Can somebpdy tell me what should be the significance of laying sideshow Bob a singing exit? It seems pretty bizarre, if you ask me, as long as we are comparing notes about best episodes, that the writers could have sneak such a bizarre plot point in the script. The bit was clearly a reference to "Cape Feare," and it worked better in that episode than it did here. Besides it was organic there. It wasn't here.
Mike said this episode had good character development. Is this what we call "character development" these days? The flip flop of Bob's character was almost as large as his fluffy red shoes!!
I think just for that, for betraying Bob's character, this episode deserves to be called "the worst episode ever."
Surely you can think of episodes much worse than this could possibly be construed to be. I know everyone is entitled to his opinion, but I wonder if you were just waiting to have reason to apply that phrase to this episode...
Actually, i am a self critic of overusing that phrase. I use it around the house a lot. And i try not to use it right after i watch an episode just to hear what others thought. But, you know, if you think of it, my criteria are pretty solid.
Every great, and even good, Simpsons episode has at least a solid character development. That's the best thing about watching Simpsons: you laugh at something not because it's inherently funny, but it sounds funny because of the character who said it. Something Homer says would not sound funny when Lisa said it or Bart, or Bob Newhart.
And, you know, I think if the writers don't pay attention to character, that makes me question what else they might be not doing. That means they are simply slapping together senseless, stupid jokes inside mediocre concepts, and calling it an episode. That's not good enough for me.
And you may think i am being hasty--what about all the great jokes we enjoyed in tonight's episode? IS it abnormal to like an episode just for the sheer hilarity of two or three jokes? No. We can enjoy the jokes, but as long as they are not organic to the characters and the concept, they will be forgotten, and we should not worry our heads over them, trying to place their vehicle into the pantheon of Simpsons immortals. (If calling a good episode bad is immoral, then the opposite is also true. What about all those people who call this episode good simply because of a few jokes?)
My esthetic theory of Simpsons is if characters are below par, the jokes are wasted. If the concept is not organic, then you can forget the whole thing. What I am proposing is nothing less than a broad revision of our idea of what constitutes a "worst episode ever" . MAybe it's not those unwatchable monstrosities that, we all can agree, are simply beyond human endurance. (Remember "Angry Dad"? The Osama Mixer bit, was it organic? Does it work for the Simpsons? Or was it masturbation?)
Every new episode should be considered the "worst episode" until proven otherwise. If we take the most blatant examples and create a pantheon just by excluding those, we are going to have a serious overload of episodes that don't make sense as a rule, but are loaded with senseless, idiotic, simply embarrassing jokes and bits clearly unmerited to be there. Don't you think?
Well, I was a bit hasty with my accusation...you make some very good points there, as far as appropriateness of lines and such. I do have to disagree on one point: I think it's a bit unfair to assume bad until proven good, because that forces you to figure out exactly what you like about it right away ("I think I'll hate it, but maybe it can show me!"). You can't really get that on your first viewing; very often, lines etc. I really like I didn't notice until I saw it a few more times. (Plus, many of the episodes that were originally denounced are seen as classic; take a look at some of the reviews in capsules for the early-middle seasons.) And I don't think we're going to have an overload of stupid episodes if we are optimistic about new ones; most of the errors people say have occurred during the show's run (some of which I agree with, some not) are already known to the writers, and it seems clear to me that they're trying to get back to the "golden years" (whatever that might mean), so for whatever it's worth to the staff we should encourage them to keep the quality rising, rather than announcing each one worst ever immediately and making them think nothing has changed. So there you go.
I don't want to sound too presumptuous, but maybe we can try to formulate a theory to figure out just what is right about the episodes we like, and figure out the truly great ones in the process. It's very important that you're with me on this. Infact, you gave me some very good ideas with your next point...
You can't really get that on your
I saw
Okay, one of the things we can say that all Smpsons episodes ought to have is depth, that is that certain something that one has to see a few times to figure out. Do you know what I mean? We can make that a criteria, like if an episode does not improve on second viewing we can check off some points for not living up to the "Simpsons standard."
And I don't think we're going to have an overload of
We can be optimistic, but to a degree. Once you see the episode you can freely criticize.
most of the errors people
trying
whatever
rising,
think
They clearly want to return to the golden years. And the way they do is by recylcing old jokes and gags. Do you think we should encourage recycling?
Hmm...a formula would be good, but it probably wouldn't be 100% accurate.
That is definitely a good point - of course, the depth isn't _always_ good stuff, but no depth would probably be bad.
That's a tough one. Outright recycling, while certainly not to the point of the "new" itchy and scratchy in 2F33, would be bad, but meta and previous episode references can be good or bad. Personally, I like them best when they're subtle or only a tiny bit explained, but that runs the risk of being too inside jokey if the viewer needs to know that something has happened in the past. So I guess there are two routes that would be good - return to the general style of the "golden years" without recycling the jokes (satire, less one-liners and verbal jokes, more nods to slightly obscure movies and such, and a little more evocative), or say that's all they can do in that style and move to a different style but do it well (take Seinfeld, for instance - I think this was mentioned in a capsule or article somewhere - the first few seasons really were about nothing, but by about season 5 or 6 they had decided to do the best they could in the wacky plots all coming together and intertwining - they're all good, but for different reasons). I'd definitely prefer high quality in some style even if it's not like the early seasons, as opposed to ending the show altogether.
The girl madly in love with Sideshow Bob will delurk herself...
Call me crazy, but I've had a crush on Sideshow Bob since the fifth grade and I never get tired of Bob episodes. Every one of them are excellent and I get a great ammount of joy from seeing Bob every other season.
Bob is a good singer but he sings -WHAT?- a love song to BART? I was like - what the hell? I wish Bob would start trying to kill Bart again, it's getting sappy between them. What the hell would happen if Wild E. and the Roadrunner became friends?