Meta Analysis and Narrative Infrastructure Thread

[MisogiKurakawa]

So, this was something which came up in the thread for Lisa Gets An F1, and it's something which I've tried to discuss in other threads, so I'm doing this thread to fully lay out my thoughts in detail.

Ever notice how stories from the perspective of the kids are almost always kinda....empty?

Despite the fact that Bart and Lisa comprise half of the main cast, the show has been always jarringly conservative when it comes to the premise of actually having them interact with other kids their age. There's Milhouse, yes, but that comes with a bunch of significant caveats; Milhouse in the classic series is defined almost exclusively not by being "Bart's friend", but someone for him to talk to on the regular. Many of Bart's classic stories barely use him at all, often just amounting to a line or two, and outside of Homer Defined and Bart's Friend Falls in Love, their relationship when actually depicted is almost always depicted as a joke about how horribly Bart treats him (indeed, even the latter "serious" example makes their friendship out to be incredibly toxic and one-sided). Milhouse is by and large not really treated as a character worth the dimension that the Simpsons family and the major secondary characters like Burns, Moe and Edna receive....and yet he's far and away the most relevant. For the others, Nelson and Ralph were effectively treated like guest characters in their "important" episodes, with none of their serious development being reflected outside of them (post-classic did try to give Nelson more concrete development, albeit to....mixed results), Martin fairly quickly slid out of relevance into being more and more of a throwaway, and the rest (Janey, the twins, etc) didn't even get that - they're nothing more than background filler with only names and the very rare speaking line to seperate them from generics.

The reason this sticks out to me is that it very directly affects how these stories were written. Despite many of the stories trying to be "relatable" childhood narratives, there's pointedly very little in the way of actual developed interactions that aren't supplied by adults or guest characters (Laura, Allison, Jessica, the cool kids in Summer of 4'2, basically Ralph as well). Bart has a few boys he speaks to, but not ones whose relationships with really get meaningfully highlighted in any way, and Lisa doesn't even get that - she has practically no relationships to anchor her outside of her family. And thus, when the story tries to be about the school, or the kids in general, it pretty much always ends up being just Bart and Lisa, with practically no character work for anyone else (Kamp Krusty is a good example of this).

So now we have an episode like the aforementioned Lisa Gets An F1, which is supposed to be a story about Lisa taking up kids go-karting and her relationship with Homer....only to suddenly pivot midway through into a satire on the F1 where Lisa competes against a wacky Italian kid who Bart suckers in a B-Plot. This is seemingly really jarring, but the reason why it does this is pretty simple - just what could the writers do with the base premise? While a story about the kids doing go-karting is perfectly fine, it needs some kind of actual detailed structure to be narratively interesting, only there isn't anything in the way of narrative infrastructure to allow for that naturally. So the F1 satire and the character of Paolo exists in effect to mask this problem; it's the show using the premise of satire as a way to cover that there's just no story it's able believably tell.

I dunno, anyone have their own thoughts on this subject? Because I'm curious if anyone has their own take here, both on the subject being discussed, and if it could've been averted.

 

[Brad Lascelle]

Nothing you said above is exactly new or controversial. This show's writers have always had an aversion to storylines involving the kids as an ensemble despite the fact that examples of this in the Classic era... like Bart on the Road, Das Bus, Lard of the Dance and Lemon of Troy... have been well-received. This is also despite the fact that shows NOT aimed towards kid audiences have still managed to flourish with storylines largely centralized around their cast of kid characters... be it Bob's Burgers in the same programming block or fare like South Park - although you could, rightfully, argue that the kids in South Park rarely behave like actual children their age.

The above even applies towards one-off guest characters. Lisa chases down Sam in The Girl on the Bus and proceeds to have a double-life... one largely revolving around her relationship with Sam's parents moreso than "the girl on the bus". Many of the other "Lisa gets a friend" episodes largely boil down to conflicts involving her mother (Tumi, Juliet, Nick, Luca$), her relationship with her father (Harper) or political commentary (Isabel) as opposed to deconstructing/exploring those kid relationships in a substantive way. Episodes like Diggs are kind of the exception to that rule.

The irony to this mentality is that there are plenty of examples of shows that are actually targeted towards children with richly developed ensemble casts, organic episode-by-episode character growth and development (even within a standalone episodic structure) with creatives behind them that respect their audiences a hell of a lot more than the ones behind the Simpsons do.

My counter-argument is that your indictment of the show isn't just one that can be applied to the show's recurring cast of "the Springfield kids". It's one that can be applied towards the ENTIRE cast. This show isn't interested in telling meaningful stories with just about ANY of the characters they've established... and when they do move away from the Simpson family on the rare occasion, it's to rehash the same stories with Moe or Burns or Skinner that they've told before. (Once again, there is the rare exception to the rule... like Carl Carlson Rides Again. Which I'm sure they'll follow up on in a decade... if then.)

Ditto for the jokes they tell with them and the town's minor characters. That Crazy Cat Lady bit with the puppies has been retold with slight variations in 50 episodes. That bit with Lunchlady Dora this Sunday... same joke with slight vairations across 50 episodes. Disco Stu. Gil. Cletus. Arnie Pye. You name it. Same jokes with slightly different spins. Outside of meta commentary and in-your-face unsubtle parody (because the subtle shit that worked in the Classic era can't work now apparently), just about every joke can be boiled down to taking a scenario, putting characters you know in it, bringing out a joke they've told with said character so much that you expect it and then making you laugh because they did something slightly different.

You know why that line from Rachel Bloom's Annette got the biggest laugh from last Sunday's episode? It's because they haven't told that joke with that character before. It was still a subversion... because she's been introduced and sold to us as one thing and her over-the-top reaction to Lisa's impending doom was a complete 180 from it. But it was effective BECAUSE it was new. Shocking how that happens. Now if they bring her back a dozen times and do the same shtick over and over again... guess what... those reactions will dissipate until we get numb to them.

We want new. We crave new. And the vast majority of the writers who work on this show have a deep-seated aversion to new.

 

[Kangdos]

I think this needs to be seen in the perspective that, at least throughout the classic era, the show was generally not interested in the social lives of the main family members outside of the main family. As far as friends go, Homer had Barney but that was pretty much it. Homer of course hung out at Moe's all the time but he hardly ever hung out with Moe or the bar flies outside of that context. And while it's easy to forget nowadays, Lenny and Carl back in those days were usually portrayed as merely Homer's colleagus, as well other patrons at Moe's, but not friends that he hung out with in other contexts. Episodes focusing on Homer's actual friendship did exist, and in those cases always focused on either Barney or Moe, but they were rare. And still, Homer was by far the luckiest family member in this regard. Like what was said in the opening post, Bart's friendship with Milhouse was shallow and mostly used for gags and/or just to give someone for Bart to talk to, and let's not even begin talking about his barely existant friendships with other boys at school. And as we all know, the dudes in the Simpsons writers room at the time were completely uninterested in any friendships that Marge or Lisa may have had, to to point where the writers eventually become self aware enough of this fact that they threw in jokes precisely about these two gals complete lack of social lives.

So this isn't so much as Simpsons kids issue but more of a Simpsons issue in general. Or at least were. In the decades since the golden age ended the show has been all over the place in portraying the social lives of the family members, although since the golden age laid the canonical foundation that modern episodes are always based on some of what was being done (or rather, not being done) back in the day still lingers. Lisa and Marge still don't have any truly close friends. Especially Marge, honestly, since with Lisa it's clear that Janey is at least supposedly her best friend even if we never see any real closeness between them. Marge on the other hand is still stuck in a situation where the question "who is her closest friend?" simply cannot be answered because such a person doesn't exist. If the writers wants Marge to have friends for a scene they'll just toss in any or every of the other reccuring adult female characters and call it a day. "Hmm... Marge needs to be at a restuarant drinking wine and talking for this next scene... what other women do we have? Let's go with, hmm, Manjula, Lindesy Neagle and... Agnes.". It's honestly kind of cringeworthy.

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

Nothing you said above is exactly new or controversial. This show's writers have always had an aversion to storylines involving the kids as an ensemble despite the fact that examples of this in the Classic era... like Bart on the Road, Das Bus, Lard of the Dance and Lemon of Troy... have been well-received. This is also despite the fact that shows NOT aimed towards kid audiences have still managed to flourish with storylines largely centralized around their cast of kid characters... be it Bob's Burgers in the same programming block or fare like South Park - although you could, rightfully, argue that the kids in South Park rarely behave like actual children their age.

Funny you would mention Lard of the Dance, given I would consider that episode really representative of the issue. They wanted to tell a story about Lisa feeling disconnected by her friends being into the cool new girl, but because Lisa has no actual friends, they instead just resorted to using Janey and the twins, both background characters with no real relationship with her, and Allison, who does have a proper relationship with her, but since they can't get Winona Ryder back, they resort to just having Pamela Hayden do incidental throwaway lines. The result is a plot which is less Lisa interacting with other girls, and more just a bunch of back and forth between Yardley Smith and Liza Kudlow in the recording booth, broken up by a B-Plot where Homer sells lard.

 

[CousinMerl]

We want new. We crave new. And the vast majority of the writers who work on this show have a deep-seated aversion to new.

This is the be all, end all solution to the show's problems when it comes to the uninspired writing that fails to make any creative and/or meaningful use of the characters, including the Springfield kids. Just injecting new adrenaline in the form of letting fresh, eager young writers into the room with new viewpoints and ideas and a willingness to renew the series would do so much for it.

(Oh, and speaking of wanting a focus on the kid characters, I can't help but recommend @MisogiKurakawa check out CN's 'Craig Of The Creek', which is fantastic at tackling genuinely fun, funny, creative, interesting & also emotional and dramatic stories (at times) of kids doing all kinds of things, with a vast, colorful cast of characters. Sure, it is not 'The Simpsons' and certainly not adult animation, but one of the best modern animated shows and is mainly all about kid & also some teen characters, whom can be surprisingly compelling).

 

[Venomrabbit]

Well could it have been averted? Yep. Can it still be averted? Yup. If they'd just try.

One of the worst moves they made was not bothering with Martin or the twins. All of which were introduced really well, actually.

Martin's not particularly aggressive a nerd, he doesn't seek to put others down but his place as the top kid in class gives him a lofty mindset conveyed in how he calls his peers "fellow children" or even "the children" as if he wasn't one himself. The arrogance wasn't written on his face, maybe not even something he's aware of but the way he talks betrayed it. He's not even unfriendly but he has no idea how to properly relate to others and is socially clueless. His entire thing in Bart gets a F was getting Bart to teach him to be more normal/cool since under the metric ton of nerd-ness is still a boy who wants to be accepted and liked by others.

Sherri and Terri are also brighter kids but use those brains for troublemaking, they're a bit like Bart in that regard but their methods were more in causing people embarrassment or making them do something stupid. In part for amusement but in their debut they also get Edna to throw them some praise, likewise later they use their dads' words about Homer as an excuse to put Bart down. Putting down others to look better (and arguably fishing for compliments) is a classic means of conveying insecurity. Being better than other people is important to them, and compared to Martin they don't measure up. If anything this angle should be even stronger against someone like Lisa. "Sometimes I/we don't feel like I'm/We're better than everyone else" possibly even came from Selman himself since he apparently wrote for the Simpsons Game.

Call it extrapolation if you want but even being able to get that much out of supposedly totally generic characters kinda says something, especially for just one or two episodes. I sure couldn't say that much about a decent chunk of the cast with that little material even if I tried to really get into it.

What capped the twins more than anything was that they were girls. And the new guys that came in by season 3 didn't want to bother with 'em for it. They already had a fair bit of a base and showed more personality than Milhouse ("Guy Bart can talk to" just like Richard and Lewis) and Nelson ("Bully") but the latter two got all the focus despite not having much to go on in comparison while Martin coasted along sorta-okay. Nelson found something in the joke moments that implied a sensitive side and a crappy home life that got tied together down the line into actual traits. But still he went from seemingly being moved to Bart's main source of antagonism to just "grumpy buddy" pretty quickly since he didn't offer much as an enemy. Milhouse had to have a crush on Lisa stapled to him to have that much point. Token-incel was probably also a decision to try and give him more of his own hook which, for better or worse, seemed to sorta work.

