I see that it is generally common to lay blame upon Mike Scully for the fall of the Simpsons from greatness to lameness, but I am wondering how true this is (and just exactly -how- it is).
I'm not asking about Scully in particular, but the show overall. What is it in the show that makes it good and or bad? The Scully seasons 9-12 (12? I think?) are with Scully as executive producer, right?
What sort of role does the executive producer play in the series? I would have thought whether the show was a quality show with quality writing (Which the Simpsons definately had... and then lost, imho) would have depending heavily upon the actual writer.
What makes me wonder this is that I could have sworn I saw Scully listed as Writer for an (pre season 9) episode the other day. I suppose I could be mistaken, and I probably am. Was scully involved beforehand?
What about all the other producers always listed at the start? They go through large lists of producers, consultant producers, etc. What role do they play?
I noticed the name David Mirkin as executive producer on a lot of the good episodes and after a quick browse around the 'net a little bit it seems that general consensus -is- that Mirkin did a good job with the Simpsons.
So why exactly did Scully take over in season 9?
More the point of my post - Which positions at the Simpsons are those that effect the outcome of what the show will actually be? And what effect individually exactly do each of these positions (writer/producer/etc/) have on the show.
Following on after that, who are specific names of people that made the Simpsons a quality show; and names of those that made it not-so.
When the Simpsons started to get bad was it soley because of the appointment of Scully as executive producer, or were there also other movements in other departments that would have contributed?
A lot of questions, I know... but I'm interested in discussing this and hearing some more enlightened views on the matter.