Season 23 Information Thread

[Bleedin' Gums Murphy]

Yeah I mean they've never done any episodes with Santas Little Helper before

[Brad Lascelle]

Eventually he'll have to face the crime and tell me why that is his favourite episode...

I remember being down on Stealing First Base when it first aired due to fake Michelle Obama being strung in and the preponderance of overlong musical numbers and Itchy & Scratchy... but I've warmed up to it on repeat viewings. The blind kid was a great one-shot character. Homer was extremely well written. The Bart-Nikki hot-cold dynamic was genuinely compelling. And it's clear there was a lot of time and effort put into all of those montages. Even Obama doesn't bug me as much... the dialogue in that scene was well-written even if the "appreciate Lisa for being an overachiever" angle was trite.

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.

[Matty]

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

[The Governor]

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.

[biffwestwood]

Here is a must-read interview with 500th episode writer Michael Price:

http://www.fruitlesspursuits.com/201...ael-price.html

Lots of upcoming episode info we haven't heard yet, including the first "Itchy & Scratchy"-centric episode in over a decade!!!!!

There is also a planned episode involving Bart being a "Babysitter" for Jimbo's girlfriend Shauna. Which sounds a lot like "My Sister, My Sitter" but with Bart in charge.

[alex_on_ice]

There is also a planned episode involving Bart being a "Babysitter" for Jimbo's girlfriend Shauna. Which sounds a lot like "My Sister, My Sitter" but with Bart in charge.

God, that's sounds awful!!!!

The article was very interesting, thanks!

[Bleedin' Gums Murphy]

There is also a planned episode involving Bart being a "Babysitter" for Jimbo's girlfriend Shauna. Which sounds a lot like "My Sister, My Sitter" but with Bart in charge.

Bart being a babysitter for Jimbo's girlfriend - A guy that is older than him I think - I mean how the fuck will that work? God Jean step down already

[Cartoonnetwork]

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.

[Bleedin' Gums Murphy]

"Gentlemen, the screwballs have spoken"

[Matty]

500th episode preview clips give british tv critic, Nick Park & hosts a good laugh:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17058703

Notice the critic correcting himself: "it is a very sophisti... was a very sophisticated, brilliantly written show"

[Zombies Rise from the Sea]

My original pitch had them leaving town, starting off with a clean slate, and moving to a wonderful sparkly clean planned community along the lines of Disney's Celebration, Florida. But, Al Jean thought that was too similar to an episode Joel H. Cohen wrote a few years back where Flanders moved his family away and briefly settled in the very Flanders-y town of Humbleton, PA ("Home Away From Homer" Season 16).

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.

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.

Number one, we’re animated, which means the characters never age. Someone on our staff recently pointed that many of the current longest-running scripted shows (Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, American Dad) are animated. And we now have animated shows (Beavis & Butthead, Futurama) that have come back from the dead – and this is possible precisely because animated characters never get old, don’t get DUIs, don’t have sex scandals, don’t get offers to do movies… or any of the other reasons live action casts eventually break up.

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.

Also, the fact that the show is animated made possible the dozens of characters that populate Springfield and the limitless possibilities of places for the Simpsons to go.

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.

the original writers of the show are just such a wonderful home base for a show that strives to not just be funny and entertaining, but also say a little something about the world we live in and the stupid things our society does. And since society manages to find new and entertaining ways to be corrupt and venal we’ll have fresh fodder for satire for quite some time.

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.)

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.

Apparently at the table read of Episode 200, (former Showrunner) David Mirkin jokingly said “We’re half-way there” and it brought down the house. So yes, we’re all surprised. And, speaking for myself, I’m extremely grateful that I get to continue working with these wonderful characters and great writers, actors and artists.

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.

Well, of course, the show can’t be like it was in 1990, if it was I don’t think it would be around any more. The show did evolve and, I’d argue, continues to evolve – especially now that our animation is done in HD, we were asked by Fox to switch to a 4-Act structure, and we have many more characters to follow and service.