And the thing is, there's every opportunity to do something with these kids. They've already proven that the backstories of Homer and Marge can be warped at any time and they're inventing new angles for Homer and Lisa. Whatever text from the classic era that exists can be bent or discarded at any time and I'm pretty sure Selman even said he doesn't care that much about a fixed canon as much. It's annoying in some cases but... the classic era should not be a ball-and-chain. As a framework in general, sure, something to study and learn from, certainly. But if its becoming a shackle, cast it off. Not like anything is actually sacred anyway after Mother and other Strangers.

The show's overly attached to very superficial elements from the classic era without actually getting them. One of which being parody/references as I mentioned in Lisa gets an F1, the other is guest stars. In the classic era, guests were used sparingly and with a purpose, which is why they worked. In the grand scheme of things, they are blips, and early on, the writers understood that. They were mainly played as devices to move a singular plot along or say something interesting about someone else. To that effect, several of them were the same as a main character but slightly different to hold up a mirror to them. Others can basically be summed up as running gags. It was understood that these stories weren't theirs and they'd likely disappear afterwards so instead they'd just facilitate interesting writing for someone else or symbolize something or just be a fun little side-act to make the episode more memorable.

Ironically, the thing that makes most of the more modern one-timers fall so consistently flat isn't just "they're bad" but probably "the show tries to treat them more like full characters than the classic ones" and puts actual development into them and the stories tend to be about them in some capacity. Except they're never seen before, last about five scenes on average and are telegraphed from the moon that they probably won't appear again so why care? By the end of the episode, they're gone, leaving no impact whatsoever because they don't even say anything meaningful about anyone else. The original lot were fine for what they are, even good, but I think the fandom and the show has forgotten their actual use and it's strangling the life out of the show. They now just show up and take focus away from anyone who should matter, so it just comes off as white noise to me.

Take The Wondering Juvie. We're introduced partway through to an entirely new character we dump a whole tragic backstory on but... I don't care? I don't wanna sound so callous but I don't care. I don't know her and all she's done is physically abuse Bart and she's not gonna be a factor in the show. You don't just instantly dump a tragic backstory on someone nobody has ever heard of. I was watching the other day a sadly taken-down video by youtuber "Little Joel" on the Avatar remake where he mentions one thing he had a problem with was dumping exposition and backstory before there was even a chance to build any familiarity with the characters and my feelings on this are similar too. If you took out the thin romance angle and instead made it about Bart and Nelson (whose aggression Gina apes anyway just without the charm) then it'd hit differently. We know Nelson, a lot of people even like him, it'd build an actual connection for him and Bart and since he matters to the series beyond one episode, it would make him more sympathetic.

One-timers were generally not that big a part of the classic era. What happens when you force them to be the main focus above all else? Everything else gets neglected. It stagnates. Martin for instance slid out of relevance until Russi died (and that pisses me off so much, Russi was wasted) and even while we still had Edna the classroom scenes were fizzling out, because they often needed him too. Milhouse and Nelson became Bart's Lenny and Carl so it was effectively Bart, Edna and nobody else unless there was a guest star.

--

Let's look at Paulo. The only actual justifications for him I buy are "it's an international competition" and "reference to Drive to Survive" just like... that guy who I forgot already. Otherwise he's so generic and annoying that losing what little he had would be a plus. Beyond being a reference, he feels like an explicit cop out from character writing. A lot of post-classic guest roles feel like that.

Let's just say it's a local competition (why would an international racing contest be held in a nowhere town like Springfield anyway?) and play looser with the whole DtS thing because their references are unfunny unless you've seen it and probably unfunny if you have anyway. And chuck Paulo entirely. Okay, who to use? Martin seems like an obvious pick as someone who's been a racer before and usually an ace at whatever he does.

Buuuut I can think of a way to get something more unusual and give Annette more of a role, seeing as she almost fades after Lisa becomes a racer beyond one line. Let's go with Sherri. Okay, why would she be a racer? Well, given the need to put others down and all, that maybe she felt like dirt (and not the fancy store-bought dirt) because she can't measure up to the likes of Martin and Lisa at anything and Annette had suggested she try something entirely out there, and she picked racing and dominated at it... until Lisa ends up picking the exact same hobby and instantly surpasses her. We get an understandable if not terribly kind angle for her wanting to sabotage Lisa later: she finally found something she was best at and one of the people that made her feel bad in the first place just ruined that too. If anything it'd also put her attitude to Lisa throughout the series in perspective, that Lisa's talents and success make her feel bad about herself so she doesn't want to be around Lisa unless it's to score any petty, cheap "victories" she can. Helps strengthen Annette's point in the episode too. You could even foreshadow Sherri's later involvement by having her pass by or even push Lisa aside while leaving her own session.

And then maybe at the end, Sherri tries to reconcile, not realizing her sabotage would actually put Lisa in danger instead of just stopping her cart and explaining she just wanted something to feel like she's the best at. And then Lisa tells her she can have it, that she's quitting the racing business... which to a snotty insecure child like Sherri comes off as a grave insult, that any kind of victory she could have would be tainted by the knowledge that Lisa let her win. She swears revenge as Lisa walks off, the latter obliviously thinking she's finally made amends instead of ruining someone's hobby.

And hey, that presents several little character things that maybe got created by the plot but don't depend on that one plot. Sherri being an insecure sneak who's not above cheating to make up for a lack of talents and aggressively prideful but also just wanting some way to feel special. Lisa perhaps being oblivious to the anguish she's inadvertently causing and maybe not that in-tune with peoples' feelings. Maybe even have an ironic parallel and have Sherri also be kind of insensitive to how Terri might feel, being "lesser Sherri" and all. These things would all be innate to them as people going forward and maybe open up a lot of new ways for them to interact not just with each other but apart too.

Or you can have an explicit reference to some show that's not even funny to the people who do get it and Italian stereotype that makes Luigi look subtle scream about how bad the food is, hog all the screentime and then fade into the void, signifying nothing.

--

They used to have a very high bar for when they'd include guest stars. There's no "cool older girl" character so Laura. We need someone for Bob to be a hero against? Cecil. When they could use a regular, they did. And weren't strict about it. Did Martin and Nelson ever show an interest in soapbox racing before? No. But it didn't matter, they were available and gave the episode a bit more life so they were included in Saturdays of Thunder. Was Troy ever near-sighted? Not that I remember. Was he ever said before to sleep with the fishes before? Probably not. But he was an actor, and a has-been. Lisa falls in love with a bad boy? Nelson's a bad boy, use him. Was Lionel Hutz ever a realtor? No. Did he have the exact personality they wanted for Reality Bites? Yep. Even Iron Marge got this. Has Agnes showed an interest in the internet or whatever? No. Is she a rotten old hag who'd relish in spreading terror and misery? Hell yeah.

Instead the show puts an insanely high bar on using regulars, which feels entirely backwards. If the standards of today were used back then, A Fish Named Selma wouldn't have been a Troy episode because he was "just a one note gag character" or "not near-sighted". It would have instead ate up a ton of time on some rando we've never seen before and we'll never see again and would have been infinitely more soulless for it. Same for something like Saturdays of Thunder, it'd just be [guest A] and [guest B] instead of Martin and Nelson and become so much duller. And that's how the show often feels to me now, duller. Because nearly every time they bother to put effort into something it's another one-timer instead of taking time to develop someone who'd exist past the boundaries of the episode, and they don't even play to the VAs' strengths like Herb, Hank, Lyle, Cecil or even Jessica would so they don't even make an impression. Nothing will change, nothing will matter, we will all die, our hair and nails will continue to grow...

If there's a mentality to borrow from the classic era, it's this: If someone's "not a real character" or enough of one, you make them. That's how it worked for Skinner, for Edna, for Nelson, for practically everyone. Compared to the Tracy Ulman show this even technically applies to Lisa. It was obviously about the Simpsons first and foremost but the little incremental expansions and stuff really helped keep the show fresh for a while, until they stopped bothering.

--

Annnd because I inevitably cannot get away from this and this whole thread feels like an elaborate vaguing of me, I guess I'm gonna have to address something else. This whole classic guest star thing. I'mma preface this by saying this is technically my olive branch on the matter.

The thing is, when I say that these one-timers are overly restrictive, I'm not actually arguing by my own logic, not truly. It's just that whatever argument can be taken against most regulars, applies even more to guest stars. Whatever bar regulars supposedly fail to clear, they do too. If we're reducing everything down to "how they were made" or "what the classic era did" or anything then that slams guest stars down even harder.

If we boil everything down to intent, they were never intended as anything but an animate plot device. Even when the episodes they were in had deeper character writing, it was never for them but rather how they impacted someone else, and even then it was on a temporary basis. Whether they could or couldn't hack it as regulars isn't a relevant question if we only talk intent or what they were made for. If they were meant for much more, they wouldn't have guest voices.

It's this kind of mentality which probably made Allison's return not stick. Her hook is not her own, it's in how Lisa dealt with being surpassed at every level. If anything it's a major point that Allison is practically the same person but slightly better. And because they made up by the end, even that hook expired. Come Lard of the Dance/Last Tap Dance in Springfield, she can't contribute much. Sticking only to original intent or whatever means she never found a new hook that's her own and so was dropped quickly. And she was recast, twice, and had her original writer at the showrunning-helm, it should have been stacked in her favour.

Likewise, in E-My Sports and When Nelson Met Lisa, all Sophie gets used for is an excuse to pull Krusty into the episode. It doesn't really seem like she's going to do anything else, that was her intent after all. And that's the most successful recast they have of a guest star... with another guest. *Facepalm*

Could go down the list forever but the point about classic guest characters/classic-esque is the majority of them didn't have a hook of their own. And that was kinda vital to the cast, they need something individual to them. As utterly tiny and one-note as it is, even Disco Stu has that. That's... just how it is. It's frustrating, I get it. I'm not trying to be an asshole here. But if we're going to say "we should never do anything with (x) because they were never meant to have anything" then by that same metric, almost no guest characters can advance beyond a one-time deal, that's all they were intended for. Some exceptions like Hutz happened but that was basically coincidence.

But here's the rub: I don't consider intent to be god or anything like that actually. I don't think some idea of what they were should be a factor. If there is more to do with someone, then they should just do it. Screw living in the shadows of the past. Of course, I hear it now: By that same logic we should be able to do that to guest characters. Well actually...

Yeah. Totes. But they do need that extra context in most cases, or extra support. In fact some like Laura and Ruth didn't need the former but flopped because they lacked the latter. I mean Ruth would only have Marge to talk to and they get along fine. So either they'd have to keep mandating new plot-dependant characters to toss on the pile or make Marge and Ruth's friendship much shakier... or remember "hey, Helen exists, Lindsey too" and so on. If they'd done more with Maude while she was alive maybe you could have even had Ruth trying to suffer the company of the Flanders clan.

For others, I can't say they have their own hook. I think the most arguments I've heard for Jessica still end up amounting to just how it'd impact Bart or Helen or whoever, rather than what can be done for her individually. But if we say "sod it" to the of hard-canon that the show doesn't even respect anyway, she could find something of her own. The classic era would work wonders by pairing different characters together sometimes. So... how 'bout a Jessica and Marge story? Like Helen and Tim get injured, the former somehow sacks their daughter off onto Marge for a while to be her problem. Marge actually tries being a decent guardian and maybe it annoys Jess at first until she realizes she actually quite likes it, to the point where even when her parents are better she'd rather soak up attention from Marge... and then takes it too far and tries to shut Bart and Lisa out of Marge's life to have her all to herself and ends up ruining things.
Sure, the premise is a little weird, I came up with it on the spot and the whole dynamic comes off temporary but with the right stuff, this would actually give her something entirely her own: Some lonely kid who does yearn for human connections but... she's gotta be herself and that usually translates to "being the absolute worst" instead of basically being Bart but with no restraint or redeeming qualities as she is by original intent. Hell, that could be downright tragic... while still being pretty evil like she's meant to be. Just spitballin'.

I get my constant idea-punting might be annoying but I do have a point with how much I do that. I don't need to spend years coming up with these. In fact, I can come up with some like both that Jessica idea and that Sherri alternative for F1 on the spot. Because actually, it's incredibly easy. If I had more confidence in my writing, I'd have written an assload of things for characters people say have nothing or are unworkable and either still keep true to them or at least change them in ways that are actually natural for 'em.

And well, yeah using what's there would cut down a ton on guest stars. Inevitable, really. But there'd still be places for them. Just that when they would be used, they'd be well and truly justified by a metric other than that there's supposedly "no other characters" when there obviously are. They'd be more occasional but it'd mean more time to come up with better ones, more time to find great VAs to give those amazing performances like they used to, more time to make them impactful with their probably-short existence. People forget VAs aren't just voices, they're actors, people with energy and passions that can make a tiny role so special! If they're doing that like 15-20 times a season no wonder they can't come up with anything good, it must be exhausting to start from scratch like that constantly.

--

Erm... where was I going? Oh!

At the end of the day, the idea of staying true to some sort of canonical text is a no-win situation. They've rendered half the flashbacks meaningless already so why restrain things? Why have the objective worst of both worlds because there is pretty much no canon either way? If I can come up with ideas mid-message then surely a buncha Harvard eggheads can do even better.

The show has missed the boat on keeping a coherent continuity. They've lost their place as a king of satire. The only strength they have left is their cast, and it's a hell of a strength that's going wasted for no good reason,they should just bear down on that for all they're worth, just make the cast more colourful and tell some neat stories. Maybe they'll even have fun, I'm not sure they are as things are.

*flumps* god I got carried away and I'll probably be wondering why I bother in just few minutes...

 

[Jackomon]

There is a lot I do want to say on this topic, but I'm gonna wait until either the Summer or November to share my opinions on the topic

 

[MaggotMagnet]

They used to have a very high bar for when they'd include guest stars. There's no "cool older girl" character so Laura. We need someone for Bob to be a hero against? Cecil. When they could use a regular, they did. And weren't strict about it. Did Martin and Nelson ever show an interest in soapbox racing before? No. But it didn't matter, they were available and gave the episode a bit more life so they were included in Saturdays of Thunder. Was Troy ever near-sighted? Not that I remember. Was he ever said before to sleep with the fishes before? Probably not. But he was an actor, and a has-been. Lisa falls in love with a bad boy? Nelson's a bad boy, use him. Was Lionel Hutz ever a realtor? No. Did he have the exact personality they wanted for Reality Bites? Yep. Even Iron Marge got this. Has Agnes showed an interest in the internet or whatever? No. Is she a rotten old hag who'd relish in spreading terror and misery? Hell yeah.

Instead the show puts an insanely high bar on using regulars, which feels entirely backwards. If the standards of today were used back then, A Fish Named Selma wouldn't have been a Troy episode because he was "just a one note gag character" or "not near-sighted". It would have instead ate up a ton of time on some rando we've never seen before and we'll never see again and would have been infinitely more soulless for it. Same for something like Saturdays of Thunder, it'd just be [guest A] and [guest B] instead of Martin and Nelson and become so much duller. And that's how the show often feels to me now, duller. Because nearly every time they bother to put effort into something it's another one-timer instead of taking time to develop someone who'd exist past the boundaries of the episode, and they don't even play to the VAs' strengths like Herb, Hank, Lyle, Cecil or even Jessica would so they don't even make an impression. Nothing will change, nothing will matter, we will all die, our hair and nails will continue to grow...

BOOM CHAKA LAKA! So well-said. That's what I'm talkin' about!

Exactly, you wrote down exactly what it is that I love about the earlier seasons. I bolded above what I nodded fiercely at.

However, I need to say...it's kind of tough to balance using-old-characters with not-dumping-a-bunch-of-random-trauma-on-a-cartoonish-character-and-calling-it-an-episode. For example, I'm thinking of the Duffman's daughter thing. Or, like, I really don't care about the Rich Texan having marriage issues or that type of episode. A bit of exploration on the topic is fine, but I'm afraid of an overly sensitive depiction of a character carrying a softening flanderization along with it.
I understand they were trying to do that with CBG but it didn't really work IMO because Kumiko didn't push or challenge him far enough. I wish they went cartoonier and more stereotypical with her portrayal. But I say that every 5 seconds on NHC so I'll stop.

I love the way you pointed out that characters were used based on their "type" more than the lore/personality of the specific character. They were there to serve a narrative purpose. Very true and it shows a storytelling-based focus rather than a character-based focus like today. HmmM!

If there's a mentality to borrow from the classic era, it's this: If someone's "not a real character" or enough of one, you make them. That's how it worked for Skinner, for Edna, for Nelson, for practically everyone. Compared to the Tracy Ulman show this even technically applies to Lisa. It was obviously about the Simpsons first and foremost but the little incremental expansions and stuff really helped keep the show fresh for a while, until they stopped bothering.

In part I believe that's because having an antagonistic role with someone gives a character motivation and depth - i.e., if they dislike something, what are they fighting for? I'm obviously going to play favorites so, if Skinner dislikes Bart, what he really dislikes is freedom and chaos and what he favors is discipline and order...et cetera!

But not just feuding babies. Please, more depth than just feuding babies! Unibrow baby may be another contender for

 

[Venomrabbit]

BOOM CHAKA LAKA! So well-said. That's what I'm talkin' about!

Exactly, you wrote down exactly what it is that I love about the earlier seasons. I bolded above what I nodded fiercely at.

However, I need to say...it's kind of tough to balance using-old-characters with not-dumping-a-bunch-of-random-trauma-on-a-cartoonish-character-and-calling-it-an-episode. For example, I'm thinking of the Duffman's daughter thing. Or, like, I really don't care about the Rich Texan having marriage issues or that type of episode. A bit of exploration on the topic is fine, but I'm afraid of an overly sensitive depiction of a character carrying a softening flanderization along with it.
I understand they were trying to do that with CBG but it didn't really work IMO because Kumiko didn't push or challenge him far enough. I wish they went cartoonier and more stereotypical with her portrayal. But I say that every 5 seconds on NHC so I'll stop.

Oh yeah, I think the things you mentioned are exactly why I never liked the "third twin" thing because if that was a whole plot then... what do they get outside of that? I'd rather have something play on their mentioned creepy/eerie side (show, don't tell!) and have some sort of semi-THOH adventure with them dragging Bart on some urban legend hunt. Hell, give 'em a creepier-than-them great uncle and get Alex Hirsch to play him to act as an antagonist or something. The spooky/urban-legend-lover thing could stay with them. Or make them THOH villains, they're begging for that instead of being purely and disturbingly frequent victims.

I think sometimes giving a character that kind of psychological edge can help, especially if they were hardly that bad to begin with. It just shouldn't be all they are. I mean you can argue this for Nelson, his softer moments and poverty and possibly-being-held-back are easily bullied traits and you could say he figured it'd be easier to be feared rather than mocked. But he's got a few things outside of that either way.

I have this possibly strange thing in mind with S&T where it's like "give them some perspective and motivation and maybe sympathy/pity but also make them worse than before" I mean that F1 idea if that's what you're taking about would probably make her hate Lisa more than ever!

I love the way you pointed out that characters were used based on their "type" more than the lore/personality of the specific character. They were there to serve a narrative purpose. Very true and it shows a storytelling-based focus rather than a character-based focus like today. HmmM!

Well sorta, I was more thinking that they'd just use who's available and maybe do something with 'em. I'd argue that most of the time, it's kind of the other way around lately, focused on large stories without much character to them. Another thing I forgot is usually that existing lore/personality would drive the story a bit themselves like with Nelson in particular.

I think that was also the main reason regulars could be inserted as some villains/monsters. Starting from scratch for a vampire doesn't give them much, make it Mr Burns and you have something to work with! Or Devil Flanders with his tics and the inherent humour of god-boy being the devil and so on.

The show could/can fudge the rules a bit if it lets someone fill a role and give them something interesting to do, basically!

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

There's....so much to unpack here, that it's tough to even know where they begin. But I'll try, at the very least, to give a measured response.

Well could it have been averted? Yep. Can it still be averted? Yup. If they'd just try.

One of the worst moves they made was not bothering with Martin or the twins. All of which were introduced really well, actually.

Martin's not particularly aggressive a nerd, he doesn't seek to put others down but his place as the top kid in class gives him a lofty mindset conveyed in how he calls his peers "fellow children" or even "the children" as if he wasn't one himself. The arrogance wasn't written on his face, maybe not even something he's aware of but the way he talks betrayed it. He's not even unfriendly but he has no idea how to properly relate to others and is socially clueless. His entire thing in Bart gets a F was getting Bart to teach him to be more normal/cool since under the metric ton of nerd-ness is still a boy who wants to be accepted and liked by others.

Sherri and Terri are also brighter kids but use those brains for troublemaking, they're a bit like Bart in that regard but their methods were more in causing people embarrassment or making them do something stupid. In part for amusement but in their debut they also get Edna to throw them some praise, likewise later they use their dads' words about Homer as an excuse to put Bart down. Putting down others to look better (and arguably fishing for compliments) is a classic means of conveying insecurity. Being better than other people is important to them, and compared to Martin they don't measure up. If anything this angle should be even stronger against someone like Lisa. "Sometimes I/we don't feel like I'm/We're better than everyone else" possibly even came from Selman himself since he apparently wrote for the Simpsons Game.

Call it extrapolation if you want but even being able to get that much out of supposedly totally generic characters kinda says something, especially for just one or two episodes. I sure couldn't say that much about a decent chunk of the cast with that little material even if I tried to really get into it.

What capped the twins more than anything was that they were girls. And the new guys that came in by season 3 didn't want to bother with 'em for it. They already had a fair bit of a base and showed more personality than Milhouse ("Guy Bart can talk to" just like Richard and Lewis) and Nelson ("Bully") but the latter two got all the focus despite not having much to go on in comparison while Martin coasted along sorta-okay. Nelson found something in the joke moments that implied a sensitive side and a crappy home life that got tied together down the line into actual traits. But still he went from seemingly being moved to Bart's main source of antagonism to just "grumpy buddy" pretty quickly since he didn't offer much as an enemy. Milhouse had to have a crush on Lisa stapled to him to have that much point. Token-incel was probably also a decision to try and give him more of his own hook which, for better or worse, seemed to sorta work.

Martin I'm inclined to agree with on being unused, but the twins? Not really. Creatively speaking, they were always more along the lines of Richard/Lewis and Marvin Monroe - characters who were included the series because they were part of early conceptual drafts, but who the writers pretty clearly had no interest in actually using. And the reason why is pretty obvious....they're twins. That's their entire gimmick and, speaking from the experience of writing my fan-novel, "identical twins who are essentially one person in two bodies" is a very difficult story concept to make work in a nuanced manner, both because of how explicitly fantastical it is, but because it bars them from the very basic merit of one-on-one conversations. Notice that, in the two scenes they got, they're talking to Bart more than with him? That's because there's practically no actual meat to how they would respond, they're just "those annoying girls".

And yes, you are extrapolating massively, which is a huge recurrent problem with your argument. How does them annoying Bart on the bus or feeding him obviously bogus facts show them as "bright"? That requires a very skewed reading of the dialogue with no real textual or subtextual basis, and also just ignores entirely the very straightforward narrative point of the scene....which is that they're annoying and mean. Nothing more, nothing less. Which makes me struggle to see how they had a "more defined base" than either Milhouse (who had a clear narrative purpose, even if he was heavily underdeveloped as his own character) and Nelson (who was actually the focus of two episodes as an antagonist, even if he wasn't much more than a stock trope). If you wanted to actually use them in a more substantiative capacity, you'd have to do what A Fish Called Selma did with Troy. Which I'm not opposed to, but also not what you're arguing.

