Are the New Episodes Edgy?

[Matt B.]

I know the show has always has made fun of religon and sex but do you find the new episodes (2000-today) to be a little more edgy and offensive than the old ones?

[TheFlandersMan]

Hmm, no, I don't think they are much offensive these days. They were a lot more in the past, but now if anything is offensive, it's because their attempts are childish, and the result of cheap writing. They've ran out of steam since Jean has been at the helm for so long.

[Jamie]

I thought Carl's "This is all a big scam" "You mean this game?" "No, religion in general" line was kinda teetering on the line but nothing is really "edgy"

The "Mummy gets a boner" is probably the "edgisest" the show has ever come

Edgier than earlier episodes, yeah, but not when compared to the mcfarlane twins and absolutely not even anywhere close to South Park or Wonder Showzen

[TriforceBun]

The heck is "Wonder Showzen?"

And I do think the show has gotten edgier (read: tackier), but not in a good way. Lisa attempting to "grow a penis" would never fly back in season seven.

[DotheBartman]

I really think the show is tamer now if anything. Yes, there's more liberties taken with sex jokes and whatnot, but honestly, the older seasons were generally much edgier when actually tackling issues. Too many satirical or controversial topics now are handled in a very "silly" way instead of there being any real content there (a recent example being assisted suicide, which could have been edgy, but was handled in such a silly way that there was virtually no impact). Even the sex/swearing jokes are kind of that way too, really. Not to say the show doesn't have a certain edge still, but the older stuff was much more provacative.

[Haoie]

There are less morals, that's for sure. Many of the older epis all contained a lesson to learn [and yet somehow made the process hilarious].

[bluemoose]

They may be more edgy compared to the old episodes, but by todays standards I don't think that they're edgy at all. In fact, the old episodes were probably edgier by the old standards, because you're always hearing stories about how they had to fight to get "ass" on the air or something else similar.

[Gay4Moleman]

The new episodes are edgy, but they have to be (and I believe they always were). They are maybe a little more so because people are more desensitzed to everything. What became of subtlety?

[Kiyosuki]

As far as edginess goes...it doesn't feel all that different. But thats when it comes to subjects in society or satire...or immediate pop culture. Maybe it hints at more risque things...like "Disco Stu...was talkin' to YOU!" to Bart in the Odysseus spoof and the like..but nothing really out there. I mean...come on, remember the Chief in season 4? In this version I keep my pants on. Pretty risque. :D I always loved that, it gives realistic edge and flaire to the Simpsons' world.

But...when it comes to character interaction and drama, I think it has gotten a little tamer than before. It all goes back to whether the characters are written being themselves...or written as charicatures of themselves. Some of the drama, as well as dark humor between the characters used to be real dark and edgy. It still happens but its not quite as much of a punch I feel..perhaps because the characters arn't written as spontaneously.

[H Thompson]

When I hear the word edgy I think of out of touch executives and producers trying to make their show sound cool so it's kind of not really a compliment for me anyway.

But I'd agree with DTB, satire feels too silly these days, and there doesn't seem to be much point doing sex jokes and swearing even if they can go further than they used to because South Park and other shows can go so much further than that anyway, so any shock value gags just feel really tame in comparison.
I think the biggest problem is that the satire seems to lack any anger these days, some of the issues they used to do, particulary in the Mirkin era, felt like the staff actually were really quite pissed off about some of these things, I mean compare Sideshow Bob Roberts to See Homer Run for example, the latter just feels so silly and lightweight in comparison.

[Mazzi_rules]

to me.... well i depends on what episode you watch. most of them i dont notice.

[Dr. Spirograph]

I totally agree with DotheBartman. But the only time a recent episode genuinely made me raise an eyebrow was Marge's line: "I like shirts with jokes on them. Like 'Support the Troops.'"

[DotheBartman]

But I'd agree with DTB, satire feels too silly, and there doesn't seem to be much point doing sex joke and swearing even if they can go further than they used to because South Park and other shows can go so much further than that anyway, so any shock value gags just feel really tame.
I think the biggest problem is that the satire seems to lack any anger these days, some of the issues they used to do, particulary in the Mirkin era, it felt like they actually were really quite pissed off about some of these things, I mean compare Sideshow Bob Roberts to See Homer Run for example, the latter just feels so silly and lightweight in comparison.

Yeah, that's a lot of what I was thinking....I think the problem might, oddly enough, just be that the writers don't really take anything seriously anymore, and think more in terms of how to be irreverant than on how to actually comment on something. So whereas that "No, religion in general" line cited earlier is fairly irreverant, it's not really all that edgy or biting compared with earlier jokes and scenes where they would actually show the church and Lovejoy moneygrubbing and looking out largely for their own interests, which were actual statements and not just meant to be shocking and irreverant. And on top of this the writers seemed to have adopted a more "silly" sense of humor in general rather than a truly biting or dark one.

