Is Mike Scully criticized too much?

[Green_Peaness]

Go to your favorite resteraunt and when the food you love is replaced by a cheap immitation from a can, go complain to the manager and then have him tell you "like it for what it is and forget that you ever ate here before" and see if that'll solve your problem.

I guess I don't have that problem because I didn't grow up watching the show. I'm not eternally disappointed and sore about how the show turned out. I actually feel sorry for you guys who grew up with the show and STILL watch every new episode.

[Thrillho]

I have a cousin who's also a gigantic fan of the show. However, rather than watching syndicated reruns or new episodes he vowed that he'd watch all the episodes on the DVDs in correct order starting from Season 1 and watching each new season upon it's release. He hasn't watched a single current episode, and he has a very high opinion of the show right now. But once he completed Season 10, he told me: "It was pretty weird." He sounded disappointed.

Stories aside, here's an interesting article written during S11. However, it gets one vital thing wrong:

Clearly, this is an omen. The end must be near. I can feel it.

No.

[The Governor]

I guess I don't have that problem because I didn't grow up watching the show. I'm not eternally disappointed and sore about how the show turned out.

I wasn't a kid when the show started...well, relatively, but during the first 8 seasons of the show, I was between the ages of 14-22, so I didn't spend my young childhood just laughing at the show soley because it was a cartoon.

I actually feel sorry for you guys who grew up with the show and STILL watch every new episode.

I stopped taking any notice of the writers, behind the scenes stuff, or memorizing funny lines after Season 8 and if I tried to pay attention to the show on that level today, even "I" would feel sorry for myself. Now it's all about saying I've seen every episode from the Ullman show to season whatever.

EDIT: A vote for "YES" in this poll is a vote for the decline of the Simpsons.

[Nauru-1]

EDIT: A vote for "YES" in this poll is a vote for the decline of the Simpsons.

Now that's a little unfair. There are many ways to interpret the original question and it's certainly not as simple as pro or anti-Scully for everybody.

The rate of stinkers between Seasons 9-12 and 17-20 is skewed in Scully's favour though. At best it's 1:1.

Scully had worse actions/plot twists.
Jean has much, much worse dialogue.

I would tend to agree. I remember reading a lot of the story ideas for season 20 thinking they were solid premises. If you can somehow combine the comic timing of the Scully years with the toned-down template of Al Jean's later years you'd get a solid product. Of course, we kind of got a bit of that in 13 and 14 IMO.

Al jean's worst still is only boring compared scully's 'wtf is this shit!?'.

I'm not so sure about that. I've definitely had the latter feeling many times in Jean's regime.

[Mt. Doom]

Scully deserves all criticism! Everything I knew and loved about the show was stepped on by Mike Scully's golf cleets and wiped off in unsanitary men's restroom!

[Infinity]

Go to your favorite restaurant and when the food you love is replaced by a cheap immitation from a can, go complain to the manager and then have him tell you "like it for what it is and forget that you ever ate here before" and see if that'll solve your problem.

If you feel that way about The Simpsons, then why do you keep watching? You know it's going to be crap, all because of Scully, the douchebag.

[The Governor]

If you feel that way about The Simpsons, then why do you keep watching? You know it's going to be crap, all because of Scully, the douchebag.

I don't know Scully personally, so any comments of his personality are irrelevent. Now, please grow a set of balls and stop thinking that our views on his work are a direct, personal attack on the man.

As for why I watch the show currently, read my post a few messages up.

[Gorky]

EDIT: A vote for "YES" in this poll is a vote for the decline of the Simpsons.

Uh-oh...guess I'm a pretty crappy fan, then.

And I agree with others that this is all a matter of perspective. If you take any of Scully's seasons, at random, and watch them straight through without any prior knowledge of the series, you'll probably find them funny. Maybe funny in a Family Guy sort of way, but still.

The problem comes when you compare Scully's episodes with those preceeding them. There's a noticeable decline in quality there, and it definitely makes you feel sorry for what you're missing by watching, say, season ten instead of season four.

Taken as separate entities, though, I don't think seasons 9 through 12 are so bad. They're just different. I mean, if I wasn't already privy to the levels of greatness the show could achieve, I would still find Scully's episodes pretty amusing. There would be very few truly memorable episodes--and even fewer that were remotely emotionally resonant--but I'd still find them respectable.

