Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?(nathancunn.com)
nathancunn.com
Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?
http://www.nathancunn.com/2018-10-21-simpsons-writers/
146 comments
> I really dislike TV/Anime that never ends, seems to be the modus operandi for pretty much every mainstream show despite how bad the quality gets after 2-3 seasons.
Isn't this an American thing where TV/movie things are primarily for money making?
I mean the British Office had 2 seasons and 12 episodes. The US version had 9 seasons and 200 episodes.
I didn't watch The Office, so I don't know if the US version got worse towards the end, but in general in the US they keep making episodes while the series is profitable, regardless of quality and in the end they usually drive it to the ground.
They just can't stop until there is no money in it. Most of the time they can't end a TV series on a high note.
Isn't this an American thing where TV/movie things are primarily for money making?
I mean the British Office had 2 seasons and 12 episodes. The US version had 9 seasons and 200 episodes.
I didn't watch The Office, so I don't know if the US version got worse towards the end, but in general in the US they keep making episodes while the series is profitable, regardless of quality and in the end they usually drive it to the ground.
They just can't stop until there is no money in it. Most of the time they can't end a TV series on a high note.
The American "The Office" ran about 2 seasons past its sell-by date. Losing Steve Carrel was the point when the show should have ended. There were certainly good episodes after his departure, because he was far from the only thing that made the show good, but we often say, when watching Seasons 8 and 9, "When did this show become a cartoon?"
Maybe not British, but it is very much a Japanese tendecy, ime. If I see a good anime/comic, I try to appreciate what I saw and expect no resolution. I'm curious how often they even have resolution in the outline.
A key thing with manga is that many series originally run in serial format in magazines that will drop the series and the author like a hot potato if popularity with readers wavers, so (a) it's impossible for the authors to actually plan for an ending and (b) authors are incentivized to insert whatever it takes to keep readers coming back based on this specific week in the real world instead of having a plot outline.
Every year has a slew of animes which wrap up in 13 or 26 episodes. A sparse few go to 52. An even sparser few fit the mold you describe, but even many of those end eventually with a planned conclusion (Bleach and Dragon Ball <Suffix>).
Sorry, I wasn't speaking in absolutes. I'm not a pollster or statistician, so I was relaying my anecdote. I think your comment's sibling, and one of mine, elucidate why I have that anecdote.
I just can't do that. I typically only watch anime that has ended so I know that there will be resolution. I really appreciate well thought out series.
In short, I appreciate the story far more than the story telling. The longer the story is, the bigger the payoff needs to be.
Perhaps that's the difference between British and Japanese audiences?
In short, I appreciate the story far more than the story telling. The longer the story is, the bigger the payoff needs to be.
Perhaps that's the difference between British and Japanese audiences?
Americans make money via ads and dvd/streaming but the Japanese use merchandising to fund all their endeavors.
DVD/Bluray sales usually dictate if a show gets renewed. Also most anime are adaptations from light novels or manga so the expectation is that they all drive up sales for one another. Then we have things like figures, video games, pillow cases, etc. This is why One Piece has over 850 episodes spread over at least a dozen box sets and 900 manga chapters collected in 60 volumes.
DVD/Bluray sales usually dictate if a show gets renewed. Also most anime are adaptations from light novels or manga so the expectation is that they all drive up sales for one another. Then we have things like figures, video games, pillow cases, etc. This is why One Piece has over 850 episodes spread over at least a dozen box sets and 900 manga chapters collected in 60 volumes.
I've watched both and I think the US series is the better of the 2. Maybe it was just me but I found the Office UK's David to be a completely unlikable sociopath. The Office US had enough time to develop most of the characters and create some very funny scenarios. And most fans barely remember the trying to hard to be British 1st season.
200 episodes was probably too much, yet 12 episodes would not be enough.
200 episodes was probably too much, yet 12 episodes would not be enough.
I think it was wierd that the UK office finally came upon their own "redemption" moment for David Brent with the movie that came out a couple of years ago. I felt this was actually inspired by the US version where even though Steve was initially incompetent and selfish, by the time of his departure his incompetence had mellowed down a lot and his social "integration" was quite the highlight.
Star Trek TNG summed it up best on its last episode:
``[..] you had such potential, but then again, all good things must come to and end'' [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-olnnGBJQV4
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-olnnGBJQV4
Tat was a show that did a pretty good job of not overstaying its welcome. Seasons 6 and 7 weren't as strong as the previous seasons, but the show was still good. Ending when they did was a good idea, even though we fans were sad to see it go.
Exactly, and you have to know when to let go, a la Seinfeld. Adventure Time handled this very well, I think: told what they had to tell and ended after that. Another canonical good example exiting at the right time is Calvin and Hobbes.
Calvin and Hobbes also managed to avoid selling out. Bill Watterson was a genius for sure. Due to his actions, Calvin and Hobbes has retained it's wholesome charm, and as far as I can see, will for many years to come.
I was rocking along with this and then BAM a slam on Steven Universe out of nowhere.
It's all subjective, of course, but personally, I've found SU to be rock solid. The main arc is there, but the stand alone eps are just as valuable for that show. Not every episode of a show that doesn't obviously advance the main story arc is 'filler'. Some are just trying to tell a story. I notice that people tend to label those kinds of stand alone stories "filler" if they didn't like them.
I say this because I'm guilty of this kind of thing, too.
And that's not to say there AREN'T episodes of shows that are just spinning their wheels burning off quotas-- see the Arrowverse for lots of THAT. Oof.
This is why I've been increasingly becoming a fan of 13 episode seasons for some shows. Tell a good story. Get the hell out. Or if you just have 23 episode seasons, break it in half. Tell two solid arcs. Maybe bridge them if you must.
It's all subjective, of course, but personally, I've found SU to be rock solid. The main arc is there, but the stand alone eps are just as valuable for that show. Not every episode of a show that doesn't obviously advance the main story arc is 'filler'. Some are just trying to tell a story. I notice that people tend to label those kinds of stand alone stories "filler" if they didn't like them.
