View Poll Results: Rate this episode:

Voters
164. You may not vote on this poll
  • 5/5

    11 6.71%
  • 4/5

    29 17.68%
  • 3/5

    39 23.78%
  • 2/5

    51 31.10%
  • 1/5

    34 20.73%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 127



Thread: Monty can't Buy Me Love



(Users Browsing this Thread: )

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    winnipeg (currently: sydney)
    Posts
    255


    this isn't meh, this is bad. when you want to destroy a previous characterisation that had nothing wrong with it, nor any need for freshness, you ought to have a very good reason for doing so. there was nothing wrong with burns, and this episode mucked him up a fair bit. all for a loch ness monster plot.

    there are entertaining bits in there and the first act is, as has been said already, pretty funny, though the richard branson parody is worthless as a richard branson parody. but as imperciph said, this episode and its (at most) decent first act has to compete against much better episodes without massive characterisation problems (burns) and loch ness monsters.

    D - a mess.

  2. #62
    the bear who loves to love c l o n e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,144
    Blog Entries
    7


    wow, this was worse than I remembered. I never actually cared for Mr. Burns pledge to be liked, the plot was farcical, and the humour non-existent after the first act. For what it's worth I didn't find Homer that dislikeable, despite some OOC moments ("can you believe I'm a size 4?"), and he provided some humour.

    But yes, this was bad. I absolutely despised the radio show scene, it felt like something out of Family Guy. And I didn't care for Mr. Burns either.

    4/10

    D+

  3. #63
    fan fatale of Takena Nagao jal90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Someday, somewhere
    Posts
    2,623
    Blog Entries
    1


    It's been a long while since the last time I watched the episode, but I remember it as a quite worthless experience.

    Actually I don't think the premise is so awful. I can see Burns developing at a time some necessity of human contact, or admiration. It's one of those things that, well-written, can bring a great episode by reaffirming, not destroying, the essential character of Mr Burns. But this one is ridiculous in its execution. Instead of trying to make the audience understand his motivations, the episode loses its energy at pointing and laughing at his lame attempts again and again, not caring for any sign of development nor exploration of what drives him to feel in that way. The traditional Scully style: I dare to make plot experiments with the characters, but never care to go beyond the premise.

    So, what is not really a bad idea turns into an useless joke-driven bullshit, with Homer taking a -also gratuitous and unexplored- supporting role as Burns' advisor, many fart, physical and surreal jokes, and zero substance. And a Loch Ness Monster who is able to change its size between shots. Fuck that.

  4. #64


    I voted 3/5. Look, just because an episode is dumb (okay preposterously idiotic) doesn't mean can't be funny. Yes it was one of the more mindless episodes of the show, but it was also pretty funny.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    winnipeg (currently: sydney)
    Posts
    255


    look, just because something is funny doesn't mean it's good.

  6. #66
    Wants to be a sweetie pie Financial Panther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    26,157
    Blog Entries
    28


    I have no problem with this episode. The jokes are strong, and the plot is clear: Burns wants to be loved because he sees how well Arthur Fortune is being treated. It's a funny episode where I feel for Burns a bit.
    Favorite and least favorite by season
    1. Life on the Fast Lane Homer’s Night Out 2. Bart Gets an F Dead Putting Society 3. Homer at the Bat Like Father, Like Clown 4. Brother From the Same Planet Krusty Gets Kancelled 5. Cape Feare Lady Bouvier’s Lover 6. Homer Badman Another Simpsons Clip Show 7. King-Size Homer Lisa the Iconoclast 8. Homer’s Enemy The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase 9. Bart Carny The Trouble With Trillions 10. Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo Homer Simpson in: “Kidney Trouble” 11. Guess Who’s Coming to Criticize Dinner? Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder 12. HOMЯ Tennis the Menace 13. Tales From the Public Domain She of Little Faith 14. The Dad Who Knew Too Little Helter Shelter 15. I, (Annoyed Grunt)-bot Bart-Mangled Banner 16. A Star is Torn On a Clear Day I Can’t See My Sister 17. My Fair Laddy Bonfire of the Manatees 18. The Haw-Hawed Couple You Kent Always Say What You Want 19. Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind All About Lisa 20. Gone Maggie Gone The Good, the Sad and the Drugly 21. The Bob Next Door The Color Yellow 22. Donnie Fatso Love is a Many Strangled Thing 23. The Falcon and the D’ohman A Totally Fun Thing That Bart Will Never Do Again 24. Hardly Kirk-ing Moonshine River 25. The War of Art What to Expect When Bart’s Expecting 26. Sky Police Let’s Go Fly a Coot 27. Halloween of Horror Lisa With an ‘S’ 28. There Will Be Buds Moho House 29. Springfield Splendor Throw Grampa From the Dane 30. Daddicus Finch I Want You (She’s So Heavy) 31. Thanksgiving of Horror Warrin’ Priests (Part Two)

