The Simpsons have sucked for the last ten years and here's why!

The BBQ Pit
121

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
I got that idea from being a nine year old when the show debuted.

At last! At last! A cartoon on at night! The TV landscape is a better place for kids today!

I may have been nine, but I knew a show that created with kids in mind when I saw it.
[/QUOTE]

There’s a difference between a show made for kids, and with kids “in mind.” I submit that the Simpsons today or over its history is no less “for kids” than it was in Season 1. I’d say that it started out quite explicitly for an older audience (just look at Matt Groening’s work and the Tracy Ullman show for evidence), and was tempered to appeal across the entire age demographic when it hit prime-time on its own.

122

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
I got that idea from being a nine year old when the show debuted.

[/quote]

You base your information about the intended audience of a show on your age at the time? I was 3 years old when “Star Trek” premiered. I guess it was written for 3 year olds.

It wasn’t though. The humor is WAY over the heads of kids. That doesn’t mean kids don’t watch it, but kids won’t understand it on the level that adults do. Kids like cartoons, but that doesn’t mean all cartoons were made for kids.

123

It’s a saloon. As in, an Old West saloon called “A Hard Place.” And, yeah, I thought it was quite funny.

124

[QUOTE=Trunk]
So, when did it stop being funny?

[/QUOTE]

That’s like asking what time it gets dark. It just gradually gets darker and darker until you eventually realize that it’s night.

125

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
That’s like asking what time it gets dark. It just gradually gets darker and darker until you eventually realize that it’s night.
[/QUOTE]

I’d estimate around season 12-14. There were some good eps in that range but they were tapering off, slowly.

126

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
You base your information about the intended audience of a show on your age at the time? I was 3 years old when “Star Trek” premiered. I guess it was written for 3 year olds.

It wasn’t though. The humor is WAY over the heads of kids. That doesn’t mean kids don’t watch it, but kids won’t understand it on the level that adults do. Kids like cartoons, but that doesn’t mean all cartoons were made for kids.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sure I wasn’t as self-aware as I think I was and I’m sure a lot of it was over my head, but a lot of season 1 is based solely around tried and true family sitcom stories (read: made with kids in mind).

Bart the General ends in a water balloon fight.

And there was nothing racy about Homer and the stripper because she was clothed the whole time! It was funny to kids because Bart (the ten-year old, remember?) took a “dirty” picture to school and was showing it around.

Homer is mistaken for Bigfoot… the family shocks each other until the power in the building almost goes out… Bart gets an F and has to study real hard… Homer and Bart play video games?

We can argue semantics all day, but for every “adult” bit of satire there were two jokes involving someone doing something silly that a kid thought was hilarious.

127

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
I’m sure I wasn’t as self-aware as I think I was and I’m sure a lot of it was over my head, but a lot of season 1 is based solely around tried and true family sitcom stories (read: made with kids in mind).
[/quote]

Here’s your problem: you’re correct about the plots from that season. I think it’s more because they were hurrying to get the show together and hadn’t found a voice yet - but the reliance on tried and true plots doesn’t mean the show was for kids. Bart the General is a nice example: being bullied is something kids can relate to, but I’m not sure how many nine-year-olds got the irony of Homer reciting the rules of the schoolyard. Or look at the list of cultural references on Wikipedia, like the armistice treaty jokes that kids aren’t going to get. And there’s even a meta joke with “family jewels.”

128

It is perfectly clear, as has been already pointed in this thread, that The Simpsons aren’t the same show now as they were in the 90s. (In all fairness, I haven’t watched many episodes of the last few seasons, I kind of dropped out at some point; but from the few I’ve seen and from the previews for the movie I think it should be clear that it’s different from what it was. Now, is the show worse now than it was at that time? I don’t know, and not having seen that many recent episodes I won’t try to speculate – it’s possible that it was indeed bad at some point but got better – but I must say that I understood many of the article’s author’s complaints. The thing, though, is that these complaints may reflect a change to the show’s focus more than an actual decline in quality.

That actually is the main beef I have with the show, and why I don’t watch the later episodes much. In the earlier episodes, the Simpsons were without a doubt a real family. I could see my father, and my friends’ fathers, in Homer Simpson. I can’t do that anymore. Homer Simpson is just a dumb guy doing a lot of wacky stuff (as the author says, going to countries with his family and meeting stars for five-second cameos there). The first time I saw this episode I was appalled to see that Homer was forcing Bart and Lisa to make hearts for the children he babysits. This isn’t the Homer Simpson I knew and loved, who might not have been the best father but who was always there for his family.