I say this because I'm guilty of this kind of thing, too.
And that's not to say there AREN'T episodes of shows that are just spinning their wheels burning off quotas-- see the Arrowverse for lots of THAT. Oof.
This is why I've been increasingly becoming a fan of 13 episode seasons for some shows. Tell a good story. Get the hell out. Or if you just have 23 episode seasons, break it in half. Tell two solid arcs. Maybe bridge them if you must.
but eventually every character is distilled to their most basic formula
So-called Flanderization
So-called Flanderization
> Nothing lasts forever
South park is still funny. Last season was great (not sure about the current one)
South park is still funny. Last season was great (not sure about the current one)
Trey Parker and Matt Stone are the David Bowie's of comedy. They develop a formula for success, and instead of milking it they toss it out completely and start again from scratch. True inspirations for any creative professional.
I've been binge watching all of south park for the past few weeks and it has definitely changed, along the same lines as people are saying about the Simpsons. It has not gotten worse. In fact, I think it is better than when it first started. But it has definitely changed. It's gotten quirkier and wackier, characters have become more caricaturey, etc. It's found its rut
Meh. I quit watching some time around 2010, not long after they were butt-hurt about the 200th/201st episode censorship (which, to be fair, was bs), and did some really shitty episodes. The one that comes to mind was the one with weird live-action bits. That really made me think about the show as a whole and how much it had changed. I realized that it had turned into a weekly moralizing/bashing showcase for whatever had rubbed Matt and Trey the wrong way. Instead of Cartman getting his bully's parents killed and cooking them in a chili or Chef singing about eating his chocolate salty balls, it was now about Jimmy (hate that character, btw) doing stand-up or getting a job as uber driver or making a lame LOTR or Batman "parody" without much to say about either genres. While some episodes did hit the right notes on raising awareness on an important issue (e.g. crack baby athletic league, kenny's last will, etc.), I miss the anarchic, crude humor of the first seasons.
An interesting thing I came across writing this: the top writers, Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein, were showrunners for seasons 7 and 8, immediately stepping down after as:
Oakley and Weinstein stood down as showrunners after
season eight because they "didn't want to break [the
show]." Oakley said: "We always said we'd never do a
joke that we'd done before."The obvious TV series that went on far too long was Lost but even stuff like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad is/was stretched out too far.
To the contrary, Game of Thrones was too short. The books were just so long and detailed that even 8 seasons did it no justice. I think the mistake was making the show before the books were finished being written and spending so much time on the first couple books so that the later seasons were just skimming through the major plot points from the books.
Breaking Bad definitely went off the rails in the final seasons but I felt they were a quality show until the end; if anything the original tone was kinda goofy for how serious and dramatic it ended up being.
GoT however has gotten much worse the closer they got to running out of source material. The last season I watched had incredibly stilted dialogue and relationships (Jon going rambo all the way to the north with no plan and then falling instantly in lust with Danny) and the pacing was hyperspeed compared to the previous seasons. If anything it feels like they really want to end it but have run out of room so they are just rushing it.
GoT however has gotten much worse the closer they got to running out of source material. The last season I watched had incredibly stilted dialogue and relationships (Jon going rambo all the way to the north with no plan and then falling instantly in lust with Danny) and the pacing was hyperspeed compared to the previous seasons. If anything it feels like they really want to end it but have run out of room so they are just rushing it.
Well that’s, like, your opinion, man.
This stuff exists on a spectrum. The near end in my opinion are shows like GoT and Breaking Bad have long narratives to tell and imo they use the time well.
Further away are shows like Archer which were amazing when they came out but tend to drag on without having a significant story to tell.
The far far end is exemplified best by animes like Dragonball or Hunter x Hunter which go ON AND ON AND ON and somehow never seem to go anywhere.
This stuff exists on a spectrum. The near end in my opinion are shows like GoT and Breaking Bad have long narratives to tell and imo they use the time well.
Further away are shows like Archer which were amazing when they came out but tend to drag on without having a significant story to tell.
The far far end is exemplified best by animes like Dragonball or Hunter x Hunter which go ON AND ON AND ON and somehow never seem to go anywhere.
> Even Steven Universe which has a very straightforward story with an end planned feels bloated with a bunch of filler episodes and lazy character development.
The filler episodes are some of my family's favorites, however. I think the comparison is a bit premature compared to something like the Simpsons where every episode pretty much can stand alone.
The filler episodes are some of my family's favorites, however. I think the comparison is a bit premature compared to something like the Simpsons where every episode pretty much can stand alone.
It's not just that it lost the family moments; the comedy writing got much, much worse. Comedy doesn't have to have tender moments, but it does have to be funny.
There are a lot of shifts that changed The Simpsons, but the biggest one for me was the shift to being almost constantly satirical.
Classic Simpsons would occasionally get a bit satirical or referential (like when Bush Sr made a guest appearance), but modern Simpsons seems more satirical than not. Episodes like the one featuring the "MyPod" with "Steve Mobs" basically had my eyes rolling into the back of my head. That's such low-hanging fruit that they're picking it up off the ground. It's not even good enough to be considered sophomoric.
I want to watch The Simpsons and be entertained about ridiculous situations in _their_ world, and sure, throw in a wink to reality now and then. I don't really care for the family-friendly The Onion-light treatment.
Classic Simpsons would occasionally get a bit satirical or referential (like when Bush Sr made a guest appearance), but modern Simpsons seems more satirical than not. Episodes like the one featuring the "MyPod" with "Steve Mobs" basically had my eyes rolling into the back of my head. That's such low-hanging fruit that they're picking it up off the ground. It's not even good enough to be considered sophomoric.
I want to watch The Simpsons and be entertained about ridiculous situations in _their_ world, and sure, throw in a wink to reality now and then. I don't really care for the family-friendly The Onion-light treatment.
I would put the "blame" on this shift onto successful, adult cartoons like South Park and Family Guy which took satire and 'offensive comedy" to a new level. Suddenly The Simpsons seemed old, slow and out of touch compared to the new generation.