  7. #67
    I'm baaaack! Patches O'houlihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin: "More bars in more places."
    Posts
    15,679
    Blog Entries
    2


    Quote Originally Posted by Financial Panther View Post
    I have no problem with this episode. The jokes are strong, and the plot is clear: Burns wants to be loved because he sees how well Arthur Fortune is being treated. It's a funny episode where I feel for Burns a bit.

  8. #68
    The Chosen One Walid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    'cause I live at home in a trailer...
    Posts
    32,968
    Blog Entries
    137


    I gave this a 4/5? I don’t know what I was smoking but I wish I had more…

    Anyways, this episode has some OK gags… the shoplifting store, “I’m doing all my thieving’ here!’ The Adam Sandler reference was kind of chuckle worthy… that’s about it. The plot of Mr. Burns wanting to be more liked is interesting but the execution was weird. Of all the things he could have done to get people to like him, he decides to capture the Loch Ness Monster? What were the writers thinking?! Seriously, what the hell was the thought process in this episode? I wonder if the commentary would tell me about this, because I am curious. I know this is around the time of the series when the last half of episodes would be wacky- Saddlesore Galactica anyone? This is bad too. The Simpsons, despite what they try to pose as, are not a Saturday morning cartoon, and in this episode it really feels like they are. I could maybe forgive this somewhat if it were funny, but… most of it wasn’t. The Shock Jock scene was terrible, the end of act 2 when they go to Scotland was not funny, Mr. Burns being eaten by the loch ness monster? What is this? This is not the Simpsons I know. Or maybe it is, which is sad. I can’t believe I originally gave this a 4/5. The plot, especially in the last act, is awful, and there are little laughs found in this.

  9. #69


    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Chan View Post
    look, just because something is funny doesn't mean it's good.
    "Good" is really ambiguous in that sentence. I'm not saying the episode should be locked up in the Smithsonian for posterity, but I enjoyed it. When I rank an episode, enjoyment is probably my number one criterion. The show is a comedy, after all. Yes, ideally every episode would be brilliant and have an important message, but that isn't realistic.

    Let's put it this way, isn't funny and stupid better than unfunny and stupid. Hence, the 3/5. I don't see how anyone could justify giving this a 1/5.

  10. #70
    withered gas station rose Bart's treehouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,272


    Quote Originally Posted by Adam723 View Post
    Hence, the 3/5. I don't see how anyone could justify giving this a 1/5.
    Maybe they didn't find it funny. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp considering the episode at hand.

  11. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    winnipeg (currently: sydney)
    Posts
    255


    Quote Originally Posted by Adam723 View Post
    "Good" is really ambiguous in that sentence. I'm not saying the episode should be locked up in the Smithsonian for posterity, but I enjoyed it. When I rank an episode, enjoyment is probably my number one criterion. The show is a comedy, after all. Yes, ideally every episode would be brilliant and have an important message, but that isn't realistic.

    Let's put it this way, isn't funny and stupid better than unfunny and stupid. Hence, the 3/5. I don't see how anyone could justify giving this a 1/5.
    what do you mean it isn't realistic? damn near every episode before season 10 had more of a "message" (and more comedy) than this episode, and they did so using the established character of burns rather than mucking it up (for what?), and they did so without the use of the loch ness monster. of course it's a realistic expectation.

    and it's an expectation that was usually met, until season 10 came along, that is, at which point failure and cheap laughs became the criteria for a successful episode.

    (and if you wanted a justification you could have read my original post)

    ---

    edit: i'm so sick of this bullshit defense of certain scully era episodes which follows the logic of "oh they were still funny so they're still good." fuck off. there's a million tv shows which are funny but sure aren't on par with the quality of an average (3/5) simpsons episode. when grading the simpsons there's more than simple comedy routines. there are things to avoid too. like panda rape, loch ness monsters and (uninspired) deus ex machinas.
    Last edited by Ben Chan; 07-03-2011 at 12:32 AM.

