The air-brakes flushed, Truckasaurus purrs and awaits some "crazy car" that it can kiss... (or eat)
SPOILER SPACE
TRUCKASAURUS isn't meant to establish my opinions as fact; it's just an attempt to understand why I liked or didn't like an episode.
All my reviews are really just simple, harmless opinions. Please discuss, but please don't be offended...
Those of you with short attention spans, get your pillows ready and practice your yawns... NOW
The Rack's Ubiquitous, Critical, Kick-Ass, Somewhat Anal & Useless Review "Uv" the Simpsons (TRUCKASAURUS) Episode DABF01 "Brawl In The Family" Writer: Joel H. Cohen
LOLs(12): --Nelson: Stop endangering yourself! [noogie] --Day care center w/huge chimney --"plenty of beer" makes Homer desperate to get the lunch --wolves and cougars huddle... notice Homer, move away --"Oh no... The roast beef's just making them stronger... and the falafel's making them ANGRIER!" --instantly drunken cougars, wolves rolling around on the ground --Homer: "Faster! Faster! Oh, you do that like a pro!" --Marge knew Amber was making Homer a sandwich, not "something else" --"Use both hands!" --Homer getting stuck in the doghouse --Homer: "Can't panic... must remain calm [straightens doghouse; walks around whistling] --"Wanna give Honest Abe another term in the Oval Office?"
Mildly funny (The "chuckles")(18): --The administration has declared recycling a felony --The smoke factory --Maggie's mouthful of houses (and smile) --Simpsons have a "strangling" button on their phone --Bart: "I got sprayed by a skunk! Lemme rub it off on your sweaters..." --Marge makes "practice dinners" before "showtime" (cute character humor) --Drunk Homer refers to himself as "...the FAT guy. How I loathe him!" --The beard of bees that "chose Bart" --Homer's walleyed look as Gabriel calmly calls him a "drunken, childish buffoon". --"...which is society's fault, because..." --Marge: "My driving ankle!" (and Homer's boating arm!) --Homer: "NO! I will NEVER--! Oh wait. It's 'Blatt's' (drop)" --Drunk Homer kissing Ned (on tape) --"Mormon Hold'em" --Marge can't kick him out. It would cause a miscount in the census! (character humor) --Flanders considers "Irish" (the "I" word) a "swear" --"Cigarette Aficionado" (Man in blindfold before firing squad) --Grampa: "You know... I have a son about your age..."
Satirical Content:
Republicans are pure evil. It's illegal to recycle. Smoke stacks are all the rage, as is chopping down trees. Having a social worker is something to be proud of.
What made the environmental satire enjoyable is that while there was an acid rain storm, it was just business as usual in Springfield. There was no public outcry. Lisa didn't rant and rave, for example. That gave it the tongue-in-cheek feel of great satire. It made the satire more enjoyable than, say, the satire from 3F03 Lisa the Vegetarian, where Lisa's part made it heavy-handed (one sided).
Cleverness: "Wanna give Honest Abe another term in the Oval Office?"
First laugh (1:10): --The administration has declared recycling a felony
Laughed hardest at: --Homer: "Can't panic... must remain calm [straightens doghouse; walks around whistling] --Day care center w/huge chimney (2nd choice)
Un-funny jokes(1): --Of all the things to come back and bite him in the ass-- (literal chipmunk)
Overt Social Commentary(1): --"How can an iron be a landlord?"
I know; that's kind of weak. We're talking about a board game, for hell sakes. But, the line smacked of a bad sitcom line.
Painful Reminders (continuity)(0):
Amber and Ginger good enough for ya? Nah. Didn't think so. While many story elements are familiar, and these two came from a previous episode, nothing was gratuitous--just in the name of reminding viewers of the Simpsons' "time line".
Predictability:
--Homer would get slurry-voiced drunk w/Gabriel sitting there, just as he did with Mulder/Scully --Of all the things to come back and bite him in the ass-- (literal chipmunk)
Wackiness: --Springfield Wetlands disappearing down the drain...