The downside to all this satire (I've only realized recently), is that younger audiences (and even older folks) don't always recognize it, and take the jokes too literally. I believe this has helped to 'normalize' extremist views and has helped fuel the anti-political correct movement.
The downside to all this satire (I've only realized recently), is that younger audiences (and even older folks) don't always recognize it, and take the jokes too literally. I believe this has helped to 'normalize' extremist views and has helped fuel the anti-political correct movement.
Forget younger audiences. I was hearing people at work parrot the "both sides" BS from South Park directly.
To be fair/accurate, the South Park generation (myself included) is no longer "young".
South Park is great if everyone is in on the joke. They tend to make fun of BOTH sides of every issue, showing the insanity and hypocrisy along the way. A smart person realizes what is right and wrong. The danger of this are those who "don't get it" and think being a giant asshole is funny/cool.
The same thing applies to Howard Stern fans. Part of his audience understands satire, and realizes the absurdity of the humor. The other part, thinks racist/sexist/offensive jokes are just hilarious.
South Park is great if everyone is in on the joke. They tend to make fun of BOTH sides of every issue, showing the insanity and hypocrisy along the way. A smart person realizes what is right and wrong. The danger of this are those who "don't get it" and think being a giant asshole is funny/cool.
The same thing applies to Howard Stern fans. Part of his audience understands satire, and realizes the absurdity of the humor. The other part, thinks racist/sexist/offensive jokes are just hilarious.
I agree, although you could interpret that approach as a cynical attempt to capture a wider audience. It's similar to when a show throws both liberals and conservatives a bone using various characters or dialogue.
I do think it was/is an attempt to bring us all together (humor can do that for painful subjects). Similar to Facebook's original vision, I think the creators didn't realize what in fact they DID create - a divisive platform that is driving us all apart.
This is a really interesting point.
I think there's some truth to the claim that Family Guy cut in on the "cartoon family relationships" and "cartoon family slapstick" markets, but I'd never quite grasped why the attempt to branch out failed so badly. Now that you point it out, Family Guy even did politics and current events (or at least picked at South Park's scraps), but it never really went in for the sort of quieter, knowing satire you see in The Onion.
That was something the Simpsons had gotten huge acclaim for (e.g. "Marge Vs The Monorail", "Last Exit to Springfield"), so it was an obvious place to look for a niche. But that's also really hard to maintain. The Onion itself has always had a lot of mediocre content, but that doesn't need to animate it's content and doesn't ask you to stare at one bit for 30 minutes straight. Heck, SNL has one of the best comedy writing teams anywhere and it has some seriously weak moments that need to be offset with celebrity guests, music, and rapid sketch changes.
The other thing that strikes me is that the near-realism of the Simpsons constrains the satire. Futurama's take on the 'eyePod' was hilarious, but the reason it worked so much better than the 'myPod' was that the sci-fi setting let them take the topic ludicrously far. "You Only Move Twice" (the supervillain Simpson's episode) was excellent and arguably satire, but it was also at the upper edge of how wacky the Simpson's universe ever gets. By Season Eight or so, it feels like The Simpsons had done a first-rate episode on almost every piece of small-town and nuclear-family life worth parodying, and couldn't break out of their constrained focus or their realistic setting far enough to find new fertile ground. Meanwhile, Futurama got to play around with Nixon and Mom's Friendly Robots and alien invaders and anything else that came to mind - plus with no one else in the sci-fi cartoon space they could save the satire for when they had something excellent to do.
I think there's some truth to the claim that Family Guy cut in on the "cartoon family relationships" and "cartoon family slapstick" markets, but I'd never quite grasped why the attempt to branch out failed so badly. Now that you point it out, Family Guy even did politics and current events (or at least picked at South Park's scraps), but it never really went in for the sort of quieter, knowing satire you see in The Onion.
That was something the Simpsons had gotten huge acclaim for (e.g. "Marge Vs The Monorail", "Last Exit to Springfield"), so it was an obvious place to look for a niche. But that's also really hard to maintain. The Onion itself has always had a lot of mediocre content, but that doesn't need to animate it's content and doesn't ask you to stare at one bit for 30 minutes straight. Heck, SNL has one of the best comedy writing teams anywhere and it has some seriously weak moments that need to be offset with celebrity guests, music, and rapid sketch changes.
The other thing that strikes me is that the near-realism of the Simpsons constrains the satire. Futurama's take on the 'eyePod' was hilarious, but the reason it worked so much better than the 'myPod' was that the sci-fi setting let them take the topic ludicrously far. "You Only Move Twice" (the supervillain Simpson's episode) was excellent and arguably satire, but it was also at the upper edge of how wacky the Simpson's universe ever gets. By Season Eight or so, it feels like The Simpsons had done a first-rate episode on almost every piece of small-town and nuclear-family life worth parodying, and couldn't break out of their constrained focus or their realistic setting far enough to find new fertile ground. Meanwhile, Futurama got to play around with Nixon and Mom's Friendly Robots and alien invaders and anything else that came to mind - plus with no one else in the sci-fi cartoon space they could save the satire for when they had something excellent to do.
Exactly! The 'eyePod' comparison is really good. I haven't thought of that before but it's spot on.
Ultimately, yeah, they probably ran out of possible new material (they even joked about doing the same themes across multiple episodes within episodes).
I think it would have been better off cancelled once Season 10 rolled around.
They could be doing the show they do now with different characters entirely, and they'd probably have a more accurate sense of quality that's not clouded with nostalgia.
It's no surprise that FOX doesn't understand going out on a high note though. I admittedly probably hung around until season 20 just because of the previous 10 seasons of goodwill.
Ultimately, yeah, they probably ran out of possible new material (they even joked about doing the same themes across multiple episodes within episodes).
I think it would have been better off cancelled once Season 10 rolled around.
They could be doing the show they do now with different characters entirely, and they'd probably have a more accurate sense of quality that's not clouded with nostalgia.
