Yeah I mean they've never done any episodes with Santas Little Helper before
(Users Browsing this Thread: )
Yeah I mean they've never done any episodes with Santas Little Helper before
It's nowhere near the level of a Bart's Girlfriend or New Kid on the Block... but it may be my favorite post-classic era episode focusing on Bart's love life. It's not like there's much in the way of competition. The only other episode that comes close is Season 13's The Bart Wants What It Wants.
Just yesterday I was wondering why they hadn't used Alex Rocco in 15 years, so that's good news
Some things I found interesting:
- Confirmation that FOX conducted the 4-act structure. Wish the staff still had the balls to say no to Fox.
- Only 3% of an original script remains nowadays, vs 30-40% in the old days. To me that doesn't sound like a good thing, it could explain why the stories seem so unfocused, without vision and go completely random from beat to beat. Hopefully this fact puts an end to all those 'Oh no, it's a Rob Lazebnik episode!'-type comments
500 episodes, about 200 good ones.
The episode "Whacking Day'' curiously aired the same day as Seinfeld's "The Contest'', which deals with a different kind of whacking.
Three to four percent!? Wtf? If you gave a group of untalented a.d.d. kids an episode to write, you'd still wind up with a more cohesive plot.
I guess the writers traded the focusyn in for a case of fuckitol.
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.
Actually it's more similar to New Kid On The Block instead of My Sister, My Sitter. Wouldn't be a bad idea if it were the other way around, Jimbo's girlfriend being Bart's babysitter. I think the idea could be interesting if Jimbo gets jelaous even if Bart is not interested on the girl.
I don't know about you but I really love the premise of the Roger Meyers episode. I was missing the character a lot and I think the concept for the episode is fantastic, Itchy and Scratchy related or not. And it will probably be somewhat related to Itchy and Scratchy anyway. I think Michael Price is one of the best writers of the show now, so I hope he does a good job with this one. That's exactly the kind of thing they should do more often: taking minor characters that didn't have a lot of episodes devoted to them and make relatable stories that fit their circumstances. Being the son of a "Walt Disney" type, I can see why Roger Meyers Jr. could be worried about not being up to his father figure (even if he stole the characters anyway). The development may be good or bad, but the premise is really good. Looking forward for this one.
My Simpsons homage!
"Gentlemen, the screwballs have spoken"
500th episode preview clips give british tv critic, Nick Park & hosts a good laugh:
Notice the critic correcting himself: "it is a very sophisti... was a very sophisticated, brilliantly written show"
So the other episodes that Al Jean approved (from the top of my head; "Regarding Margie", "The Good, the Sad and the Drugly", "Milhouse of Sand and Fog", "Mobile Homer") aren't similar to other episodes at all? But this one is? My brain has been blown to bits and pieces.Originally Posted by Michael Price
How can it be similar if Flanders have visited but not The Simpsons. While it may have been just another vacation trip; it would of been 10x interesting to see The Simspons interact in towns like Celebration, Florida. (Even with the current writing staff, which I'm sure would of included prank gags and just random stuff into the episodes.) There are things about towns that have a certain style to them (even though Celebration has been turned over to the community and is not owned by Disney.) that could of been picked apart; additionally, it could of also been made to work within the episode, work to expose The Simpsons character and play an essential part of the plot.
I'm glad to know that real life events (even if they are solely in LA now.) are still being incorporated into the series but even though the under-the-radar thing is different (in that they're able to incorporate as many jokes as possible.), I still feel like the Celebration idea had some merit.
