My Favorite Websites

Yay, I work at The Simpsons Archive :)

Yeah, so when are you guys gonna catch up, anyway? :-)

That site is so ridiculously complete on what is finished that of course, I'm joking.

Ha, you're absolutely right of course. I don't have anything to do with the capsules, which are most people's cause for concern (we're three years behind and getting slower..) but all of my files are maintained well! :-D

Well, keep up the good work. It seems the Simpsons are breaking all the records lately for longest running sitcom, primetime series, etc. I wish the writers would get out of their rut, though. I know it seems like they've done it all before, so they have to resort to shock tactics to get anyone to laugh. Maybe it's because the characters never have any significant change, like there's no connection from one episode to the next. Everything just goes back to normal the next episode with a few exceptions like the death of Maude, Apu getting married, etc. Or maybe that's a bad idea that would change the Simpsons from a sitcom into a soap opera. Hmmm. Well, at least Family Guy and South Park can still give me a healthy dose of laughs.

Oh, I agree completely. But I still enjoy popping in an S4 or 5 DVD and watching a few classics.. it's not the same now, and whilst I think the writing's improved since the horrible S10-12 the plots are still too "out there" and packing it in a couple of years is probably a good idea.

Not that it's not still a good show mind.

Change is overrated. It has ruined the dynamic on many a fine television show. Long-running evil/obnoxious characters are inevitably transformed and redeemed. (Or they become parodies of themselves.) They then become indistinguishable from the heroes of the show. M*A*S*H* ran through several pompous foils during its run and, by the end, "Hot Lips" had become Florence Nightengale without the Victorian hangups. Even one of the best (network) television characters ever has to run its course and become irrelevant: Andy Sipowicz has evolved from a whoring, racist, alcoholic, divorced, estranged father liability of a detective into a gruff blue-collar detective with a heart-of-gold who is now a divine mentor to a litter of young law-enforcement officers and who has had a succesion of angelic (babe) wives with young children to match. Yes, every NYPD Blue eventually becomes The King of Queens or Everybody Loves Raymond or some other kind of forgetable and regretable motions to go through.

If The Simpsons existed in real time then there would have been a show about Maggie taking her entrance exams for university, Lisa would be going for her MFA and Bart would now live in an apartment above Marge & Homer's garage. Armin Tamzarian would have made an honest (as far as is possible) woman of Edna Krabbappel and they would live across the street from Mother Skinner. And Apu & Manjula's octuplets would be in kindergarten.

The Simpsons have always "resort[ed] to shock tactics to get anyone to laugh." People were shocked and outraged that a television character would say "eat my shorts" to authority figures... so much so that the attempt to censor the show was dealt with directly in "Itchy & Scratchy & Marge." That was in Season 2. Matt Groening has said that people still say that The Simpsons have been going downhill "ever since Conan left." That was Season 4... a dozen years ago. That's a hell of a hill to descend.

If The Simpsons have truly started to permanently come down the mountain I would submit that it started with the death of Phil Hartman. I find it shameful that he is not held in higher esteem. [Relax, I'm not pointing any fingers here. I mean among the general public and the industry.] Hartman's true talent is attested to by the fact that he triple-sharked three of television's greatest shows: The Simpsons , Satruday Night Live and News Radio . To quote my brother, "Damn Brynn Hartman. Damn her and her gun."

When the ride finally crashes to a halt people will ask you what it was like to live in an age when they were still making new episodes of The Simpsons . You will tell them that, "It was a Golden Age, the likes of which we will never see again, when I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickle, and in those days, nickles had pictures of bumblebees on them. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war; the only thing you can get was those big yellow ones...."

In fact, people were far more shocked by the show in its early seasons than now. I think the current seasons of The Simpsons aren't shocking enough. Sure, they can say "penis" now, but when was the last time you saw an episode of The Simpsons stir up controversy?

A reporter asked Paul McCartney if he saw irony in that when The Beatles first arrived, they were seen by many as undermining the moral structure of cultures, but that now he was being counted on (at the Superbowl) to uphold family values. I think that because the Simpsons have not changed, what was once shocking and controversial is now tame and very 'safe' for those who wish to avoid controversy.