It's no surprise that FOX doesn't understand going out on a high note though. I admittedly probably hung around until season 20 just because of the previous 10 seasons of goodwill.
> Classic Simpsons would occasionally get a bit satirical or referential (like when Bush Sr made a guest appearance), but modern Simpsons seems more satirical than not. Episodes like the one featuring the "MyPod" with "Steve Mobs" basically had my eyes rolling into the back of my head. That's such low-hanging fruit that they're picking it up off the ground. It's not even good enough to be considered sophomoric.
And the Futurama take on this was just as bad (and I love Futurama). IMO, South Park is the best at doing this kind of satire... I can't point to exactly why, though. Being on cable allows them to push edgier jokes, but I'm sure it's more than that.
And the Futurama take on this was just as bad (and I love Futurama). IMO, South Park is the best at doing this kind of satire... I can't point to exactly why, though. Being on cable allows them to push edgier jokes, but I'm sure it's more than that.
> And the Futurama take on this was just as bad
At least with Futurama, Mom was an established character and they were able to comment on other internet culture like Twitter.
At least with Futurama, Mom was an established character and they were able to comment on other internet culture like Twitter.
I think it's because South Park has always been a vehicle to comment, usually specifically, on current events and popular culture. The world of South Park is really a sandbox for Trey and Matt to caricature whatever they're choosing to ream on that particular week.
The Simpsons, Futurama, when they address these kinds of issues, they feel like they're 'reaching' for it. Or, worse, just 'not trying'.
Someone else here mentioned The Simpsons, and the Family Guy, were much better at the time that they focused on the struggles of the families themselves.
I believe that this is because unlike South Park, where, even from the name, the town itself seems to be the focus. Which allows it to be moreso whatever they want it to be.
'The Simpsons' and the 'Family Guy', are meant to satirize, or at least revolve around, the daily struggles of the 'American Middle Class Family'.
When they don't, and they reach for 'current' events, which often usually feel dated by the episode release due to the extended 6-9 month production period, they seem stale and unfunny. South Park's 6-day production period, awesomely described in the fantastic documentary 'Six Days to Air', allows South Park to comment literally on things that happened the day before. It's incredibly hard to make that feel 'stale.' Really, worst-case scenario, South Park just doesn't seem 'funny' enough sometimes (this season hasn't been great), but definitely never 'irrelevant'.
The early seasons and episodes of the Simpsons are timeless. Many of them could've happened any time over the last three or four decades.
• 'Homer's Enemy' (S08E23) - A new employee at work gets jealous of Homer's 'easy' life.
• 'Mr. Plow' (S04E09) - Hijinks occur when Homer and Barney start competing snow removal businesses.
• 'Homer the Heretic' (S04E03) - Homer decides he doesn't need to attend church any more, and Marge doesn't like the example that demonstrates for the kids.
• 'You Only Move Twice' (S08E02) - Homer is offered a new work opportunity in a 'perfect' town. This episode does involve satire, but James Bond is such an old trope, and the films are still coming out, therefore it doesn't seem 'stale'.
None of these classic and fan favourite episodes rely on tropes of the era. They're still as funny today as when they were released. (Especially 'You Only Move Twice'. What a gem. Oh, Scorpio.)
Futurama, as well, does best when it focuses on it's sci-fi premise. It's supposed to be the future. We don't need comments about Apple products in there, we want the mind-bending 'Rick and Morty'-level plots of 'Roswell that Ends Well', or the genuine moments of emotion like Fry's dog at the end of 'Jurassic Bark'.
Again, it seems like early seasons of these cartoon sitcoms have a habit of sticking to their initial premise, and maybe perhaps the creator's visions. There's tons of reasons for this, but in 'The Simpsons' case, the death of Phil Hartman in 1998 drastically affected the show as a whole. I think a lot of the spirit was lost along with him. RIP, Troy McClure.
The Simpsons, Futurama, when they address these kinds of issues, they feel like they're 'reaching' for it. Or, worse, just 'not trying'.
Someone else here mentioned The Simpsons, and the Family Guy, were much better at the time that they focused on the struggles of the families themselves.
I believe that this is because unlike South Park, where, even from the name, the town itself seems to be the focus. Which allows it to be moreso whatever they want it to be.
'The Simpsons' and the 'Family Guy', are meant to satirize, or at least revolve around, the daily struggles of the 'American Middle Class Family'.
When they don't, and they reach for 'current' events, which often usually feel dated by the episode release due to the extended 6-9 month production period, they seem stale and unfunny. South Park's 6-day production period, awesomely described in the fantastic documentary 'Six Days to Air', allows South Park to comment literally on things that happened the day before. It's incredibly hard to make that feel 'stale.' Really, worst-case scenario, South Park just doesn't seem 'funny' enough sometimes (this season hasn't been great), but definitely never 'irrelevant'.
The early seasons and episodes of the Simpsons are timeless. Many of them could've happened any time over the last three or four decades.
• 'Homer's Enemy' (S08E23) - A new employee at work gets jealous of Homer's 'easy' life.
• 'Mr. Plow' (S04E09) - Hijinks occur when Homer and Barney start competing snow removal businesses.
• 'Homer the Heretic' (S04E03) - Homer decides he doesn't need to attend church any more, and Marge doesn't like the example that demonstrates for the kids.
• 'You Only Move Twice' (S08E02) - Homer is offered a new work opportunity in a 'perfect' town. This episode does involve satire, but James Bond is such an old trope, and the films are still coming out, therefore it doesn't seem 'stale'.
None of these classic and fan favourite episodes rely on tropes of the era. They're still as funny today as when they were released. (Especially 'You Only Move Twice'. What a gem. Oh, Scorpio.)
Futurama, as well, does best when it focuses on it's sci-fi premise. It's supposed to be the future. We don't need comments about Apple products in there, we want the mind-bending 'Rick and Morty'-level plots of 'Roswell that Ends Well', or the genuine moments of emotion like Fry's dog at the end of 'Jurassic Bark'.
