That was certainly true of me now and even back then but is that still the case today? Audiences are more fragmented today and programs that are considered successful today wouldn’t have stayed on the air because there weren’t enough viewers. Is it possible there are significant number of younger viewers who do care about political affirmation and representation?
That must be why my radio no longer plays “Fibber McGee and Molly”: Fibber didn’t have a steady job and yet they had a house and a cook.
“The Simpsons” has to be at least 30 years old, so there is simply nothing new under the sun that it can bring to the viewing table. It has all been said, and it has all been done, and it has all been rehashed many times in various sundry forms.
Of course they do. There were a number of shows that were more popular with black folks than white folks - such as Martin, Bernie Mac show, Hangin’ with Mr. Cooper, Living Single, etc. Why do you think that is? Because the folks on the shows resonated more with black audiences. Conservatives more than liberals watched Tim Allen’s Last Man Standing - because the sort of humor resonated more with conservatives.
People watch humor that is more relevant to them all the time.
And then someone would ask us back, how many of that group would be watching a show like The Simpsons anyway, and why would they?
FWIW by now enough of the public does seem to care about appropriateness of casting and role-writing to finally be having an effect (vide: Apu), but that is applying to all animated productions, The Simpsons being just the most visible one.
Though you do write something that we should think about: in the media business environment of the 1990s/early 2000s, if the show had had a decline of raw audience numbers comparable to what it has had over the ensuing time, would it have remained on the air so long? This may be a phenomenon where as global broadcast network viewership numbers fracture and decline, the show remains a good enough ROI relative to its comparables in the Fox Entertainment line-up to justify dragging it on.
Well, since they could actually afford their lifestyle I can’t find anything else unrealistic about the show to comment on.
What I’ve seen and heard of managers, this is the most realistic part of The Simpsons.
This thesis would only make sense if it had been replaced by a raft of shows exploring the struggles of blue collar families to cope having been cut adrift from the middle class in the inequality 21st century America.
There’s dozens of examples of mostly-black shows that failed during the time when those were on. Black viewers who like comedy may be more interested in black casts, but they will only stick with the show if they find it funny. You can’t just put up a show and assume the matching demographic will watch it if it sucks.
The Simpsons seemed to always appeal slightly more to college-educated people and smartass teens. It’s a very “comedy nerd” show at its core (or was, during its best seasons) even though it enjoyed a relatively brief moment of overall cultural penetration. If it was ever a show primarily watched by “blue-collar breadwinners of nuclear families” that doesn’t match my experience of its fandom.
But, for what it’s worth: my guess would be that, if they called it a day and stopped making the show, then some other TV show could ably step in to do gags about a dimwitted sitcom dad and his long-suffering wife and their smartmouthed brat of a son who just got sent to the principal’s office again and why can’t he be more like his straight-A kid sister anyway even if she maybe goes a little overboard with her latest cause.
This isn’t like DOOGIE HOWSER, where if they stop making a show about a teenage doctor there’s maybe just not going to be a show about a teenage doctor; it seems like there’s a market for this sort of thing even if THE SIMPSONS stops hiring writers who’ll do it somewhere else.
It seems to me that the author of the article has his ass chapped because “The Simpsons” is a show that hasn’t really updated its late 80’s nuclear family with a well paid blue collar father doing the breadwinning in favor of some sort of 21st century update where they’re poor or despondent or whatever.
Seems to me like some dumb-ass twenty-something writing an article about something that started before he was even born, and doesn’t get the show. Part of the point is that the Simpsons family doesn’t change, but everything else does- they’re sort of the lens through which societal and cultural changes occur.
I mean, Bart Simpson has been ten years old for 31 years now. The show has passed several of the “future” episodes that they had early on. Montgomery Burns would be something like 140 years old by now. And so on…
Getting all righteously butthurt about an animated comedy show not conforming to reality is patently absurd. He might as well go on about how Homer never would have been an astronaut, or about how the show perpetuates negative Italian-American stereotypes with Fat Tony, or about how Barney Gumble needs a substance abuse redemption arc.
Spencer, the author of the article, is a San Francisco based magazine editor. He has a bachelor’s degree in astronomy and a master’s degree in literary and cultural studies. When not working his main job in journalism he had side jobs as a stage actor and a performance artist.
Does anyone think Spencer spends a lot of time hanging out with blue collar working families?
Perhaps this point has already been made, but it occurs to me that this dunderheaded critic/pundit fundamentally screws up the entire title and premise right out the gates.
In spite of a non-sequitur to start the article about the Election and Trumpism, this entire article is about economics, not politics. Perhaps the Simpson’s economic reality is out of step with the times (I don’t really think it is), but that’s a hell of a lot different than saying the show’s politics are passe.
In short, this guy is an idiot.
On the one hand, they can obviously keep finding new plotlines and new jokes, because they are doing so: new episodes continue to be made.
On the other hand, the longer the show lasts, the harder it becomes to find things that are genuinely novel, surprising, or clever to do with these characters and this setting. But, as @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper points out, if The Simpsons were no longer around, there would be other shows somewhat like it. If those other shows can bring enough new to the table to make them worth watching, who’s to say The Simpsons can’t?
Yeah, no one said that. But you have to make it relevant to people before they find it funny. Or a lot of jokes won’t hit. The same people who enjoyed Home Improvement aren’t the same people who liked Seinfeld who aren’t the same people who like the Bernie Mac show even though all were funny shows.
It seemed to me that most people who watched and enjoyed it either knew what The Simpsons were referencing (50s, 60s, 70s sitcoms) and/or lived in these type of nuclear households in the late 80s, early 90s. With the breakdown of that sort of arrangement in many places, people are less likely to relate. If you look at recent year TV ratings how many of the top rated shows focus on a nuclear family? The only that seems close is This is Us and that focuses more on the kids of that family.
I’m sure there’s some overlap. But your general point is correct, that social/cultural background can have a significant effect on who finds what funny.
The question that arises is… why aren’t there that many around now? Last Man Standing may have been the last well known one, right? Malcolm in the Middle was a show more akin to what the article writer is talking about - blue collar parents trying to make things work.
But it seems that most sitcoms these days have been more of the friends coming together, hanging out in the 20s and 30s and not quite yet settling down yet. Or focused on workplaces.
Good question. Off the top of my head, some possible answers that I haven’t yet thoroughly checked for reasonableness:
- These things go in cycles, and family sitcoms just don’t happen to be in fashion right now.
- The traditional sitcom itself is dead, or failing, or evolving into something different.
- Rather than look at all the sitcoms that are around now, it’s fairer to look specifically at animated sitcoms (one advantage of which is that you can have the same adults portraying the child characters indefinitely).
There are a few of those I think… Bob’s Burgers comes to mind. I just thought of a live-action one as well, Black-ish, which is on it’s 7th season (and I tend to enjoy), but it’s ratings aren’t fantastic. It’s also a bit different because the wife (Rainbow) works as well and may make more money than the father character (Dre - who is actually very good at his job, but a bit dull about other things).