I don't know whose point this proves (if anyone's) but I think that it is a credit to The Simpsons that people seem to expect the show to go where no show has gone before even after they've already lived long and prospered.

Change isn't overrated, it's underexecuted. The shows (talking about sitcoms only, here) that are stagnant with their carefully prepared genesis dynamic for too long become boring and lose their flavor with too many mouthfuls. The last few seasons of Everybody Loves Raymond, one of my favorite television shows, were boring as hell because I simply couldn't laugh at the exact same jokes and relationship dynamics any more. The same thing happens with every long-running sitcom I can think of, including my all-time favorite: The Simpsons.

But I understand the reluctance surrounding change because it so rarely works. As with changes in real life, it's a big risk. It's very difficult to pull off a successful change because you must develop new dyanmics that differ from your bread and butter. Even worse, you must deal with audience expectations. Audiences don't like change because they've been trained by decades of stagnant sitcoms not to expect change.

Change has ruined the dynamic on many a fine television show. But that is not the problem. The problem is that the new dynamics that were conceived were not as successful as the original dynamic.

I, for one, would love to see shows about Bart living in Homer's garage or Lisa going through teenage troubles or Apu's octuplets in kindergarten or hell, could the Simpsons move to a different town? Seriously. I want to watch those shows, as long as they are as well written as much of the rest of the series has been. I'm very tired of the same old jokes and the same old characters. Why can't characters change and grow? Why can't environments change? Sure, Maude died, but that's about it. I want to see Bart grow up and Marge's faithfulness to Homer fail and a new principal at the school.

But I'm probably mostly alone on that and the ratings would plummet if they changed a thing. Too bad.

I believe that you are alone. An evolving Homer would mean a Homer who is self-aware... D'oh! I can recall only a handful of sitcoms that have handled change well. Why would you want The Simpsons to do something that "rarely works"? If change is so important then what do you/(did you) see in Everybody Loves Raymond that is any different than virtually every other sitcom ever made? To use a familiar line: "You got some 'splaining to do."

There wasn't anything in Everybody Loves Raymond that was different than other sitcoms; that's why it eventually failed (went stale, lost its ability to make me laugh because it was all the same jokes for too many years) just like every other long-running sitcom.

I'd like The Simpson's writers to try something that rarely works because what they're doing now doesn't work anyway (for me - it's boring because it's the same old jokes for the millionth time in the series), and if anyone can pull off serious changes in a well-established sitcom, it's the talented Simpsons writers.

But what they're doing doesn't work JUST because it's the same old formula. What they're doing doesn't work because it genuinely doesn't work! The show's writing has declined severely, and the jokes just aren't funny enough. If you put them in different situations, they'll just be the same old unfunny jokes in different situations.

I think you're on the right track in thinking The Simpsons should be revamped. But what the series needs isn't new characters, new aging, new developments. What it needs is a new spin. Keep the character situations, but focus the talents a little more. Hire better, edgier writers. And don't think up lame plots as excuses to get guest stars to show up. Maybe focus on some of the supporting characters a little more; lately they've taken a backseat to the Simpson family and whatever lame guest star they have show up in each episode. Here's an idea: have a few episodes that focus on a different family in Springfield, instead of the Simpsons. Take a page out of South Park's book - they're not afraid to make a show that focuses on Butters instead of the four main kids. The Simpsons creators have developed so many great characters that they should have a wealth of ideas. Instead, we get Homer's wackiness creating marital troubles with Marge every week or Bart meeting whatever celebrity is the flavor of the month. I think, as a general rule, if the best joke you can come up with is a joke parodying how many times a moment has happened before in the series, it's time to try a different spin.