That said, I definitely get the strong anti-Scully sentiment (and I'm playing devil's advocate here to an extent; I'm not the guy's biggest fan or anything, I just think people sometimes exaggerate just how bad he was for the show). Watching seasons 9-12, it's almost like Scully borrowed the characters from seasons 1-8, and completely changed their behaviors and dynamics. Which was, y'know, bad. Thankfully, though, I think Al Jean was able to get the show back on track by season 15 (I can't speak for seasons 16 to 20, though, as I've only seen a handful of episodes from that period).

[HappyPalooza]

Yeah I guess, shitty showrunner but great writer in my opinion.

[TheForbiddenDonut]

Not totally. Gummy Joe says that he hasn't watched the last five years of the show. It means that he stopped watching it in the 16th season, and from the point of view of lots of fans there are pretty noticeable differences between seasons 13-16 and the last four or, at least, 17-18. So, saying that everything written in the last nine years is crap based on the standards of Jean's first three/four seasons is, at least, inaccurate. I obviously think that (except for the very last season) the first half of Jean's era was better than the second half but he would maybe enjoy it, in so far as he seems to enjoy seasons 10-11 which IMO are pretty much closer to seasons 17-18 than the other ones.

Well assuming I stopped entirely after season 16, I am still an avid part of the Simpsons online community where I can read from a consensus of comments about new episodes, none of which typically express any dramatic increase in satisfaction post season 16, which means that I, since I find season 16 a weak season, have no reason to keep watching and can, due to the fact that I have no reason to believe otherwise, make the generalization that The Simpsons is just as substandard as it was in season 16. Additionally, being surrounded with The Simpsons in pop culture means that it's practically impossible not to have some idea of the state of the current show. I can spot an online framegrab and see that the animation is still terrible.

[Infinity]

I don't know Scully personally, so any comments of his personality are irrelevent. Now, please grow a set of balls and stop thinking that our views on his work are a direct, personal attack on the man.

As for why I watch the show currently, read my post a few messages up.

You know what, you're right. Absolutely right.

[The Governor]

A blithingly, direct unconnected response. Seeing how this is you replied, it's no wonder you can connect with the blithingly unfunny and obivousness of the Scully era.

[Gummy Joe]

I can spot an online framegrab and see that the animation is still terrible.

I also hate the animation these days. It looks too clean, and sterile. Like Martin Prince's power plant model

[Gorky]

Word on the animation being sub-par; I watched a few S20 episodes on Hulu the other day, and there's nothing special about it. I miss the grainy imperfection of traditional animation--I think it gave the show a certain feel, a certain charm. Progress ain't always a good thing.

[Mr Black]

It looks to clean, and sterile. Like Martin Prince's power plant model

and my semen

[Gummy Joe]

so I just saw We're On the Road to D'ohwhere. Really good for season 17, I actually grinned/chuckled a little. I still didn't think it was that good though. It was just "not bad".

same goes for Waverly Hills 9021doh. Although, it had fewer grins.

Neither episode made me cringe at any point, yet I never really got a good laugh either. Honestly, they were still better than I thought they'd be. Though i do hate how Dan voices Homer in later years. and same for Julie and Marge

[qwertyuio]

Well assuming I stopped entirely after season 16, I am still an avid part of the Simpsons online community where I can read from a consensus of comments about new episodes, none of which typically express any dramatic increase in satisfaction post season 16, which means that I, since I find season 16 a weak season, have no reason to keep watching and can, due to the fact that I have no reason to believe otherwise, make the generalization that The Simpsons is just as substandard as it was in season 16. Additionally, being surrounded with The Simpsons in pop culture means that it's practically impossible not to have some idea of the state of the current show. I can spot an online framegrab and see that the animation is still terrible.

You can notice the consensus, but you can't make your own value judgements about something you haven't seen. That's what I mean. For example, I know that the last seasons of Family Guy seem to be far worse than the previous ones from the point of view of lots of people including hardcore fans, but as long as I haven't been following the evolution of the series (I watched only four episodes this last season, and only two from the sixth), it would be stupid if I tried to give reasons for that decline. And The Simpsons' pop culture (or at least this board) also used to be more or less positive at seasons 13-16 compared with the Scully's former ones, so I'm not sure that argument works.

[Nauru-1]

so I just saw We're On the Road to D'ohwhere. Really good for season 17, I actually grinned/chuckled a little. I still didn't think it was that good though. It was just "not bad".

same goes for Waverly Hills 9021doh. Although, it had fewer grins.

Neither episode made me cringe at any point, yet I never really got a good laugh either. Honestly, they were still better than I thought they'd be. Though i do hate how Dan voices Homer in later years. and same for Julie and Marge

I'd say Harry's is the closest to not having changed, followed by Hank. The main cast seems to have been hit harder by voice changes than some of the lesser regulars (Tress, Pamela Hayden, Marcia Wallace). At least, that's how I see it. I don't think the voice acting is responsible for me liking the show less, but when it's obvious it certainly doesn't help things.