(Also, just a nitpick, but there were no hints really to Nelson having a troubled home life until Lisa's Date with Density. We literally see his dad in one episode)

And the thing is, there's every opportunity to do something with these kids. They've already proven that the backstories of Homer and Marge can be warped at any time and they're inventing new angles for Homer and Lisa. Whatever text from the classic era that exists can be bent or discarded at any time and I'm pretty sure Selman even said he doesn't care that much about a fixed canon as much. It's annoying in some cases but... the classic era should not be a ball-and-chain. As a framework in general, sure, something to study and learn from, certainly. But if its becoming a shackle, cast it off. Not like anything is actually sacred anyway after Mother and other Strangers.

The show's overly attached to very superficial elements from the classic era without actually getting them. One of which being parody/references as I mentioned in Lisa gets an F1, the other is guest stars. In the classic era, guests were used sparingly and with a purpose, which is why they worked. In the grand scheme of things, they are blips, and early on, the writers understood that. They were mainly played as devices to move a singular plot along or say something interesting about someone else. To that effect, several of them were the same as a main character but slightly different to hold up a mirror to them. Others can basically be summed up as running gags. It was understood that these stories weren't theirs and they'd likely disappear afterwards so instead they'd just facilitate interesting writing for someone else or symbolize something or just be a fun little side-act to make the episode more memorable.

Ironically, the thing that makes most of the more modern one-timers fall so consistently flat isn't just "they're bad" but probably "the show tries to treat them more like full characters than the classic ones" and puts actual development into them and the stories tend to be about them in some capacity. Except they're never seen before, last about five scenes on average and are telegraphed from the moon that they probably won't appear again so why care? By the end of the episode, they're gone, leaving no impact whatsoever because they don't even say anything meaningful about anyone else. The original lot were fine for what they are, even good, but I think the fandom and the show has forgotten their actual use and it's strangling the life out of the show. They now just show up and take focus away from anyone who should matter, so it just comes off as white noise to me.

Take The Wondering Juvie. We're introduced partway through to an entirely new character we dump a whole tragic backstory on but... I don't care? I don't wanna sound so callous but I don't care. I don't know her and all she's done is physically abuse Bart and she's not gonna be a factor in the show. You don't just instantly dump a tragic backstory on someone nobody has ever heard of. I was watching the other day a sadly taken-down video by youtuber "Little Joel" on the Avatar remake where he mentions one thing he had a problem with was dumping exposition and backstory before there was even a chance to build any familiarity with the characters and my feelings on this are similar too. If you took out the thin romance angle and instead made it about Bart and Nelson (whose aggression Gina apes anyway just without the charm) then it'd hit differently. We know Nelson, a lot of people even like him, it'd build an actual connection for him and Bart and since he matters to the series beyond one episode, it would make him more sympathetic.

One-timers were generally not that big a part of the classic era. What happens when you force them to be the main focus above all else? Everything else gets neglected. It stagnates. Martin for instance slid out of relevance until Russi died (and that pisses me off so much, Russi was wasted) and even while we still had Edna the classroom scenes were fizzling out, because they often needed him too. Milhouse and Nelson became Bart's Lenny and Carl so it was effectively Bart, Edna and nobody else unless there was a guest star.

This argument only makes sense if the defined "secondary" cast wasn't used the exact same way. Was Dead-Putting Society and When Flanders Failed about Ned, or was it about two differing perspectives on Homer's one-sided rivalry with his seemingly perfect neighbor? Was Flamin' Moes about Moe, or about Homer's reaction to his close friend betraying him? Was Bart the Lover about Edna, or was it about Bart realizing he went too far in exploiting his teacher's unhappiness for laughs? All of these stories were designed as explorations of the main character's relations more than the secondary characters themselves....because it's their name in the show's title. Spotlights which were very directly from the POV of the secondary cast exist, yes, but they were rare outside of S8, which only happened because Oakley/Weinstein thought the show was ending soon and that there was nothing more to tell with the core cast.

Also, no actually, guest stars weren't used "sparingly" in the classic series. The numbers admittingly can be a little skewed based on how you count them, but at least a third of the 178 by my estimate utilized guest characters in some significant capacity. The show used them for two major reasons - the first being marketing, and the second being that the writers were very much aware of the limited character dynamics which they had, and to tell stories beyond those limits, you needed actual characters to work with those ideas. Thus, the simple solution was to create new characters, who would allow them to tell those stories. The Wandering Juvie isn't a great episode, but it shows this in action - the story needs a character like Gina to function. It can't work at all with Nelson, because Nelson is a school bully, not a juvenile criminal, and moreover has a very predefined relationship with Bart that simply cannot accommodate the actual narrative. By that same token, while I may criticize Allison's clones, I'd never claim she or Janey could be just inserted into The Kid Is All Right or The Hateful Eight-Year-Olds; the stories are dependent on new settings which would be incongruent with pre-established characters, and just come off as really weird in general.

Also, how does the use of guest characters somehow pertain to Martin's lack of use? There's zero correlation between those two factors.

Let's look at Paulo. The only actual justifications for him I buy are "it's an international competition" and "reference to Drive to Survive" just like... that guy who I forgot already. Otherwise he's so generic and annoying that losing what little he had would be a plus. Beyond being a reference, he feels like an explicit cop out from character writing. A lot of post-classic guest roles feel like that.

Let's just say it's a local competition (why would an international racing contest be held in a nowhere town like Springfield anyway?) and play looser with the whole DtS thing because their references are unfunny unless you've seen it and probably unfunny if you have anyway. And chuck Paulo entirely. Okay, who to use? Martin seems like an obvious pick as someone who's been a racer before and usually an ace at whatever he does.

Buuuut I can think of a way to get something more unusual and give Annette more of a role, seeing as she almost fades after Lisa becomes a racer beyond one line. Let's go with Sherri. Okay, why would she be a racer? Well, given the need to put others down and all, that maybe she felt like dirt (and not the fancy store-bought dirt) because she can't measure up to the likes of Martin and Lisa at anything and Annette had suggested she try something entirely out there, and she picked racing and dominated at it... until Lisa ends up picking the exact same hobby and instantly surpasses her. We get an understandable if not terribly kind angle for her wanting to sabotage Lisa later: she finally found something she was best at and one of the people that made her feel bad in the first place just ruined that too. If anything it'd also put her attitude to Lisa throughout the series in perspective, that Lisa's talents and success make her feel bad about herself so she doesn't want to be around Lisa unless it's to score any petty, cheap "victories" she can. Helps strengthen Annette's point in the episode too. You could even foreshadow Sherri's later involvement by having her pass by or even push Lisa aside while leaving her own session.

And then maybe at the end, Sherri tries to reconcile, not realizing her sabotage would actually put Lisa in danger instead of just stopping her cart and explaining she just wanted something to feel like she's the best at. And then Lisa tells her she can have it, that she's quitting the racing business... which to a snotty insecure child like Sherri comes off as a grave insult, that any kind of victory she could have would be tainted by the knowledge that Lisa let her win. She swears revenge as Lisa walks off, the latter obliviously thinking she's finally made amends instead of ruining someone's hobby.

And hey, that presents several little character things that maybe got created by the plot but don't depend on that one plot. Sherri being an insecure sneak who's not above cheating to make up for a lack of talents and aggressively prideful but also just wanting some way to feel special. Lisa perhaps being oblivious to the anguish she's inadvertently causing and maybe not that in-tune with peoples' feelings. Maybe even have an ironic parallel and have Sherri also be kind of insensitive to how Terri might feel, being "lesser Sherri" and all. These things would all be innate to them as people going forward and maybe open up a lot of new ways for them to interact not just with each other but apart too.

Or you can have an explicit reference to some show that's not even funny to the people who do get it and Italian stereotype that makes Luigi look subtle scream about how bad the food is, hog all the screentime and then fade into the void, signifying nothing.

....Except Paolo is not the focus of Lisa Gets An F1, Homer and Lisa's relationship is. Paolo is literally doing what you claim the classic guest characters are - be supplementary to the actual story. What you're proposing, by contrast, isn't even a fix, it's effectively just creating an entirely different story that pushes the twins to the forefront arbitrarily, even though the episode isn't even supposed to be about them. Which effectively proves my point - you can't tell a story like this when you lack the necessary infrastructure, not without a hard turn like they did into F1 satire.

Also, may I point out that your portrayal makes Sherri utterly impossible to sympathize with? This isn't even being destructive like Jessica is (the only person actually harmed was her letting Bart take the fall for the church money, and that was out of convenience), this is turning Sherri into a nasty, spiteful brat who tries to sabotage and possibly seriously injure or even kill Lisa out of petty jealousy (You claim she wouldn't have been aware of the risk, but that would require her to be monstrously stupid instead). This is the character we are meant to like and want to see more of? This is the character we are meant to see as someone who can just be friends with Bart whenever? Because that seems like a serious stretch, to put it mildly, and pretty antithetical to your claim that this would build the twins into more prominent characters. Indeed, it would if anything have the opposite effect - the characters would forever be defined by "Hey, remember that time Sherri tried to murder Lisa?"

They used to have a very high bar for when they'd include guest stars. There's no "cool older girl" character so Laura. We need someone for Bob to be a hero against? Cecil. When they could use a regular, they did. And weren't strict about it. Did Martin and Nelson ever show an interest in soapbox racing before? No. But it didn't matter, they were available and gave the episode a bit more life so they were included in Saturdays of Thunder. Was Troy ever near-sighted? Not that I remember. Was he ever said before to sleep with the fishes before? Probably not. But he was an actor, and a has-been. Lisa falls in love with a bad boy? Nelson's a bad boy, use him. Was Lionel Hutz ever a realtor? No. Did he have the exact personality they wanted for Reality Bites? Yep. Even Iron Marge got this. Has Agnes showed an interest in the internet or whatever? No. Is she a rotten old hag who'd relish in spreading terror and misery? Hell yeah.

Instead the show puts an insanely high bar on using regulars, which feels entirely backwards. If the standards of today were used back then, A Fish Named Selma wouldn't have been a Troy episode because he was "just a one note gag character" or "not near-sighted". It would have instead ate up a ton of time on some rando we've never seen before and we'll never see again and would have been infinitely more soulless for it. Same for something like Saturdays of Thunder, it'd just be [guest A] and [guest B] instead of Martin and Nelson and become so much duller. And that's how the show often feels to me now, duller. Because nearly every time they bother to put effort into something it's another one-timer instead of taking time to develop someone who'd exist past the boundaries of the episode, and they don't even play to the VAs' strengths like Herb, Hank, Lyle, Cecil or even Jessica would so they don't even make an impression. Nothing will change, nothing will matter, we will all die, our hair and nails will continue to grow...

If there's a mentality to borrow from the classic era, it's this: If someone's "not a real character" or enough of one, you make them. That's how it worked for Skinner, for Edna, for Nelson, for practically everyone. Compared to the Tracy Ulman show this even technically applies to Lisa. It was obviously about the Simpsons first and foremost but the little incremental expansions and stuff really helped keep the show fresh for a while, until they stopped bothering.

You're being pretty selective in that regard. Yes, they used Nelson to fulfill the "Lisa dates a bad boy" narrative, and yes, they used Troy to tell the story of Selma getting a famous husband (FTR, Troy's fish thing was a reference to Michael Jackson and Lisa Presley's wedding - which was widely believed to have been a stunt done to distance Jackson from his pedophillia accusations). But those were very isolated circumstances, and using characters who were largely blank slates. Broadly speaking, the series was more than happy to just insert the secondary cast wherever they felt it funny; unless you can explain why Apu and Skinner were in Homer's Barbershop Quartet. A lot of the time, they just show up to give Shearer and/or Azaria a paycheck.