Again, it seems like early seasons of these cartoon sitcoms have a habit of sticking to their initial premise, and maybe perhaps the creator's visions. There's tons of reasons for this, but in 'The Simpsons' case, the death of Phil Hartman in 1998 drastically affected the show as a whole. I think a lot of the spirit was lost along with him. RIP, Troy McClure.
missed your reply a couple of weeks ago but really appreciate this.
One possible problem with this - I listened to the Simpsons commentary tracks a long time ago and one comment the writers gave was that episodes were hashed out in the writers room, and everyone contributed jokes. Once an episode was hashed out, one or two people would then be assigned to put it together. This would mean an episode could be listed as written by a specific person, but the best jokes in that episode could have been written by someone else. One of the writers mentioned they'd often get comments about how funny their episodes were, but then the person they were talking to would bring up jokes that were written by the other writers.
However, the graph at the end kind of shows this, the earlier people had the best episodes. It may have been that they had better chemistry.
However, the graph at the end kind of shows this, the earlier people had the best episodes. It may have been that they had better chemistry.
Futurama got cancelled and they made 3 straight to DVD movies which was supposed to be 26 episodes worth of content, and IIRC you could see it, each "movie" had 4 stories. The bad thing was, the humor got so so bad, with predictable lame one liners (Big Bang Theory-level lame). I wonder what sort of groupthink thought those jokes were funny, and what sort of dynamics the early Simpsons/Futurama writers group had to be able to output high quality humor...
I wonder how much of that was a format issue, though?
The Futurama movies were definitely weaker than the episodes, but I remember the Comedy Central revival being better than most or all of the movies. Maybe not up to their Season Four heights, but definitely enough better to make me think the movie style was causing them problems in either writing or editing.
The Futurama movies were definitely weaker than the episodes, but I remember the Comedy Central revival being better than most or all of the movies. Maybe not up to their Season Four heights, but definitely enough better to make me think the movie style was causing them problems in either writing or editing.
I have the opposite experience. I find the Comedy Central reboot episodes, for the most part, to feel strange and 'off'. I can't even put my finger on it. Even the animation seems wonky to me.
Eh, to be honest, the movies weren't great, either. Seasons 1-4 really were kind of 'Futurama's run, I guess.
Eh, to be honest, the movies weren't great, either. Seasons 1-4 really were kind of 'Futurama's run, I guess.
You're right, I kind of acknowledge this limitation, and am aware I'm doing many of the writers a massive disservice. But, the data that only showed credited writers, and those credited must have done _something_ to be the ones with their names on it.
What if the later writers just got worse reviews because they were in the later seasons? In other words, something else caused the decline so the later writers got worse ratings.
Your wording here suggests that the later episodes were simply rated lower because they were later. However, I think your point is that the later episodes got worse ratings for something beyond the writers. Certainly possible. Even if nothing else changed, it must be much more difficult to write a fresh, funny episode when 200+ episodes have already been done. There were also external factors which might have driven a change in the comedy of the show, the beginning of Family Guy, e.g.
I mean, you could just have producers forcing you to do something that's not good, like celebrity cameos and other stupid things.
It was the style of celebrity cameos that made things worse. In recent years, the cameos served more to showcase the celebrity, in ways that didn't contribute to the show, rather that utilizing the talents of the celebrity to make a good show, like they did in the past.
You only need to look at the Lady Gaga episode, the worst-rated episode by far (and for good reason) and compare it to any cameo in the first 9 seasons, and a good number of cameos in the next 10.
You only need to look at the Lady Gaga episode, the worst-rated episode by far (and for good reason) and compare it to any cameo in the first 9 seasons, and a good number of cameos in the next 10.
>were talking to would bring up jokes that were written by the other writers.
When asked about her favorite joke on 30 Rock in an interview, Tina Fey could recite the joke, but couldn't remember who wrote it for a similar reason
When asked about her favorite joke on 30 Rock in an interview, Tina Fey could recite the joke, but couldn't remember who wrote it for a similar reason
There's a very interesting YouTube video that has a bit more of an explanation on why The Simpsons had a decline.
I liked how they analyze the show and IMO it does a great job explaining why lots of people loved the show up until season 9-10.
Personally I think I enjoyed up to season 12 or so, but definitely after 10 I noticed the shift in style/quality/whathaveyou.
Could never put it into words why it felt like that, until I watched this. [0]
[0] https://youtu.be/KqFNbCcyFkk
I liked how they analyze the show and IMO it does a great job explaining why lots of people loved the show up until season 9-10.
Personally I think I enjoyed up to season 12 or so, but definitely after 10 I noticed the shift in style/quality/whathaveyou.
Could never put it into words why it felt like that, until I watched this. [0]
[0] https://youtu.be/KqFNbCcyFkk
See also: Dead Homer Society, if you prefer reading.
https://deadhomersociety.com/zombiesimpsons/
Pretty compelling argument for the end of the golden age being season 9, maybe 11 or 12 if you're being very generous, including analysis of writer and other personnel changes, and an attempt at explaining what exactly is different about the earlier seasons compared with the later ones.
Seems like the video's making similar points.
https://deadhomersociety.com/zombiesimpsons/
Pretty compelling argument for the end of the golden age being season 9, maybe 11 or 12 if you're being very generous, including analysis of writer and other personnel changes, and an attempt at explaining what exactly is different about the earlier seasons compared with the later ones.
Seems like the video's making similar points.
Just watched this, thanks. My summary:
1) Staff turnover roughly around season 8 caused the writing to change. Jokes got simpler, not as much about the characters' invariants (for lack of a better term).
2) The show was originally successful because it parodied the sitcom era of the mid 1980s. That changed so the context disappeared.
1) Staff turnover roughly around season 8 caused the writing to change. Jokes got simpler, not as much about the characters' invariants (for lack of a better term).
2) The show was originally successful because it parodied the sitcom era of the mid 1980s. That changed so the context disappeared.
I think your summary is correct, although I would add to point 2 (or a third point) about the complex nature of the jokes.