  12. #72


    I love classic era Simpsons too, but the amount of romanticizing by fans borders on the pathological. In Call of the Simpsons (season 1) Maggie is adopted by a family of grizzly bears, and Homer is legitimately mistaken for Bigfoot. In Brush with Greatness (season 2) Ringo Starr is portrayed as a madman who does nothing but respond to 30 year old fan letters. In Homer at the Bat (season 3, and a truly classic episode) Ozzie Smith falls into another dimension. I'm going to repeat that "Ozzie Smith falls into another dimension".

    I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. The notion that nothing unrealistic ever happened on The Simpsons until season 9 or 10 or whatever, is absurd. It's a cartoon and silly things are going to happen now and then.

    Edit in response to what Chan said in his edit- When rating an episode of any show, I think you have to look at it in a vacuum, and ask yourself, what do I think of that episode? I mean, if I watch an episode of Bob's Burgers and I thoroughly enjoy it, I'll give it a 4 or 5 out of 5, even if it doesn't compare to the greatest episodes of another show. I think you have to do the same thing with post-classic Simpsons. Watch the episode and decide how good it was, don't try and compare it to some nostalgic favorite from your past. Otherwise, you aren't giving an accurate assessment.
    Last edited by Adam723; 07-03-2011 at 01:42 AM.

  13. #73
    I'm baaaack! Patches O'houlihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin: "More bars in more places."
    Posts
    15,679
    Blog Entries
    2


    Sorry, Adam, but you can't divest yourself of all past experiences of the show, no matter how much you want to "objectively" (and I can't put enough quotes around that word) judge the show.

    And no, the show was never ONE HUNDRED PERCENT realism, being a cartoon, "Cartoony" things will happen. However, in the older episodes, when the show did stretch reality it was 1, in a Halloween episode, and 2, it was in a dream sequence or a parody of something you'd see in real life. The Ozzie Smith example you liked rubbing in our faces was a parody of all those 'zany' roadside attractions you find in hick towns, especially in the upper-midwest. Ever been to Wisconsin Dells? They had an attraction called "the Wonder Spot."

    What separated the 'classics' with the modern shit is the older episodes weren't TRYING to be IN YOUR FACE funny. As someone said years ago, it started with Mike Scully who "Poochified" Homer and turned the rest of the family into parodies of themselves.
    Well, ya'know if you stay positive and forget about trivial things like "proper characterization," "Satire," and "emotional depth" watching new Simpsons episodes can be a seemingly enjoyable lie.

    I tried watching a new episode the Simpsons, but I realized the show hit a new low, like a brand new, underground parking structure of sadness.

  14. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    winnipeg (currently: sydney)
    Posts
    255


    agreed with jake in the strongest terms. this notion that you can judge episodes in an objective vacuum is rubbish. your judgement of any given text is necessarily grounded in your prior experiences with other texts. ergo, when you watch the simpsons you can't divorce yourself from previous episodes, nor other comedies.

    hell, the very notion of an assessment is relative in nature. you grade one thing relative to how well it compares to another thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by adam
    The show is a comedy, after all
    you seem to agree with me - and contradict yourself - when you say this. on the one hand you want to judge the simpsons as a comedy where the word comedy is defined by prior experiences with other texts (ie comedies), and on the other hand you want to somehow divorce the simpsons from everything else and evaluate it in a vacuum.

    i think we can agree the idea of an objective assessment is rubbish.

    Quote Originally Posted by adam
    I love classic era Simpsons too, but the amount of romanticizing by fans borders on the pathological. In Call of the Simpsons (season 1) Maggie is adopted by a family of grizzly bears, and Homer is legitimately mistaken for Bigfoot. In Brush with Greatness (season 2) Ringo Starr is portrayed as a madman who does nothing but respond to 30 year old fan letters. In Homer at the Bat (season 3, and a truly classic episode) Ozzie Smith falls into another dimension. I'm going to repeat that "Ozzie Smith falls into another dimension".