And yes the secondary cast is indeed a lot emptier now...and that's because it literally is; over the years we've lost Hutz, Troy, Edna, and Apu, and have seen pretty much all of Harry Shearer's characters scaled back as a consequence of his declining voice. The show kinda has to use guest characters to cover the holes that has left behind, pretty much all of which came at serious cost to the show's worldbuilding, but that's not laziness, it's circumstances which the show is trapped with as a consequence of its unnatural longevity. You can't build a house with half a foundation missing, and for the Simpsons, that foundation has left the house reclining in much the same way as in Marge Gets A Job.

Annnd because I inevitably cannot get away from this and this whole thread feels like an elaborate vaguing of me, I guess I'm gonna have to address something else. This whole classic guest star thing. I'mma preface this by saying this is technically my olive branch on the matter.

The thing is, when I say that these one-timers are overly restrictive, I'm not actually arguing by my own logic, not truly. It's just that whatever argument can be taken against most regulars, applies even more to guest stars. Whatever bar regulars supposedly fail to clear, they do too. If we're reducing everything down to "how they were made" or "what the classic era did" or anything then that slams guest stars down even harder.

If we boil everything down to intent, they were never intended as anything but an animate plot device. Even when the episodes they were in had deeper character writing, it was never for them but rather how they impacted someone else, and even then it was on a temporary basis. Whether they could or couldn't hack it as regulars isn't a relevant question if we only talk intent or what they were made for. If they were meant for much more, they wouldn't have guest voices.

It's this kind of mentality which probably made Allison's return not stick. Her hook is not her own, it's in how Lisa dealt with being surpassed at every level. If anything it's a major point that Allison is practically the same person but slightly better. And because they made up by the end, even that hook expired. Come Lard of the Dance/Last Tap Dance in Springfield, she can't contribute much. Sticking only to original intent or whatever means she never found a new hook that's her own and so was dropped quickly. And she was recast, twice, and had her original writer at the showrunning-helm, it should have been stacked in her favour.

Likewise, in E-My Sports and When Nelson Met Lisa, all Sophie gets used for is an excuse to pull Krusty into the episode. It doesn't really seem like she's going to do anything else, that was her intent after all. And that's the most successful recast they have of a guest star... with another guest. *Facepalm*

Could go down the list forever but the point about classic guest characters/classic-esque is the majority of them didn't have a hook of their own. And that was kinda vital to the cast, they need something individual to them. As utterly tiny and one-note as it is, even Disco Stu has that. That's... just how it is. It's frustrating, I get it. I'm not trying to be an asshole here. But if we're going to say "we should never do anything with (x) because they were never meant to have anything" then by that same metric, almost no guest characters can advance beyond a one-time deal, that's all they were intended for. Some exceptions like Hutz happened but that was basically coincidence.

But here's the rub: I don't consider intent to be god or anything like that actually. I don't think some idea of what they were should be a factor. If there is more to do with someone, then they should just do it. Screw living in the shadows of the past. Of course, I hear it now: By that same logic we should be able to do that to guest characters. Well actually...

If the fault with the guest characters were the lack of an individual "hook", then that automatically disqualifies logically nearly every secondary character, because they all can be described as reductively as just how they relate to the main cast - "Homer's neighbor and one-sided rival", "Homer's bartender and friend", "Bart's best friend" and so on. All of them are largely described in terms of their relationships to the main cast, because that is literally their narrative purpose. The point of continuing to use them is in iterating on the fiction and building out their dynamics overtime....which is what can be done easily as long as you have a base.

Take the example you give of Allison. You claim that, with the resolution of Lisa's Rival, that she'd have no narrative purpose...except "Lisa's friend and academic equal" is entirely a base in itself. Even just having her as someone Lisa can actually talk to ala Bart and Milhouse would be playing off of this, and it's not like Allison is literally just Lisa. They're very similar yes, but not a 1:1 (which is an example of good writing on Scully's part), and something which can easily be iterated upon. The use of Lard of the Dance is pretty flawed as well, given that the classic series had a habit of using the regular cast for brief lines from guest characters - see Artie in The Front, Lurleen in Marge vs The Monorail, and Fat Tony in A Fish Called Selma. More than likely, Scully just gave her lines because he felt it'd be weird to have her there but literally not saying anything.

As for the Sophie example....that's just laziness, as is the case for most things in this show. Jean needed a girl to round out Bart's e-sports team and fill the Marie role in the When Harry Met Sally "homage", and in both instances there happens to be literally only one character who happens to fill the very specific conditions of being a defined girl character Bart/Lisa's age with a relatively available VA. Why he decided to recast Sophie specifically is another question, but not one really relevant here.

In any case, the reason I dismiss the Mackleberry twins specifically is because of this - they have no base whatsoever. They're the annoying girls in Bart's class....and that's it. They have no real relationship with Bart or Lisa, nor do they have a clearly defined personality of any kind, so what is there to actually build upon with them? You'd have to go to pretty dramatic lengths just to make them actually compelling characters, and it seems pointless to really argue for that much effort when there're characters who could much more easily accomplish just that with some general writing expansion.

Erm... where was I going? Oh!

At the end of the day, the idea of staying true to some sort of canonical text is a no-win situation. They've rendered half the flashbacks meaningless already so why restrain things? Why have the objective worst of both worlds because there is pretty much no canon either way? If I can come up with ideas mid-message then surely a buncha Harvard eggheads can do even better.

The show has missed the boat on keeping a coherent continuity. They've lost their place as a king of satire. The only strength they have left is their cast, and it's a hell of a strength that's going wasted for no good reason,they should just bear down on that for all they're worth, just make the cast more colourful and tell some neat stories. Maybe they'll even have fun, I'm not sure they are as things are.

*flumps* god I got carried away and I'll probably be wondering why I bother in just few minutes...

My biggest question really is this - The idea that The Simpsons' strength is in its cast....only is it really? Sure, the four main characters are excellent, as are the dozen or significant secondary characters in the classic series, but beyond that? The majority of the cast were either underdeveloped, background ciphers, or glorified running gags with very little in the way of any characterization whatsoever. The strength of the show was never the cast, it was in the creation of strong scenarios that mixed ideas and character work to create good stories. Treating the cast as "special" to begin with was one of the biggest fundamental mistakes they made, because it worshipped effectively all the series worst aspects: Its tendency to meander with recycled jokes from the same couple of stock characters, its inability to cover for the many gaps in its creative worldbuilding even when clear opportunities arose, valuing "funny" over actually good character writing, and so on. The show, in effect, became the idea of itself - it became what the writers were convinced Simpsons is, and apparently always was.

This might be an odd comparison, but I see Classic Simpsons in a similar light to I do Dragon Ball. Both are incredibly important, ground-breaking works of fiction which completely redefined their mediums and the broader cultural landscape....but both are also deeply rough, imperfect works at the same time, born out of the simple fact that there was so little standard basis for what they were even doing to begin with. And there's a value, I think, in examining those imperfections, in examining the things which weren't right, and considering what could've been done in the case the writers could look in retrospect. But at the same time, you can't rewrite the past. You can't claim literal background characters should be suddenly promoted to regular cast fixtures, just because you're understandably frustrated at the show's lack of female characters. You can't wildly rewrite plots in a way to make them unrecognizable, just because you want to "prove" the show doesn't need to use new characters. You can just....accept the show was never perfect, and use that as a means of discussion. And that's a good thing, if anything. It's what makes fiction come alive.

That's basically everything I can say on the matter.

 

[Sandboy]

My biggest question really is this - The idea that The Simpsons' strength is in its cast....only is it really? Sure, the four main characters are excellent, as are the dozen or significant secondary characters in the classic series, but beyond that? The majority of the cast were either underdeveloped, background ciphers, or glorified running gags with very little in the way of any characterization whatsoever. The strength of the show was never the cast, it was in the creation of strong scenarios that mixed ideas and character work to create good stories. Treating the cast as "special" to begin with was one of the biggest fundamental mistakes they made, because it worshipped effectively all the series worst aspects: Its tendency to meander with recycled jokes from the same couple of stock characters, its inability to cover for the many gaps in its creative worldbuilding even with clear opportunities arose, valuing "funny" over actually good character writing, and so on. The show, in effect, became the idea of itself - it became what the writers were convinced Simpsons is, and apparently always was.

This is good stuff.

I want to add one more thing - And that is that the series from the begining only had 4 characters (at most 5?) in the supporting cast that played an important role (Moe, Edna, Skinner, Burns, Flanders)... And even that was limited to being one + one of the family (the episodes you mentioned). One thing to note is that in fact, many of the roles of the inhabitants of Springfield, at least in the first 5 seasons, were effectively together (Bart's Comet, Wacking Day, Homer Detective, etc). Which is fine, but I think that's where that common feeling comes from that the cast of the show used to be more important, which it really isn't because the strength of many episodes was how "quaint" the inhabitants of the show were. Springfield - particularly in the episodes that portrayed them as a mob together.

Another thing I need to say is that even the familiar settings were a consequence of the world-building of the series. Have you ever noticed how many of the episodes involving the nuclear plant were about Homer getting a new job, or by default his insecurities? All of this highlights the problem with the series itself; even when there were appearances by plant employees they were either for quick jokes, or by default to provide plot commentary (like basically Lenny and Carl's preliminary role of being Homer's co-workers only). I think that becomes more noticeable in the HD era when we basically rarely or very rarely actually saw Homer work - because the plant is not really a source for stories especially the relegation of Burns as a functional antagonist in the first two seasons (and which becomes very noticeable given the state of Shearer's voice, when Thirst Trap was Burns' first episode since s32).

And one more thing about this particular paragraph: there was a reason the writers had cited Cletus as one of their favorite characters on the show. Because of its depth? No. Because of his connection with the main family? Neither. Because of his satirical capacity? Less. No, but the fact that they were characters who were easy to laugh at, that is and has always been the driving force for the writers. And even in 22 Shorts About Springfield the writers had written the segments according to who their favorite characters were.

 

[Jackomon]

My biggest question really is this - The idea that The Simpsons' strength is in its cast....only is it really? Sure, the four main characters are excellent, as are the dozen or significant secondary characters in the classic series, but beyond that? The majority of the cast were either underdeveloped, background ciphers, or glorified running gags with very little in the way of any characterization whatsoever.

Honestly, I agree with you on that, it is something I have noticed while rewatching the series, with Abe & Milhouse been notable examples of it imo. 5 Seasons in and they feel barely developed.

But at the same time, you can't rewrite the past. You can't claim literal background characters should be suddenly promoted to regular cast fixtures, just because you're understandably frustrated at the show's lack of female characters.

That is a good point, and that is from someone who would want that to happen. I do know that the unfortunate truth is that, its pointless, Sherri, Terri, Janey, Allison, Ruth, Uter, Herman, Lewis, Richard and others are simply background characters nowadays with no urgency or depth to their character, and outside of Allison, Ruth & maybe Herman had no urgency or depth. Sure, you could try and find depth for characters like Sherri, Terri or Lewis, but that is more fanon than canon, a lot of it will be headcanons purely based on speculation (something that I do love to do myself).

However, Simpsons isn't the only show where I care for background or minor characters a lot, MLP & Pokemon are two other examples that come to mind, and both series have showed that had background characters or minor characters that fans fell in love with but the shows didn't do anything... Kinda.

I say kinda as MLP did, but, looking back, it was clearly just fanbait, and didn't mean anything. Gumball also did a show on its background characters... But, I remember that episode been awful and want to quickly forget about it, and is another reason why I wouldn't want a background character focused episode of The Simpsons.

You can't wildly rewrite plots in a way to make them unrecognizable, just because you want to "prove" the show doesn't need to use new characters.

*looks at my fanfic ideas in shame* /jk

You can just....accept the show was never perfect, and use that as a means of discussion. And that's a good thing, if anything. It's what makes fiction come alive.

