View Poll Results: How do you rate "How I Wet Your Mother"? (PABF08)

Voters
118. You may not vote on this poll
  • 5/5: Homer & Mona forever!

    27 22.88%
  • 4/5: A nice trip down dream lane.

    43 36.44%
  • 3/5: Ahh, it feels soo good to dream; oh wait, I'm feeling damp...

    18 15.25%
  • 2/5: I'm wet. Someone change me, now!

    21 17.80%
  • 1/5: Well... It's not better than South Park.

    9 7.63%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 207



Thread: Rate and Review "How I Wet Your Mother" (PABF08)



(Users Browsing this Thread: )

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,705
    Blog Entries
    4


    Quote Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful View Post
    It was all done digitally of course though, on a cold, heartless computer.
    May god have mercy on us all if anybody starts another debate about this.

  2. #122
    Junior Camper jordanwj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    149
    Blog Entries
    1


    Thumbs Down SKINEEEEER!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful View Post
    It was all done digitally of course though, on a cold, heartless computer.
    ...I don't even know what to say to this....oh wait, yes I do.

    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.

    Phew.

    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.

    Oh and...
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Jake View Post
    So I'll say it one last time using enlarged-small words for those who like using the "It's a cartoon!!!" defense...

    BEING A CARTOON DOES NOT MAKE THE SIMPSONS IMMUNE TO: CRITICISM, LAZY WRITING, BAD PLOTTING, AND TERRIBLE JOKES AND PUNS. THESE ASPECTS ARE NOT THE BYPRODUCT OF BEING ANIMATED, THEY'RE BYPRODUCTS OF LAZY WRITERS.
    Pretty much this.

    ___________________
    DeviantART
    Google+
    Official Website

  3. #123
    I'm baaaack! Patches O'houlihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin: "More bars in more places."
    Posts
    14,140
    Blog Entries
    1


    Quote Originally Posted by Diversity Pumpkin View Post
    May god have mercy on us all if anybody starts another debate about this.
    I find it ironic the guy who keeps repeating "It's a cartoon!" gets the "Cartoon" part wrong when it comes to Simpsons animation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knifey*Spoony View Post
    What really bothered me is that in one of the shots when Homer peed himself that pee it all the way up to his chest. I mean, If you peed that much wouldn't it be mostly on the spead and down your legs? And his position when he wole up didn't match up for the pee either. This annoyed me for some reason.
    Maybe it wasn't pee, maybe he drank too much Duff and spilled it all over himself before passing out in bed.

  4. #124
    pineapple shoes Dark Homer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    17,825
    Blog Entries
    10


    lots of loud words in this thread

  5. #125


    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.

  6. #126
    the Frying Dutchman AttackOfTheKillerTomatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Eindhoven, the Netherlands
    Posts
    1,990


    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!


  7. #127
    The Chosen One Wail-Id's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    30,900
    Blog Entries
    124


    Quote Originally Posted by Le Jake View Post
    So I'll say it one last time using enlarged-small words for those who like using the "It's a cartoon!!!" defense...

    BEING A CARTOON DOES NOT MAKE THE SIMPSONS IMMUNE TO: CRITICISM, LAZY WRITING, BAD PLOTTING, AND TERRIBLE JOKES AND PUNS. THESE ASPECTS ARE NOT THE BYPRODUCT OF BEING ANIMATED, THEY'RE BYPRODUCTS OF LAZY WRITERS.
    it's kinda funny if you really think this is the 'last time' this'll be said, since there's always people using the 'cartoon' defense

  8. #128


    Oh and...

    Pretty much this.

