criterionforum.org

I liked that piece a lot, but I think it could just as easily have been written with very few differences in 1995 or so as an indicator of the way the show drifted away from social realism very early on (around Season Four, I would say). In other words, while it's true that the standard of living in the U.S. has drifted away dramatically from where it was in 1990, the show itself had abandoned that niche as well even by the time the Contract for America happened. I think Matt Groening even remarked on this in one of the commentaries, that the show had changed irrevocably when Homer started handing out hundred-dollar bills to Bart straight from his wallet, which was a joke from relatively early.

Not to forget Frank Grimes either.

knives wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:57 pm Not to forget Frank Grimes either.

Good point, and it's actually instructive to note how alienating that episode was to the more hardcore contingent of the show's fanbase at the time. I was a nerd on the Usenet groups back then and vividly remember how divisive it was for basically calling out the entire show for its lack of resemblance to lived reality. Despite being intended as a comment on how the show's universe had changed, many took it as a "we give up" in terms of keeping the Simpsons consistent or believable as characters. It was also viewed -- the ending in particular -- as uncommonly flippant and crass. I think the episode works well in terms of what it's attempting to convey about the bedrock of the series and its continuity, but I can understand the objections too, especially if one is generally put off by the direction in which the series was headed by then.

We just watched for New Years's "The Trouble with Trillions" where if nothing else I love the idea of Homer being an intrepid reporter for Collier's Magazine!

dustybooks wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:26 pm I liked that piece a lot, but I think it could just as easily have been written with very few differences in 1995 or so as an indicator of the way the show drifted away from social realism very early on (around Season Four, I would say). In other words, while it's true that the standard of living in the U.S. has drifted away dramatically from where it was in 1990, the show itself had abandoned that niche as well even by the time the Contract for America happened. I think Matt Groening even remarked on this in one of the commentaries, that the show had changed irrevocably when Homer started handing out hundred-dollar bills to Bart straight from his wallet, which was a joke from relatively early.

Also, Homer wasn't yet the safety inspector when the series began, so presumbly he was on a lower salary.

Morbid curiosity led me to watch a recent episode of the show, Undercover Burns, and it was Oof City. What happened to the animation here? I knew they moved to Flash but both Mr Burns and especially Smithers were off model for almost the entire episode. And yikes, Harry Shearer and Julie Kavner sound completely different. I thought Hank Azaria did too but turns out that's because they recast Carl with a new black actor... The plot here is Mr Burns does Undercover Boss and finds friendship with his lackeys but of course that's not sustainable. Okay. We literally already had more or less that same episode with the bowling league ep decades ago. That this new episode wasn't very funny is not a surprise (there were a few mild chuckles to be had, the best perhaps being the shocked line, "You can burn effigies now?!" but hoo boy they come at about the rate I'd expect to get laffs from any CBS sitcom). What I was really surprised by is that the episode had no B story, it was all the A story. How long have they been doing that?

Off the top of my head, isn’t Homer Goes to College all A-story? I guess it’s more sensible when it involves one of the titular family.

I catch a new episode every 4-5 years (Season 2-9 is some of my all-time favorite TV), so I am far from an expert, but I assume that the producers are just scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point for plot ideas. Why waste two plots in one episode when that could fill the quota by producing two episodes?

My kids have been eating it up since it showed up on Disney+. They watch the new ones and I've caught a few. They've been pretty "meh" for the most part, and I can barely remember them. Their favourite ones end up being more from the early ones (and I was so happy to learn my son is a fan of the Frank Grimes one) but they do repeat watch some of the newer ones and have favourites in them as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if the younger generations end up appreciating them more than us fogies. Kinda like how the Star Wars prequels found their fans in the young'uns.

To my surprise my kids really like to watch The Simpsons as well, and it is due to Disney+ as well. Mine are still in the younger years but it's quite amazing to see them react to the gags as the humor is intended, even fairly sophisticated humor aimed at humiliating Moe, for example. I don't know where it comes from, I didn't tell them what to think is funny, it's like funny is just objectively so, just like we don't choose to laugh voluntarily.

Emm wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:58 pm To my surprise my kids really like to watch The Simpsons as well, and it is due to Disney+ as well. Mine are still in the younger years but it's quite amazing to see them react to the gags as the humor is intended, even fairly sophisticated humor aimed at humiliating Moe, for example. I don't know where it comes from, I didn't tell them what to think is funny, it's like funny is just objectively so, just like we don't choose to laugh voluntarily.

IIRC, I first got into The Simpsons because of humor that was suited for kids my age - "Maya Buttreeks" was HILARIOUS. All that stuff coexisted with more sophisticated humor that I learned to love as well, and arguably that was mostly the result of developing maturity that came with growing up.

cdnchris wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:30 pm Kinda like how the Star Wars prequels found their fans in the young'uns.

Yeah, I was surprised how many young kids (I'm guessing 4 through 7?) in my neighborhood loved Jar Jar Binks, and this is LONG after the prequels happened, so they weren't just liking the latest thing.

Having worked with kids 5-15 for over a decade across several states, starting a few years after the final 'prequel' came out, I can confirm that most of them enjoy the prequels and prefer them to the originals. It's still a thing, though less so over the last handful of years what with Marvel's explosion capturing everyone's attention

I mean, kids like Family Guy too so don't let this line of defense go too far

My daughter likes this show called Pup Academy along with some Nickelodeon show called Sam and Cat, so I don't put a lot of stock in her opinion.

domino harvey wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:16 pm I mean, kids like Family Guy too so don't let this line of defense go too far

Kids turned me on to Adventure Time at work when it came out, so there's definitely some diamonds in the ruff. We watched an evening movie every night, four years of direct care residential shifts before going back to school and changing roles, which is a lotttt of kids movies. I've seen the Jaden Smith/Jackie Chan Karate Kid more times than I can count, and it's one of the better ones I saw during that time of life

domino harvey wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:16 pm I mean, kids like Family Guy too

We all have to pass through transgressive stages in life. Most of us come out the other side at some point in our thirties.

Gaze too long into the Family Guy and the Family Guy gazes into you

Simpsons did it again! - https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 1613724775

Orlac wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:16 pm Simpsons did it again! - https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 1613724775

Not to shoot the messenger, but isn't this just "politician is shitty towards his constituents"? That's a joke older than time immemorial.

I'm getting really sick of the "Simpsons Predicted It..." meme. I saw a refutation this year that perfectly addressed it: "The Simpsons haven't predicted a single thing. It's just that nothing in the United States has been fixed since 1989".

Obviously that is reductionist, but I think it is generally true.

Trump in the White House, Fox now owned by Disney - I'll give them that, but stuff like predicting the current pandemic is really stretching it.

Considering Ted Cruz loves the Simpsons, I’m okay with it being used against him even if this kinda thing is old hat

And considering he namechecked It Follows of all things in the 2016 Republican prez debates, I’d be okay with that one coming true for him too

Doesn't that suggest he continues to have sex?

I like the first female Veep dressing like the 1st female President: