Comments on: Dw. Dunphy On… “The Simpsons”

By: DavidMedsker

DavidMedsker — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:31:37 +0000

I love this show as much as anyone, but that episode that opened with Homer dreaming of killing his father was shockingly out of character and mean-spirited. They're also swinging their Message Stick way, way too much these days. Preaching: it's not just for Lisa anymore.

I actually loved the '90s episode though, despite it taking place completely out of the actual timeline of their lives. Still, this show needs to go to pasture, before they do any more damage to their brilliant legacy.

By: DavidMedsker

DavidMedsker — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:31:37 +0000

By: DavidMedsker

DavidMedsker — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:31:37 +0000

By: Beau

Beau — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:50:01 +0000

With most series, I'd agree, but this one is so malleable that they're less prone to repeating themselves.

I'd argue it took them four seasons to hit their stride in the first place.

By: Breadalbane

Breadalbane — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:43:32 +0000

My theory on TV comedies/dramas is that you can have the absolute best concept, the most memorable characters, the freshest setting, the best writers and actors, etc. — and if everything clicks, you'll have seven seasons of great material, maximum.

I haven't yet encountered a series that didn't start slipping after the 7-year mark. (Or often well before it.) But by the end of 7 years, or about 150 eps, no matter what you do — introduce new characters, change the formula, get a new team of writers, change the theme song — you're either repeating yourself, or (of necessity) moving away from established character traits and attitudes in order to *avoid* repeating yourself, and damaging the integrity of your characters as a result You still might crank out some good eps along the way, but the returns start to diminish with each additional season you hang on…

Which means that, at least in my estimation, The Simpsons can't un-nuke the fridge. But then, nor could any other series in its 18th year.

By: DwDunphy

DwDunphy — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:38:29 +0000

I accept that. What shall we use now, though? “Offensive?”

By: MatthewF

MatthewF — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:39:49 +0000

Can I declare a one-man moratorium on the word 'edgy' please? Thank you.

By: Will

Will — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:57:49 +0000

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the show began its descent into mediocrity the day Phil Hartman died.

By: DwDunphy

DwDunphy — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:37:25 +0000

The Abrahms/Zucker/Abrahms-styled jokes in the margins are gone too… I miss the family walking idly down the street as sight-gag after sight-gag snuck in behind them. That sort of three dimensional approach is gone, replaced with a very large hammer.

By: hagen

hagen — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:25:10 +0000

There is a significant difference between the last few years and the few years preceding it, and those before it. One of the reasons might be the length of the episodes… since the network made them run more commercials, they've lost a few minutes per show and fewer of the little touches that flesh out the characters are possible in the shorter timeframe. Homer was always a bit of an ogre, but you were able to see bits that made it more endearing and less cringey. I still see a lot of the greatness of The Simpsons, and the movie just proved they could still do it… given enough episode length. And, uh, twenty years to write it. And John Swartzwelder's input.