100% agree, even in the early years, the show had flaws. Nothing is perfect, nothing was ever perfect and nothing will ever be perfect. Perfection is nothing but an illusion.

There is one more thing I do want to mention, that been in regards to Venom's Lisa Gets a F1 rewrite idea.

Buuuut I can think of a way to get something more unusual and give Annette more of a role, seeing as she almost fades after Lisa becomes a racer beyond one line. Let's go with Sherri. Okay, why would she be a racer? Well, given the need to put others down and all, that maybe she felt like dirt (and not the fancy store-bought dirt) because she can't measure up to the likes of Martin and Lisa at anything and Annette had suggested she try something entirely out there, and she picked racing and dominated at it... until Lisa ends up picking the exact same hobby and instantly surpasses her. We get an understandable if not terribly kind angle for her wanting to sabotage Lisa later: she finally found something she was best at and one of the people that made her feel bad in the first place just ruined that too. If anything it'd also put her attitude to Lisa throughout the series in perspective, that Lisa's talents and success make her feel bad about herself so she doesn't want to be around Lisa unless it's to score any petty, cheap "victories" she can. Helps strengthen Annette's point in the episode too. You could even foreshadow Sherri's later involvement by having her pass by or even push Lisa aside while leaving her own session.

And then maybe at the end, Sherri tries to reconcile, not realizing her sabotage would actually put Lisa in danger instead of just stopping her cart and explaining she just wanted something to feel like she's the best at. And then Lisa tells her she can have it, that she's quitting the racing business... which to a snotty insecure child like Sherri comes off as a grave insult, that any kind of victory she could have would be tainted by the knowledge that Lisa let her win. She swears revenge as Lisa walks off, the latter obliviously thinking she's finally made amends instead of ruining someone's hobby.

I for one love this rewrite idea, and can see myself liking the episode more if it were Sherri and not Paulo.

However, I do have a problem with it, that having to do with Grey's interpretation of the Mackleberry Twins voices. First of all, I do want to say that I love Grey's work in other shows, she is an amazing VA and I think she has been great with Martin. The twins on the other hand, its just her Lola Loud voice (something I'm not sure if its just me that has noticed or not), and I find that voice to be pretty jarring coming out of Sherri & Terri, and that jarring delivery was pretty noticeable in the recent THOH episode imo. I feel like that episode would work better if Russi were still alive, as I feel like she could do a better job at the twins vocal range.

That is all I have to say for now, but there is a lot more I want to say in regards to what both Venom, Sandboy & Misogi said, such as Sophie's role in the series as of late & more.

 

[Jackomon]

The twins on the other hand, its just her Lola Loud voice

Also, meant to add that Lola been my least favourite Loud Sibling doesn't really help me think positively about the Mackleberry twins sounding like her. I don't dislike Lola, she's alright, but I just don't care for her character archetype at all

 

[Smear-Gel]

I do agree that the wider cast outside the family being relegated to mostly gags is a problem, probably one of the problems that transcends eras and is something you could say was always around from the beginning. But I also dont think it's as cut and dry as its made out here, or that working around that is necessarily a weakness of the show. How fleshed out the side characters are is only as big or as small of an issue as the show wants to use them.

If the show wants to focus on the relationship between the family members and the purpose of the wider cast is to just add colour to the scenes, they're technically doing their job. While the fact that they were there mostly to do that is arguably an issue (and I do think it is), it comes into focus now in season 30+ because its surprising how many characters never actually graduated from that status after all this time. When you look at other long runners, even the likes of Spongebob has started leaning into the strength of the wider cast in a more substantial way, because when you have a lot of episodes, you want to start getting creative, and no matter how much magic Caroline Omyne injects into the Simpsons family, there is a limit to how creative you can get with 4 characters + Maggie compared to 40 characters.

The reason I say it isnt so cut and dry though is often, the show has the opposite problem, they over rely on the wider cast when they arent needed. It's a problem when the Simpsons are in some different city and yet inexplicably, we see some Springfieldian there to give off a designated joke. I guess though, their lack of fleshing out is also the cause of that, allowing them to slot in anywhere even if it wouldnt make sense.

The thing is, they do see some characters as people who, when they do get the focus, get the space to be more well rounded, and others who cant escape the gag around them. They've successfully done stuff with Carl, or Skinner, or CBG, but they cant stop themselves from filling Frink or Cletus stories with their gag at the expense of emotional investment. But then, the fact that they dont see those characters as deserving focus for more than once every five years goes back to the fact that they're seen as just gag characters. This is really where I would say that, even within the context of the show choosing to do what it wants, this is actually the real problem. Cant have your cake and eat it too. You cant do something like make Moe get engaged and then we never even see Maya as a wordless background character for another 2 seasons.

Also, in terms of the simpsons being isolated from the wider cast in general, I think the problem with Lisa specifically, is she's now fairly consistently characterized by how friendless she is, so a story involving her is going to necessitate either adding a new person to be her friend, moving away from the characterization, or making the episode between her and the other kids adversarial. They should still do the latter more often though.

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

I want to add one more thing - And that is that the series from the begining only had 4 characters (at most 5?) in the supporting cast that played an important role (Moe, Edna, Skinner, Burns, Flanders)... And even that was limited to being one + one of the family (the episodes you mentioned). One thing to note is that in fact, many of the roles of the inhabitants of Springfield, at least in the first 5 seasons, were effectively together (Bart's Comet, Wacking Day, Homer Detective, etc). Which is fine, but I think that's where that common feeling comes from that the cast of the show used to be more important, which it really isn't because the strength of many episodes was how "quaint" the inhabitants of the show were. Springfield - particularly in the episodes that portrayed them as a mob together.

The interesting thing about the "mob" aspect of Springfield is how it interacts with the worldbuilding. Springfield is often referred to in-series as a worthless dump and cultural dead zone (see Hugh's remark to Lisa in Lisa's Wedding, or the oft-quoted "crudbucket" comment from Summer of 4'2), but practically speaking that rarely shows in the actual individual characters of the town, who are shown as fairly learned if eccentric people for the most part. It's only in the macro sense, when the entire town is treated as this homogenized blob of voices, that that framing really makes sense; it in effect morphs everyone into an aspect of a seperate, individualized "character" who shows up periodically.

Also, in terms of the simpsons being isolated from the wider cast in general, I think the problem with Lisa specifically, is she's now fairly consistently characterized by how friendless she is, so a story involving her is going to necessitate either adding a new person to be her friend, moving away from the characterization, or making the episode between her and the other kids adversarial. They should still do the latter more often though.

It's kinda interesting in that regard that, despite it technically being a main setting for her, only about a fifth of Lisa's Classic stories are actually primarily set at the school, and most of them are built around guest characters (Bergstrom, Allison, Ralph technically isn't but practically might as well be). The lone exception is Separate Vocations, which is centred instead around the relationship between her and Bart - there really is no one for her to organically build stories off of as the cast is "primarily" built, outside of obviously her family. Which may explain why Jean became so attached to shipping her off with Milhouse and/or Nelson; practically speaking, there's very little else to do.

 

[CousinMerl]

I don't think I can or will be able to say as much on this topic as @Venomrabbit's essay or @MisogiKurakawa's responses, but I definitely have to add my two cents on this disscussion.

I think anyone saying with surety that there cannot be any more done with the secondary characters are wrong, as there's always possibilities (at least with a majority of them) as long as there's a will and a drive from the writers, showrunners, etc. (the only restriction is their own lack of imagination, that and I guess the will of the showrunner handling and overseeing thingss) and when suitable, they should definitely play more prominent major roles and be utilized for certain plots in a main role, but having said that, there's also a time and place for one-off characters (ideally fleshed out rather than plain stereotypes and archetype parody character, for example Paolo).

I'd really rather not twist and warp existing characters too much (especially not in negative ways, such as to villainize Sherri to be a petty, bitter antagonist in an alternate 'Lisa Gets An F1', to use an example from Venomrabbit's suggested idea; the idea to have Sherri get some development and this role she could fit, considering her antagonism toward Lisa, but it could easily go wrong with wrongful writing) so there I'd rather prefer newly made character, but even so, the latter should preferably not be too flat and bland, too anchored in a certain role (such as, again, Paolo) and be let to come across as a person, even when/if the antagonist, as in given some development and personality behind their exterior, which would be ideal. The thing is to think what works the best for the character and for the episode.

But yeah, there is a place for existing characters to be utilized and let shine in a role, but the writers et al. must know when and where and how to do so (and prefereably not twist the "wrong" character too much for the sake of plot, which can every now and then backfire and just feel weird and unfitting) & in other cases, there should be a newly created character to play this part (but without making them come off as bland/boring/obnoxious or whatever in a way that doesn't make you care for them, hence why nuances are great).

Sometimes it can be hard to figure out which route to take, but these writers can do it when (or if) they put their minds to it. And yeahm as for the secondary characters in general, the writers should absolutely make an effort at trying to utilize and develop them more: There such a vast catalogue of characters on the show, many of which never get their proper due and come off as kinda one-note and defined by their schtick (or feel like mere props and literal background characters at worst, so absolutely, the likes of Sherri & Terri deserve more.

 

[Kangdos]

Speaking of underutilized secondary characters, Sherri and Terri is such a uniqely weird case to me. Their history as characters on the show and how they were used, or weren't used, is such a stand out oddity.

They were there right from the very beggning. Their usage in season 1 shows that they belong to the very first generation of secondary characters that were in the minds of the shows producers even before the show got onto the air. And since they were put right into Bart's class, and showed a very specific and defined relationship to him right from the start (teasing him and getting him into trouble while acting under the facade shown to the adults that they were perfect little angels), they were obviously not intended as just once-in-a-blue-moon gag characters. They were clearly supposed to be staples of the Springfield Elementary setting.

And look, we all know that sometimes a first generation character is eventually sidelined when characters with more personality show up along the shows course and have more personality. But that's the thing; the twins did have personality. They also had a distinct look, a distinct voice, and again, a distinct relationship with Bart. They're not Louis and... that other guy, the grey haired one. They're not characters that were bound to be sidelined by more fun characters because they had nothing going for them.

And then they just disappeared. They remained well known characters among viewers simply because of their distinct visuals, but in all relevant regards they were written off the show. Whenever they did have spoken lines those were usually the kind of lines that could have been spoken by any other rando kid charater. There were barely any jokes based on their status as twins, and for the longest time there were never again any jokes about them antagonizing Bart. What the hell is up with that? I realize that the answer is undoubtably simply that the writers didn't think about the characters for all those years, but I do wonder why this fate befell those characters in partiuclar. Again, we're not talking Louis and other guy here, we're talking characters that from the very beggining were distinct, comedic, and had a unique relationship to one of the main family members.

And then like 25-30 goddamn years later after their voice actress has passed away, now we're starting to see them again (if only briefly and with intervals)? For almost the entirety of when the show was actually good and relevant, and for almost the entirety when the woman hired to voice them to begin with was alive, they were gone and now we're gonna start seeing them again? I mean... better late than never I suppose but man, those girls have already gone down in history as the most wasted characters the show ever gave us.

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

Speaking of underutilized secondary characters, Sherri and Terri is such a uniqely weird case to me. Their history as characters on the show and how they were used, or weren't used, is such a stand out oddity.

They were there right from the very beggning. Their usage in season 1 shows that they belong to the very first generation of secondary characters that were in the minds of the shows producers even before the show got onto the air. And since they were put right into Bart's class, and showed a very specific and defined relationship to him right from the start (teasing him and getting him into trouble while acting under the facade shown to the adults that they were perfect little angels), they were obviously not intended as just once-in-a-blue-moon gag characters. They were clearly supposed to be staples of the Springfield Elementary setting.

And look, we all know that sometimes a first generation character is eventually sidelined when characters with more personality show up along the shows course and have more personality. But that's the thing; the twins did have personality. They also had a distinct look, a distinct voice, and again, a distinct relationship with Bart. They're not Louis and... that other guy, the grey haired one. They're not characters that were bound to be sidelined by more fun characters because they had nothing going for them.

