However I find the point was made in the ending by openly stating what the fan base in general would want.
Oh yeah, 3.5/5
5/5- Great episode though I still wish it didnt exsist.
(Users Browsing this Thread: )
However I find the point was made in the ending by openly stating what the fan base in general would want.
Oh yeah, 3.5/5
Last edited by The Thompsons; 03-02-2012 at 09:27 AM.
Season 21 ratings (A.K.A. Qwert's Generic Sig Vol. II)
Homer The Whopper 7/10 Bart Gets A 'Z' 8.5/10 The Great Wife Hope 9/10 Treehouse Of Horror XX 9.17/10
The Devil Wears Nada 9.5/10 Pranks And Greens 6.5/10 Rednecks And Broomsticks 7.5/10 Oh Brother, Where Bart Thou? 8.5/10
Thursdays With Abie 5.5/10 Once Upon A Time In Springfield 10/10 Million Dollar Maybe 4.5/10 Boy Meets Curl 6/10
The Color Yellow 9/10 Postcards From The Wedge 9.5/10
This episode is genius, it's designed to make the die-hards mad, it's making fun of the people who can't handle it's premise and get mad over a cartoon, you go Ken Keeler.
I f'n loved this one... Fat Tony's character was the one they ruined for no reason... there was no point to it all.
You can take any bad to shitty episode can call it an experiment. Really. I wonder if in the commentary for the Greatest Story Ever D'oh'd if the staff, grasping for straws, will say: "Yeah, it was an experiment for us because we wanted Sasha Baraon Cohen to piss off the audience with his ranting so we did a great job based on the reviews!" and how many people will suddenly will recant their original review and say: "Yeah, I see their point--those people on that darn internet are SO picky and the staff is so clever! I was WAY to hard on this and now I'd give it a B plus!".
Well, ya'know if you stay positive and forget about trivial things like "proper characterization," "Satire," and "emotional depth" watching new Simpsons episodes can be a seemingly enjoyable lie.
"Yeah, all cartoons are shitty, unimaginative and lousy by default, why complain? I hate to shatter your ego, but they created a shitty episode and in the DVD commentary tried to cover their asses with "uh, yeah, we did it to make fun of people who hate change." They knew it was a bad episode and they found a way to dare you not to like it."
I'm sorry good sir, I forgot that you know everything ever.
I wasn't inferring cartoons were bad in general I was inferring that they shouldn't be taken so seriously that you get upset when someone has a different opinion or viewpoint... or in this case a different creative idea.
Please except the fact that someone has a different opinion, and don't just assume they swayed me on some lame commentary.
I liked this episode when it first aired all those years ago, and assumed all these things about it all those years ago when it first aired.
I actually agree with you that the commentary does sound way too defensive.
I just don't understand how you can say without one fathom of a doubt that they are totally (100%) lying on the commentary covering for the episode in question.
I wasn't trying to set you off, I just wanted to share my opinion.
You don't make friends with salad... or by randomly berating them.
P.S. I usually love your posts and I'm not trying to get you mad here.
I'm just simply asking how do you know the actual person; Ken Keeler, really and truly isn't proud of this episode.
To me the whole Fit Tony becomes Fat Tony thing was way f'n worse, and maybe they actually were trying to get us upset and wreck a character just for the fun of it.
Last edited by The Angry Animated Comedy Nerd; 03-07-2012 at 11:06 AM.
I never hated this episode SOLEY on the 'change' made to Skinner, I hated it because of how overly dramatic it felt, and not in the 'so-bad, it's good kind' of way. And why are you taking so much stock in what Keeler said? It's JUST a DVD commentary!
I'm sure he's very proud of it, and that's why he sounded so defensive of it, but to me, he sounded like he was BS'ing his way in trying to make this critic proof so the "haters of change" like me were put in our place. Some people, because they feel the need to cheer on their beloved writers, fell for it.I'm just simply asking how do you know the actual person; Ken Keeler, really and truly isn't proud of this episode.
Cartoons are a form of entertainment like, sports, live-action tv shows, reality TV, ect. I'm sure fans of NASCAR would love it if I said: "it's just cars going around in circles 490 times, why so serious!?".I wasn't inferring cartoons were bad in general I was inferring that they shouldn't be taken so seriously that you get upset when someone has a different opinion or viewpoint... or in this case a different creative idea.
Quote bubbles aren't working for me today.
"They knew it was a bad episode and they found a way to dare you not to like it."
"And why are you taking so much stock in what Keeler said? It's JUST a DVD commentary!"
- Le jake
That's what I'm saying... I liked the episode before the commentary and before I even heard the commentray 'I FELT' it was designed to make the die-hards mad, it's making fun of the people who get mad over a cartoon.
Then I heard the commentary and Keeler confirmed 'MY THOUGHTS' I already had about the episode years ago.
But at the same time hearing him ramble about lost speeches that would have made his script clearer and that people are strange for loving something so much that's not real made me like him and the episode less.
But I still love it to this day.
Al Jean's 'great' Fit Tony/Fat Tony idea... that's what I don't get.