Huh?: --and Quimby (the Democrat?) pulls the plug?
Comments:
Here they come... (phew...)
CBG: Last night's Itchy and Scratchy was (without a
doubt) the WORST EPISODE EVER! Rest assured, that I
was on the internet in minutes registering my
disgust throughout the world.
Bart: Hey--I know it wasn't great, but what right do YOU
have to complain?
CBG: As a loyal viewer, I feel they OWE me.
Bart: What?! They've given you thousands of hours of
entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe
_you_? I mean, if anything, YOU owe THEM...
CBG: ...worst episode ever.It's another of these half-hours of "free" entertainment that "wasn't great" that brings back Bart's question. What right do we have to complain?
In 1990, the idea that this wonderful new TV show called "The Simpsons" would be cancelled wasn't such a stretch. A three-year-old network with shows filling the bottom fifth of the ratings chart was fighting for survival, and when one fights for survival, one becomes desperate. The axe could have fallen on The Simpsons without a single batted eyelash from anyone at FOX.
"The Simpsons" stopped at nothing to stay on the shaky airwaves of the few existing FOX stations in America. The staff sweated every detail, honed every scene, tweaked every joke, and deepened every character. Amazingly, the shows just kept getting better each season.
Why all the trouble? To bring us good people into the audience, keep us, and attract more people. Targeting the more intelligent viewer was genius; the more "obsessive" folks may not be as fickle an audience as the "Bill & Ted" "I'll buy anything for a buck" crowd.
We did our part. Season Two's premier (Bart Gets an F) was the THIRD highest rated show of its week. How could FOX execs remove this show?
Jeez, it's simple. We are those ratings points behind "The Simpsons" success. In the early years, the symbiosis of writers busting their butts to outdo themselves, and fans becoming more and more loyal kept the ship afloat. If the show had premiered on any other of the three networks, without the desperation that the FOX network was experiencing, you may not be reading this post right now.
Without the fans, The Simpsons wouldn't exist. Without the early efforts of the writing staff, the Simpsons wouldn't exist because there would have been no fans. When was this relationship broken? It's easiest to assume that staff transitions--the largest one coming between Seasons 5 and 6--played a part.
So... how is it that we now get episodes that pale in comparison to what we were used to? Why do any of us "original fans" have a _reason_ to complain, let alone a _right_? How did this show go bad, if it DID go bad?
Come on; we still have Swartzwelder, Jean, Mula, and Meyer. Many "middle years" staffers remained; one of them even took over as Executive Producer. How could these guys that were once called geniuses by the fans begin to "crank out crap"? Did they lose their sense of humor? Did they run out of ideas? Did they just get lazy?
No; I don't agree with any of those ideas, although the "laziness" idea holds _some_ truth. The idea that they worked as hard on "Homer, the Heretic" as they did on "Kill the Alligator and Run" makes no sense to me. But, I'll stop short of calling it laziness-- because that implies no ambition, or purpose. I believe there is a purpose, and there was ambition...
How can we from the "early crowd" watch "Trilogy of Error", and not believe in the current staff's talent? Neo-classics as seemingly effortless as "Trilogy of Error" are not outside their grasp. CABF14 was a muscle-flex; a display of prowess. So, how could a John Swartzwelder or an Al Jean or a Frank Mula not walk away in disgust, or vomit in terror, at something like "The Tale of Two Springfields" or "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes"?
The staff writes "bad" episodes on purpose.
What? Are they trying to get the show cancelled? Are they trying to piss off fans, getting back at them for their stupid internet reviews? Are they on drugs?
No, no, and I hope so ;) A talented staff with a great sense of humor and a world of ideas writes a "bad" show on purpose... hmmm...
How's this for a pitch to a producer:
Writer: Imagine unresolved plots, contradictory story
lines, surreal elements, inconsistent
characters, disconnected beginnings and endings...