That's a point... However, there is only so much you can do with the not aging part; you have to take into consideration the writing, the appeal, the plots, the intelligence of the audience. You can have the characters remain the same but it isn't going to do any good is the material isn't. I'm surprised he failed to mention the Peanuts since all of those animated characters not aging descends from them but eh, I'll let it slide. He should keep in mind that the voice actors can suffer the same things as the end of the paragraph though, just because it's animated does not mean it can't inherit the same problems.Originally Posted by Michael Price
The Simspons Comics manage to illustrate that better then the episodes; which rehash plots/situations, doesn't take any major steps or risks and feels the need to be complacent 100% of the time. I mean you shouldn't be embracing your " famous sitcom" image, you should be making fun of it/trashing it.Originally Posted by Michael Price
If the original writers are such a home base then why don't we see it in recent episodes; all of the new episodes have been either bland, bad or terrible and that could be faulted to plots which don't exactly work out on a TV screen, jokes whose potential is wasted by going on for longer then they should, the fear that the audience won't "get it" and the general atmosphere of a comedy club where these characters are treated as vessels for jokes rather then actual characters. (only in a few episodes do their characters get shown.)Originally Posted by Michael Price
Also the stuff said about society and the world is mainly based around Los Angeles and not the entire US of A (which Springfield was supposed to represent.) I can understand the extravagant shopping malls, trying to find a parking spot, fancy restaurants and stupid stuff at the DMV as social commentary but it's weak social commentary because it's not truly unique. It feels like they're commenting in life around Southern California because that's where they live, that's the kind of material they know and they're used to where they live and what they know. I mean what reason do I have to watch The Simpsons when I can just drive down to LA and experience most of the stuff they were talking about.
The stuff mentioned about the internet, devices and computers in general feels like a need to stay relevant; it's not even good commentary at that, even Bevis and Butthead don't go on about how technology is an ever present part of our lives, everybody is using it, everybody is getting addicted to it and sucking; they just show it as something the character uses and doesn't exactly understand. That alone if the perfect social commentary for our current technological world.
Makes me miss the days where the creative staff and the fans still had spirit, magic and wonder that made them stand out (even Seasons 13-16); now the magic is gone, the spirit is gone and it's fanbase is significantly smaller then ever before. A sign of the times I guess but I really miss that spirit.Originally Posted by Michael Price
It can't be that way but it can be enjoyable, well written and funny again. How does it "evolve" exactly; does it try to do modern jokes that people will like, does it try to reference modern culture in a way that seems awkward, does it try to understand it's audience? The animation may be in HD but it doesn't make the material any better (it did somewhat in Season 20 but few episodes actually show that.)Originally Posted by Michael Price
Also I wish you had the balls to stand up to Fox and get that obviously better 3 act structure back. I can lend you mine, they are in perfectly good shape and their tough as steel.
Even a quality person would realize that that there are flaws in the product; regardless of whether or not he has a soft spot for the product; You are right about the fact that people have different views though.Originally Posted by Michael Price
Do you actually read those reactions? Or do you just gloss over them without reading deep into them? Those people who hate the Simpsons have reasons for why they hate it and they somewhat go into detail in them; I'm not against the people who like The Simpsons as they enjoy watching it Sunday night but I am against the production of The Simpsons as a "product", as something that airs on 30 minutes for a quick laugh; nothing memorable.Originally Posted by Michael Price
Seasons 13-16 did produce memorable episodes but the seasons after that produced mainly imo crap with a few gems sandwiched inbetween. I don't claim to hate every modern Simpsons episode out there but it is clear that there is a noticeable lack of quality starting with Season 17. Those episodes that are in Seasons 17-23 are only memorable because they have one scene that was in the news or a guest star that appeared in it; it's not memorable because it had good writing or good jokes, it was memorable for only one scene.
Also I actually watch the episode and take notes on it; my reviews are filled with valid criticisms and opinions that represent the episode as a whole and they're also filled with a bit of fair opinion; meaning that it's not slanted towards hate or love, it's just balanced. The Vulture article (which I already commented on) mainly has the author go about how the characters aren't relevant anymore and how the show has been on for a long time as an excuse for the show's decline in quality. I'm not doubting that he took the time to watch the episodes, I'm just saying that people should not make excuses regarding the shows quality; they should either like it or hate it and not try to justify it with something like (It's been on for 500 episodes! give it a break.)
