(Users Browsing this Thread: )
As a digital animator, that uses, gasp, tablet instead of paper, ink, and paint, I will tell you that modern animation can be a wonderful tool and has virtually no difference between traditional methods and digital ones, be it digital cel (what I use, and according to what I know, The Simpsons uses), Tween-based animation (My Little Pony, FHFIF, Allen Gregory), CGI, etc so long as the animator(s) don't use it as a crutch and make some original looks with it, it is fine.
The thing that holds back The Simpsons (we call it Ghost SImpsons now apparently?) is its writing. The animation is great and stays true to its original style, the writing is for the most part, bland, uninspired, and flat.
Just had to get that out there.
lots of loud words in this thread
I was very disappointed with this episode.I agree that the first act was good bt it went downhill from there.What the writers need to realize is that simply making an episode parodying a film(and in this case one which is almost 2 years old) is not enough.
I don't really care if the parody's 2 months, 2 years or 20 years old. As long as it's a good parody, they may try to be relevant. This was actually pretty close to inception:
- Some cool concepts, mostly poorly executed
- Badly written cold characters not to care about
- Exposition, exposition, exposition: constantly having to explain what it's about makes for bad dialogue, lot's of boring scenes and leaving me unable to get sucked into the story's world. Why not satirize this obvious weak point of Inception?
I also felt the whole fishing conflict was weak. Homer thinks his mother left because he tipped a boat over 2 weeks prior and they had no dinner? What? And he missed Mona's "I don't mind, I care about you" comment, because he was suddenly asleep 5 seconds after they returned to the dock? Double what?
Of course it had plenty of funny lines, but as a whole it's just so weakly written. 2/5
Oh wait, it had a twister mouth in it. 5/5!
Pretty much this.
I havent laughed at the simpsons for a long time.I just see this and I burst in Laughter thanks I needed that
No, I'm not saying anything is valid. Disco Stu can't turn suddenly into a giant rat no matter how good the punchline could be. But with stuff like explosions and people appearing out of nowhere, those are things that has happened before in the rubber band reality of the show. Yes, they may have happened in better context, for a certain gag and not just because they needed them to move the plot but this is a comedy show...and I guess this could sound like the "it's a cartoon" excuse but I'm trying to explain it. I believe the main intention of the show has always been to include gags first and foremost. They may have emotional parts too, but the show is a comedy to make you laugh. You may like some reality in the introduction of the jokes. I also prefer that, but small details like these ones that don't really hurt the jokes, the dialogue, the plot and they are actually among the lines of "rubber band" reality of the show (people jumping because of explosions has been seen before, also people appearing there for a joke)...it doesn't affect (not in a bad neither in a positive way) to the story or the gags they are explaining. I won't even say if it's because of laziness. I mean, it would be lazy if this was a life action drama or thriller and suddenly a character appears out of nowhere. By those terms it's lazy here too, cause they could have made everything more realistic. But I thought you hate exposition. What would you gain with them going to Hibbert and then to Frink? Even less time for the rest of the episode? And you can say: yes, but I'd have cut the first act so it wouldn't eat so much time. Well, they just choose to invert more time in the bedwetting/SNPP scenes because they had more jokes. If it were for laziness then they won't probably make format-benders to begin with. In fact, I hate the trilogy episodes but I don't think they are lazy. Maybe the idea is, but the execution seems more complicated than a regular episode, they have to think three or four stories instead of one and change all the locations.
I'm just saying, you can criticise character behaviour, unfunny gags, how they handle emotion...and you can criticise the reality of plot points like Frink and Disco Stu appearing out of nowhere, but if this is the kind of thing that really makes you grade the episode lower then I think you're watching the show with the intention of getting infuriated.
My Simpsons homage!
Did you miss this: "But what is "Bad" surrealism? Well, what is "good surrealism"...I like to think of it as an intelligent kind nonsense where there is a deeper meaning to the joke than just the visual gag. So what's "Bad' surrealism, then? I think of it as empty, cartoonish filler material that's used to fill plot holes or just kill time."Since it was Frink they thought he could have an explosion in his lab and that could make him appear. Lazy? Maybe. But it's a solution. It keeps the plot moving. Disco Stu appears out of nowhere. They thought it was a funny joke. Many people said it was funny in the reviews, I thought it was ok. Shouldn't it be included because it's unrealistic?