On the other hand, I like Family Guy, and Peter Griffin is just as worse as this Bad Homer. I’m even able to suspend my disbelief and grudgingly swallow the “Meg is sinfully ugly and everybody hates her, even her parents” line. (I’ve recently noticed that the first Family Guy episodes don’t make use of this, which is a point in their favour.) The thing is that Family Guy has almost always been like that, so I they didn’t change something that I was used to and liked.

There are other things that I find annoying with the later episodes of The Simpsons and that caused me to stop watching, notably the fact that the show has gone from tackling universal themes in a realistic way to discussing more prosaic or trendy themes in an everything-goes way. But this may be explained by the fact that after many seasons, they had to change their focus if they were to be able to continue producing episodes. So I’m not complaining too much.

Another thing, though. I bemoan the loss of the Ned Flanders of old. In the first few seasons, Flanders was a man in many ways similar to Homer Simpson. Except for the fact that, through his own efforts, he was able to exceed Homer in almost every way. He worked harder, he was a better family man, he was a better Christian (I know most of you won’t care for this, but I read it as meaning “more moral” in a traditional American way). So he could serve as a contrast to Homer, an example of what Homer could be. But along the way he became some sort of fundie weirdo who “doesn’t believe in inoculations” and other ridiculous things. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had him handle snakes in some episode I missed. But his conversion came during the show’s classic period, when they were otherwise doing things just as I liked them, so I won’t complain too much.

129

I hate Family Guy and the Simpsons, even if it is past it’s prime, is still better than 99% of the shows out there.

There! I said it! I meant it! Bring it on Hildo!

130

[QUOTE=severus]
That actually is the main beef I have with the show, and why I don’t watch the later episodes much. In the earlier episodes, the Simpsons were without a doubt a real family. I could see my father, and my friends’ fathers, in Homer Simpson. I can’t do that anymore. Homer Simpson is just a dumb guy doing a lot of wacky stuff (as the author says, going to countries with his family and meeting stars for five-second cameos there). The first time I saw this episode I was appalled to see that Homer was forcing Bart and Lisa to make hearts for the children he babysits. This isn’t the Homer Simpson I knew and loved, who might not have been the best father but who was always there for his family.
[/quote]

It’s true. An episode like “Lisa on Ice” that ends with Bart and Lisa skating off together, or “And Maggie Makes Three” (the “Do It For Her” ending) probably wouldn’t happen now. They do attempt it…aren’t there a couple of eps where Homer tries bonding with Maggie (and that one ep, where Moe bonds to Maggie), but none of them seem to have the same family-feeling to it. It’s more about joking for the sake of jokes.

Obviously, the jokes are always important, but I felt as though the characters had more weight back then. When Marge and Homer in different episodes both contemplate having affairs and then decide not to, it really means something. And it never came off as cheesy or corny. It actually worked. I think that’s what still sets Simpsons apart from many other shows. (Futurama, too, for that matter.) For all the jokes or visual gags, I can’t see myself crying over a South Park or Family Guy.

131

[QUOTE=Marley23]
And there’s even a meta joke with “family jewels.”
[/QUOTE]

Psst… “family jewels” was a joke for those nine year olds. That’s what kids used to call them on the playground because everybody understood what it meant and it wasn’t a “swear word,” so you could say it at school (or on primetime TV).

132

I haven’t liked The Simpsons for a long time.

I loved the first 4 seasons. But now…I dunno. It seems like hack writing, going for the more obvious gag. Maybe it’s me. Maybe my tastes have changed. But the newer episodes don’t hold up to the older ones.

But the trailers I have seen for the movie look pretty funny for the most part. And of course, I will be seeing it. Even though I think they are 10 years late.

133

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
Psst… “family jewels” was a joke for those nine year olds. That’s what kids used to call them on the playground because everybody understood what it meant and it wasn’t a “swear word,” so you could say it at school (or on primetime TV).
[/QUOTE]

OK, you’re totally right there. Though, I’m ten years older, I too knew “family jewels” by grade 3.

Anyway, all I can say is that I watched from the beginning just like you - as a 19 year old. As someone about that age now (eta: wait, you were 9 in '89, so you’re 27 now I guess. still…), do you think you are better able to judge than a nine year old? :wink:

Like I said, too many of the jokes were sooo directed at adults I can’t support that it was “originally intended for kids”. Also like I said, it had enough broad humour to appeal to kids, regardless. But think about it, adults like that juvenile stuff too.

One of my clinchers is that first season episode where Marge gets drunk at the Nuclear plant picnic (There’s No Disgrace Like Home). It was just so casually dealt with and so unpunished, it had a real adult story feel. What can I say…

134

Not to mention the episode where Marge considers infidelity with Jacques the bowling instructor. You can’t tell me that was aimed at kids.

135

Actually, Justin, I’m very curious what you remember of what you thought of “Itchy and Scratchy”* when you first saw it.

