The Simpsons: What happened?

[SillyBee]

This was inspired by a quick discussion on another thread concerning the decline of the cartoon, The Simpsons, particularly in the past three or four years. Statements made were along the lines of how mean it has become, particularly Homer who has turned into a caricature of himself with the mood changes of a homicidal maniac.

Now one could make the observation that after what, 15 years(?), its hard to keep things refreshing and new. However its more along the lines of the overall theme of the cartoon with which I speak. It has become somewhat of a platform(particularly this season) for which certain writers can propagandalize(yes I know its not a real word) their own opinion.

What I wonder is if its more of the same show for 15 years, or more of my perception changing over 15 years. The animation has increased greatly, I owe many a Sunday night of rolling on the floor laughing(rofl) to this show, but as was said, where once I scheduled my day around viewing the show, now I can miss it and shrug unconcernedly.

Any opinions? Statements? Facts? Quick stories? Money?:smallbiggrin:

Feel free to add in your thoughts.

[WampaX]

Now one could make the observation that after what, 15 years(?), its hard to keep things refreshing and new. However its more along the lines of the overall theme of the cartoon with which I speak. It has become somewhat of a platform(particularly this season) for which certain writers can propagandalize(yes I know its not a real word) their own opinion.

What I wonder is if its more of the same show for 15 years, or more of my perception changing over 15 years. The animation has increased greatly, I owe many a Sunday night of rolling on the floor laughing(rofl) to this show, but as was said, where once I scheduled my day around viewing the show, now I can miss it and shrug unconcernedly.


Its a little of both. The show has obviously changed from what it once was (a non-sit-com traditional family unit) to something that tested the waters (the poinyent parody years) to something else entirely (wacky off the wall comedy). I can't comment on the last few seasons as the odd brand of wacky comedy just didn't seem right coming from The Simpsons. Also, my taste in animated entertainment changed as Futurama became my new Simpsons (not surprising since the creative talent behind Futurama was behind some of my favorite Simpsons seasons) and Family Guy just did the wacky comedy so much better than the Simpsons was.

On the other side, I'm not the teenager sitting on a bus on the way back from a band trip to Disneyworld watching a premier Simpsons episode (Lisa gets married) on a TG-16 with a television tuner attachment. I watch the old ones on re-runs or DVD and realize what I liked about them then, I still like about them now, but for somewhat different reasons. My tastes have changed almost along with the lifetime of the show and now, my tastes differ from what they are offering. I would wager that the same could be said for you.

[Korith]

Opinion:

I think that the introduction of "new" shows, such as Family Guy and American Dad played a large role in throwing the Simpsons off-balance. These shows essentially took the same gimmicks that the Simpsons used to gain popularity and slightly changed the characters around to look like a new program.

Essentially, if you take the sum of the character traits in The Simpsons, you find nearly the exact same basic mix in Family Guy. The key difference, however, is that Family Guy seeks to be more offensive. This serves to quickly pick up a viewer base, which is maintained by the key personality: Stewie Griffon.

American Dad took a different aim; the characterizations are balanced differently than the Simpsons, but the level of satire has been exaggerated. People who specifically enjoyed the satirical element of the Simpsons will tend to gravitate more towards this particular show.

Add into that SillyBee's mention of how hard it is to keep the material fresh for over a decade, and you've got a natural instance of competition moving in to stomp out the "old and boring original".

There are other cases of the gradual death dragging of these shows as well; Star Trek, from series to series, has found it harder with each iteration to appeal to the core audience while growing in viewership. New series, similar in concept but different in approach, have conquered the former Trek niche: Stargate SG-1, Firefly, Farscape, Andromeda, etc.

The difference, though? 20 years from now, I expect we'll still see the Simpsons being broadcasted; it's balance is able to transcend the generational gaps. Family Guy and its ilk will most likely fade to the background. Same with Star Trek vs Farscape, IMO. Some shows manage to build something sufficiently new off of the groundwork as to take on lives of their own (The Stargate franchise), while some shows become the victims of television - missed by their viewership (Firefly).

So yeah, there are a few factors; shows need to be able to appeal to wide audiences to be worth putting on the air. Views and interests of the core audience shift over time, as they're drawn by the "new and shiny" shows elsewhere. Eventually, shows like the Simpsons come to a final wrapup. Just enjoy the ride while it lasts.

[Chunklets]

On the earlier thread that SillyBee mentioned, I mentioned that, imho, part of the problem with The Simpsons over the past few seasons has been the character of Homer. As I see it, he's become basically a boorish, imbecile, and at the same time, he's become a far more central character on the show (The Simpsons used to revolve mainly around Bart and Lisa, with occasional exceptions). Homer used to be a kind of bumbling, not-too-smart guy for whom one could actually pull, even while laughing at him (a character archetype that was largely taken over by Fry, on Futurama), and I found that much more appealing than what he has become recently. The combination of the growing lack of appeal of the character and its increased prominence on the show has caused me, in recent seasons, to lose a lot of my desire to watch The Simpsons. That said, in the wake of the recent discussion of the show on this board, I did sit down on Sunday and watch the new episode, and I found it much funnier than I've found many of the other recent ones which I've seen!

[Telonius]

Biggest problem is changes in the writing staff. They lost some extraordinarily talented writers over the years (Conan O'Brian chief among them). It's hard to imagine them making anything close to a Beer Baron or a Monorail, or even a Lemon Tree episode.

A habit they've fallen into has a little bit to do with the animation, but also something to do with the writers: Springfield's population has shrunk. In the first few seasons, you saw all sorts of random Springfielders. Now, you hardly ever see anybody but the usual cast. I don't know if I'd call this a problem, but it's at least a symptom of being in a rut. I'm not saying bring in new characters - I learned that much from Poochie anyway - but have a little more than stock caricatured responses.

The stock characters get wearing after awhile. There's only so many times I can watch Disco Stu, Lawyer Lady, or even Professor Frink without rolling my eyes. They're caricatures, not characters. The real characters of the series - the Simpson family, the Flanders family, Apu N ..... Apu's family, even Barney and Moe - change as the series goes on. Bart got his Ritalin, Lisa gets some confidence, Barney gets sober, Apu gets married. That's the sort of thing that makes you care about the people involved.

Propaganda is bad, but at least it's balanced. Yeah, there's the Lisa episodes, but there's also episodes that focus favorably on Flanders. The bigger problem I see is that they have anybody spouting propaganda at all. It's promoting a view, rather than satirizing it - which is what the Simpsons did best, when it was in its prime.