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.)

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.

It’s tough for me to make judgments about quality because I’m on the inside and I live the show every day, so, naturally, my experience of the show is different from the average viewer.

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.

While it’s true the various Simpsons-centric web sites often have extreme reactions (both good and bad) to the current show, I find a more broad-based “average viewer” response on Twitter, where after most episodes the reactions can vary widely but are, in the main, positive. And I think over these past ten seasons that I’ve been here we’ve produced many episodes that stand up to the best the show has done. And we even had a big time TV critic retract his earlier denunciation of these later seasons – after he actually took the time to watch them.

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.

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.)

Like “Star Wars”, I think a person’s view of The Simpsons could be colored by what their experience of it was originally and their age now. If you were 12 when the show began and it opened up a whole new world of comedy and satire to you, there’s no way it could ever have the same impact now that it did then. That’s not to say anyone who thinks the show isn’t as funny as it was is wrong – that’s their opinion and of course they are entitled to feel that way, and they’re certainly entitled to exercise their God-given right not to watch it anymore. Then again, nothing can be as funny now as it was in 1992, with the rare exception of Newt Gingrich.

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.

From my own personal perspective, my son, Wills, who is 14 now, first experienced the show through the episodes I was working on (he first started watching around Season 17 or so and actually pitched me jokes for my Season 19 episode “E Pluribus Wiggum” and the 500th episode).

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.

He’s since become a complete fan and has watched just about every episode on the air now and on DVD and, to him, the early Season 1 and 2 episodes are very slow moving – because he’s accustomed not just to the pace of our current Simpsons episodes but of animated comedy in general.

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.

Of course, like I said, it’s a very subjective argument that, looked at one way, is a testament to how beloved the show is. When it comes down to it, all I can say is that we take our job seriously, have great love for the show and spend every day doing our best to produce episodes that makes us laugh, are entertaining to others, and honor this awesome legacy.

Le Jake and Jamie would disagree with you.

The only “evolution” of my role is that over the last few years I’ve done a little bit of directing the actors every once in a while, which I greatly enjoy. I come from a theatre background (I originally trained to be a theatre director) and I really have a great time watching these amazing actors do their thing.

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".

The nature of our work means that each of us have jokes or bits in every episode, with a greater degree of our own stuff in the episodes we’re credited with – though by the time it reaches air, a show I wrote will have maybe 3% or so of my original script making it to the end.

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.

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.

It happens! Apparently, we’ve tried several times over the years to get Bruce Springsteen on the show, but for whatever reason he’s declined. That’s certainly his privilege – I just hope we don’t see him turn up on “Bob’s Burgers”.

I would.

We try not to do guest stars just for the sake of having guest stars.

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.

I’d have to say that the past doesn’t really enter into my thinking when I’m in the room pitching lines for Homer or any of the characters – except to the extent that we don’t want to repeat jokes or stories that have already been on the show. When it’s your job to pitch jokes for Homer or whoever it’s best to just let fly with whatever you think is funny and fits the situation and then there’s usually someone on staff with a long enough memory to say “we did that already” -- but to self-censor beforehand would lead to very little getting pitched.

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.

shining the spotlight on our minor characters is one way we’re able to come up with new stories that haven’t been done in the previous 500+ episodes. In fact, I’m writing an episode for next season that, in part, explores the life of Roger Myers, Jr. – the man at the helm of the “Itchy & Scratchy” empire – and his struggle with trying to live up to the memory of his father, who created Itchy & Scratchy (stole them, actually). That’s been a lot of fun. “The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show” is my all-time favorite episode, and I’ve longed to do a story that plays in that same arena.

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.

If it’s weird to wear bread bags instead of shoes when you write for Moe, then yes. Actually, it all comes kind of naturally to me. My original training was in acting and improvisational comedy, so I find it very easy to put myself into the mindset of a character and pitch lines from their point of view.

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