    [/QUOTE]

    I havent laughed at the simpsons for a long time.I just see this and I burst in Laughter thanks I needed that

  9. #129


    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedwaySquad View Post
    I dunno if this is being just plain hard to please, but I still think the Ullman bit could have been animated better. I watched the original "Family Therapy" on Youtube afterwards, and while the bit in the episode is a nice homage, I would have loved for them to go all out on the animation. Like, in the shorts, the family's mouths all move really weirdly, like they stretch a lot more, sometimes off their faces. I just think there's something really unique and great about the Ullman shorts' animation and it didn't quite capture it. Yeah, maybe they weren't focusing on the animation to that degree, but it would have been cool if they did.

    I loved the twister mouth though.
    Seriously.With how much The Simpsons suck nowadays and the Producers not caring be glad they actually tried to imitate the animation of Tracy Ullman shorts
    I've been noticing that the writers are using the Nostalgia Card way too often this season

  10. #130


    Quote Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful View Post
    It was all done digitally of course though, on a cold, heartless computer.
    If Im not mistaked though those were Real Animated Frames

  11. #131
    I'm not your friend-o Cartoonnetwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,758
    Blog Entries
    1


    Quote Originally Posted by Le Jake View Post
    I'm sorry, but get you undies out of twist. Never once, in this thread or otherwise, have I said the classic era was 100 percent realistic, 100 percent of the time. Before you go cherry pick more examples, they were experimenting with the tone of the series in the first season, so they didn't know how far to push the cartoonish side of the show. Also, the next season went on to produce the most grounded season in the history of the show, while keeping the cartoonish surrealism in check (no I didn't say it did not exist, so sit down). When I said earlier the show defied generic cartoon conventions, I never once said the show stopped totally being unrealistic, I'm not sure why you (or others) who try to defend Zombie Simpsons's lack of subtle satire and overuse of bad surrealism as being a byproduct of being a cartoon when bad surrealism the work of half-assed writers and lack of care--these negative aspects of the show didn't just fall out of the sky after an explosion in the writers's room. If you think the staff nowadays puts as much effort and time in the scripts in rewrites and table reads like they did in the first few seasons, you're out of you goddamn mind.

    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. Compare Frink just falling out of the sky vs. Bart winding up in front of the Simpson house. Bart was just beaten up by a bully (which do exist, btw!) and stuffed in a trash can (which I've seen happen in some 80's movies that weren't cartoons) and is rolled down the hill and stops at the Simpsons house (which is a stretch, but it's not out of the realm of possibility) and he coughs up his hat (okay, that moment was surreal, but it added to the joke of how bad bart was being bullied). Compare that to Frink landing on the sidewalk after falling out of sky from a great distance high up in the air because of a lab explosion (?) with the solution to Homer's problem, along with Normal Stu who just happened to be there, too.

    It's no comparison, the only part of Bart's "surreal" moment that could completely not happen was his hat being coughed up. Yeah, Lisa might've been there to give advice, but that's what caring siblings would in a situation like that. She didn't tell Bart she invented something that'd give him super strength to pummel Nelson, or something. Plus, she was next to the house, not walking down some random street where Bart "just happened" to bump into her. Whereas there was nothing more to Frink's apparent dropping out of the sky other than to force the contrived plot forward in the most bumbling manner possible. That scene was cheap and reeked of lazyiness on the writer's behalf.
    All true, and well explained. But...I won't use the 'it's a cartoon' line, God forbid me, but my question is: Did that thing bother you THAT much? I can see why you would want to include it in your review or say that could have been done better but I don't understand how in the world this could possibly detract you so much from the enjoyment of the episode. The episode had another complicated parts. I won't say it was the best written episode ever, but it was one of the best written in this season. They could easily have Marge going to Frink's house intentionally because she thinks he could have the solution to the problem. But what would be the difference? Yeah, maybe the world of the series would look a little more realistic, but the plot and the comedy would esentially be the same. 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?

