Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 232



Thread: "Stark Raving Dad" to be pulled from circulation



(Users Browsing this Thread: )

  1. #181
    Pin Pal TheDuffBlimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    386


    Quote Originally Posted by hutz View Post
    it's a pretty devastating documentary but unless the jackson estate gets any money from reruns of this episode it really is an empty gesture
    The speculation is that the Jackson estate does get paid each time the episode is seen. It is an empty gesture anyway, though.

  2. #182
    Non-Simpsons scare me. Road Rage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    T'internet
    Posts
    331


    I'm not sure the estate receives any royalties from the episode, but I've not been able to find any evidence for either side. Personally I'm fine with them profiting if it's a sensible cut.

  3. #183
    Pin Pal TheDuffBlimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    386


    Nobody is "sure" because that is something that is only the business of the Jackson estate. They are under no obligation to report their earnings to anybody publicly.
    That is why I mentioned what the speculation was.

  4. #184
    Newbie duff brewery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    ross on wye uk
    Posts
    15


    I have it in my collection and will be sharing it via youtube, no reason why people should miss out. its a product of its time

  5. #185
    Non-Simpsons scare me. Road Rage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    T'internet
    Posts
    331


    @duff brewery It's already on YouTube. I seriously doubt the episode will become lost media any time soon.

  6. #186


    I get it but at this point it's Simpsons history... leave it alone. I guess now would be a good time to hold onto your DVD sets tightly folks.

  7. #187


    I never thought about it but uploading the episode on youtube sounds like a great way to protest Al Jean's decision.

  8. Thumbs Up To This Post by: cam

  9. #188
    الذهاب المغيرين comeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Dickshooter, Idaho
    Posts
    12,799
    Blog Entries
    22


    It’s been on YouTube for years
    Fuck Donald Trump. #NotMyPresident

  10. Thumbs Up To This Post by: Road Rage

  11. #189
    Pin Pal TheDuffBlimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    386


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Nihilistic View Post
    I'm starting to think the only reason they do stuff like this is to get attention.
    Except that they get attention for literally just existing.

  12. #190


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDuffBlimp View Post
    Except that they get attention for literally just existing.
    I mean, media attention. Nobody's giving The Simpsons the time of day anymore, to the point where they get everybody talking about them. The only time they get that attention is through milestones (reaching 600 episodes, beating Gunsmoke), gimmicks ("Brick Like Me," "Every Man's Dream"), or controversies (the Apu situation, getting rid of "Stark Raving Dad").

    If none of these things happen, nobody cares about the show otherwise.

  13. #191
    No to cooties and sisters. Shoskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    867-5309
    Posts
    739


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Nihilistic View Post
    I mean, media attention. Nobody's giving The Simpsons the time of day anymore, to the point where they get everybody talking about them. The only time they get that attention is through milestones (reaching 600 episodes, beating Gunsmoke), gimmicks ("Brick Like Me," "Every Man's Dream"), or controversies (the Apu situation, getting rid of "Stark Raving Dad").

    If none of these things happen, nobody cares about the show otherwise.
    Sad enough you are right. Other than the backlash from the sjw who think they speak for everyone, Fox has to look at it as a business POV and if 1. It cost them advertisement by losing sponsors and 2. Viewership from us, they are going to pull such epsidoes. The problem is they actually don't talk to us, the people who have been here from the beginning or viewer for a long time. Furthermore, unless Fox goes after YouTube or buys back all unpurchase Season 3 DVDs there really isn't much they can do about it. Plus people will always be able to find the episodes considered unworthy.


  14. #192
    d=(^_^)z kupomog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Mililani, HI
    Posts
    37,892


    MJ innocent
    facebook / twitter / tumblr
    round and round let the city turn party in the hills we can party in the burbs roof on fire let it burn champagne in my hand I'm not concerned


  15. #193
    Pin Pal TheDuffBlimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    386


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Nihilistic View Post
    I mean, media attention
    The goal of a tv show isn't to be in the news. They are in the news for the right reasons.
    Usually.

    That is all that matters.

  16. #194
    Wrote the book on flimflammin Grifty McGrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,264
    Blog Entries
    55


    Are people actually scared this will become lost media? Not only can you buy the episode digitally from several places, you can also find it on shit like Kimcartoon or any "watch cartoons/tv shows free" site with a quick Google result. Not to mention the millions of DVD's already produced throughout the last 16 years?

    Calm the heck down. Reading this thread and just loling at the idea of people trying to sell season 3 DVD's for a ridiculous price. I just looked up, and found the episode within 60 seconds for free. You have to be completely inept to be afraid of this being lost.