    I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. The notion that nothing unrealistic ever happened on The Simpsons until season 9 or 10 or whatever, is absurd. It's a cartoon and silly things are going to happen now and then.
    you haven't made a point at all. i never asserted anything about realism on the simpsons. i only mentioned 'realism' insofar as it related to expectations of what a simpsons episode can acheive, quality wise.

    i'll argue with you though, and i'll agree with you (and jake): silly things are going to happen and i accept that, and i enjoy it. hell, i love the monorail episode. didn't leonard nimoy teleport himself in that episode?

    the issue isn't whether or not it's silly, the issue is how well the content is written into the episode, how clever it is, and what purpose it serves. the ringo starr thing is just another piss take on a celebrity, and it's not that far fetched so it was a shitty example on your part. jake already explained the mystery spot thing. as for the call of the simpsons, i'd grade that episode around a D as well, although the bigfoot thing is more inspired than you give it credit for.

    the problem with the loch ness monster is that it's all done for laughs and that's the end of it. the ringo starr thing was done to satirise celebrities; the mystery spot to satirise hick towns; bigfoot to satirise the type homer represents. btw, satire isn't the only thing those examples have going for them. now, what was the purpose of the loch ness monster other than to provide laughs and to advance the already shitty story? why did it transform from beast to best friend? why was it anthropomorphic? why could it change size? above all else, why was it even there?

    any similar question asked of a classic era episode could be answered by pointing out things such as those which jake and i pointed out with regards to your shitty classic era examples. the problem with the loch ness monster is that these questions don't yield satisfactory answers. the only reason it was there was either for laughs, or to advance the plot - both of which were tremendous fails. especially sot if the purpose (and justification) for using the loch ness monster was to advance the story, given that the story was already completely fucked up.

    Quote Originally Posted by adam
    I love classic era Simpsons too, but the amount of romanticizing by fans borders on the pathological.
    shuttup.

    edit: i shouldn't have to say this but i'll say it anyway: uninspired and pathetic instances of 'down-to-earth' (read: 'realistic') writing will draw just as much criticism as the 'unrealistic' writing you speak of, adam. it's not as if we're completely biased toward one direction, although i believe that's the claim espoused by scully, maxtone-graham et al.

  15. #75
    fan fatale of Takena Nagao jal90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Someday, somewhere
    Posts
    2,623
    Blog Entries
    1


    Homer At The Bat is a silly, surrealistic and purposely exaggerated show (Burns hires several MLB players just to win his bet). Monty Can't Buy Me Love is supposed to be a more or less thorough character exploration (Burns finds he's not loved nor respected). The problem here is the use of surreal, how it works or not in the context, and how it serves or not to the purposes of the episode. I don't expect things at Homer At The Bat going drawn in a realistic way because, you know, the premise is already quite weird for such thing; however, this episode where a trait is thrown, supposedly to make us be aware of if not feel pity for a character, is for some reason lost among the increasing silliness of some of his ideas. Throwing coins to the street or trying to catch the Loch Ness Monster, who is obviously there waiting to be captured.

    But hell, I admit some surrealism and cartoony events in my average Simpsons episode. I wouldn't care if they want to write Burns capturing the Loch Ness Monster. But, I think I'm in position to demand that this exploration of unrealistic is done to reinforce the original conflict and not to take advantage of it while it remains underdeveloped. This is why, on the other hand, Homer At The Bat works. It has a conflict, a developed conflict in fact, about Homer and his reactions to the surrealistic events happening around, and their effects. And the most surrealistic sequences are in fact short cartoony gags (bat being burnt and broken), or belong to a chain of events that are exaggerated for, I suppose, self-mocking purpose (the fact some MLB players are given such a weird fate, I think it works in some way as a joke about the laziness of the writers), but most important, they don't damage nor make any less believable the focus on the episode, which is Homer. While this one is just: "Ok, we have the plot, now we can introduce free silliness not caring about the consequences it obviously has".
    Last edited by jal90; 07-03-2011 at 03:21 AM.

  16. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    winnipeg (currently: sydney)
    Posts
    255


    i think mike scully's exact words in the commentary were, "we tried to come up with the most extreme thing we could think of", or something to that effect.

