Who turned "The Simpsons" into a cartoon?

David relayed:

[massive snippage]

No; the existence of his bad writing means that he's a bad writer.

A few of Ian Maxtone-Graham's scripts have been good, but all of them combined don't begin to atone for "Alone Again Natura-Diddly" on its own. (not to mention his other duds)

David Levy wrote in message news:...

Agreed, I don't care if he'd never seen the show before if he could write a good episode. But the average Maxtone-Graham episode just has characters doing weird stuff (like, say, abruptly ending the scene) and then pointing it out like, "Why are we ending the scene?" This kind of stuff is just not funny at all.

I'd say those were extra-low points in a slow decline that started well before the awful racehorse episode. I'd say they were bottom of the barrel points, but Simpsons episodes seem to keep getting worse.

I personally subscribe to the Scully theory since the show runner sets the tone. I don't see why it can't be mostly those /two/, however. Scully's said in interviews that he does enjoy it when the show does more lowbrow humour.

Al Jean's the exec producer now, and it still bites. Maybe Maxtone-Graham is a bigger problem than I thought. Also, David X Cohen left the Simpsons a while back, and he helmed the much funnier Futurama, so maybe it was partly due to losing him.

But yeah, I can buy this to some extent.

One last theory, just to throw it out there: I have an acquaintance who spent some time in England, and he said they mostly laughed at the lowbrow stuff. So he proposed that perhaps the need to make the show funny worldwide has led to the show's current gag-filled style.

[email] (Andrew Ryan Chang) wrote in message news:...

More people, anywhere, will laugh at low-brow / beetle-brow humor. Why do you think the ratings keep climbing?

"Jake Lennington" wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

make

Heck, low-brow humor is the noblest thing a man can do -- if he's good at it. But to expect us to laugh at Homer just because he uses the word "wang" or "weiner" ... that's a joke for Grade 3s. And not even smart Grade 3s.

Not once in the first 10 seasons did Homer make a single reference to his or anyone else's ... *shudder* ... "wang", but in the last few years barely an episode went by without something like "Try putting a sombrero on your wang" or "What about the human weiner? A guy on TV [I forget the rest of the quote]".

I mean, really.

Rant over.

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:17:11 GMT, "Ken Carriere" wrote:

But Ned Flanders did...

Thats because Homer never knew about computers until season 9, and by then Wang Computers was out of business.

(everyone stares awkwardly)

what?

Jake Lennington wrote:

That�s it.

Climbing rates are no sign of special or unique quality, they are (nowadays) a sign of more adaptation to mass market by use of fast humor, crude jokes, "funny" slapstick, story elements from Jackass or Family Guy, tons of celebrities etc etc.

A lot of new fans watch the show because it has become a more generic cartoon, it fits now more into what they expect from a cartoon. Social satire? Social commentary? Depth? A complex and "living" reality? Character-driven stories? Nah.

Funny caricatures do funny stuff in their bright cartoon world, too much plot would distract (remember the guy who posted that the new Simpsons are so much better because they have no plot any longer?)

The show was sucessful in the past because it was unique in many ways, it�s sucessful now because it�s like other cartoons but still somehow better than other cartoons. Not in terms of depth or true satire or anything meaningful but in terms of obvious humor and parody. Plus there are many old fans who still watch it as a habit or who wait for better times. Episodes like "Dad Who Knew Too Little" prove (?) that there�s still some hope to see better stuff from time to time.

I�m once again way too repetitive ;-).

Chris

P.S. That�s the kind of post which I can use to spread my URL

http://members.aol.com/Chris84792/simp.htm

Most recent reviews

http://members.aol.com/Chris84792/bust.htm

I�ll add a Season 14 review section soon.