"The Anti-Show!"Producer: Get out. Thanks for wasting my time.
Writer: But, it's a commentary on bad shows, by being a
bad show itself. How many silly, blatant
inconsistencies can we use? How many story writing
rules can we break, and still keep an audience?Producer: Yeah... what about the audience?
Writer: Simple. A few gags for the general audience, and
some humanity now and then to chum the waters for
the more intelligent fan.Producer: Hmmm... why is this a good idea, again?
Writer: It's brand new! No show starts off as "intentionally
bad", or as a parody of the TV genre itself. This isn't
something the public has seen. Compared to a classic
TV show, it's a train wreck. But, as people will come
to acknowledge, it's damned entertaining watching this
train wreck happen.Is, or has "The Simpsons" been, a general commentary on bad television by being intentionally bad itself? There are some surprising clues...
In "The Great Money Caper", our plot conflict literally falls from the sky at the exact moment it's needed. Two cosmonauts aboard Mir leave the door open, and their meal falls from space to impact the Simpsons' car. God; it's a nit-picker's bonanza. 1) No air in space, so what were they breathing? 2) The air in the capsule would have blown them out the still-open door 3) A sturgeon is a highly unlikely meal for a cosmonaut 4) Why didn't the fish burn up in the atmosphere?
The list could go on forever. There's the simple fact that it was just plain stupid, and contrived.
In the same episode, Homer points out how silly the plot had become near the end. Lisa, as if speaking to these same "nit-pickers", acknowledges that the plot may be "insulting to our intelligence." She adds that there's a highly satisfying explanation--but is cut off by a silly, non-sequitir "surfs up" ending in which she even participates.
It's clear to all of us that the writers knew about the dumb plot. The writers knew there would be nit-pickers. They were wringing their hands in excitement, actually. What's not so obvious is that their choice of characters--Lisa--is one that they know we trust, and that by Lisa telling us "there's a satisfying explanation", we should know that the episode was written that way on purpose.
At the very end, the sturgeon pops out of the ocean and winks, like an exclamation point, as if to say "Remember me? Don't forget me when writing your little scathing review on A.T.S.!"
There are plenty of episodes in the last few years that fit the mold. "Kill the Alligator and Run", "The Tale of Two Springfields", "Homer vs. Dignity" and "Missionary: Impossible" come to mind. "The Great Money Caper" is sort of a key to understanding this new breed of episode. The fish and Lisa's explanation at the end are the most blatant clues we've gotten so far that the "wacky" episodes are done "on purpose". Compared to what we were used to, TGMC is a train wreck. But, as this new type of episode, it's brilliant. By being poor, it's actually being clever. The more these shows LOOK like bad shows, the better job the writers have done.
So, if a "bad" show is really just a "good" show acting like a bad show, who's to say that "Family Matters" wasn't the most brilliant TV show of the modern age? Do I know what RHETORICAL means!
Okay, then. Is it funny? Who finds it funny? Probably not the people who notice the things "the wizard" does. Groundlings from Shakespeare's playhouses wouldn't know a plot hole if it walked up and bit them on the ass. But, they'd laugh at a man falling down, or a huge log sliding all over the countryside, or someone pouring cocktail onions down his pants. They'd probably also nail anybody with a two-by-four who complained. "Shut up/stop watching" type posts on A.T.S. are great two-by-fours. Apologies to any nose-picking couch potatoes who realized that the space fish was a stupid gag.
Norm MacDonald is a comedian who intentionally muffs his jokes. He'll get right to the end of the joke, then yell something like "my grandma smokes crack!" instead of saying the punchline. The joke is now on the listener, for thinking he knew what was going to happen. He's an intentionally bad comedian. Dave Letterman loves him.