[fugabutacus]

Scully dumbed the show down to get kids and unfortunetly he succeeded. Now all of the kids who started watching during his tenure have become his biggest apologists. It is rather sickening to see the better years of OFF compared to the smartest just because Scullys fans feel we are attacking their childhood.

I was a child during the Scully era and unfortunately it was the era I started watching it properly.

BUT, I'd been watching good old epsiodes on VHS waaaay before that, so it's okay :-)

[TheForbiddenDonut]

You can notice the consensus, but you can't make your own value judgements about something you haven't seen. That's what I mean. For example, I know that the last seasons of Family Guy seem to be far worse than the previous ones from the point of view of lots of people including hardcore fans, but as long as I haven't been following the evolution of the series (I watched only four episodes this last season, and only two from the sixth), it would be stupid if I tried to give reasons for that decline. And The Simpsons' pop culture (or at least this board) also used to be more or less positive at seasons 13-16 compared with the Scully's former ones, so I'm not sure that argument works.

What I'm saying is that you can't make judgments, but you can make logical inferences and assumptions that would lead to having a reason to avoid the show. Even if you haven't seen the show in years, based on the decline of the quality you did notice the last time you watched, and based on the fact that general consensus has not become more positive, you can say with a clear conscience that you have no desire to watch a show you are positive you will not like. It is not a judgment, but it is a logical inference. Additionally, by pop culture, I don't mean anything to do with positive or negative consensuses; I'm simply referring to images and sound-bites that dominate the internet and television.

[qwertyuio]

What I'm saying is that you can't make judgments, but you can make logical inferences and assumptions that would lead to having a reason to avoid the show. Even if you haven't seen the show in years, based on the decline of the quality you did notice the last time you watched, and based on the fact that general consensus has not become more positive, you can say with a clear conscience that you have no desire to watch a show you are positive you will not like. It is not a judgment, but it is a logical inference.

Agreed.

Additionally, by pop culture, I don't mean anything to do with positive or negative consensuses; I'm simply referring to images and sound-bites that dominate the internet and television.

Whoops, I totally missed your point. Nothing to add then.

[SIR oinks alot]

ha, no, shut up.

[J Dog]

Yes, and no.

I'll start with the "yes".

It's not exactly Scully's fault the show began to suck. Generally, age doesn't do well for any show: the writing starts to weaken, the topics get less and less, and you have developed characters up to a certain point. And Scully isn't that bad of a person: his commentaries are interesting to a degree.

However, to be honest, Scully did a few things that are responsible for his razzing. For starters, he felt that the show should have a kid audience... but that was a bad idea. In order for that to happen, this animated feature had to become... a cartoon. That meant one-dimensioning many characters, using wacky plots and non-sequiters, and random guest stars. Also, you had to feel as if Scully didn't have the energy, or effort, to bother making episodes with some degree of quality.

[The Governor]

Uh-oh...guess I'm a pretty crappy fan, then.

And I agree with others that this is all a matter of perspective. If you take any of Scully's seasons, at random, and watch them straight through without any prior knowledge of the series, you'll probably find them funny. Maybe funny in a Family Guy sort of way, but still.

The problem comes when you compare Scully's episodes with those preceeding them. There's a noticeable decline in quality there, and it definitely makes you feel sorry for what you're missing by watching, say, season ten instead of season four.

Um, if you have to pretend the show didn't exist before the Scully tenure just to enjoy it, then there's something wrong, right?

But who am I to complain? For every fucking retarded joke that I found untterly juvenile back then, I'm sure there was 30 "True fans!" who found it ROTFLing funny, especially when it was Homer getting hurt over and over or acting like a jackass and pushing people around, again.

So, I guess it worked in Season 9, so what'd he do? He made three more seasons filled with the same utter absurdity, no and not the funny kind.

[Semaj]

I also hate the animation these days. It looks too clean, and sterile. Like Martin Prince's power plant model

Where's the heart?

[Gorky]

Um, if you have to pretend the show didn't exist before the Scully tenure just to enjoy it, then there's something wrong, right?

But who am I to complain? For every fucking retarded joke that I found untterly juvenile back then, I'm sure there was 30 "True fans!" who found it ROTFLing funny, especially when it was Homer getting hurt over and over or acting like a jackass and pushing people around, again.

So, I guess it worked in Season 9, so what'd he do? He made three more seasons filled with the same utter absurdity, no and not the funny kind.

Fair enough. Trust me, I don't love the Scully years. I just think that there are some worthwhile episodes--and that's even when you compare 'em to those of the Golden Age--and that people are, in general, way too harsh on Scully in particular. It's hard to maintain a certain level of quality when a show has lasted as long as The Simpsons has; after ten years, it was only natural that the show would decline. Yes, it declined in ways that didn't quite make sense (the stories were still fresh, in my opinion; the characterizations were just horrible, and the jokes were too slapstick), but I think that's attributable both to Scully becoming show-runner, and the relatively new writing staff. I would also think that George Meyer--who, at that point, was the most senior staff member besides Matt Groening--might've had more of a concept of how the show was supposed to work, who the characters were supposed to be. He clearly exerted an influence over the Scully era (he was an executive producer, right?), and yet he apparently saw nothing wrong with the episodes that were being produced.

So I guess what I'm arguing here, then, is less that the Scully era is criticized too much (I mean, it's criticized a lot, but I don't think it's excessive or unwarranted), but that Scully as a show-runner is criticized too much. He wasn't the only person who had a say in how the characters would act, what they would say--he's just the person who allowed the mistakes to be made. But the show's decline in quality shouldn't be pinned on one man, because it was utlimately a group effort.

[The Governor]

Fair enough. Trust me, I don't love the Scully years. I just think that there are some worthwhile episodes--and that's even when you compare 'em to those of the Golden Age--and that people are, in general, way too harsh on Scully in particular.

EVERY show runner switch before Scully in seasons 3, 5, and 7 all brought something new and fresh to the table, but Scully was the first season to not only bring a sharp downturn in characterization and satire, he was the first to basically destroy any empathy with the characters, and that, IMO is the worst thing to do to ANY show. And for that, he can be critisized for another ten years, IMO.

It's hard to maintain a certain level of quality when a show has lasted as long as The Simpsons has; after ten years, it was only natural that the show would decline. Yes, it declined in ways that didn't quite make sense (the stories were still fresh, in my opinion; the characterizations were just horrible, and the jokes were too slapstick), but I think that's attributable both to Scully becoming show-runner, and the relatively new writing staff.

This is a point where you and I differ--If I don't like the characters, I don't like the plot. This is what I call non-redundent storytelling, so if the characters fail to be empathatic, (no I'm not saying they should be sappy 100percent of the time, so don't try to spin it on me), then the the story fails, too, regardless of how "funny" Homer tries to be.

On the otherhand, I find Jean's attempts to make the Simpsons slightly better as the characters aren't annoying as Scully's depictions, yet they're not anything caring for beyond an abject level. Also, since I do somewhat care about the characters, I find the plots to be at least somewhat engaging.

I would also think that George Meyer--who, at that point, was the most senior staff member besides Matt Groening--might've had more of a concept of how the show was supposed to work, who the characters were supposed to be. He clearly exerted an influence over the Scully era (he was an executive producer, right?), and yet he apparently saw nothing wrong with the episodes that were being produced.

Personally, if the story sucked, then I really don't care whose name is in the credits other than the excutive producer and during the Scully era, I wouldn't blame Groening since he was spending almost all of his time on Futurama.

So I guess what I'm arguing here, then, is less that the Scully era is criticized too much (I mean, it's criticized a lot, but I don't think it's excessive or unwarranted), but that Scully as a show-runner is criticized too much. He wasn't the only person who had a say in how the characters would act, what they would say--he's just the person who allowed the mistakes to be made. But the show's decline in quality shouldn't be pinned on one man, because it was utlimately a group effort.

The first rule of being in charge--EVERYTHING IS YOUR FAULT. If Scully was acting "meh" to the scripting process, then Scully is to blame.

[foremost gummi artisan]

no matter the genre when ever you have a decade of excellence its gonna be a tad bit difficult to keep doing exactly the same thing. The show had no choice but to evolve as time went on and to sit here and blame your distaste for the evolution on mike and mike along is crazy. i think the gradual withdraw of john swartzwelder from the writing and re writing process is another major factor but the blame for the shows evolution does not rest upon one man.

[HoggingTheEyepiece]

Scully deserves every bad word said about him. His episodes were among the ones I first saw when I was a kid, and I completely agree that he dumbed the show down and made it a kids' cartoon. Going back and watching Scully shows on DVD I'm embarassed I used to like those episodes.

[Jacob]

He doesn't get enough fucking criticism. 'nuff said.