The scene with Frink was the latter. There was nothing creative about it, it was lazy cartoonish filler.
I need a writing instrument to take a test and because I used a pen to complete on, I should get high marks for making ink marks on the paper...or does it matter what I wrote on the said test that counts? Sure gags are needed, but shittier ones should be given a free pass just because it's a comedy.No, I'm not saying anything is valid. Disco Stu can't turn suddenly into a giant rat no matter how good the punchline could be. But with stuff like explosions and people appearing out of nowhere, those are things that has happened before in the rubber band reality of the show. Yes, they may have happened in better context, for a certain gag and not just because they needed them to move the plot but this is a comedy show...and I guess this could sound like the "it's a cartoon" excuse but I'm trying to explain it.
Irony makes me laugh, cynicism makes me smirk, wit makes me think, and a decent sight gag can be ROFL funny. None of these applied to Frink's scene because it was random for the sake of being random. It's lazy, uninspired and boring. Hell, after "Normal" Stu said something, he should've turned around and had a rat tail as he was shown walking away, THAT would've been funny.I believe the main intention of the show has always been to include gags first and foremost. They may have emotional parts too, but the show is a comedy to make you laugh.
I get upset because when I explain the different types of gags and what I think makes a joke work, people are probably staring at their screen and have this look on their faces like I just asked them the square root of something, or maybe they're like Cletus...I dunno, and then they try to 'explain' to me that it's a cartoon.I'm just saying, you can criticise character behaviour, unfunny gags, how they handle emotion...and you can criticise the reality of plot points like Frink and Disco Stu appearing out of nowhere, but if this is the kind of thing that really makes you grade the episode lower then I think you're watching the show with the intention of getting infuriated.
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.
"One of the keys to life is having a sense of proportion, knowing how long to sit at a restaurant after you've eaten, or how long you should go on vacation — if you go to Hawaii for a month on vacation, I guarantee you that by the end you'll hate it. So it's the same with a TV show, you want to do a certain amount of it, so that when people look back on it and they love it. I could have easily done the show for one or two or three more years, but it would have changed the way people look back at it. I think I made the right decision. Because people like the show now even more than they did in the 1990s, because it didn't get worn out." -- Jerry Seinfeld
It wasn't really "filler"...They needed Frink to appear and they did it like that. Maybe the explosion was filler. There is nothing especially funny about it. It's just a way of introducing him faster instead of having Marge thinking about that she should visit him, etc. Yep, it wouldn't be a lot longer, but they just decided to spent the time in other things.
Then the twitter thing and the Normal Stu part were gags, funny or not, it's subjective. But they are not any more "filler" than any other gag.
I sort of agree with you that ideally things would look more down to earth if Marge went to Frink's house, and Disco Stu wouldn't appear out of nowhere, etc. but nothing can assure me that the gags, the pacing or the story would have been better if they'd done it that way. It may have been more realistic in the approach of the story and make the world of the series a little bit more believable but like I said such realism is something to ask for in a serious thriller, not so much in a comedy like this one that is known for pushing the reality quite a bit. I thought the Disco Stu gag was enjoyable and the twitter line felt natural enough, sue me. Marge could have knocked Frink's door and talk to him without any other character appearing. But the jokes or the dialogues could have been worse than the ones we had. It doesn't make such a big difference.
Cartoons don't have to be complete nonsense, nor should the fact that's it's hand drawn account for any sort of decline in quality and logic. Like others have said, cartoons do have some more freedom than live action shows, but that shouldn't escuse lazy writing.
But they werent shoehorned like they were in this episode
They were smartly incorporated the writers didnt go "Oh Oh I got an Idea.How about...Frink falling from the sky? And best of all we will make no effort to explain why that happened,why Frink and why is it revelant to the story"
I mean when the writers used to put something surreal they'd put alot of though into it
And also the Twitter joke was lame.I hate how The Simpsons have become a promoting machine.And I was even surprised that Twitter didnt have somekind of Nickname like Nintendo Wii being Nintendo Zii(Man was that lame).
