are there.
Just because something is on-topic doesn't mean it's discussion-worthy. You're trying to come up with discussion that no one really cares about, and coming across as a newbie fan in troll's clothing in the process.
Do yourself a favor and buy the DVDs. Watch all the episodes, then watch them with commentary. You'll be very surprised at the creators' light-hearted disposition on the series; that knowledge has radically changed the overall opinion of the show--far less people adamantly hate what the show has become since the mid-90s at this point--and no one really cares about respectible continuity or drama-like characterization anymore, be it producer, writer, or fan.
You have to realize just how light the series is supposed to be. Most episodes are self-contained, none try to be too preachy or overly insightful of the characters' personalities, and the point is above all else to be funny. Yes, there's probably a self-amusement air among the characters akin to "The Family Circus" in the earlier years, but that trend has been fazed out and replaced with other things, some different and most better.
Just because this is a discussion group doesn't mean everyone wants to analyze two seconds of animation from an episode well over a decade old. We're not Gary, Benjamin nor Doug. There are 330-odd episodes at this point, and there's a LOT more noteworhty things than whether or not Marge, through vague allusion, is amused by her family's antics. Hell, there's evidence in countless other episodes that could give you your fucking answer, but you seem to have seen all of 15 episodes in your great Simpsons-analyzing career, so you wouldn't know this.
<< no one really cares about respectible continuity or drama-like characterization anymore, be it producer, writer, or fan. >>
Oh, really?
<< You have to realize just how light the series is supposed to be. >>
Yes, it is supposed to be light... NOW. On the commentaries and numerous other places it's pointed out that the show was meant to have dramatic texture in its early years. You have to face the facts that there are still a lot of people alienated by the current episodes who would like to talk about the show nonetheless. I don't think the original question is so bad. Maybe trivial, but so what?
and you call yourself a Simpsons fan. I dread the day two seconds of the Simpsons is not worth discussing. (Ever been to www.snpp.com? Don't go to the "episode capsules", you'll die of boredom.
If you find me boring and pointless, killfile me so I can continue to discuss with the true fans.
Correction.. that only YOU don't care about. You're not the only one that posts here.
I've had them all since the day(or week) they came out, but I admit I haven't watched most of the commentaries: I find them boring since they never talk about what's being shown on the screen.
not
Are you jealous of my youthful zeal?
I sincerely apologize for the frustration, but really maybe you need to killfile me. Let's get back to talking about the show.
It's just that, in many threads in this group, you'll ask a trivial question...and then you'll keep egging people on to no end...you then leave the impression that you are trolling/looking for attention - which you have once again achieved as I am typing this...It gets very annoying after awhile...
But the bigger issue is really about the actual reader of posts. I really like these Google groups, but get frustrated with the set-up...There isn't any "thread-starter" or "ignore user" features...
Because, let's face it -whether Xino is a troll or not -No one is going to stop the trolling, spamming and the dreaded (*gasp*) "cross-posting crimes"...
People complaining about cross-posting is such BS...If an "unwanted" message pops-up in your group/and you can tell from the outside what the subject is...scroll your mouse down a little and it's over and done with.
So, in short -Xino should be able to say whatever he wants...If I don't like it -I need to find a way to filter it.
I am going to check out the "Google Groups2/Beta"....I'm sure it has new features..not sure if there is a Simpsons group there...but will report back.
Well, I didn't realize it was so annoying for some users.... tell you what, for an entire month I will not post any new threads, I will only reply to existing threads or threads started by other users. That should give EVERYONE enough time to cool off a little and elimate problems with so called "boring" subjects.
I'm a bit of a lurker here, but here are my thoughts (begin killfile bait)
That sounds like a bad idea to me. I find your topics interesting, if a bit odd. However, if other people find the way you see the show (which is valid, if slightly extreme), and the way you write, as annoying, you may want to reconsider avoiding starting new topics. I think it would be best for you to start new topics, since it would be easier for others to filter you, if they so choose, and it is more conducive to posing odd questions, as you like to do. To avoid the troll-like quality of posting multiple messages that many people object to, you could, say, create a "Musings of Xino" thread for your posts. Anyway, just my $0.03
I quite like your comments, and I agree that pretty much everything on the Simpsons has significance. The movie director Fritz Lang had a sign up in his office: "Nothing in this picture is accidental."
"Matthew-David Platts" wrote in message news:cimc3g$7gt$[email]...
been
Yup, am a bit late to this discussion but hey Xino, if it's important to you then no reason you can't ask, everyone banging on about kill-files really ought to just /use/ them. Just love the way your thread has turned into one of the biggest of the weekend :)
So just who is this Marge Simpson, anyway (like that's her *real* name)?
If there is a a deeper level to it and I think there is, I would say the animators drew her to look amused at the kids and their torturing of Homer but she was peevedout when Homer became annoyed as was his wont as I am sure they animated her to expect. You know, half asleep and then someone shrieks practically in your ear? I'd draw my pillow over my head.