They weren't just one liners but instead would build up gradually.
That's what I like about this analysis, it got me to understand something that I somehow felt but had no idea that it was actually happening.
They weren't just one liners but instead would build up gradually.
That's what I like about this analysis, it got me to understand something that I somehow felt but had no idea that it was actually happening.
Maybe it is just me but in older episodes of Simpsons, there was a lot more music for different situations and at times, classic or what I would term 'wholesome' music was played to highlight cathartic situations or trials/tribulations of human lives.
These are things that to me play a major part as a viewer. To me, a TV serial is not about 30 min episode, it is a mini-play or chapter in a play.
Think back to days of Tom and Jerry (the ones before mid-1960s) as well as the older Mickey Mouse & Co (up till 1970s) and you will see the recurring pattern -- music was just great and played a huge part in involving the user.
That and also, there is something about the super-sharp, ultra modern type of animation modern day Simpsons have. I understand it is high-tech and latest stuff, but it does take away from the art and appreciation of what the viewer experiences. If you don't believe me, watch an episode of 1940s/1950s Mickey Mouse or Tom & Jerry and compare with their modern day renditions.
These are things that to me play a major part as a viewer. To me, a TV serial is not about 30 min episode, it is a mini-play or chapter in a play.
Think back to days of Tom and Jerry (the ones before mid-1960s) as well as the older Mickey Mouse & Co (up till 1970s) and you will see the recurring pattern -- music was just great and played a huge part in involving the user.
That and also, there is something about the super-sharp, ultra modern type of animation modern day Simpsons have. I understand it is high-tech and latest stuff, but it does take away from the art and appreciation of what the viewer experiences. If you don't believe me, watch an episode of 1940s/1950s Mickey Mouse or Tom & Jerry and compare with their modern day renditions.
Nobody here seems to be mentioning the death of Phil Hartman[1] in 1998. The article, as well, staggeringly, doesn't mention his name.
There's a video[2], 'The Fall of the Simpsons', which is one of my favourite videos on the internet. It explains and describes with utmost clarity the issues that led to the series 'demise', which, ultimately, boils down to 'bad writing'.
However, in interviews, and comments from the showrunners and staff, it seems like Phil Hartman's death, who voiced the characters of Troy McCleur, and Lionel Hutz, as well as the voice of Lyle Lanley, from the fantastic classic episode 'Marge vs. the Monorail'.
When Hartman died, they retired Troy's character. His absence alone is strongly felt when viewing the first several seasons against the others. His voice is certainly missed. Said Groening of Hartman: "[I] took [Hartman] for granted because he nailed the joke every time," and that his voice acting could produce "the maximum amount of humor" with any line he was given.
I mean, this was 1998. Most folks consider season 8-9 to have some of the last 'great' episodes of the series, or at least the last 'great' seasons. There's absolutely no way this is a coincidence, and the affect of his death on the series has been verified by countless staff.
I often think of Hartman's death as equivalent to Brian Epstein's death in '67. Similar to the Simpsons, there are a million reasons why the Beatles went to shit (even if their output for three years after that was still phenomenal), but if you have to look at the thing that really 'started' it, Epstein's or Hartman's deaths are good places to start looking, and it's easy to see how things went downhill from there in both cases.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hartman [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk
There's a video[2], 'The Fall of the Simpsons', which is one of my favourite videos on the internet. It explains and describes with utmost clarity the issues that led to the series 'demise', which, ultimately, boils down to 'bad writing'.
However, in interviews, and comments from the showrunners and staff, it seems like Phil Hartman's death, who voiced the characters of Troy McCleur, and Lionel Hutz, as well as the voice of Lyle Lanley, from the fantastic classic episode 'Marge vs. the Monorail'.
When Hartman died, they retired Troy's character. His absence alone is strongly felt when viewing the first several seasons against the others. His voice is certainly missed. Said Groening of Hartman: "[I] took [Hartman] for granted because he nailed the joke every time," and that his voice acting could produce "the maximum amount of humor" with any line he was given.
I mean, this was 1998. Most folks consider season 8-9 to have some of the last 'great' episodes of the series, or at least the last 'great' seasons. There's absolutely no way this is a coincidence, and the affect of his death on the series has been verified by countless staff.
I often think of Hartman's death as equivalent to Brian Epstein's death in '67. Similar to the Simpsons, there are a million reasons why the Beatles went to shit (even if their output for three years after that was still phenomenal), but if you have to look at the thing that really 'started' it, Epstein's or Hartman's deaths are good places to start looking, and it's easy to see how things went downhill from there in both cases.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hartman [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk
How much of this is not attributable to quality but instead to streaming options?
I watched The Simpsons for most of my childhood, up until college when I was too busy working and studying--most of my TV time then went to Stargate SG-1 and other Sci-fi.
Futurama and Family Guy were in the mix as well up until that time. However, I HAVE still watched Futurama and Family Guy in adulthood, because they were available to stream online! If there are good Simpsons options to stream, without picking up another monthly charge, I'd probably still watch them.
I watched The Simpsons for most of my childhood, up until college when I was too busy working and studying--most of my TV time then went to Stargate SG-1 and other Sci-fi.
Futurama and Family Guy were in the mix as well up until that time. However, I HAVE still watched Futurama and Family Guy in adulthood, because they were available to stream online! If there are good Simpsons options to stream, without picking up another monthly charge, I'd probably still watch them.
Planet Simpson was published in 2004 and has a very similar definition for the Golden Age to the one used in this article and its predecessor. If memory serves, Planet Simpson explains the definition using contemporaneous online reactions to "Principal and the Pauper". Either way, both Principal and the Pauper and Planet Simpson predate the streaming age by many years.
In some fairness, buying the DVDs used on eBay for the first 10 seasons isn't terribly expensive. I got some of them as cheap as four dollars. I spent a few afternoons ripping all of them and adding them to my streaming server.
I realize that most people don't have streaming servers, but I think most of the people here probably have something that can read off a flash drive?