In the old episodes sometimes they would parody some popular product or something but they wouldnt use the same name otherwise what would be the point,Its like calling Buzz Cola Coca Cola instead it removes the whole feel of The Simpsons being in a fictional world of their own.
Everybody always forgets the Tracy Ullman Shorts
And its not about the obnoziousness or whatever
Cuz there was plenty of old episode which were hilarious an all over the place and they were still good
I mean seriously an episode like Itchy and Scratchy Land you would not see in a Typical Sitcom
Saying The Simpsons is an Animated Version of a "TYPICAL SITCOM" is an insult to the show
A "Typical Sitcom" is shit like 2 and a half men
The Simpsons is(or should I say WAS) a Masterpiece compared to a "Typical Sitcom"
The REAL problem is they dont put effort into the show whatsoever and the writers are dumb and lazy who just do their work to get their cheque and call it a day
Really enjoyed it! Was funny, and very nicely animated and put-together!
And yeah two and a half men, bug bang, etc. total shit. You want a great sitcom? Friends and Seinfeld/ bar none. Modern? How I met your mother (oddly enough) is a good show.
^Curb Your Enthusiam is also amazing.
Also never liked Friends ugh the whole thing was just gay and not funny
Seinfeld is great though and so is Cheers and Frasier
Also what may be the best sitcom ever Only Fools and Horses that was AWESOME
EDIT:Also Simpsons nowadays is superficial I agree with Le Jake when he says Homer is only a celebrity nowadays
Basically Nowadays Simpsons is more of a Reality Show(not on the true sense but the way it handles itself as a star and what not)
While on the old days the show used to be about fun.Homer was FUN NOW he is NOT
Quite different, in my opinion.
I laughed more at this than the episode.Originally Posted by jordanwj
Well... Max Power thinks your all wrong, suckers!
I've never seen the movie 'Inception' before, so perhaps if I watched it I could have reviewed it better.
I'll start off with Act 1. I didn't really find anything that funny, but the direction the story sounded interesting and promising.
Act 2 started getting random, such as normal Stu, and Homer just talking to his own mind, and talking about karma with Apu in a dream, probably taking a bit more time than it should have, but the idea still followed through the main plot. The 'I am Sorry' barbecue was kind of funny.
Act 3 was a bit wierd, containing a bit of pointless things, such as Bart's dance while falling from the sky. (It should take a bit less time) The Tracey Ullman cameo had an interesting idea and a path leading to the next part. Homer's 'food land' is the wierdest part of the whole episode, in fact, this part made the episode seem like another Treehouse of Horror.
Act 4 is probably the thing worth mentioning most in the episode. I like Mona's appearance in the episode, and the story behind Homer's bed-wetting. Mona's goodbye was pretty dumb, to be honest. The ending? The ending of the episode is all over the place, and random; the spinning top and hail?-- it's irrelevant.
My thoughts on the episode may be because I never watched 'Inception' but I still only chuckled a little throughout. The thing missing most in this season are the emotions of the characters. (Maybe this is why people refer it as 'Zombie Simpsons') The writers should put a bit more thought into writing new episodes or parodies. I'll probably check out 'Inception' some time this year and see the relevance to what was happening in this episode.
The episode wasn't terrible, but wasn't good either. The older Simpsons episodes had more meaning than just parodies. On a scale of 5, this would probably get a 3. C+
Well, don't take my word for it. If I watched Inception, my ratings would probably be higher.
Last edited by Hot Chocolate; 03-13-2012 at 10:53 PM.
FRINK: (sticks suction cup thing on Marge's head)
Wait! Don't say a word...you're here because Homer wets his bed, right?
Wow, did you invent a machine that actually reads minds?
No, I was just seeing if my refined suction cup would stick to a sweaty forehead. This thing on my head just picks up twitter tweets and your son tweeted Homer's been a 'ahoy' a bit leaky.
Can you help?
Yes, I can help your husband's bed wetting via 'n-ghey' dream therapy.
How do you know it's caused by his dreams?
Because I'm not licenced to treat an actual urinary tract infection.
Why is Frink practically a sorcerer now? He used to be a failed inventor, right? RIGHT? THE SIMPSONS CHANGED, MAN!
I laughed at something in this episode but I can't remember what. It probably wasn't that funny in retrospect. I dunno C or C- or something.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)