    ---

    you know my main beef with this episode isn't so much that it did anything with the loch ness monster, although that remains an issue, it's more what they did with mr burns. why does mr burns want to be like arthur fortune anyway? it's so tremendously out of character that a very, very well developed and thought out story would be needed to make it work.

    instead we got the loch ness monster

    for an example of when a tremendously out of character story works, see "homer loves flanders", where we see how homer can come to love flanders (B+). or in a different way, see you only move twice (A+), although i guess that's more of a story where a character is pulled tremendously out of regular context...

    WAIT A MINUTE. WASN'T MIKE SCULLY AROUND FOR BOTH OF THOSE EPISODES!?!?!?!?

  17. #77


    Let me clarify what I meant by evaluating every episode in a vacuum. I don't mean that your prior experiences with comedy won't influence your decision, indeed all your prior experiences will influence your rating. What I mean is that this should happen on a more subconscious level. That is, you shouldn't be actively contrasting every episode of the Simpsons with every other episode, and with every classic Marx Brothers sketch, and with every episode of Duckman, etc. Instead, you should evaluate based on your overall conception of comedy, and of television in general. Therefore, based on my conception of comedy, this episode was extremely funny, despite the fact that the story was asinine and the characterizations may have been off.

    Although, I don't think they were as far off as some of you are suggesting. Yes, Burns wanted people to like him, not because he wanted to become a good person (he is clearly a sociopath), but because he was jealous of Arthur Fortune, and it damaged his massive ego to see a billionaire acting that way. It's like in Team Homer, when Burns appears to genuinely care about his bowling buddies, until it's revealed at the end that he just wanted the trophy.


    I guess it boils down to this: the episode was fun and enjoyable to me in an immediate visceral way. You don't need to continue pointing out the flaws to me, because you are preaching to the choir. I feel like you guys think I'm in love with this episode, I only gave it a 3/5 that's an average score. The math is pretty simple, the episode was very enjoyable and funny, but had a poor story (really only in the last act, IIRC), hence the average score.

    Also, if you are comparing to it other episodes, how can you give it the lowest possible score. It obviously isn't as bad as New Kids on the Blecch (worst episode ever), or Saddlescore Galactica (maybe one good gag), or Helter Shelter (Squiggy? really?). These episodes have at least as many flaws as MCBML and they aren't nearly as humorous.

  18. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    winnipeg (currently: sydney)
    Posts
    255


    why should i banish comparison to the subconscious - as if that were possible - where it would be devoid of the same amount of reasoning it would otherwise have in the conscious? what exactly would the point of that be? so that i can have my visceral reaction and that's it, right? sure, ok, well then we all might as well leave the NHC because reviews, r&r threads, etc would all be rendered completely pointless:

    ben: i had a gut feeling this was a bad episode
    adam: i had a gut feeling this was a good episode
    jake: i had a gut feeling this was a bad episode
    panther: i had a gut feeling this was a good episode

    the whole point of a review, i believe, is to a) subject your own opinion to critique and; b) convince others that your opinion is right. if all we can talk about is visceral reactions which are untouched by the scum of comparison, then both of those goals are rendered pointless, and all we have is the absurd situation i outlined above.

    active comparison to other simpsons episodes, at the least, is entirely warranted. expectations of comedy, story, writing, animation, etc are all defined by prior viewing and i so no reason to ignore them or to relegate them to the subconscious (again, which is impossible). it seems you don't either, because the only reason you've supplied me with is...none. no reason. you just think that's the way it ought to be.

    btw, take a look at some of the grades ATS'ers were giving classic era episodes back when they aired. all they had to compare to were other classic era episodes and so, for them, a lot of those episodes got grades of C/D/F which we would otherwise grade B or perhaps C. even if you do come up with a reason to adopt your strange (and impossible) method of review, you're working against the other 5,999,999 members of the human race, i'd say.

    ---

    It's like in Team Homer, when Burns appears to genuinely care about his bowling buddies, until it's revealed at the end that he just wanted the trophy.
    the difference is pretty obvious. like you say, burns appears to genuinely care about his bowling buddies but it's a lie (good, consistent characterisation). in monty can't buy me love, burns does genuinely care about what others thing of him (bad, inconsistent characterisation). again, this would be permissible if it were worth it. it's not.