I realize that most people don't have streaming servers, but I think most of the people here probably have something that can read off a flash drive?
As crazy as this feels to say, ordering a dvd and figuring out a way to consume it in this day and age is a huge ask! I haven’t had a DVD player in my house for about 6 years now & no CD-ROM drive in my laptop.
And, again I can hardly believe I’m saying this, it would be such a hassle to physically insert the disk when I felt like watching!
It’s got to be on HBO/Netflix/Hulu/Amazon or available on demand from my tv provider or I won’t watch it outside of theaters. Convenience has bested my better judgement shrugging emoticon
And, again I can hardly believe I’m saying this, it would be such a hassle to physically insert the disk when I felt like watching!
It’s got to be on HBO/Netflix/Hulu/Amazon or available on demand from my tv provider or I won’t watch it outside of theaters. Convenience has bested my better judgement shrugging emoticon
If the show is not worth inserting a DVD then it's probably not worth watching IMO.
PS: External DVD drives are ~25$.
PS: External DVD drives are ~25$.
That's not the whole effort involved though.
You first need to either remember, or somehow get hints somewhere that the content exists.
Then you need to search it, in this case, first on all the streaming option.
Then you need to find it on a physical media, which means delivery. Each season of the Simpson is worth 1 to 2 months of Netflix. Watching all the episode is going to cost you the equivalent of 2 years of streaming across all the platforms you use.
Then you still need to go to the trouble of using the physical container. Which is not guaranteed to work even if you have the hardware. DVD DRM have not become more tolerant over the years and if you have older hardware you may not be able to use it at all.
This is some non negligible commitment, you really have to want to watch the Simpson or need a serious shortcut in some of those steps (eg: finding a pile of Simpsons DVD at goodwill). There is just too much competition for people time.
You first need to either remember, or somehow get hints somewhere that the content exists.
Then you need to search it, in this case, first on all the streaming option.
Then you need to find it on a physical media, which means delivery. Each season of the Simpson is worth 1 to 2 months of Netflix. Watching all the episode is going to cost you the equivalent of 2 years of streaming across all the platforms you use.
Then you still need to go to the trouble of using the physical container. Which is not guaranteed to work even if you have the hardware. DVD DRM have not become more tolerant over the years and if you have older hardware you may not be able to use it at all.
This is some non negligible commitment, you really have to want to watch the Simpson or need a serious shortcut in some of those steps (eg: finding a pile of Simpsons DVD at goodwill). There is just too much competition for people time.
People drive to Redbox locations to rent DVDs from vending machines. I think you're overestimating the amount of effort it takes to buy DVDs on eBay.
I actually bought my DVD drive specifically for this Simpsons-project, but I've found it has been handy since then to have it lying around. Occasionally I have an old DOS game I want to play, or a more obscure CD that I want to rip, that I wouldn't have bothered with before, but now, why the hell not?
I would not. The Simpsons seem inherently antiquated now. (To me! This is an opinion, not an assertion!) It’s hard to put my finger on why I feel like this, but I think a large part is that it only recognizes the stresses and anxieties we had leaving the reagan era.
This is not to say, by any means, that the humor doesn’t hold up. It does! But it doesn’t help soothe living in a capitalist-realist society the way, say, Futurama or Idiocracy do. It seems to more address the anxiety of trying to meet the impossible standards of society.
EDIT: meanwhile, someone in another thread introduced me to Max Headroom. That still holds up today.
This is not to say, by any means, that the humor doesn’t hold up. It does! But it doesn’t help soothe living in a capitalist-realist society the way, say, Futurama or Idiocracy do. It seems to more address the anxiety of trying to meet the impossible standards of society.
EDIT: meanwhile, someone in another thread introduced me to Max Headroom. That still holds up today.
The Simpsons were pushing the envelope when the show came out, doing things that were considered almost radical at the time. But they are just stuck in time, following their formula while subsequent animated shows (e.g. South Park) have gone much farther than the Simpsons ever did.
The show often also feels like the writers are just rehashing old ideas, and there seem to be a few archetypes of stories that just keep popping up over and over again: "Homer is an incompetent idiot, but comes through for his family when needed", "Lisa feels alienated, because she's much smarter than the rest of the family", "Bart is a bad student and gets into trouble", "Marge is bored with her existence as a housewife and tries to break out of the monotony". At some point you should just admit that you have done everything you would with a concept and call it a day instead of dragging things out.
The show often also feels like the writers are just rehashing old ideas, and there seem to be a few archetypes of stories that just keep popping up over and over again: "Homer is an incompetent idiot, but comes through for his family when needed", "Lisa feels alienated, because she's much smarter than the rest of the family", "Bart is a bad student and gets into trouble", "Marge is bored with her existence as a housewife and tries to break out of the monotony". At some point you should just admit that you have done everything you would with a concept and call it a day instead of dragging things out.
That's true of a lot of long-running shows. Even if they don't become worse in the sense that individual episodes are worse taken in isolation, they're often just repetitious and, as you say, stuck in time.
You see this elsewhere too. In comic strips, for example, Dilbert is mostly stuck in some 90s version of cubicle life at a big company like Pac Bell. Don't really reaad it any longer but even when nothing is wrong with a given strip I've probably seen some version of it 10 times before.
You see this elsewhere too. In comic strips, for example, Dilbert is mostly stuck in some 90s version of cubicle life at a big company like Pac Bell. Don't really reaad it any longer but even when nothing is wrong with a given strip I've probably seen some version of it 10 times before.
Dilbert is mostly stuck in some 90s version of cubicle life at a big company like Pac Bell
And Garfield. The cat hates Mondays and loves lasagna, we get it...
And Garfield. The cat hates Mondays and loves lasagna, we get it...
Strong disagree. The farther I get into my career the more Dilbert feels like exactly my current experience.
DonHopkins(1)
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think it is economic and educational and the norms shifting. Their circumstances are increasingly implausible and things are pretty decomputerized. They have accidentally become a period piece as time passes them by.