And then they just disappeared. They remained well known characters among viewers simply because of their distinct visuals, but in all relevant regards they were written off the show. Whenever they did have spoken lines those were usually the kind of lines that could have been spoken by any other rando kid charater. There were barely any jokes based on their status as twins, and for the longest time there were never again any jokes about them antagonizing Bart. What the hell is up with that? I realize that the answer is undoubtably simply that the writers didn't think about the characters for all those years, but I do wonder why this fate befell those characters in partiuclar. Again, we're not talking Louis and other guy here, we're talking characters that from the very beggining were distinct, comedic, and had a unique relationship to one of the main family members.

And then like 25-30 goddamn years later after their voice actress has passed away, now we're starting to see them again (if only briefly and with intervals)? For almost the entirety of when the show was actually good and relevant, and for almost the entirety when the woman hired to voice them to begin with was alive, they were gone and now we're gonna start seeing them again? I mean... better late than never I suppose but man, those girls have already gone down in history as the most wasted characters the show ever gave us.

Did you see what I said about the actual idea of writing twins? It's actually incredibly difficult in practice, because having them be essentially one character split into two bodies actively goes against the basic premise of human interaction. The brain is simply not designed to compartmentalize human beings in a way where two can be viewed as one - it will always try to logically separate them if they're given any kind of real definition, and it also cannot properly process conversations coming from a two-way stream. This is why this trope is pretty much given exclusively to minor characters who aren't expected to be given detailed characterization, and why any detailed example of twins will pretty much always distinguish them. And trying to do that with Sherri and Terri runs into the sober Barney problem - you're nullifying their entire gimmick while leaving effectively a blank canvas in exchange.

Honestly, the best idea I came to while retaining their shtick is to make them Jessica's minions. Hive-minded identical twins might not work for proper character work....but it is a useful tool if you want to give a larger character someone to control. And hey, if Bart gets to push Milhouse around everywhere, Jessica might as well get the same deal.

 

[Jackomon]

Did you see what I said about the actual idea of writing twins? It's actually incredibly difficult in practice, because having them be essentially one character split into two bodies actively goes against the basic premise of human interaction. The brain is simply not designed to compartmentalize human beings in a way where two can be viewed as one - it will always try to logically separate them if they're given any kind of real definition, and it also cannot properly process conversations coming from a two-way stream. This is why this trope is pretty much given exclusively to minor characters who aren't expected to be given detailed characterization, and why any detailed example of twins will pretty much always distinguish them. And trying to do that with Sherri and Terri runs into the sober Barney problem - you're nullifying their entire gimmick while leaving effectively a blank canvas in exchange.

Trying to make sense from where your coming from here. I can think of twins in other series that are written quite well, namely Zack & Cody from the Suite Life and a certain pair of twins from a certain British book franchise. I would also shoutout Phoebe & Ursula from Friends and whatever show Ursula was from, but I'm not sure if that is good writing or not, and the only thing I can think of is the joke Alex Whitney has in Lard of the Dance

Honestly, the best idea I came to while retaining their shtick is to make them Jessica's minions. Hive-minded identical twins might not work for proper character work....but it is a useful tool if you want to give a larger character someone to control. And hey, if Bart gets to push Milhouse around everywhere, Jessica might as well get the same deal.

Yeah, I agree with you there, they do work better as sidekicks to Jessica similar to how the Weasels were to Nelson during the early Seasons. I will say that in my Thanksgiving fic, Sherri & Terri's roles are just to mindlessly follow Jessica (at least in Chapter 1, I'm not sure what to do with them next, as their roles are quite minor really).

 

[CousinMerl]

Honestly, the best idea I came to while retaining their shtick is to make them Jessica's minions. Hive-minded identical twins might not work for proper character work....but it is a useful tool if you want to give a larger character someone to control. And hey, if Bart gets to push Milhouse around everywhere, Jessica might as well get the same deal.

I'm not fond of the idea that the only way to make Sherri & Terri work without losing their "thing" is for them to play second fiddle to another character as henchwomen and nothing really more (which is more or less the way you describe them as).

The show has on occasion shown them to have a bit of their own identitiesunder the twin hive mind surface (such as how one of them likes Bart) so there is room for them to be a bit more so yeah, I do think they can be utilized and developed more in a way hat still has them as the "creepy twins" but every now and then reveal to be more than just that, such as with wants and needs that may not correspond with what the other one wants and needs. It is very much possible if the will from the writers and producers is there.

Also, thinking they can only work when being controlled by some other one feels like it'd do them a disservice, as it'd even more minimize and them and their untapped potential as actual characters rather than the twin archetype they are (and I don't think the show needs another instance of a Milhouse being controlled/manipulated by a Bart). I mean, they could still be sidekicks to another character at times, but at least let them be their own characters and not just two yes-(wo)men & goons to some schemer like Jessica.

 

[Venomrabbit]

Speaking of underutilized secondary characters, Sherri and Terri is such a uniqely weird case to me. Their history as characters on the show and how they were used, or weren't used, is such a stand out oddity.

They were there right from the very beggning. Their usage in season 1 shows that they belong to the very first generation of secondary characters that were in the minds of the shows producers even before the show got onto the air. And since they were put right into Bart's class, and showed a very specific and defined relationship to him right from the start (teasing him and getting him into trouble while acting under the facade shown to the adults that they were perfect little angels), they were obviously not intended as just once-in-a-blue-moon gag characters. They were clearly supposed to be staples of the Springfield Elementary setting.

And look, we all know that sometimes a first generation character is eventually sidelined when characters with more personality show up along the shows course and have more personality. But that's the thing; the twins did have personality. They also had a distinct look, a distinct voice, and again, a distinct relationship with Bart. They're not Louis and... that other guy, the grey haired one. They're not characters that were bound to be sidelined by more fun characters because they had nothing going for them.

And then they just disappeared. They remained well known characters among viewers simply because of their distinct visuals, but in all relevant regards they were written off the show. Whenever they did have spoken lines those were usually the kind of lines that could have been spoken by any other rando kid charater. There were barely any jokes based on their status as twins, and for the longest time there were never again any jokes about them antagonizing Bart. What the hell is up with that? I realize that the answer is undoubtably simply that the writers didn't think about the characters for all those years, but I do wonder why this fate befell those characters in partiuclar. Again, we're not talking Louis and other guy here, we're talking characters that from the very beggining were distinct, comedic, and had a unique relationship to one of the main family members.

And then like 25-30 goddamn years later after their voice actress has passed away, now we're starting to see them again (if only briefly and with intervals)? For almost the entirety of when the show was actually good and relevant, and for almost the entirety when the woman hired to voice them to begin with was alive, they were gone and now we're gonna start seeing them again? I mean... better late than never I suppose but man, those girls have already gone down in history as the most wasted characters the show ever gave us.

(no shade to anyone else, I wanted an excuse to use this finally )

God it forever makes me mad that they only now do something with Martin after Russi passed...

But yeah, saying they were never ever meant to be anything ever when they had a special VA shared only with Martin and obviously distinctive designs (the low-cut bangs giving them a subtle-shifty look is a wonderful touch) makes no sense at all. Imagine if Edna never amounted to anything? Or Sideshow Bob? Richard, Lewis and Wendell at least never really had a consistent voice.

One of the biggest fumbles of the classic era (seriously, I didn't say it was perfect, that's a strawman... in fact I said if something from the classic era was an obstruction, trash it, find opportunities they never took. That's the opposite of pretending it's perfect) was just a general unwillingness to bother with female characters.

If there's two good measures for how wasted they are one is that they're often called eerie or creepy but rarely get to act that way. Brad said the show could do with some new angles for comedy, well, "creepy-ass kids" is one that somehow hasn't been used at all. Or creepy anything. That'd be both a comedic and maybe event-driving niche wholly unique to them. Tell-don't-show is laziness. Also, while we've gotten a reocurring gag out of the bullies beating up Bart for oddly principled reasons ("that's for taking credit for other peoples' hard work") there's never been any subversive jokes on their twin-ness. Nothing like, say, getting an embarrassing moment recorded and one of them claims they're going to make a GIF of it, her sister says "it's pronounced 'jiff'" and they squabble over it. Or Sherri saying some sorta putdown and strutting off... while Terri gets left behind because she tuned out of the conversation. Or even trying to say something in sync and one of them gets the line totally wrong. Stuff like that. The obvious expectation of sameness seems like this'd be a no-brainer way to take people off guard and have a subtle "oh yeah they're technically two different people" mini-punchline...

 

[Kangdos]

Did you see what I said about the actual idea of writing twins? It's actually incredibly difficult in practice, because having them be essentially one character split into two bodies actively goes against the basic premise of human interaction. The brain is simply not designed to compartmentalize human beings in a way where two can be viewed as one - it will always try to logically separate them if they're given any kind of real definition, and it also cannot properly process conversations coming from a two-way stream. This is why this trope is pretty much given exclusively to minor characters who aren't expected to be given detailed characterization, and why any detailed example of twins will pretty much always distinguish them. And trying to do that with Sherri and Terri runs into the sober Barney problem - you're nullifying their entire gimmick while leaving effectively a blank canvas in exchange.

Honestly, the best idea I came to while retaining their shtick is to make them Jessica's minions. Hive-minded identical twins might not work for proper character work....but it is a useful tool if you want to give a larger character someone to control. And hey, if Bart gets to push Milhouse around everywhere, Jessica might as well get the same deal.

I want to clarify that when I wrote my post on the underutilization of Sherri and Terri, I never meant that I felt they were appropriate as main characters, like, even for a single episode. They're clearly gag characters as well as characters that were intended to act as a foil to Bart. That's what they're meant to be, and that's what they could have been. There are plenty pf great Simpsons characters that should never be used as main characters. Frink, Gil, Duffman, Comic Book Guy, ect. And back in the day there never were used as main characters. And now that they sometimes are, we see how unfit for it they are. They're great characters but they're great in small doses. They were never meant to be relatable, for one thing, and usually when these current writers decades after the fact try to make these one-note characters relatable it fails because the characters either come of as annoying when we see too goddamn much of them in one sitting or alternatively thir eccentric and comedic traits are downplayed which in turns makes them seem watered down from how we've usually seen them.

So yeah, Sherri and Terri could have been great reccuring side characters of the Frink, Gil, Duffman, Comic Book Guy ect kind. But that's the thing; they weren't. They had been said up as reccuring comedic foils to Bart, but they were in the end never used that way beyond season 1. Throughout the golden era they should have been in the same stew up reccuring Springfield Elementary kids as Nelson, Martin, Uter ect. I would never suggest making them the emotional focal point of an episode, as little as I'd suggest making Martin such. But have them show up and play their part (the bitchy girls that gives Bart a hard time while hiding under a mask of sweetness) and be funny. The golden era writers could have easily done that, but they didn't.

And now we've got this new generation of, let's be prutally honest here, less talented writers (although that's hardly even an insult when you think about it since arguably no writers group in the history of television has been as talented as the golden age Simpsons writers group. Like, you could talk about the writers of Seinfeld and call them less talented than the writers of golden age Simpsons and it would technically be perfectly true) that seem to to some extent be trying to do what I just said should have been done decades ago. And what makes this a shame is that it's ultimately too late for Sherri and Terri for the simple reason that it's too late for the show. To say that the shows best days in terms of quality is behind it is an understatement, and the same is also true for the shows recognizability in society and pop culture. Terri and Sherri will, no matter how much or how little they are used from this point on, never be characters involved in iconic Simpsons moments, because those moments don't happen anymore. It's too late for them to leave any kind of mark now, even in the theoretical scenario where they're suddenly starting to get used in every other episode. It's like with Rerun in Peanuts. Don't remember who Rerun van Pelt is? No of course you don't, because he only started being a major character in the strip in the 1990's and by that point nobody cared about Peanuts anymore and Schultz had forgotten how to be funny. Even if the writers were to decide that from now on Sherri and Terri need at least one episode per season as the main characters, they'd even then never be anything more than the Rerun of The Simpsons (as things are, I'd argue that the actual Rerun of The Simpsons is Shauna (ugh)...).