  17. #195


    I am also wondering would they have possibly been taking "Last Exit to Springfield" out of rotation if the original plan for the guest star that had gone to Joyce Brothers hadn't been declined by the actor because their first choice would've been O.J. Simpson (and it even turned out the writers were even relieved O.J. declined the cameo). But then again, he was accused of attempted murder of his ex-wife and her friend so it depends on how bad you perceive the crimes they were accused of.

  18. #196


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDuffBlimp View Post
    The goal of a tv show isn't to be in the news. They are in the news for the right reasons.
    Usually.

    That is all that matters.
    First you say that people still give the show attention, and then you say that the end goal is not getting attention. So what's the goal? Quality? Because in 2019, The Simpsons fails on both counts.

    They're not in the news for the right reasons. No one was asking them to do this or supported the decision. There weren't articles coming out asking for a response from The Simpsons to Leaving Neverland. Matt Groening, James L. Brooks, and Al Jean all decided on their own to remove "Stark Raving Dad" from circulation. It's a great episode, but I don't think I've ever heard about people putting it on all-time lists and it doesn't get the same love as an episode like "Last Exit to Springfield" or "Rosebud." This decision made the episode return to the minds of many people, and raised its profile even higher because now, people will see it as this forbidden episode. The show tried capitalizing on a controversy and it backfired.

    Which is funny to me because when it came to Apu, the best the show could do is say the following: "Some things will be dealt with at a later date." "If at all."

  19. Thumbs Up To This Post by: kupomog

  20. #197
    No to cooties and sisters. Shoskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    867-5309
    Posts
    739


    Quote Originally Posted by biffwestwood View Post
    I am also wondering would they have possibly been taking "Last Exit to Springfield" out of rotation if the original plan for the guest star that had gone to Joyce Brothers hadn't been declined by the actor because their first choice would've been O.J. Simpson (and it even turned out the writers were even relieved O.J. declined the cameo). But then again, he was accused of attempted murder of his ex-wife and her friend so it depends on how bad you perceive the crimes they were accused of.
    Probably not since the character was just in one clip. Well I hope. Jackson was basically the whole show who hanged around Homer and then Bart to write a song for Lisa. I still don't get how the producers came up with the idea that he used the show to recruit young boys. Plus the episode Last Exit to S0ringfield was more about worker plight than that one person who had one line. "Dental plan. LIsa needs braces."
    Last edited by Shoskin; 06-26-2019 at 06:53 AM.

  21. #198
    No to cooties and sisters. Shoskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    867-5309
    Posts
    739


    So I guess 'Lisa's Subsitute' will be next on the chopping block since Hoffman has been accused of sexual misconduct.

  22. #199
    الذهاب المغيرين comeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Dickshooter, Idaho
    Posts
    12,799
    Blog Entries
    22


    just #cancel the whole damn show

  23. #200
    Wrote the book on flimflammin Grifty McGrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,264
    Blog Entries
    55


    Cancel it and ban every episode

  24. Thumbs Up To This Post by: pax

  25. #201
    Pin Pal TheDuffBlimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    386


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Nihilistic View Post
    First you say that people still give the show attention, and then you say that the end goal is not getting attention. Those statements don't contradict each other.
    Plenty of things get attention without trying to.
    So what's the goal? Quality? Because in 2019, The Simpsons fails on both counts. Obviously just an opinion. They're not in the news for the right reasons. We both already made our positions on this clear. No one was asking them to do this or supported the decision. No one had to. They are the ones who control it, nobody else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Nihilistic View Post
    There weren't articles coming out asking for a response from The Simpsons to Leaving Neverland.
    It was clearly a preemptive measure. Who is to say whether or not there would have been backlash eventually?
    Last edited by TheDuffBlimp; 06-26-2019 at 09:09 PM.

  26. #202


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDuffBlimp View Post
    It was clearly a preemptive measure. Who is to say whether or not there would have been backlash eventually?
    There wouldn't have been. Nobody was thinking about "Stark Raving Dad" before the producers came out and did what they did. A preemptive measure for what? To protect innocent people against this evil episode?

    You're acting like the show is courageous and taking a stand against something when that's not the case. This is an unprecedented decision. Never before have they gone as far as banning an episode because of what a guest star allegedly did. If they cared this much, they would have banned the episode in 1993 or 2003. This isn't new, groundbreaking information. Michael Jackson has been accused of child molestation on multiple occasions, and was involved in two cases where the family was discovered to be liars in the first case, and he was declared not guilty on 14 counts in the second case. The show's producers must have forgotten all of this happened like a lot of other people did.