*Apparently, it first appeared in the episode I just mentioned.

136

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
I’m sure I wasn’t as self-aware as I think I was and I’m sure a lot of it was over my head, but a lot of season 1 is based solely around tried and true family sitcom stories (read: made with kids in mind).

Bart the General ends in a water balloon fight.

[/quote]

But would kids understand that it’s a reference to the film “Patton”?

But here’s a sample of the dialogue for that episode:

Martin: My goodness. Quite exciting.
Girl: Extremely sensual.
Boy: The subtle gray tones recall the work of Helmut Newton.
Martin: Who’s the sexy lady, Bart?
Bart: Beats me. But the guy dancin’ with her is my pop.
Everyone: Wow!
Boy: He brings to mind the later work of Diane Arbus.

Do kids know who Helmut Newton and Diane Arbus are? I don’t even know myself. And that’s an early episode. In later seasons, the humor became infinitely more subtle.

In cartoons written for kids, they say things like, “Jinkies, gang - let’s go catch that ghost”

Again, the fact that kids might find The Simpsons entertaining doesn’t mean it was written for kids. That’s not “semantics”; it’s just the truth.

137

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Actually, Justin, I’m very curious what you remember of what you thought of “Itchy and Scratchy”* when you first saw it.
[/QUOTE]

I saw it for exactly what it was: an extremely violent parody of Tom and Jerry. T&J was in heavy rotation on the “kids” channels at the time and everyone I knew was able to pick up on the inspiration. I thought it was hilarious then and I still do now.

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
But would kids understand that it’s a reference to the film “Patton”?
[/QUOTE]

Not to Patton specifically, but I could tell it was supposed to parody some World War II movie.

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
But here’s a sample of the dialogue for that episode:

Martin: My goodness. Quite exciting.
Girl: Extremely sensual.
Boy: The subtle gray tones recall the work of Helmut Newton.
Martin: Who’s the sexy lady, Bart?
Bart: Beats me. But the guy dancin’ with her is my pop.
Everyone: Wow!
Boy: He brings to mind the later work of Diane Arbus.

Do kids know who Helmut Newton and Diane Arbus are? I don’t even know myself. And that’s an early episode. In later seasons, the humor became infinitely more subtle.
[/QUOTE]

To my nine year old self, the joke was that a bunch of kids were talking about the picture and comparing it to (I assumed at the time) a couple of famous artists and then Martin (Martin of all characters!) chimes in with the “She’s a sexy lady! Duh! Drool!” remark. That was funny as well.

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Again, the fact that kids might find The Simpsons entertaining doesn’t mean it was written for kids. That’s not “semantics”; it’s just the truth.
[/QUOTE]

What it boils down is that I remember The Simpsons being held up to a different standard among my friends and I than other TV shows of the era. It was something on after 8 PM that we thought was for us. And the marketing and (most of) the plotlines and the fact that it was a cartoon bore that out. The main characters (Bart and Lisa) were our age. And they acted like it. And we got all the same merchandise (shirts, lunchboxes, video games, school supplies) that went with any other cartoon. There were the other family shows of the time (Full House, Family Matters, Growing Pains, Wonder Years), but The Simpsons was ours.

From this discussion, I also assume that at 26 I’m the youngest here. Mind if I ask how old the “The Simpsons are for adults” arguers are?

138

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]

We can argue semantics all day, but for every “adult” bit of satire there were two jokes involving someone doing something silly that a kid thought was hilarious.
[/QUOTE]

I was 5 when the Simpsons premiered. I may have been 7 or 8 when I saw my first episode. It was funny. The good seasons have been funny my whole life. Every time I’d watch a rerun, I’d get something new, catch a joke in the scenery, hear a bit of dialogue that previously went over my head, or never reached my ears.

Why am I linking to vanityfair.com? It’s because metafilter is full of pseudo-high class blog nerds. Don’t ask why vanity fair is writing about the simpsons. That one I really don’t know.

139

That’s funny.

I distinctly remember years ago telling my wife, “you know, sometimes I think I watch these things in syndication just to look at the nice colors.”

That’s probably a part of the reason why I’m psyched to see it on the big screen.

140

My fiance and I started buying the DVDs season by season. For the first couple seasons we whipped through the discs like you wouldn’t believe. It was really interesting to watch the focus of the show shift from Bart to Homer. Season 6 we slowed down a lot. Now we’ve barely watched any of the 7th season, and neither of us is all that keen on it. Based on this I think the show lost its edge around the 6th or 7th season. I’m sure eventually we’ll pick it up again, but season 8 has been sitting on our shelf still in its wrapper for the last 6 months or so.

I’m not excited about the movie and have no plans to see it.