[Thats A Paddlin]

Homer Thompsons's got it.

I always felt in Seasons 3-8, espiecally the Mirkin years that OFF was edgy is comedy terms. I mean, they went places with thier comedy that no one else would go. It helped being an adult cartoon, but even still, the show was groundbraking because it could make you laugh like no other sitcom. It totally disgarded the old comedy-sitcom formula you've seen a million times of "tell the audience what your going to do, then do it, then tell them what you did."

The Mirkin years were golden to people who felt ailenated by modern materialism and predictably lame entertainment. It's humor was off-beat with biting satire, subtly and comedic grace. Now the show has very little to none of that.

Back in the classic era, the show was edgy, now, its lame and tame.

[TheFlandersMan]

Well said.

[Imperciph]

The show's recent satires lack the biting cynicism and sarcastic edge the old episodes had.

The satires of the Mirkin years feel the most "edgy" because out of the classic era, the satires of his era were the most editorialistic in nature. He also comes off as being more sarcastic than other showrunners, that also influenced the style of his satires. To be more inelegant, in the Mirkin Era, when they tackled an issue, they took the piss out of it.

Season 2 and O & W satires were more even handed in nature ; they mocked both sides without taking a clear stand on one particular side but they explored the issue in great detail. The commentary was much more ambiguous in nature too : it can be interprted in any way we wanted too. That's not to say the Mirkin satires didn't have a in-depth look at the issue : the prime difference was that they were more one-sided and more gag-based instead of character-based in nature. If you ask me, I say I am a big fan of both approaches.

In the Scully Era the satires took on a more blatant "South Park"-esque approach : constantly depicting "evil" corporations pulling all strings beind our backs. Every issue they handled were exaggarated to such a degree that it was quite tough to take them as seriously as th classic era satires.

I think its unfair to say that as a whole the jean Era hasn't delivered much in terms of satire. While there have been satirical blunders like helter, Pray Anything and Bart-mangled Banner which were too silly and unfocussed in nature, there have also been several episodes that have delivered social commentary in the subtle, ambiguous manner we nerdier simpsons fan prefer, particularly in the EABFs and FABFs. I mean the political satire of Mr. Spritz Goes To Washington is almost as serious as Sideshow Bob Roberts, the commentary on the increasing materialistic nature of Christmas in "Tis the 15th season is quite subtle and character-driven in nature and the commentary of drastic measures by the mob rarely solving anything in "Scuse Me While I Miss The Sky is also good and ambiguous in nature.

But unfortunately starting with the GABFs the show has become increasingly lightweight in satirising the issues it is tackling , rarely going any more in-depth that the plot synopsis mentions it should. Hell, most of the time the satirisation isn't even the main focus of the episode at all. And several jabs at religion and especially reality TV just comes off as being too easy to consider as "edgy".

[Jamie]

The heck is "Wonder Showzen?"


Currently the funniest show on television

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Q: Are the New Episodes Edgy?
A: No.

[zippy]

In terms of edginess has there really been much change? I doubt it.

Take the examples of when a more recent episode where Simpsons are accused of anti-americanism and Marge does say at one point she is. (episode name has just escaped me) Then, an earlier episode, when Apu needs to get citizenship (Much Apu about nothing) and Homer starts a heartfelt speech about how immigrants help the community, and yet it's ignored. Showing big fallacies with democracy (''when will people learn democracy doesn't work'')

It's always been tongue in cheek. Isn't that the point?

[jim]

It hasnt gotten edgier, its just gotten more juvenile.

[Homer4President]

The more recent series have been gradually growing more bold and daring, but to people who have only started to watch the simpsons in the last few years, it wouldn't seem like a problem. Since I love the older episodes I can really see the difference and even though their just as funny and the plot lines are just as interesting I still prefer to the older ones comparatively. The edginess I attribute to the strain on ideas for stories.

[Stampie]

No I don't think that the simpsons new episodes arn't edgy or on edge I think they have always been like they are I spose in some peoples eyes but generally those people wouldn't be watching the simpsons anyway so does it really matter. :irked: :shifty:

[ruggeder]

I've never seen an edgy episode of the simpsons, and I've seen them all 100 times. If you think this show is edgy, does your head explode when you actually see shows, or other outlets push boundries? (No offence meant to anyone)

[H Thompson]

You know I'd also like to say, because I remember triforce bun starting a thread before, about Why South Park's "sledgehammer" satire works when it doesn't on Simpsons. I would say it's because with South Park you know it's really just Matt and Trey expressing their views, you can see their anger because it has much more personality behind it. Whereas with Simpson's being much more committee written it sort of loses the personality that South Park has, With Simpsons it doesn't feel like it's Matt Groening expressing his anger about a subject. And we don't really know anything about the other writers so it just feels Anonymous.