    We've already seen what happens when The Simpsons is faced with modern-day controversies. The whole time they were under fire for Apu now being looked at as a problematic stereotype, they were like, "People are too sensitive. We don't think he's offensive. Maybe we'll do something about it, maybe we won't." And their response never changed except for what Hank Azaria said. Now, instead of silently removing the episode, or just choosing to no longer promote or celebrate it, they had to come out with a big public statement like the whole world was waiting on what they might do? They knew the talk it would generate, and people saw right through it. Even people who believe MJ was guilty didn't agree with getting rid of the episode.

    Like it or not, they were full of shit when they did this and acting like this was a noble decision on their part is just playing mental gymnastics.


  27. #203
    الذهاب المغيرين comeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Dickshooter, Idaho
    Posts
    12,799
    Blog Entries
    22


    no one would've cared if they had left a nearly 30 year old episode in circulation despite the guest star that's in it, hell i never even thought about the possible removal of the episode until it happened. yeah sure using it in special promotions or something probably would've garnered backlash, but just letting the episode play in reruns on TV? No one would've cared.

    Think these companies are a little too worried about stuff like this, kind of like The Cosby Show being taken out of circulation, or The Dukes of Hazzard because of the flag on the car. you really won't get too many people complaining that these shows are airing on TV Land or CMT or whatever, despite the problematic elements present in them. Like now you got numerous articles detailing the more problematic aspects of Friends(which yeah there are a lot), but the show still airs all the time on various cable networks, and I don't see much outcry to change that.


  28. #204
    Pin Pal TheDuffBlimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    386


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Nihilistic View Post
    There wouldn't have been.
    Literally impossible to know.
    There are over 7 billion people in this world who aren't you.
    You are not the final word on anything.

  29. Thumbs Up To This Post by: cam

  30. #205


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDuffBlimp View Post
    Literally impossible to know.
    There are over 7 billion people in this world who aren't you.
    You are not the final word on anything.
    1. I never said I was.

    2. Neither are you.

    3. Unless you have something to add to the conversation, don't bother quoting me.

  31. #206
    Pin Pal TheDuffBlimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    386


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Nihilistic View Post
    1. I never said I was.

    2. Neither are you.

    3. Unless you have something to add to the conversation, don't bother quoting me.
    1. The way you phrase everything suggests otherwise.

    2. It doesn't matter. You're the one stating events that "would" happen. Nothing I have said needs validation.

    3. Same goes for you. You are the one demanding acceptance.

  32. #207


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDuffBlimp View Post
    1. The way you phrase everything suggests otherwise.

    2. It doesn't matter. You're the one stating events that "would" happen. Nothing I have said needs validation.

    3. Same goes for you. You are the one demanding acceptance.
    I actually tried having a conversation with you. You quoted me first and had no interest in seeing my point of view. We're not going to come to an agreement on anything and it's clear you don't care about what I have to say, so there's nothing else to talk about.

    See you around.

  33. #208
    Pin Pal TheDuffBlimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    386


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Nihilistic View Post
    I actually tried having a conversation with you. You quoted me first and had no interest in seeing my point of view. We're not going to come to an agreement on anything and it's clear you don't care about what I have to say, so there's nothing else to talk about.

    See you around.
    No, you didn't. You responded with contrarianism. This is a terrible way to think you're holding a conversation with someone.

    You weren't expressing your point of view, you were making objectively false claims. There would be something to talk about but you aren't trying and aren't giving an opinion about anything. The one time you did give an opinion it was shallow and uninteresting.

  34. #209


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDuffBlimp View Post
    No, you didn't. You responded with contrarianism. This is a terrible way to think you're holding a conversation with someone.

    You weren't expressing your point of view, you were making objectively false claims. There would be something to talk about but you aren't trying and aren't giving an opinion about anything. The one time you did give an opinion it was shallow and uninteresting.
    I'm sorry if it came off like I was arrogant or trying to be superior, but again, it's clear to me that you don't care about anything I have to say and you have no interest of addressing anything I said, so we're not really having a conversation here.

  35. #210
    Pin Pal TheDuffBlimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    386


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Nihilistic View Post
    it's clear to me that you don't care about anything I have to say and you have no interest of addressing anything I said, so we're not really having a conversation here.
    I am sorry, but you clearly have the wrong idea here. I've addressed literally everything you've said. In some cases line by line.
    I don't mean to turn this into a me vs you thing, but I have taken everything you've said in. You could have asked me to clarify somethings, you decided to make allegations against me instead, though.
    Last edited by TheDuffBlimp; 06-27-2019 at 09:58 PM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

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