Smart humor seems to depend on someone fooling somebody. "Good" Simpsons episodes used irony and satire, concepts out of the grasp of groundlings, to make fun of those Homer Simpson-like groundlings themselves. Irony makes it possible for a Jay Sherman to make fun of a Rainier Wolfcastle right to his face, and not get beaten to a pulp. Fooling people is also central to the "bad" episodes. How many people thought episode XFXX was the worst ever? Now, how many knew it was an intentionally bad episode, as an attempt to critique bad TV?
Can't you see a staffer saying something like:
Writer: (gleefully rubbing his hands) Okay. How many CBGs will
call this episode the "Worst Episode Ever" on the
newsgroup this week?How many CBGs will get "fished in" by one of these episodes? As you can note for yourself... a great deal. The writers, if they have been actually writing these intentionally "bad" episodes, have been successful beyond any wild dream. Not only do I believe they read this newsgroup; this is probably the source of their greatest laughs. Some of the seriously bitter statements by intelligent and eloquent posters like Andrew Levine must've split their sides. I'll admit to being caught, too, by these "bad" eps.
In the early years, the satire and irony "fished in" all the common folk. In these later years, an intentionally bad show has fished in its share of "geniuses." I wonder if Stephen Hawking figured out this "intentionally bad" idea, and thought it smart enough to appear in one of those very episodes.
This whole concept notwithstanding, "The Simpsons" is only now in a position to be an "intentionally bad" show because it was once a good show. It was a good show, which attracted loyal fans, which gave it the ratings it needed to stay on the air.
A problem may be that by the show taking the appearance of a bad show, it could become one. Like the snake eating its own tail, at which point does it stop becoming a meal, and become a snake again? Now that we've discovered the concept of an intentionally bad show, will "The Simpsons" become a good show based on an intentionally bad show? When does the wickedness END?
It's clear that the writers know when they're making a "bad" episode; they've even pointed that out, using trusted Lisa as our guide. It's clever to knowingly mimic the characteristics of a bad TV show, and fool a hundred thousand viewers. Though I believe it's not intentional, they've felled some Ondre Lombards, and some Andrew Levines along the way. Who's next? Who's going to write the next eloquent but bitter, logic-filled diatribe that'll send Al Jean & the boys into hysterics?
Or, now that the jig is up (if it _is_), what will happen? Maybe intentionally bad episodes are just a way to get fans talking. Maybe it's a form of market research. What types of plots, gags, or characters work the best? At any rate, the writers are fully aware that these episodes, when compared to actual "good" episodes, are the equivalent of a smashed car on the front of a Superchief. Now, when does the prying bar come out, and when are we flipped down a hillside into our lives as accidental hillbillies?
Oh, and here are some comments on the actual episode... :)
~~~
At first, I thought "Sideshow Bob Roberts!" Then... Strom Thurmond... I liked the concept of "getting rid of the environment". It just sounds sassy, and smart-mouthed... Since in some carrot-juice drinker's world, mandatory recycling would be "Heaven", a law that makes recycling a felony is an abrupt surprise--making it hilarious.
The episode avoids the pitfalls of 2F02 Sideshow Bob Roberts and 3F03 Lisa, the Vegetarian by not becoming preachy. None of the characters pick up the mantra; the satire is just a normal part of the Simpsons' world.
Family fight... yadda yadda... beautiful nature scene. In contrast with Act I's devastation, it makes the satire bite a bit harder. The problems just *vanish*... (as IF)...
So... we KNEW that Gabriel would tell Homer something that would make him desperate for lunch; did you guess "beer"? The question is, what would Homer do to get it? Of course he'd panic, then grab the car, and slam it into the tree repeatedly.
Homer's resourcefulness when it comes to filling his stomach, or quelching his alcoholic appetite knows no bounds. It's one of my favorite parts of his character. He could even pass for intelligent, if he were trying to get food or beer, or (ironically) if he were trying to facilitate his own laziness. (His stay in the old-folks home, anyone?)