It was just plain dumb status quo garbage, you wanna kill Tony and replace him, fine enough.
But have the balls to replace him with a new character, not a crappy clone we know is not really him, it was all simply done just for a bad joke.
Last edited by The Angry Animated Comedy Nerd; 03-07-2012 at 11:28 AM.
I liked this epidoe because of its somewhat ballsy storyline, evidenced by the ongoing debate nearly 15 years after the show aired. What I didn't like about it was the fact that Skinner/Tamzarian's long-established characterization was cast aside and a nearly polar opposite one was put in its place with no rationalization for doing so. This was the reason, I feel, that the commentary was so defensive; not because they wanted sway the critics of the ep but to give us some reason for making the changes they did, which was unsuccessful IMHO. Part of good writing requires at least some level of consistency, and in regards to Skinner there was no buildup to this ep. If it were taken out of consideration for his character there would be little issue, but unfortunately that cannot be done.
Some very interesting views on this one.
I don't get this argument. I find it completely plausible that Skinner/Tamzarian was an outcast in his youth and was searching for an identity. In order to straighten himself up he joined the army and when his CO was MIA (love the acronyms!) he couldn't bear to break the news to Skinner's mother so he decided to take on a new identity as Agatha Skinner's son. So I think there was plenty of rational in introducing a previously unknown character trait in Skinner/Tamzarian.What I didn't like about it was the fact that Skinner/Tamzarian's long-established characterization was cast aside and a nearly polar opposite one was put in its place with no rationalization for doing so.
I take it you've never seen "Sweet Seymour Skinner's Badassss Song"?Part of good writing requires at least some level of consistency, and in regards to Skinner there was no buildup to this ep. If it were taken out of consideration for his character there would be little issue, but unfortunately that cannot be done.
Last edited by The Thompsons; 03-07-2012 at 01:06 PM.
Plus they probably wanted it to be ironic in the fact that Skinner was just like Bart in a way.
EDIT: this is from a few pages back:
"if the premise of the episode was to, as Oakley explains, show a group of people who like things exactly the way they are, then do it in the 'Homer's Enemy' manner. assemble an intelligent plot with sensible development (of character too) and structure your moral and meta point around that plot. do not assemble a bastard story and infuse it with godawful sitcommish dialogue, nonsensical twists and turns and justify it by lampshading it at the end. a lampshaded piece of crap is still a piece of crap."
Again, some people find it strange that people invest themselves so wholeheartily in things that in the end are trivial whether it be a sporting event or TV show.Again, the modifier "cartoon" is not needed. What makes a cartoon any less worthy of debate than any other live-action show, reality TV, or sporting event?
"I believe the premise of this episode was if a normal indvidual were in the Simpsons universe what his reaction would be. Kind of comapring apples and oranges.if the premise of the episode was to, as Oakley explains, show a group of people who like things exactly the way they are, then do it in the 'Homer's Enemy' manner
My point, The_Thompsons, was that Tamzarian was still a screwup in the Army as well, even when Skinner took him under his wing. The Army never straighten him up or provided him a new identity, Skinner's mother did. Sweet Seymour Skinner's Badassss Song is one of many sources that refutes the characterization in this ep. Tamzarian was never a responsible leader in any of the flashbacks in this ep compared to all the others that predates it. I enjoy the irony that Much... mentions, and also find it plausible that Tamzarian was an outcast in his youth, but all the military experiences we have been shown prior to Pauper all point to the discaplinarian we know and love.
There's so much talk of this episode ruining Skinner's character, but it really didn't ruin or change him at all. He still has his war-filled past and his twisted relationship with Agnes, he still was the principal of Springfield Elementary all these years; everything that happened to him over the course of the show happened to him and him alone; and his personality and character still solely belong to him. The only thing that changed was the fact that he wasn't raised by Agnes as a child, but who cares? We never got a glimpse into Skinner's childhood anyway, so it doesn't make a difference to me at all.
The episode itself offers an interesting concept: a man so lost and without identity that he takes over the life of another, eventually coming to consider that life and identity his own. This exploration of Skinner wasn't disrespectful or detrimental to his character either. The choices he made in his past added a new layer to his character, one that solidifies and adds to the aura of desperation and sadness that already existed around him.
It also creates a more complex dynamic between Skinner and Agnes than the previous one of strict, controlling mother and passive son; here it proved that they were more related than ever before as they were both desolate, purposeless souls until they decided to become mother and son.
Last edited by The Thompsons; 03-07-2012 at 03:14 PM.
You're right Thompson, this episode did very little to affect Skinner's life events, which I don't dispute, but what it did do is reverse Skinner's personality in a way that I don't really buy. There has been nothing prior to this ep, and very little if anything after, to suggest that he has been anything but a straight-laced 'square' and moma's boy his entire adult life. Neither his combat experience nor his desire to fully become the real Skinner can completely hide his original personality, which we've had practically no clues of beyond Pauper. This is where your point about taking an animated comedy too seriously comes into play for me because I'm trying to look at this from a realistic perspective, and the Simpsons is far from realistic. I see this episode for what it is; an interesting twist on a beloved character that may not make much sense if you look at him as a whole but that doesn't necessarily make for a bad story. I enjoyed Pauper, I just wish we had more on this plotline to create some continuity.