Yeha, but even THAT ep was full of "wacky" stuff like homer hiring an investigator to spy on lisa, and lupin III-esque chase sequences. If you ask me, the ep where Skinner asked krabbaple to marry him (forget the title) was much closer to the old stuff with a dose of a hope for the future. Though "DWKTL" was a good ep,,it was basically a wackier version of "Make Room For Lisa" IMO.

Was there a dip in the ratings that prompted a change towards a lower brow of humor? Or is this just a case of messing with a good thing?

"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." -George W. Bush

Remove "bination" to reply.

I think that pretty much sums it up...

David wrote:

That's not true. Which 2 holiday specials? In 1994, Fox had the right episode marked as number 100. In 1998, Fox had the right episode marked as number 200. In 2000, Fox had the right episode marked as number 250.

So the two "specials" that are supposedly not counted came after number 200.

I think the article is lying.

The *real* reason that they're doing the special with the 302d episode is that they realized that to be consistent, they should be numbering the episodes using base 8 rather than base 10, and 456 is a much more interesting number than 454.

----- Richard Schultz [email] Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- If you can keep your expectations tiny You'll go through life without being so whiny. -- Matt Groening

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:02:52 GMT, Zed wrote:

More likely misinformed by Fox. If Fox really wanted a promotion for this Sunday, why not promote 302nd episode? It worked for the 138th Episode Spectacular.

let's not listen!

David wrote:

Well-written text, I agree with almost everything.

Yep, that�s it. Very good description of "Pray Anything". A couple of one-liners and visual gags, some stuff happens here, some stuff happens there, and then it�s over. Empty vessels and caricatures in a row of "funny" sketches. Like I said in my 2F32 review:

"Why define characters in a deep and three-dimensional way in the very first seasons and use them later for nothing but simple fun and slapstick?"

I have the impression that there are more critical voices about the shows quality in the media now. In Seasons like S11 or S12 articles often just praised the show and used mostly examples from classic seasons to back up the praise, it seemed as if they praised the show just because it�s "The Simpsons".

There are a lot of articles and favorite episode lists now because of the 300th episode and a very surprising thing happens - articles make critical comments about the loss of emotion and character depth and mention the problem of sitcomish style and emptiness, favorite lists include mostly episodes from classic seasons, often episodes from 1991 - 1993 - even the "weird" Internet fans and geeks who complained all the time seem to have a point (as Al Jean said.)

I always wonder - why don�t the writers and producers realize that many people (and not just the internet geeks) prefer a more classic style? Why don�t they see the quality difference between an almost classic episode like "The Dad Who Knew Too Little" and a typical modern standard show like "Pray Anything" with all its gag rows and emptiness? How can they watch the S2 and S3 episodes for the audio commentary, praise the old episodes and their wide range of emotion, and then go back and write/produce sterile cartoon slapstick for Season 14 and say everything is allright?

I guess I know the answer but I don�t like it.

Chris

What is the answer? I am most interested. I see this as a type of contradiction, or even a hypocritical move. However, there is always the issue of advertising and marketing that has taken so many beautiful things and forced conformity upon them.

What, in your opinion is the answer?

On 18 Feb 2003, Eric wrote:

Why bother making the effort when the solid fan base will watch it anyway?

[email] (David) wrote in news:[email]:

We do, we do!

excellent article. thanks for posting it.

"David" wrote in message news:[email]...

["David"; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 03:53:18 GMT]

But "Gump Roast" said that they had "stories for years." Are you telling me that they actually lied to us through song?

i hate it when people do that

Is Conan really linked tot he show's decline? I thought he was considered to have produced or written some good episodes.

"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." -George W. Bush

Remove "bination" to reply.

to

i think that was a list of people who's absence contributed to the downfall. But i could be wrong.

JQM

to

he wrote a very good episode, a good episode and a bad episode. that's it.

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:16:49 -0000, "Jamie" wrote:

You forgot the wraparounds on Treehouse of Horror 4. Who could forget THAT? Buh.

Thanks dimlan17. Very cool of you.

The old reruns in syndication, probably.