    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!


    http://elblogderg.blogspot.com

  12. #132
    Junior Camper Mr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    182


    Quote Originally Posted by Le Jake View Post
    Call of the Simpsons is probably the most juvenile of the first season episodes, which is why it's my second least favorite episode of Season 1. Of course if you're implying all the surreal aspects of the classic era and the bad surreal gags of Zombie Simpsons are 100 percent equal and interchangeable because they're surreal AND IT'S A CARTOON!!!!
    Um... I'm not saying that it shoudn't matter beacose it's a cartoon. I'm just poiting out that Simpsons had surreal ("silly" as I like to call it) aspects from the start so something like Profesor Frink falling from the sky wasn't anything I felt wasn't in the spirit of the show... BTW! I like the joke that he know what was going on cose Bart tweet it to him (we live in the age of the internet after all)

  13. #133
    I'm baaaack! Patches O'houlihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin: "More bars in more places."
    Posts
    14,140
    Blog Entries
    1


    Quote Originally Posted by Cartoonnetwork View Post
    All true, and well explained. But...I won't use the 'it's a cartoon' line, God forbid me, but my question is: Did that thing bother you THAT much?
    It didn't so much as people who use the it's a cartoon line when they try to defend ANY part of the show I thought was amiss. What happens in these debates is, especially when they like the episode and I did not, is: I thought it was bad for reasons A,B and C...and their "reply" is: A, it's a cartoon; B, it's a cartoon; C, it's a cartoon. Even worse, when people putting 90% of the grade on 10% of the episode (Ullman short and Mona coming back).

    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?
    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."

    The scene with Frink was the latter. There was nothing creative about it, it was lazy cartoonish filler.

    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 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.

    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.
    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'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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. View Post
    Um... I'm not saying that it shoudn't matter beacose it's a cartoon. I'm just poiting out that Simpsons had surreal ("silly" as I like to call it) aspects from the start so something like Profesor Frink falling from the sky wasn't anything I felt wasn't in the spirit of the show... BTW! I like the joke that he know what was going on cose Bart tweet it to him (we live in the age of the internet after all)
    That was a shitty joke because Bart only told Frink about the bedwetting and nothing about it being related to Homer's dreams. Frink, who is now omniscient instantly diagnosed Homer's problem with his dreams. Wow. Cool. Whatever. Did Frink have a case of Expositoriuts?


    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

  14. #134
    I'm not your friend-o Cartoonnetwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,758
    Blog Entries
    1


    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.

  15. #135
    What about a robot? Takes_Life_Soony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,840
    Blog Entries
    47


    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.


  16. #136
    Junior Camper jordanwj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    149
    Blog Entries
    1


    Quote Originally Posted by Knifey*Spoony View Post
    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.
    There are some shows that can have this style of obnoxiousness and be fine, a la Family Guy, however The Simpsons was not started this way, it was meant essentially to be an animated version of a typical sitcom, which represents realism.

  17. #137


    Quote Originally Posted by Le Jake View Post



    Call of the Simpsons is probably the most juvenile of the first season episodes, which is why it's my second least favorite episode of Season 1.
    Im Dissapoint !
    That episode is pretty Good IMO

  18. #138


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. View Post
    Um... I'm not saying that it shoudn't matter beacose it's a cartoon. I'm just poiting out that Simpsons had surreal ("silly" as I like to call it) aspects from the start so something like Profesor Frink falling from the sky wasn't anything I felt wasn't in the spirit of the show... BTW! I like the joke that he know what was going on cose Bart tweet it to him (we live in the age of the internet after all)
    Yeah sure it had surreal aspects anybody that watches The Simpsons KNOWS THAT
    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.

  19. #139


    Quote Originally Posted by jordanwj View Post
    There are some shows that can have this style of obnoxiousness and be fine, a la Family Guy, however The Simpsons was not started this way, it was meant essentially to be an animated version of a typical sitcom, which represents realism.
    Umm dissagreed with this
    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

  20. #140
    Junior Camper
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    40


    Really enjoyed it! Was funny, and very nicely animated and put-together!