So, the relatively tiny incident in the woods when they save Gabriel solves all their problems from their "280 adventures". They're as "functional" as all get-out. Maybe this is the end of their series... ...of events. As self-humor goes, that was dumb. No other words. Dumb.
Here comes Act III--Vegas Wives! Are the floozies interesting? Weren't they just the height of the Vegas gag; the icing on the cake that made Homer and Ned freak out and (try to) escape? Was anything about their characters interesting? ...
I wasn't too convinced by the Marge/Homer conflict.
"I don't know if I can ever forgive you. Please go away."
Hollow words, after episodes like "War of The Simpsons" or "Secrets of a Successful Marriage".
Turns out, the episode is resolved in a very nice, classic way that might even have Chris Pfieler smiling. Looking for a place to sleep, Homer stays away from the treehouse (with Amber). He instead jams his head into the doghouse, and gets stuck. As Marge looks on, Homer decides not to panic and act as if nothing is wrong. He straightens up, then walks around whistling--as if there were no doghouse on his head.
The moment where Marge sees this, recognizes Homer's simplicity, and softens is worthy of Season 2--as I'm sure Chris will agree. Jeez, staff. This is all Chris' group wants. Some humanity now and again. Thanks... Heck. You could call them "Chris Pfieler moments" ;) (Or "Whitey Ford Whackers", as little sense as that makes)
The resolution is rather clever, if not also cruel to Grampa. In short--the episode, in the "good episode" mold, resolves nothing in the Simpsons' lives. It brings back a couple of fairly boring characters from Season 10 which, just for continuity sake, sucks (IMO). In lieu of a plot, we have characters going through the motions and a few mixed gags.
As an intentionally bad episode, it works pretty well. There are several "WORST EPISODE EVER" posts about DABF01 out there, and the strangely dissociate plot pieces--if done on purpose--will confuse many.
Prediction: "Brawl in the Family" isn't involving enough in
the story department to be remembered for that.
In a few years, Roy from 4F12 Itchy, Scratchy
and Poochie will be remembered more easily than
Gabriel. A few jokes will make it watchable
in the future, but no one will call it their
favorite of all time. (If only to make me a
liar =)DYN... (or DMY)
...the antenna ball during the couch gag makes HedgeBart look
as if he's wearing a monocle?
...Col. Tex's name plate says "Rich Texan"?
...the tree Homer knocks down looks exactly like the Stanford
Cardinal symbol? (coincidence, in an episode with a Stanford
slam?)
...the (ahem) "foilage" depicted on the Rastamon-opoly box?
...the Marvin Gardens group is shown as orange? (in the actual
game, it's yellow)
...A man looking like Jimmy the Scumbag speaks?
...his voice sounds like the Estonian midget's?
...his lastname is Johansen? (So; if that _was_ "Jimmy the
Scumbag", his name would be "Jimmy Johansen"?)
...Bart wears his "commercial" blue shirt?
...snowcapped Mt. Rainier (Mt. Hood?), conspicuous in several
shots? (Don't shoot me, in case this starts up another endless
"Where is Springfield" debate)
...Maggie singing (or, miming) "We are a family"?
...Maggie looking shocked and gape mouthed, dropping her pacifier when she sees Homer and Amber's secret wedding tape?
..."Cigarette Aficionado" magazine, with the blindfolded man and
firing squad on the cover?
...Rev. Lovejoy actually agrees to marry Amber and Grampa?Previous Episode References:
[8F01], [AABF09] Rows of tree stumps where a forest once stood
[9F20] Skinner: "Good Lord!"
[1F14] Lisa suggests that this is the end of their wacky
adventures (cf. series... of events)
[2F06], [5F19] Someone tries to get a bear to stop doing
something, and is attacked by that bear
[2F16] Someone dances around a lamp post
[3G01] Homer gets drunk while someone observes him
[BABF08], [BABF15], [CABF16] The term "swear" is used as a noun-Chad Lehman
"You crazy car. I don't know whether to eat you, or kiss you."
--John Truckasaurus