    Also, if you are comparing to it other episodes, how can you give it the lowest possible score. It obviously isn't as bad as New Kids on the Blecch (worst episode ever), or Saddlescore Galactica (maybe one good gag), or Helter Shelter (Squiggy? really?). These episodes have at least as many flaws as MCBML and they aren't nearly as humorous.
    1. we have what, 400 episodes or so to choose from. i think we can assume more than one episode can get a 1/5
    2. insofar as 1/5 represents the bracket of 0 to 1, ie a rounding up system, then the score 1/5 implies all episodes which receive a percentage grade of 0%-20%. ie, 1/5 doesn't imply 'bottom of the barrel', or 0/5, by definition, although it can.

    ---

    edit: i think we can see that the point has been made here though. your argument right now seems to be circling dangerously around "well it's my opinion so NYER!", phrased in more complex terminology. for us strange simpsons fans who dare to compare episodes, unlike yourself apparently, i think the 1/5 score is pretty warranted.

  19. #79
    Stonecutter Diversity Pumpkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,711
    Blog Entries
    4


    u so mad all the time

  20. #80


    ^LOL

    Anyway, Chan you have way oversimplified my position. I have given you a reason. I thought the jokes in the episode were funny. A position you seemingly agreed with earlier when you said "look, just because something is funny doesn't mean it's good."

    That is really the only thing you've said with which I take issue. If you admit that the episode was funny, then why doesn't it receive any credit for that fact. No matter how you weigh comedy against content (and clearly you don't value comedy as much as I do), you have to admit that something that is funny is better than something that is unfunny (assuming everything else is equal).

    Also, I gave you a few examples of bad episodes that weren't funny to demonstrate that an episode being funny makes it better. There are plenty more unfunny episodes but, as you said, there are over 400 episodes total. As I don't want to develop carpal tunnel, I didn't list every unfunny episode.

    Oh, and I'll still argue that Mr. Burns didn't care about being liked, rather he just wanted what Arthur Fortune had. He's like a little kid that just wants whatever toy the other kid is playing with. However, even I'll admit I may simply be rationalizing away the terrible writing.

    Ultimately, I think we are just arguing semantics, and I think we agree more than we realize. You do agree that this episode is exponentially funnier than any of the craptastic episodes I listed earlier, as well as, plenty of other episodes, right? We both obviously agree that the story was garbage. In the end, all we're really doing is arguing over a silly subjective rating system.

  21. #81
    Stonecutter Diversity Pumpkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,711
    Blog Entries
    4


    Burns: Oh, that flamboyant fop. He's got them eating out of his hands.
    Smithers: Well, you have to admit, he *is* charismatic, sir.
    Burns: Oh, bosh! Anyone can lead a conga line.

    Burns: I want you to look at me the way I saw you look at Arthur Fortune.

    Burns: Oh, what's the use? I'll never be a popular beloved billionaire like Arthur Fortune.

    Naw, he wasn't jealous at all. Also, since I'm on snpp, I have to post my favorite line from that episode. "I was a little worried when he swallowed me, but, well, you know the rest. And now, for my triumphant return to Springfield!"

  22. #82
    I'm baaaack! Patches O'houlihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin: "More bars in more places."
    Posts
    15,679
    Blog Entries
    2


    Quote Originally Posted by Adam723 View Post
    ^LOL

    Anyway, Chan you have way oversimplified my position. I have given you a reason. I thought the jokes in the episode were funny. A position you seemingly agreed with earlier when you said "look, just because something is funny doesn't mean it's good."
    You CAN find something funny because it's extremely stupid, but that doesn't make it a well-made comedy.

    That is really the only thing you've said with which I take issue. If you admit that the episode was funny, then why doesn't it receive any credit for that fact. No matter how you weigh comedy against content (and clearly you don't value comedy as much as I do), you have to admit that something that is funny is better than something that is unfunny (assuming everything else is equal).
    Humor is funny when it's witty and has bite and slapstick is great when the timing and content all jibe, but when you're laughing and at end of every guffaw you mutter: "What the fuck is this shit!?", that's not comedic genius tickling your foibles. Sure it's "funny" but like Ralph said: "Not HA HA funny."

    Also, I gave you a few examples of bad episodes that weren't funny to demonstrate that an episode being funny makes it better. There are plenty more unfunny episodes but, as you said, there are over 400 episodes total.
    What's your definition of "Not funny"? When a joke fails, or when the show is advancing the plot without attempted humor? If you are mistaking "unfunny" with the latter, then you shouldn't be watching the first three or four seasons.