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

I'm not fond of the idea that the only way to make Sherri & Terri work without losing their "thing" is for them to play second fiddle to another character as henchwomen and nothing really more (which is more or less the way you describe them as).

The show has on occasion shown them to have a bit of their own identitiesunder the twin hive mind surface (such as how one of them likes Bart) so there is room for them to be a bit more so yeah, I do think they can be utilized and developed more in a way hat still has them as the "creepy twins" but every now and then reveal to be more than just that, such as with wants and needs that may not correspond with what the other one wants and needs. It is very much possible if the will from the writers and producers is there.

Also, thinking they can only work when being controlled by some other one feels like it'd do them a disservice, as it'd even more minimize and them and their untapped potential as actual characters rather than the twin archetype they are (and I don't think the show needs another instance of a Milhouse being controlled/manipulated by a Bart). I mean, they could still be sidekicks to another character at times, but at least let them be their own characters and not just two yes-(wo)men & goons to some schemer like Jessica.

A disservice to....whom, exactly? This argument is weirdly slanted in how it naturally assumes the Twins should be developed, despite there really being no narrative reasoning for that to be the case, and it being unnaturally difficult to do so given their gimmick (and I'm speaking from experience with that latter point). And that in itself seems to stem from this odd kind of worship for the series' ethos - that they should be developed simply because they exist as part of the iconography. And that's the same reasoning that led us to Cletus episodes.

 

[Kangdos]

You know, this discussion got me to search up a compilation of all notable scenes featuring Terri and Sherri (on a side note I'll be in my cold cold grave before I permanently remember which of the two names are "supposed" be be said first) on Youtube and one thing I realized was considering how small a percentage of jokes in zombie Simpsons episodes are actually funny... these girls have an amazing track record. This is all subjective of course but I'm talking from my own point of view obviously.
The two still show up very infrequently in current times, but when they do, I feel that there is about a 50% chance that their joke is actually going to more or less land. Again, that's amazing compared to, well, possibly any other character on the show.

Check out their notable apperances from season 23 and beyond. In with maybe one dud in between each, there is a strech of episodes (over several seasons) containing one really inventive joke about there possibly being 3 of them, followed by a surreal and amusing joke about them literaly not being able to live if seperated, a dark and unexpected joke revolving a magic act depending on them being twins, followed by a maybe not hilarious but kinda fun and cute joke about them being in disagreement of whose the oldest:

Again, holy shit, the ratio of good jokes to bad jokes with these characters during the absolute worst years of the show. If 50% of their material is funny then sure that means 50% is unfunny bit compare that to, like, Homer, whom I'm pretty sure during the darkest years of the show between about season 21 to 32 had about 95% bad jokes.

I can only attribute this comedic potential in modern episodes with these characters to the same thing that I previously in this thread complained about: their underusage for so many years. Think about it, with most other reccuring classic characters, the writers have not only used every imaginable joke regarding their archetypes (nerd, clown, italian, millionaire, indian, sea captain ect) but just about every variation of every imaginable joke. It's no wonder every damn joke about Milhouse being a dork or Grampa being old feel like something we've seen a billion times with those characters. But with Sherri and Terri, the wellspring of identical twin jokes is something that the writers haven't dried up yet.

All the more reason to have more Sherri and Terri in the future!

 

[Jackomon]

I will say that in regards to the Sherri & Terri debate on if they are either developed or undeveloped characters, it is more up to interpretation if anything. The same goes for any character, not just in Simpsons, but other shows too.

However, back to Sherri & Terri, it is pretty clear that Misogi's interpretation of the characters differs from Kangdos, Venom & CousinMerl's interpretations, and while I have my own interpretation of the twins (That been that Terri is the more assertive one with the crush on Bart and is very protective of her younger twin while Sherri herself is the more shy, quiet & reserved but masks it under a mean streak), I can see where all sides are coming from in this regard.

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

There's no real "interpretation" here - that implies the existence of character with which to interpret, which the twins simply do not have. That the compilation video of basically all their significant dialogue over more than 30 seasons is less than 15 minutes, almost a full minute being from the very first episode written (with only a little over 3 minutes total for the classic series - that's less than what basically any significant guest character got in a single episode) more or less proves that; they are not characters whom the audience was ever intended to care about.

Really, the only reason why we're even having this discussion is because the twins' mere existence directly highlights a very significant creative problem with the show - the complete lack of any female kid characters outside of Lisa. An entire textual aspect of the show - how Bart and Lisa interact with girls in their age range - is artificially gated behind guest characters, rather than being a proper regular part of the series. You can't even argue this is just a factor of the times, given that Peanuts' main cast ended up being more or less 50% female after the introduction of Patty and Marcie. It's just an uninterest in actually expanding your base in a meaningful way.

 

[CousinMerl]

A disservice to....whom, exactly? This argument is weirdly slanted in how it naturally assumes the Twins should be developed, despite there really being no narrative reasoning for that to be the case, and it being unnaturally difficult to do so given their gimmick (and I'm speaking from experience with that latter point). And that in itself seems to stem from this odd kind of worship for the series' ethos - that they should be developed simply because they exist as part of the iconography. And that's the same reasoning that led us to Cletus episodes.

First off, you're interpreting what I said too literally and definitively. I was speaking more broadly, using the twins as an example.

But yeah, I think holding back characters in some way would be a disservice to the possibilities in terms of witing for these characters, who shouldn't be limited to their basic role and could, in theory, be developed: In this case, we're speaking of the twins, Sherri & Teri. It's certainly not a must, not really for any character, but it could certainly help to flesh them out a bit, give them some more needs and wants & let loose a little as separate characters, yet they can still be able to retain the basics and gimmick of their "twin hivemind" character without ruining or warping them too much (and as already has been argued, they've been there from literally the beginning so it's sad to see they are still pretty much one-note and underutilized throughout the show, much like a lot of the school-related characters).

Giving them some character development would humanize and deepen them a little, which is always good: I'm thinking of how a character like Moe has benefitted greatly from such a thing (I mean, 'Moe Baby Blues' for example is a post-classic masterpiece of showing how there is more to him than the surly, morally dubious and lonely, pathetic man he tends to me) and the twins? Yeah, I could see them benefitting some from being allowed to be a bit more prominent and getting some individual character work & development.

So I'm not advocating that all characters must be developed due to being so much a part of the show and the iconography, just meaning that many of them could stand for being a little more than they (still) are. It doesn't go for all characters, some which fit more as being joke characters (such as Cletus, maybe the idea cherry-picking example), but some of them could see som good usage and improvements of getting some work done in terms of fleshing out and exploration. Maybe not a lot for some, but a bit at least.

You may feel that they work best in service of another character, but that is your interpretation and not everyone elses, so I hope you can be respectful to those who feel the opposite and find these characters should be more their own people and independent (and that doesn't necessarily rule out them being sidekicks or followers) and feel more like actual people instead of solely archetypes & stereotypes.

 

[Sandboy]

You know, one of the things I've been thinking about is that, as the series went on, it became more apparent that the kids (especially Bart and Lisa) had the least to say. It talks about the fact that Bart was relegated to being Homer's sidekick in mischief. But what if there is something more? What if the series had always struggled with settings designed for children?

What I'm asking is this: what could the series do to highlight its children's cast, when Bart and Lisa themselves take a backseat? You can do an "Iron Marge" and have the plot come from their childish attitudes. Or you can do a "Cue Detective" and make Bart and Lisa jointly solve crimes. You can do a bonding episode with one of their parents. Or you can do an episode of their sibling rivalry. You can make a... Do you understand what I'm saying? These are basically the schemes for children that we have seen since the classical era. Even in this reflection of successful episodes, the same problem persists and that is that, indeed - Bart and Lisa were the most affected by the longevity of the show. The writers from the beginning didn't seem to care much about the children's cast and if it weren't for Edna (and to a lesser extent Skinner) more plots centered on Springfield Elementary would look just as empty, think about it: there were only three types of episodes that involved the school environment - or they were about the school staff ("Bart the Lover", Sweet Seymour Skinner's Baadasssss Song", "The PTA Disbands"). Or they were about Bart and Lisa as a whole, using it as a setting to establish the plot but , which explores other themes ("Lisa in Ice", Separate Vacations", "Wacking Day"). Or, by default, it was about Bart and/or Lisa + the guest star of the week ("Lisa's Substitute", "Lisa's Rival", etc).

Were there exceptions? Yes, there were. But they were an exception, not the rule (and in some cases the show already had defined child characters such as the antagonistic use of Nelson, or Martin as a contrast to Bart). Heck, even things like "Bart on the Road" and "Lemon of Troy" still required certain flexes in their characterizations, or if anything inserted the kids into other, more absurd scenarios (of which would become even more evident in the era Jean when Bart and Lisa began to be characterized more as pre-teens). And also, like Springfield, the kids at Springfield Elementary were always more utilized when they functioned as an ensemble rather than simply as individuals (and it was always with the remark that "duh they're kids" and often functioned as a foil, like Lisa (which was often to highlight that she was different from other average kids her age).

Sure, you could argue that there were moments involving Bart and/or Lisa spending time with other kids their age, but those were always quick moments and if anything they served to make quick jokes (like virtually all of Milhouse's use in the era. classic). So I agree with Misogi's point—and it's really that there is little to no interpretation of the child characters, because they have always had no purpose beyond simply having to fill Bart and Lisa's classrooms, or act as antagonists like basically using Janey and the twins starting with "Lisa the Vegetarian" (and again, that's a problem with the immense world-building of the series itself). Just as the series did not bother to establish important relationships for the children, because in the same way Bart and Lisa had very different and distant purposes from what Springfield Elementary could offer (and in cases like Bart he was very limited to his teachers. and Matt Groening's philosophy on the education system... Which is not mutually exclusive of using children, but, it's also not like even Bart had a defined group of friends except for Milhouse and even that it was still a one-sided perspective).

 

[CousinMerl]

Additionally, I'd argue that somewhere the show has been struggling with so much more than with the kids is the teenage characters.

I mean, speaking of recurring ones, aside from Squeaky Voiced Teen and Jimbo, Dolph Kearney & Shauna, whom else there really? And these characters have had very little focus and mostly have remained the same across all these seasons (and weirdly enough, as of 'Girls Just Shauna Have Fun', only Shauna, unliked as she is, is the one who has gotten some development and feel more three-dimensional).

It's especially jarring with how a lot of modern shows run circles around them in the portrayal of teens, while 'The Simpsons' already missed that boat long ago and still struggle with what to do with the teen character (the few of them that exists). I think this is all due to the mostly male writers room being uncomfortable with writing teens and haven't given them a lot of thoughts aside from the typical "Teens are troublemakers, monsters or just rebellious" stuff and, in the case of Squeaky Voiced Teen, meek and subservient pushovers.

Heck, now this made me think of Squeaky Voiced Teen and how we don't really know anything of him despite having been on the show since the classic era. We don't even know his one true consistent name (as he had numerous names on the show, as per Wikisimpsons, which also reminded me he's the son of Lunchlady Dora, whom has conveniently disowned him, which I guess goes to show the lack of commitment to teenage characters by the writers, whom actually come off as a bit cowardly in terms of this kind of characters).

 

[GlitterCat]

This is why I have to keep low expectations about Ms Peyton interacting with the kids in the class instead of the parents. I think there is a lot of potential (she could be the touchy feely friendly teacher like Mr Simmons on hey Arnold or Mrs. Groetke on Recess. But both those characters were contrasted by the gruffer principals of the schools. I'm not sure Simpsons could use Skinner as an authoritarian foil any more. Ms Peyton might just be stuck talking to Marge and Homer once a season rather than enlivening classroom scenes.)