What impact? We're not looking for impact, we're looking for quality entertainment to watch on Sundays. Even then, it's impact can still be regained; just because time has passed doesn't mean it's impact it's lost, it just has to dig deep into the satire, make memorable episodes, make jokes that go above and beyond and actually make a statement instead of trying to be relevant. Something which I doubt the writer is even getting. (since he's like a broken record.) The fans behind the Simpsons aren't driven by nostalgia, they're driven by quality. Quality is quality regardless of the medium. Take for instance a film from the 1940's that has bad writing, bad plotting and bad plots. That film is crap even in the era where standards were loose, for good reason. Now take that film and release it in 2012; is there some sort of nostalgic factor making that film good? No; because it's still crap.Originally Posted by Michael Price
So he's the one who had a hand in the episode sucking... I wonder what jokes he submitted; maybe he contributed the drive through the fast-food lane; or maybe the various Homer and Ralph Wiggum jokes throughout the episode. He should get a better grasp of comedy before contributing jokes; people who let their sons contribute just because he's their son is in itself contributing to the fall of society; having a better grasp of everything just results in a better product.Originally Posted by Michael Price
I wonder if he gets the biting satire and the obscure movie references littered throughout the episode; I also wonder if he's seen Ugly Americans.Originally Posted by Michael Price
Le Jake and Jamie would disagree with you.Originally Posted by Michael Price
If you've come from a theater background then why do most of the episodes you written either suck or are incredibly mediocre? Of course, I shouldn't doubt a person who's written "The Fool Monty".Originally Posted by Michael Price
3%? No wonder why the scripts are all over the place? We're even lucky to get a script where the plot is competent and the number of jokes that are good outweigh the bad. Season 23's "The Book Job" is a great example of this.Originally Posted by Michael Price
They need to stop trying to add jokes here and there and just focus on making quality entertainment. I mean there are some good jokes but those jokes can taken out of the episodes and made into clips; raising the question of why we even need episodes in the first place if the good jokes can just be separated into clips.
I would.Originally Posted by Michael Price
So why is it that all of these episodes are filled with guest starts then? Not only that, but obvious guest starts. If you don't want to do guest stars for the sake of having guest stars then don't do guest stars. All these guest stars do is show how low the show has gotten.Originally Posted by Michael Price
Maybe it's best to self-censor. I mean it could lead to the people to think harder to make that unique joke rather then joking off. Who cares if it leads to a very little getting pitched, maybe that very little is quality material.Originally Posted by Michael Price
It's nice that we're getting a new Itchy & Scratchy episode but I have to worry a bit because the animation references here haven't been up to par. (they consistently reference Pixar at every moment due to Brad Bird being there and not as any sort of respect to their animation, I mean if they respected animation then maybe every kind of animation should be given some sort of spotlight on the Simpsons and not just Pixar.) Michael, I will watch the episode if you promise to make it engaging and deep and if you promise to tone down on the Pixar references a notch. Of course, I'm guessing that promise will be thin.Originally Posted by Michael Price
If the point of view of Moe is that he's a pathetic loner who barely has any friends and his only companion is Moe rag then it's the wrong mindset. The one in the early season was that of a bartender who was aggressive, had a shotgun but mostly cared for his patrons, if for the fact that they gave them money. I wouldn't blame Price, it's mainly the fault of the writers who thought Moe would have better jokes/moments if he was pathetic, though in the course of the shows later seasons; that decision went nowhere. Changing characters just because it may result in something better is not the way to do it, I mean Homer hurting himself and acting obnoxious may result in different jokes but is it worth it?Originally Posted by Michael Price
Eh, the Cat Lady is the most overrated character out there.Originally Posted by Michael Price
Wow; it's in HD! It's cleaner! The coloring is bright and vibrant! This just makes me appreciate earlier hand-drawn animation more; regardless of the subject matter. This also makes me appreciate Disney's efforts to bring back hand-drawn animation to the forefront. I mean does the public really expect a product that's clean and barely has any mistakes or should the public expect a product that has charm, that has effort, that has some mistakes and that has personality. Mistakes are one thing when they ruin a product but in the proper light, it enhances the product and makes it more "human", to have everything be mistake-free is "robotic", nobody likes "robotic".Originally Posted by Michael Price