    As I don't want to develop carpal tunnel, I didn't list every unfunny episode.
    That'd be funny.

    Oh, and I'll still argue that Mr. Burns didn't care about being liked, rather he just wanted what Arthur Fortune had. He's like a little kid that just wants whatever toy the other kid is playing with. However, even I'll admit I may simply be rationalizing away the terrible writing.
    The ultimate capper is buying the latter two seasons on DVD.

    Ultimately, I think we are just arguing semantics, and I think we agree more than we realize. You do agree that this episode is exponentially funnier than any of the craptastic episodes I listed earlier, as well as, plenty of other episodes, right? We both obviously agree that the story was garbage. In the end, all we're really doing is arguing over a silly subjective rating system.
    From MY standpoint, laughing at something because it's shit terrible doesn't make it a good comedy. Scary Movie 2 is one of the worst pieces of crap put on celluloid, but I still chuckled a bit. Does that make it funnier than the first 2 seasons of the Simpsons? Hell, no. Why? Because even the less funny episodes of the Simpsons had characters I cared about. I didn't care about Mr. Burns and his quest to find Nessie and the episode gave me no reason to. In the end liking or caring about the character is more important in a comedy than any strained effort to be funny.

  23. #83


    I don't agree with the assumption that just because the story is stupid, the jokes are stupid. Look at movies like Billy Madison, Airplane, or Dumb and Dumber. The plots to those movies are simple and inane, but the jokes are really funny. So why can't the same be true of a Simpsons episode?

  24. #84
    withered gas station rose Bart's treehouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,272


    Quote Originally Posted by Adam723 View Post
    I don't agree with the assumption that just because the story is stupid, the jokes are stupid. Look at movies like Billy Madison, Airplane, or Dumb and Dumber. The plots to those movies are simple and inane, but the jokes are really funny. So why can't the same be true of a Simpsons episode?
    The plots can be simple and funny. This one just wasn't funny in some peoples minds(mine included). But you think it was funnier than episodes like Saddlesore and the other usual suspects so you think it's crazy that people gave this a 1/5. I would place this episode in the same tier as those episodes so why can't I give it a 1/5?

  25. #85
    I'm baaaack! Patches O'houlihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin: "More bars in more places."
    Posts
    15,679
    Blog Entries
    2


    Quote Originally Posted by Adam723 View Post
    I don't agree with the assumption that just because the story is stupid, the jokes are stupid. Look at movies like Billy Madison, Airplane, or Dumb and Dumber. The plots to those movies are simple and inane, but the jokes are really funny. So why can't the same be true of a Simpsons episode?
    Because those characters in each of their respective movies is extremely likeable, even the characters that come off as assholes are likeable. When you have likeable character AND great jokes, the movie succeeds.

  26. #86
    her cocoa is so chuggable PreciousBodilyFluids's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,457


    god forbid a comedic character be unlikable

  27. #87
    I'm baaaack! Patches O'houlihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin: "More bars in more places."
    Posts
    15,679
    Blog Entries
    2


    Quote Originally Posted by PreciousBodilyFluids View Post
    god forbid a comedic character be unlikable
    I know. Jerkass Homer didn't cause any dissent around here!

  28. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    winnipeg (currently: sydney)
    Posts
    255


    Quote Originally Posted by adam
    Anyway, Chan you have way oversimplified my position. I have given you a reason. I thought the jokes in the episode were funny. A position you seemingly agreed with earlier when you said "look, just because something is funny doesn't mean it's good."
    uh, when i was talking about a "reason" i was talking about a reason for adopting your rating system. clearly, you can't read or follow a simple debate and so, we're done.

    and yeah, all we're arguing about is a silly ratings system. yours is silly, and dumb. mine is sensible, and fantastic.

    Quote Originally Posted by diversity pumpkin
    u so mad all the time
    sexual frustration

  29. #89
    her cocoa is so chuggable PreciousBodilyFluids's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,457


    better than Jakeass Homer
    Last edited by PreciousBodilyFluids; 07-03-2011 at 07:03 PM.


  30. #90
    I'm baaaack! Patches O'houlihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin: "More bars in more places."
    Posts
    15,679
    Blog Entries
    2


    NOTHING IS BETTER THAN JAKEASS HOMER!!!!1!!!



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
  •