Worst Zombie Simpsons complaint ever.

[Diversity Pumpkin]

Is anybody else sick of this one being brought up all the time now? It's the complaint that they're just dumping characters into scenes even though realistically, they have no right to be there because it doesn't fit their character. For example, maybe Sideshow Mel will appear at one of Homer's BBQ's - but wait a minute! Sideshow Mel isn't frinds with Homer! What's he doing there?!

The worst one I heard was recently - a blog which shall remain nameless was complaining about Krusty appearing at a lackluster event in Springfield. "BUT KRUSTY'S A BIG CELEBRITY! He's even been knighted by the Queen! Why would he appear at something so pathetic?" LOL WHAT? This is the same clown who went door to door in Homer the Heretic asking for charity donations. Do people even watch the classic episodes anymore? They'll pick on the new seasons for shit that the older ones are doing moreso.

The citzens of Springfield should be at each other's gatherings. They've been through everything together. What actually annoys me about Zombie Simpsons is when they act like they haven't (for example, Ned and Edna meeting for the first time in season 22. Uh-huh...).

[The Governor]

^^^Characters randomly appearing is lazy writing. Back in the day, characters had a purpose to appear in their places and if an episode like Deep Space Homer were to air today, Homer would be on the couch in one scene and then in the next he'd be on the moon trying to find his keys and the inanimate carbon rod would be voiced by Jeremy Irons.

[Dark Homer]

I don't see what's wrong with that complaint? There used to be a divide between people who know The Simpsons and people who don't (famous television personalities, for the most part) that helped ground the show in some sort of reality. But now that Homer's best friends with literally everybody ever, and Bumblebee Man et al. is always present at everything at anywhere anytime, it's cheapened that reality quite a bit. And they do that goddamn "LOOK AT THESE WACKY CHARACTERS HYUCK HYUCK" thing where three disposable side characters say some unfunny quip related to their one quirk so much now, and it's so rarely if ever funny.

I'll grant you Krusty though, his level is fame is so wildly inconsistent that's it's not worth getting bent out of shape about

[lolcats]

This is the same clown who went door to door in Homer the Heretic asking for charity donations. Do people even watch the classic episodes anymore? They'll pick on the new seasons for shit that the older ones are doing moreso.

Krusty was going around door to door, not randomly bursting into Homer's house because he's friends with him.

[Flimpson Tide]

Eh, The Simpsons was never that realistic in the first place. Looking at Deep Space Homer, there are tons of whacky moments - Kent Brockman freaking out about space ants on the news, the carbon rod saving the crew in space, Barney's ride on a jet pack (has that actually been invented yet?), Barney backflipping, Homer's face transforming into Nixon's, the astronauts grabbing Homer's arm in the nick of time and saving him. It's still an incredibly funny episode, but you can't justify the reality of it. I agree that gags have gotten zanier too, like Homer walking up a 90-degree wall and dancing on the ceiling in that shitty rag episode, but that doesn't mean the classic era was realistic. So I will agree with Diversity Pumpkin on the "who really gives a shit" argument.

[The Governor]

Eh, The Simpsons was never that realistic in the first place.

Oh gawd...it's the slippery slope of an argument of "oh, wackiness existed in the classic era and that justifies it existing today!" bs.

I never said the show was 100 percent realistic, I said the show was written better and every character had a purpose for being in a their scene(s). Being animated is no excuse for slacking off and going batshit insane because you can and I cannot wait for the next circle-jerk reply of "oh, it's a cartoon!" to excuse even more shitty writing.

[shoz999]

"Is anybody else sick of this one being brought up all the time now? It's the complaint that they're just dumping characters into scenes even though realistically, they have no right to be there because it doesn't fit their character. For example, maybe Sideshow Mel will appear at one of Homer's BBQ's - but wait a minute! Sideshow Mel isn't frinds with Homer! What's he doing there?!

The worst one I heard was recently - a blog which shall remain nameless was complaining about Krusty appearing at a lackluster event in Springfield. "BUT KRUSTY'S A BIG CELEBRITY! He's even been knighted by the Queen! Why would he appear at something so pathetic?" LOL WHAT? This is the same clown who went door to door in Homer the Heretic asking for charity donations. Do people even watch the classic episodes anymore? They'll pick on the new seasons for shit that the older ones are doing moreso.

The citzens of Springfield should be at each other's gatherings. They've been through everything together. What actually annoys me about Zombie Simpsons is when they act like they haven't (for example, Ned and Edna meeting for the first time in season 22. Uh-huh...). "

Dude, they've done a lot of these things in the classic Simpsons. Especially the Krusty one. In BOTH Classic and Modern Simpsons, they BOTH show Krusty as either a Big Star or a Lackluster. Ever seen Kamp Krusty showing him selling out and that's one of the most classic episodes in The Simpsons. Dumping characters into scenes? They've done that all the time. In fact, Family, King Of The Hill, Futurama, a lot of American Animated Cartoons have that in pretty much every episode, whether it's a cameo or just popping in to explain a aspect or just pointless randomness of the plot. In fact, if you didn't know already, the Classic Simpsons, not even the modern Simpsons have shown this a lot, have shown Homer as both a Friend and Enemy to pretty much every Springfieldian, even Moe, Lenny, Carl, and Barney were shown as both Friends and Enemies. Seriously, a lot of what your saying has started with the Classic Simpsons, so basically saying your annoyed at the Classic Simpsons for starting many of these storyline aspects which continue on in the Modern Simpsons. Plus, it wasn't up to the writer to the Ned'na thing, it was up to the fans who voted. A lot of these votes going for Ned'na must mean that The Simpsons still carry on a strong fanbase who respect both Classic and Modern Simpsons instead of just Classic Simpsons. Also Please, most of us prefer to call "Zombie" Simpsons, Modern Simpsons, the more accurate term.

[The Governor]

^^^Again, nobody was saying the show was 100 percent realistic. The was just written better because the episodes had their own internal logic that made them funnier. Homer got a job then, Homer gets a job now...Famous people existed then, famous people existed now, but back then their appearances made sense in the episode and it made the show funnier.

[irvine_11]

Krusty was going around door to door, not randomly bursting into Homer's house because he's friends with him.

Best. Explanation. Ever.

[7eleven2007]

Eh, The Simpsons was never that realistic in the first place. Looking at Deep Space Homer, there are tons of whacky moments - Kent Brockman freaking out about space ants on the news, the carbon rod saving the crew in space, Barney's ride on a jet pack (has that actually been invented yet?), Barney backflipping, Homer's face transforming into Nixon's, the astronauts grabbing Homer's arm in the nick of time and saving him. It's still an incredibly funny episode, but you can't justify the reality of it. I agree that gags have gotten zanier too, like Homer walking up a 90-degree wall and dancing on the ceiling in that shitty rag episode, but that doesn't mean the classic era was realistic. So I will agree with Diversity Pumpkin on the "who really gives a shit" argument.

For me at least, when I'm talking about realism I'm talking about characterization consistency. Although homer becoming an astronaunt is unlikely, his reaction and what he does in this unlikely situation is realistic given his characterization. Whereas modern Simpson will make him the best astronaut in the world, in classical Simpsons he almost Fked the whole group up and almost caused the spaceship to crash.

Similarly, Krusty appearing at a crappy concert would have been more realistic if there was an explanation of why he's there. Krusty has appeared in personal parties in classical era be4, but thats because krusty gets paid like 3000$/hr to be there. In the door to door krusty homer interaction, it is made clear that krusty doesn't just show up for no reason, hes there for charity.

Whereas modern Simpsons just throws characters into places where, given who the characters are, they would never goto, classical Simpsons Pays attention to characterization and place characters where they might go given who they are. In homer triple bypass, krusty shows up beside homer in the hospital bed not cuz he's homers friend, it's cuz he's on community service. In another classic episode, krusty shows up at the Simpsons birthday party not cuz he knows the Simpsons, but cuz he's paid to be there and he's greedy

In every classical scene, characters are always somewhere for a reason, and those reasons conform to their characterization. In modern Simpsons, characters just pop up w/o explanations, and even if there are explanations, it doesn't fit into who they are

[Wavy Gravy]

I think it's an entirely legitimate complaint. Though I have to admit, I never really noticed it until "A Midsummer's Nice Dream". There's no goddamned reason for people like Fat Tony and Hans Moleman and Reverend Lovejoy to be at a fucking Cheech and Chong show.

It's another example of the writers treating the show like a sketch comedy. They think up isolated one-liners for random characters, then shove them all into the same setting and awkwardly scotch-tape them together to create something vaguely resembling a scene. Springfield isn't a small town anymore, it's a gigantic movie set where every character knows every other character. And the writers are perfectly okay with that - to them, they're all just drawings, it doesn't have to make sense, it's just a cartoon, and fuck the viewers for expecting anything better.

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

I agree that that was a pretty bad complaint. I know that Modern Simpsons are not that good, but some of the things fans get upset over nowadays baffles me as to what they see as a huge problem, and how often they see it.("Jerkass Homer").

[Dobbie]

You don't see a problem with Jerkass Homer?

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

I see a problem with it, but I don't get anywhere near as annoyed by him as most other fans here. I feel that if its funny, and I don't find it too mean or jerkassy, I can still enjoy it. That's part of the reason I have no problem with most of season 10. I have problems when other characters are just caricature's of their classic self, like Skinner or Milhouse, but at least when Homer does something like that, I usually find it funny.

[zartok-35]

Yeah, I've always felt that way about the Scully seasons aswell. I'm bothered more by the absurdity of the situations than Homer's characterization.