My reviews (and others) say otherwise.Originally Posted by Michael Price
It's obviously the two best episodes of the season; a season which isn't representative of what Michael is making it out to be. I'm just glad he didn't recommend "Moe Goes from Rags to Riches", people wouldn't rejoin the Simpsons had they not watch those two episodes he mentioned first.Originally Posted by Michael Price
We'll see...Originally Posted by Michael Price
Unless it's audience leaves en-masse and the production gets too expensive but I'm guessing the people working on The Simpsons will just work for free and pay any production costs out of their pocket if it happens; this show is the only thing they got.Originally Posted by Michael Price
Wow... 21st Century Hipsters. Do you mean Homer becomes one of those people who leans on a wall, dresses in Leather jackets and jeans, owns an iPhone, watches obscure movies and hangs out at obscure night clubs while also wearing sunglasses and listening to dubstep?Originally Posted by Michael Price
Wow... A sort of babysitting episode where Shauna takes Bart into dangerous seedy places; Bart learning an obvious lesson from this at the end. I'd watch every sitcom/animated cartoon that did this plot ever made if I wanted a babysitting plot.Originally Posted by Michael Price
Hey Jake! You were right! How much do I owe ya?Originally Posted by Michael Price
It may bring them to teals but will it bring us to tears; I'd doubt otherwise but we'll see come 2013.Originally Posted by Michael Price
The Falcon and the D'ohman (4.5/10) Bart Stops to Smell the Roosevelts (4.0/10) Treehouse of Horror XXII (1.0/10) Replacable You (3.5/10) The Food Wife (4.0/10) The Book Job (8.0/10) The Man in the Blue Flannel Pants (4.0/10) The Ten-Per-Cent Solution (4.5/10) Holidays of Future Passed (8.5/10) Politically Inept, With Homer Simpson (3.5/10) The D'oh-cial Network (2.5/10) Moe Goes From Rags to Riches (1.5/10) The Daughter Also Rises (5.0/10) At Long Last Leave (2.5/10) Exit Through the Kwik-E-Mart (1.0/10) How I Wet Your Mother (4.0/10) Them, Robot (3.0/10) Beware My Cheating Bart (5.0/10) A Totally Fun Thing That Bart Will Never Do Again (3.0/10) The Spy Who Learned Me (3.5/10) Ned 'N' Edna's Blend (5.5/10) Lisa Goes Gaga (1.0/10)
Zombies...BRILLIANT! You absolutely nailed it but unfortunately the douches that work alongside Price will - if they even read Simpsons forums anymore - dismiss it as "Crazy Internet Nerd talk".
I really enjoyed reading that Price interview and look forward to several of these upcoming plots.
So is she Bart's age or younger than Bart?
See that could be an interesting episode, Jimbo a possible paedofile! (Although it would have to be different from Homer Badman)
Zombies nailed most of his criticisms, but I won't be so hard with Price, to me it's one of the best writer now along Matt Selman, J.Stewart Burns and Maxtone Graham. His last episodes were nothing special and some of them even bad but I still get the feeling he handles the characters better than most of the other new writers.
And the more I think about it I believe Bart "babysitting" Jimbo's girlfriend isn't probably babysitting "per se"-he says "kind of babysitting"-maybe Jimbo just order Bart to look after her girlfriend so she won't get in trouble/cheat him with other boys or something.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/travel/...#ixzz1mgHhloNj— At Long Last Leave, Feb. 19, 2012 (Season 23, 500th episode). This Sunday’s episode, in which the Simpsons are evicted from Springfield. “It has a lot of little jokes that longtime fans will really like.”
Another quick piece with Michael Price:
Not much new until the final paragraph, pasted below:
"With a mind toward the future, Price was able to share a few upcoming story lines and guest stars. One episode he’s currently penning will see Itchy & Scratchy Land close down, which leads to Homer and Bart obtaining a small steam-engine train from the amusement park and restoring it to run in their back yard. This attracts the attention of fellow model-train enthusiasts like Rev. Lovejoy and Comic Book Guy, who at first just want to help out, but then end up taking over. Steve Carell recorded a voice spot for early next season, as did Brent Spiner from Star Trek: The Next Generation, who will voice a group of robots working at the nuclear power plant. Steve Coogan will turn up as the director of a cruise ship, and Portlandia‘s Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein play the husband-and-wife team that lead a hipster invasion of Springfield."
Zombies - fantastic post. I just had to say it.
Thanks to CousinMerl for this great sig!
Also, I highly doubt CBG's interest of trains will last long enough for him and Lovejoy to become best friends. That character's hobbies seem to change whenever the writers want to shove him into an episode.
Last edited by Reverend Lovejoy; 02-17-2012 at 05:00 PM.
Yeah Comic Book Guy is overrated.
I concur mate, almost bar-rag worthy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)