The General Discussion Lounge

[Roger Myers III]

Does anyone know why The Simpsons hasnt entered into national syndication like FX?

Money. FX is a low-rated basic-cable station, which can't pay large license fees for syndicated product. It tends to run shows that it owns outright, so it doesn't have to pay out to any other parties for the syndication rights, for shows that also wouldn't otherwise fetch a good syndication fee on the open market if put out for bid to be syndicated to individual stations.

In short, its successful enough that its better off being bidded out to independant Fox stations to lift their own ratings and sell ad space in.

Most likely to be on drugs: Roger Myers III, Veryjammy

Most likely to be on drugs: Roger Myers III

I'm not at all offended... but I don't get it. H_T, Imperc - why?

[Imperciph]

do not know about H_T, but poor attempt at humour by me, trying to joke at the fact that a normal, unstoned person would not be able to put that much effort and concentration you put in your DYN posts. I know, pathetic.

[Postmaster]

It just seemed a funny unlikely choice (then again, you do work in Hollywood) and mainly, just thinking it was funny to vote for you, bill, josh and al jean (or at least the user called aljean, that probably is the real al jean, who lurked for a while but never posted) in this thing even if the categories didn't really suit it.

[Mister Cheech]

Hey, I was wondering, was there ever a "best commentator" thread? If so, who won?

[gonzo]

im not sure, i havent been here long so i wouldnt know. there was other stuff about commentary and about which people may be stopped from being on the commentary or something, i dont remember

[coltonwiggum]

^I think there has been at least one before in the voting both.

[Imperciph]

It is painfully obvious to the most dim-witted individual that most, if not all, are not satisfied with the current status of the show. We are capable of writing paragraph after paragraph pointing out what is wrong with the show again and again until it turns into repetitive waves of repetition full of metaphors, similies and even hyperboles. But how about something different for a change ?

So reach into the deepest corners of your brain (but only if you have a fully functional one) and try to come up with things this show still does right. The timeframe consists of s17-18, the period some considers to be the show's nadir, even worse that is usually referred to as the dark ages aka s10-12. The positive things can consist of consistently hilarious characters, a style of humour/gag that is consistently well-written yadda yadda yadda. If you fail to come up with something, don't bother replying. Sarcasm isn't appreciated either.

edit : on further inspection this appears to be a topic worthy of its own thread.

[Galalimit]

I'm not at all offended... but I don't get it. H_T, Imperc - why?

Haha, dude you think the current show is perfect and "better than ever" so you can't blame anyone for thinking you're on drugs.

[coltonwiggum]

I'll edit this out, as it's not very polite (and as of lately it seems like the trendy thing to do).

[Imperciph]

If he irritates you that badly, make use of the ignore user function. Don't let threads derail into personal grudge matches. It's really frustrating when people try and come up with topics that can make more interesting discussion and others derail their efforts by making irrelevant posts to further their own personal agenda.

*awaits posts criticising pseudo-modding with complete apathy*

[coltonwiggum]

So... how about you make that thread where we say what we like about the current show, Imperciph?

[Galalimit]

forget it

[Stevie V. Scrivello]

Alright, enough of that. Pardon for my descent into boldness, but if experience has taught me anything in life, it's this: stooping to puerile insults, shallow criticisms, and name-calling is not only inefficient, it doesn't say much for the integrity of those involved. You claim that coltonwiggum is wrong for coming after you for disliking the show, you retaliate not by explaining your position, but by resorting to name calling. Everyone has a right to think what they think here, and if one of us decides to disagree, the least we can do is respect one another. If I may ask, what makes your viewpoint on the state of the show so superior that all others are automatically wrong; a positive opinion on the current state of the show qualifies us for "drooling fanboy" status because it's not what you think. This is something I do not, nor will I ever understand. In all honesty, members who maintain an overtly positive outlook on the show make me cringe a little inside, but members who insist the show is complete garbage (I realise that you have written the occasional positive review) and all who dare to like a new episode are idiots hurts a little too. I realise that this opinion of mine will be attacked as well, however I'm not afraid. I only felt that this was something that needed to be said.

[Adam R]

So how about those Simpsons, eh?

[Postmaster]

ohh, I love a bit of forum drama.

[Galalimit]

edit: good idea Adam R.

[coltonwiggum]

So how about those Simpsons, eh?

You made me smile.

And H_T, if you like drama, this next part will knock your I-should-do-stand-up-comedy socks off; My feelings of neutralness are directly aimed in Galalimit's general direction... in theory. :-O

[Kiyosuki]

My god, what is this commotion!? lol To be honest though, Its not too surprising. Its easy to see a lot of the uneasiness around this place lately. Its natural for this part of the year anywhere really, but also you can only talk so much about one thing at a time before one starts to aim for the posters and not the subject. lol

Guys, remember, its a discussion board. Not a praise board or a bitching board, its just a board. Both go in there. Mindless moaning does get to me too every now and then as does zealous praising but I remind myself that getting on a person's case about that with melodrama isn't going to solve anything but create a pointless ego fight rather than a debate or even a fight about the subject matter. Now I don't mind some fighting, its the blood of the internets. But just try to keep things in perspective a little when it comes to what we're even fighting about in the first place.

Anyways, on the show I was thinking something. Its actually more general. A lot of us and people in general talk about how the show should or could end soon, or it should have ended x years ago etc etc. This isn't a rant about that so don't worry. What I was wondering is...if theoretically Matt or someone did want to end the show at a certain time, how much power do they have to do that? I know Fox itself probably doesn't want to let go of the show off of purely financial reasons (it is Fox's lifeboat afterall, although I hardly think they'll suddenlly sink if it were to end...maybe.), which is of course...not in line with creative reasons. However, lets say someone decided "now is the time", how much power would they have to end the show even if its ratings were still pretty decent?