Favourite/least favourite by seasons that I own (somewhat stolen from Financial Panther):
3 - Dog of Death/When Flanders Failed 4 - Lisa's First Word/So it's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show 5 - Secrets of a Successful Marriage/Bart's Inner Child 6 - And Maggie Makes Three/Another Simpsons Clip Show 7 - Marge Be Not Proud/Bart the Fink 8 - Homer's Phobia/The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase 9 - King of the Hill/Trash of the Titans 10 - Wild Barts Can't Be Broken/Maximum Homerdrive
A- i like it.
It´s said that a funny character is somebody logical who is funny despite himself. If a character is obviously trying to do funny things and purposely doing the "funny" stuff, it diminishes it completely. I think this situation totally goes with it. The fact that Skinner chose to live this life totally changes the situation. Now it´s not a true momma´s boy who is both a square and a disciplinarian because there´s no other way for him to turn out like but a guy who was the TOTAL OPPPOSITE and who chose the situation, so there is nothing to blame but him. It totally changes the character and it´s past in relation to the Simpsons. Just in Grade School Confidential. When he starts telling Edna about his boring life and how sad and dissapointed he is with it. Or how the big reveal is that he´s a virgin. It TOTALLY changes with this revelation. It´s not the same at all to know he´s faking it.
I totally agree with Shearer´s interpretation of the episode. And I couldn´t agree less with Keeler. They totally destroyed a guy who people liked for a dumb experiment that didn´t pan out. Nothing to me made me madder than the writer talking about how they did it but the result was great when it wasn´t. The scene they kept lauding was one of the worse of the episode if not the worst. When Skinner goes to his house for the first time and Agnes is "guiding" him thru the house and pretending he was the real skinner. It was terrible.
On the other hand, it doesn't change anything about how the character works in the series. In these terms it's as relevant as knowing that Abe was a Flying Hellfish or that Homer lost his hair and intelligence due to an injection; Abe is still a senile man telling his old absurd stories, and Homer is still bald and dumb. The Skinner that the Springfieldians knew was the Skinner that lived with Agnes, and given that he was quite young when he joined the army, I think it would be easy for him to remain virgin till the moment of Grade School Confidential (and on the other hand I would find it pretty normal that he faked his identity to the town... since when has Skinner been known for his sincerity?). In the end of Principal And The Pauper he comes back to his routine as soon as Agnes orders him to control himself. In fact, this can be seen as a flaw of the episode, because it is so focused on being a "case closed" experiment that the final part is incredibly rushed in order to get to the statu quo. So probably if they changed Skinner's everyday attitude the episode would be more solid, if riskier.
I think this episode has some interesting ideas. For instance, it reveals that the dependance of Skinner on his mother is not caused primarily by his personality but by Agnes' conviction in her dominating role. It takes a look at their relationship as a symbiosis; Seymour (or Armin) wouldn't be the same without Agnes and Agnes wouldn't be the same without Seymour, it seems that their relationship is built on inner rules that are not followed in other contexts (that is, if Seymour had another mother he wouldn't be a wimp, and if Agnes had another son (in fact, that is seen with the real Seymour) she wouldn't be able to take that role. On the other hand, I actually see the main point you complain about the other way; the fact that the relationship between Seymour and the town is based on faking a reality builds a really awkward scenario.
Last edited by qwertyuio; 08-25-2012 at 06:31 PM.
So what you're saying is that people and their personality is completely and 100% exactly like their parents or childhood, and they will never change?
I have a bit of contempt for this episode for what is probably a fairly different reason than most people. For the most part, I actually really enjoy the plot that the writers set up, not to mention a lot of the jokes work quite well, too. As shocking and discomforting as Principal Skinner's revelation is, I do believe that they develop a pretty thoughtful and heartfelt backstory as to how he took over for his real counterpart, although I do think it seems weird that Agnes doesn't completely deny him to be her real son. However, after the plot has been set up and the 'real' Seymour Skinner becomes the new principal, the story goes downhill. The writers decided to focus way too much on the Harry Shearer Seymour Skinner when I think there was room for a far more interesting resolution had they examined the Martin Sheen Skinner a bit more instead. This was someone who the Shearer Skinner completely admired in the Vietnam - a role model, if you will - and so I think he deserves far more respect than he ends up receiving upon returning. Rather, he's basically portrayed as a downright antagonist, completely shunned as the principal of Springfield Elementary even though it was his dream in the first place. His protégé did him a huge favor by sparing Agnes from devastating news, yet what ultimately comes of the situation for the real Skinner is harsh expulsion. The writers just cop out by simply saying, "who cares?" over the fact that Principal Skinner is a fraud and reinstate him at Springfield Elementary without any kind of climactic story arc, unfairly spitting out another potent character in the process.
Last edited by Infinity183; 10-02-2012 at 04:55 PM.
I don't like it because it's boring and has shitty jokes. Like the rest of season 9.
Well said Handsome... Well said.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)