Exhibit A - Homer: "You know, I've had a lot of jobs: boxer, mascot, astronaut, imitation Krusty, baby proofer, trucker, hippy, plough driver, food critic, conceptual artist, grease salesman, carny, mayor, drifter, bodyguard for the mayor, country western manager, garbage commisioner, mountain climber, farmer, inventor, Smithers, Poochie, celebrity assistant, power plant worker, fortune cookie writer, beer baron, Kwik-E-Mart clerk, homophobe, and missionary, but protecting Springfield, that gives me the best feeling of all." - Papa's Got a Brand New Badge, May 2002. Since then, Homer has also been CEO of the power plant, a Christmas carol writer, a talk show host, a robot, a superhero named Pie Man, a newspaper publisher, a prescription drug smuggler, and a sports choreographer, among others I may have missed. He has also been to jail at least twice.

You know what I think happened? Early seasons of The Simpsons were considered edgy and fast-paced with the jokes. But then Family Guy out-Simpsoned The Simpsons by creating a show that was edgier and even more fast-paced. The Simpsons have been trying to keep up ever since, but as they do, they just get sloppy.

Maybe, but I'm not laughing slower, I'm not laughing. Mostly, anyway. But maybe it's just me, again.

No, I know. I'm saying that The Simpsons tries to keep up with Family Guy but that's not what the show should be doing, because in these attempts they've just made the humor worse.

What should the show be doing, then? Should it revert to what it was before Family Guy cloned/challenged it?

Well, not necessarily. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be a lame copycat of Family Guy. It should do its own thing and not feel pressured to have as many rapid-fire jokes and pop culture references as Family Guy.

I'm confused (I think, maybe I'm not confused.) Are you advocating for term limits for all long-running sitcoms because of the same jokes for too many years? Or are you advocating for the The Simpsons writers of today to do something that you've never seen done before?

South Park expressed their inability to keep being creative a long time ago, "Simpsons did it!" I suppose that the show could be about another family in the cartoon world but I thought that Family Guy was already beating that horse. Or there could be spin-off shows for every good supporting character... but wouldn't that ruin one's love for those minor characters? (I confess, I would religiously tivo The Tom Foolery Of Professor Frink.)

I can't tell The Simpsons writers what to do because they do not cater to me, they cater to the masses, and the masses and I have different preferences. I would love to see The Simpsons put its characters in unprecedented situations, or to let its characters change and grow. That's if The Simpsons was being written for my pleasure.

I agree with lukeprog in that I would also be much more interested in watching the Simpsons with episodes like Lisa going to college, Apu's kids going to kindergarten, etc. Often times, it's the big changes in our lives that can be the most surprising, embarrassing, shocking, etc. and those are the memories we tend to look back on and laugh at. When sitcom characters go through some of life's tense periods of change that we ourselves have experienced, we can laugh at it, because we see someone else going through what we went through. What fascinates us is how these characters act in these situations similarly or different from the way we acted.

As for getting a different spin by hiring better writers, as AJDaGreat indicated... I still think lasting change in the characters is more important. At this point, most of the characters seem cynical to the point of accepting the most blatant of Homer's trespasses. Nothing he does gets a reaction from the family anymore, they just accept it as another whacky Homer moment. Because the show doesn't change, the characters have no motivation to reach any goals because they all seem to realize that nothing ever changes in their lives.

Oh, but AJDaGreat, I very much agree with you that it would be fun to watch more episodes about the wealth of supporting characters on the show, as opposed to grinding out more stories about the Simpson family.

Wouldn't that be cool? They could do a whole season of it, each episode focusing on a different family of characters, adjusting the opening theme accordingly. Imagine when those angelic voices sing "The Wiggums..." or "The Skinners..." or "The Nahasapeemapetilons..."

As a somewhat related tangent, in my film class the other day we watched parts of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will as an example of propagandistic filmmaking, and my professor said that the opening in which Hitler's plane descends from the clouds always reminded him of the opening for The Simpsons. Does anyone else think that? Does anyone know if it actually did inspire the Simpsons theme? Has anyone actually seen Triumph of the Will?

I've seen "Triumph" twice. Dunno about "The Simpsons", but the overhead long shot during the medal ceremony at the end of "Star Wars" is a direct visual quote from Riefenstahl's film.

Should I assume that everyone is a big fan of The Jeffersons , 227 , Checking In , Archie Bunker's Place , Maude , Good Times , Gloria and 704 Hauser ?

Nope.