Like, look at Seinfeld. It still had pretty damn good ratings and even though it arguably would have perhaps gone down a bit if it had continued, it still would have generated good ratings yet the creators felt it was its time to end. So obviously the network execs don't have absolute control over the situation. I was just wondering for my own sakes, once again this isn't a "show should end" rant because it isn't. I'm just curious as to how that may work.

[Postmaster]

It's kind of odd how often people seem to think fox are the one's keeping the show going, as if Groening and co have no power over it, it almost seems to me like people can't deal with the idea the the staff are still very happy making the show and think it's as good as ever. Networks, don't have that much power.
I mean seriously, just imagine if Groening and Brooks and everyone decided to end the show, but fox didn't want it to, so they hired their own showrunners, writers and even got new people to do the voices, it'd cause a fucking firestorm, and if people didn't turn off on a point of morality, they'd soon turn off, because of the drop in quality, even a lot of people that unquestiongly, love every episode.

Speaking of Seinfeld, isn't true that the main actors, were actually and possibly still are sort of pissed off, at Jerry for ending it when they were making so much money from it.

[Kiyosuki]

It's kind of odd how often people seem to think fox are the one's keeping the show going, as if Groening and co have no power over it, it almost seems to me like people can't deal with the idea the the staff are still very happy making the show and think it's as good as ever. Networks, don't have that much power.
I mean seriously, just imagine if Groening and Brooks and everyone decided to end the show, but fox didn't want it to, so they hired their own showrunners, writers and even got new people to do the voices, it'd cause a fucking firestorm, and if people didn't turn off on a point of morality, they'd soon turn off, because of the drop in quality, even a lot of people that unquestiongly, love every episode.

Speaking of Seinfeld, isn't true that the main actors, were actually and possibly still are sort of pissed off, at Jerry for ending it when they were making so much money from it.

All true points. I don't know anything about the specifics of it. For all we know that could very much be the situation. I'm just curious as to how much power the actual creators/runners of something have with a show. I imagine since this one's been on for a while and because its so prolific they probably have a good amount in comparison to some, especially from what I've heard from some commentaries.

[Postmaster]

I think these kind of things vary from show to show, there's no specfic law and it just sort of depends on the contracts that are orginally signed.

[Kiyosuki]

I think these kind of things vary from show to show, there's no specfic law and it just sort of depends on the contracts that are orginally signed.

Remember the secret commentary with Bill and Josh? They said they had a lot of freedom within the show they never got again with anything else so that probably says something perhaps.

[DumHonkey]

Guys, remember, its a discussion board. Not a praise board or a bitching board, its just a board. .

Here here Homie! I think that we all know some people go out of their way to disparage people on the show and others go out of their way to convince people it's perfect.

But if theres one thing we can all take solace in is that Rosie O'Donell has never been on the Simpsons.

Can I get a witness?

[General Jack D. Ripper]

On the Colbert Report, they were talking about a possible morality in monkeys and he mentioned Dr. Zaius

[Stevie V. Scrivello]

But if theres one thing we can all take solace in is that Rosie O'Donell has never been on the Simpsons.

Can I get a witness?

Bzzt. Wrong: She was in the "Life's a Glitch, and Then You Die" segment of THOH X (one of the worst ever), sad to say. Sorry.

[Imperciph]

Yet another reason to completely repress the memory of ever watching that THOH.

[General Jack D. Ripper]

Bzzt. Wrong: She was in the "Life's a Glitch, and Then You Die" segment of THOH X (one of the worst ever), sad to say. Sorry.

I don't know why some people think Scully treehouses are worse than Jean. I mean, neither of them are great at it, but I think X and XI were pretty terrible. However, THOH XIII was pretty good and I liked the last segment of THOH IX. I think Jean usually is at least consistent or has one good segment a year. (ie. Clones, the Ned Zone, Clockstoppers)

[Imperciph]

The problem with many Jean segments for a while have been that they simply do not have an interesting plot that can sustain the viewer's interest, fail to tell the story in a complete manner and have a rushed conclusion and most importantly, are quite lacking in humour. In fact, the premises of certain segments are so labored that they pretty much degenerate into one long one-joke short relying on either sight-gags (but they are brilliantly animated, I have to admit) or wacky death scenes.

On the other hand, Scully pretty much had consistent THOHs (except for X which was a complete disaster) because his style of random surrealism translated well to the format. However, with time, he made the segments a little too random and directionless, placing emphasis only random humour rather than storytelling, leading to undisciplined farces.

[vxt22]

off the current topic, but this is for general discussion. I'd like to ask some of you who know more about this show than I, what you mean with your acronyms for current show writing runs. as in "(insert acronym here) run seems like it's going to turn out well."

Also, is there some sort of site on the internet where an interested person can learn about the writing and production runs/teams on the Simpsons? As in how the ideas are conceived and who writes, etc?

The dumbest question I'll ask is if there is a way to contact the writing or production team. Go ahead and call me idiotic for asking that, but I'd be interested to know the best way to get a hold of one of them.

[Postmaster]

On the Colbert Report, they were talking about a possible morality in monkeys and he mentioned Dr. Zaius

This probably isn't really a simpson's reference though, it's probably a reference to the actual film Planet of the Apes.