[Malachy]

When I hear the word edgy I think of out of touch executives and producers trying to make their show sound cool so it's kind of not really a compliment for me anyway.I agree completely. It seems 'edgy' and 'good entertainment' rarely go hand in hand. I picture a group of twenty-somethings saying sex jokes, looking into the camera, and the audience making that stupid 'woooo' noise.

[Veryjammy]

They seem to think edgy is having Homer saying he masturbates a million times.

[Generic]

The new episodes are edgy in the sense that the humour contains more sexuality, (censored) profanity and takes advantage of more freedom granted on television these days, but as others have mentioned that doesn't necessarily translate to being edgy in a satirical sense, mainly because shows like South Park and Family Guy can push the envelope further because the tone and approach of those two shows allows the writers to forego reality and continuity for both general humour and satire.

I sometimes wonder if the seemingly relaxed restrictions on controversial subjects, jokes and dialogue indicate what the writers might have done had the freedom been there when the series existed. Obviously the fact we're this late in the game and the show is at a point where it's bound to try new things has something to do with it, but consider the anecdote from the commentary on "Homer Defined" where Al Jean mentions the drama of getting the word "ass" to be accepted and in subsequent years shows appeared where "ass" was part of the title. I'm not completely convinced they wouldn't have utilised some of the gags they use now had they been able to get away with it back in the day.

On the other hand, the fact they're approaching 400 episodes and have a new demographic to appeal to cannot be ignored either when considering why the show has moved in the direction it has these last few seasons so that's not to say without the stricter standards imposed on them in earlier years that they wouldn't have produced the episodes we now regard as classics and produced episodes in the current tone. But I do wonder if they'd had the freedom to use risque and controversial/"sophomoric" humour as freely back then as they do now whether they'd gone that route much earlier.

[TheFlandersMan]

They seem to think edgy is having Homer saying he masturbates a million times.


LOL, but that confession scene was great. Vintage Homer. And btw he says a billion times, which adds to the humor greatly.

[Channel Surfer]

The problem with this thread is that people are custom tailoring their definition of edgy to fit their opinions of the current episodes. Which should give an idea of just how empty a word edgy really is.

You know I'd also like to say, because I remember triforce bun starting a thread before, about Why South Park's "sledgehammer" satire works when it doesn't on Simpsons. I would say it's because with South Park you know it's really just Matt and Trey expressing their views, you can see their anger because it has much more personality behind it. Whereas with Simpson's being much more committee written it sort of loses the personality that South Park has, With Simpsons it doesn't feel like it's Matt Groening expressing his anger about a subject. And we don't really know anything about the other writers so it just feels Anonymous.

Maybe. But this assumes satire is just about pushing an opinion as opposed to making me laugh. And even if it has more "personality" (for whatever that's worth), I'm still not sure I agree that hearing someone's opinionated angry propaganda, be it "South Park" or even Mirkin, is necessarily something I want to be subjected to. Especially if it's one-sided, simplistic, or just outright kiddy, nevermind if hearing those views are funny/interesting or not.

[zippy]

The problem with this thread is that people are custom tailoring their definition of edgy to fit their opinions of the current episodes. Which should give an idea of just how empty a word edgy really is.

That's a good point. It's more or less a buzzword...but I think it's the term quite a few people might use to separate a show from being generic, to ''edgy''.



Maybe. But this assumes satire is just about pushing an opinion as opposed to making me laugh. And even if it has more "personality" (for whatever that's worth), I'm still not sure I agree that hearing someone's opinionated angry propaganda, be it "South Park" or even Mirkin, is necessarily something I want to be subjected to. Especially if it's one-sided, simplistic, or just outright kiddy, nevermind if hearing those views are funny/interesting or not.

Some of the most popular political satires in the UK, aren't at all angry like the American versions or over the top. They're a lot more placid, but it's a bit like trying to get another point across - usually a left-wing one. (which I usually agree with, so I find it amusing).

The beauty of satire is though, is that it takes one idea and exemplifies it by a huge amount. So it tends to follow one-side.

I usually find the satirical shows are exposing the more right wing views for what they are - the govs in power are right wing so it makes sense. The difference with the Simpsons is that it makes you empathise with the point of view. And sometimes something that we might find offensive, coming from the mouth of a politician...when coming from Homer seems to be understandable. I think that's the main point of satire. And the Simpsons have always been like that.

(sorry if this is off topic or diverting the issue, it's 4.20 am here, so apologies if it makes no sense whatsoever)

[Kiyosuki]

I think in the end...the major subjects have gotten a bit edgier progressively...but the human drama between the characters has gotten slightly less edgy.