  21. #141
    Junior Camper jordanwj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    149
    Blog Entries
    1


    Quote Originally Posted by ThankYouComeAgain View Post
    Umm dissagreed with this
    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
    You are right, and no I have not forgotten those shorts, I have most of them. Perhaps I chose the wrong words when I said "typical sitcom"; what I meant was that the Simpsons is a parody of the then modern American family, basically an evolution of Wait Till Your Father Gets Home, I don't think the Simpsons has to be realistic, it's a cartoon (sorry) and as such it doesn't have to follow the rules of a live action sitcom, however, it set rules for its univers early on, and is going from structured stories that make sense to a pot luck of none sense with scant substance.

    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.

  22. #142
    What about a robot? Takes_Life_Soony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,840
    Blog Entries
    47


    ^Curb Your Enthusiam is also amazing.

  23. #143


    Quote Originally Posted by jordanwj View Post
    You are right, and no I have not forgotten those shorts, I have most of them. Perhaps I chose the wrong words when I said "typical sitcom"; what I meant was that the Simpsons is a parody of the then modern American family, basically an evolution of Wait Till Your Father Gets Home, I don't think the Simpsons has to be realistic, it's a cartoon (sorry) and as such it doesn't have to follow the rules of a live action sitcom, however, it set rules for its univers early on, and is going from structured stories that make sense to a pot luck of none sense with scant substance.

    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.
    Simpsons nowadays is 2 and a half men 2.0 I shit you not
    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

  24. #144


    Quote Originally Posted by Tubb! View Post
    In this scene, Bart coughs up a fully-intact baseball cap after being thrown into a trashcan that magically takes him directly to his house for the second time, where (just so happens) Lisa is waiting to tell him that Grandpa can help him with his problems.

    Scenes like this from the classic era are why I don't have a problem with Frink falling from the sky in front of Marge after an explosion.
    Lisa sitting having an ice-cream in front of her family home seems like quite a normal thing in life. A mad scientist flying into the scene to magically diagnose Homer's problem is something else. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't (formerly) Disco Stu happen to walk past at that moment too?
    Quite different, in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by jordanwj
    The animation is great and stays true to its original style, the writing is for the most part, bland, uninspired, and flat.
    I laughed more at this than the episode.

  25. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Space Earth
    Posts
    1,928
    Blog Entries
    8


    Well... Max Power thinks your all wrong, suckers!

  26. #146
    Pretentious Hipster Elitist Robotics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,508
    Blog Entries
    13


    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 Robotics; 03-13-2012 at 10:53 PM.

  27. #147
    I'm baaaack! Patches O'houlihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin: "More bars in more places."
    Posts
    14,140
    Blog Entries
    1


    Quote Originally Posted by Cartoonnetwork View Post
    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.
    Marge could've knocked on Frink's door (which could've been drawn to look like Doc Brown's garage) and Frink answers wearing the same "mind reading" apparatus Brown wore in Back to the Future. The scene could've went like this:

    MARGE:
    Professor Frink--

    FRINK: (sticks suction cup thing on Marge's head)
    Wait! Don't say a word...you're here because Homer wets his bed, right?

    MARGE:
    Wow, did you invent a machine that actually reads minds?

    FRINK:
    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.

    MARGE:
    Can you help?

    FRINK:
    Yes, I can help your husband's bed wetting via 'n-ghey' dream therapy.

    MARGE:
    How do you know it's caused by his dreams?

    FRINK:
    Because I'm not licenced to treat an actual urinary tract infection.

  28. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,705
    Blog Entries
    4


    Why is Frink practically a sorcerer now? He used to be a failed inventor, right? RIGHT? THE SIMPSONS CHANGED, MAN!

  29. #149


    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.

  30. #150
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,943
    Blog Entries
    1


    Quote Originally Posted by jordanwj View Post
    ...I don't even know what to say to this....oh wait, yes I do.

    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.

    Phew.

    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.
    Digital animation is awful, it lacks emotional expressions. All I see these days is everyone smiling or making no facial expressions at all, so.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •