(Users Browsing this Thread: )
Ultra-exclusive ass-burger club members: Green_Peaness, Mysti_Pony, Reverend Lovejoy, DoTheBartman, McMeatLoaf, BatofZion, ppoi307, Wendy Windbag
Seinfeld > Simpsons
Black music owns
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:
No.Clearly, this is an omen. The end must be near. I can feel it.
Last edited by Thrillho; 08-27-2009 at 02:39 PM.
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.I actually feel sorry for you guys who grew up with the show and STILL watch every new episode.
EDIT: A vote for "YES" in this poll is a vote for the decline of the Simpsons.
Last edited by Nauru-1; 08-28-2009 at 07:48 AM.
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!
As for why I watch the show currently, read my post a few messages up.
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).
Yeah I guess, shitty showrunner but great writer in my opinion.
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.
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.
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.
and my semenIt looks to clean, and sterile. Like Martin Prince's power plant model
Originally Posted by Company Picnic
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
Last edited by Gummy Joe; 08-28-2009 at 07:07 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
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
He doesn't get enough fucking criticism. 'nuff said.
Last edited by Jacob; 08-30-2009 at 08:12 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)