While the house quality varies according to gag it is a large and well appointed house with one income from someone without a college degree from working at the plant in a physically undemanding is if not anchronistic increasingly less and less everyman representative. Even married people who are well off tend towards dual income households these days for one. The economy is far more service than industrial and the industrial has largely skilled up and automated. And that goes without discrediting of so many past tropes by time. Well meaning wholesome dolt manages to fail to fit the milieu in many ways and has been considered still overused decades ago even with their disapperance.
While the house quality varies according to gag it is a large and well appointed house with one income from someone without a college degree from working at the plant in a physically undemanding is if not anchronistic increasingly less and less everyman representative. Even married people who are well off tend towards dual income households these days for one. The economy is far more service than industrial and the industrial has largely skilled up and automated. And that goes without discrediting of so many past tropes by time. Well meaning wholesome dolt manages to fail to fit the milieu in many ways and has been considered still overused decades ago even with their disapperance.
[deleted]
The average ratings are unlikely to be influenced given the high sample sizes for the ratings on IMDB. I don't really see how else you are connecting ratings to streaming options...
If you have any reasonable cable package or something like Sling, you get access to the Simpsons World roku app or site which allows you to stream every episode.
http://www.simpsonsworld.com/
http://www.simpsonsworld.com/
Is there even a way to (legally) stream all of the Simpsons? I have never been able to find a place that streams the older seasons. I'd even pay for something if it was a reasonable service. I remember being disappointed that Hulu had the Simpsons, but limited to only the newer ones we don't enjoy.
If anything, it would be fairly minute. The decline in quality is apparent.
Later episodes are rated lower, thus writers who mainly wrote later episodes have contributed to episodes with lower rating. This seems like circular reasoning, and doesn't say anything about an individual writers' contribution to the quality of the show.
While I admit the logic is somewhat tautologous, that's not quite the conclusion I'm drawing. I, first of all, look at the average rating of the writers involved in the show, and then look at how the make-up of the show's writers is substantially different in the early years vs the later years.
The only thing this experiment could show is that if the ratings changed, but the writers didn't, then the writers are not responsible. It can't show the reverse.
Everything in the article is just properties of arithmatic averages in sorted sequences.
Everything in the article is just properties of arithmatic averages in sorted sequences.
I don't see how that's circular reasoning. The writers who worked on bad episodes presumably had something to do with making them bad.
Potentially it was bad writers, yes. But this data does not prove this; it just shows that some writers tenure correspond with worse episodes. But so does for example the year, or potentially many other influencing factors.
If we’re going down that rabbit hole, it doesn’t even prove there is such a thing as a bad episode. It could just be that people who don’t like the simpsons became more likely to use IMDB as time went on.
I listened to the DVD commentaries of many of the early seasons and the writers/showrunners complained about how the episode length was slowly cut back (though I'm having a hard time finding good data online about how much) and this directly impacted the quality of the show.
They specifically called out the inability to write compelling "B" stories within the episode, which often are what gave episodes some greater depth.
They specifically called out the inability to write compelling "B" stories within the episode, which often are what gave episodes some greater depth.
Whenever we talk about Simpsons decline it always occurs to me that even in decline... the Simpsons is still pretty good.
Perhaps that says more about its high points than the "decline".
Perhaps that says more about its high points than the "decline".
I think the decline is largely bullshit nostalgia. I still watch Simpsons and I still think it's great.
I disagree. I only got cable after '01, so I watched episodes from seasons 13-16 in parallel with reruns of the older ones (sometimes one after the other) and I thought the difference was clear. In fact, I stopped watching when I ran out of unseen reruns.
I still watch it, but it's more like comfort food now.
I couldn't honestly say whether I think the show itself has declined though. When I first started watching, a member of the family had got cable TV (a rarity in those days), and taped episodes for us. We'd get a VHS full of episodes on grainy long-play once it was full, and we'd binge on them. I'm still not sure if I've ever seen the end of the episode where Bart goes to france on an exchange trip, and Springfield gets an Albian spy in return.
But it felt so new, so American, and so different to anything else we had on terrestrial TV. It was like TV was misbehaving!
If it had never happened, and started today fresh, it'd have nowhere near the same impact. There's a higher level of quality, and a higher level of access to it, than any sane person knows what to do with.
It was a diamond in the rough. I don't think it is anymore. But the rough has changed so drastically, that it's difficult to draw an isolated comparison.
I couldn't honestly say whether I think the show itself has declined though. When I first started watching, a member of the family had got cable TV (a rarity in those days), and taped episodes for us. We'd get a VHS full of episodes on grainy long-play once it was full, and we'd binge on them. I'm still not sure if I've ever seen the end of the episode where Bart goes to france on an exchange trip, and Springfield gets an Albian spy in return.
But it felt so new, so American, and so different to anything else we had on terrestrial TV. It was like TV was misbehaving!
If it had never happened, and started today fresh, it'd have nowhere near the same impact. There's a higher level of quality, and a higher level of access to it, than any sane person knows what to do with.
It was a diamond in the rough. I don't think it is anymore. But the rough has changed so drastically, that it's difficult to draw an isolated comparison.
Certain types of humor lend themselves to repeating and reliving, and get funnier that way. Think of all the people who quote the Simpsons to each other, or Family Guy, or heck even going back to Monty Python.
It's really hard to account for that aspect of people's feelings about old vs new Simpsons. Some jokes that were probably light chuckles at first viewing, have become iconic fodder for further humor in the years since. This is reinforced by time, but also by syndication.
It gets to the point where no possible new Simpsons joke will get the reaction as the old ones. New jokes just work in the brain differently from jokes we've lived with and referenced for years.
This is not unique to the Simpsons, it happens with any long-running show. The SNL "cowbell" or "David S. Pumpkins" sketches seemed kind of funny at first viewing, but the constant references since have made them seem way funnier.
It's really hard to account for that aspect of people's feelings about old vs new Simpsons. Some jokes that were probably light chuckles at first viewing, have become iconic fodder for further humor in the years since. This is reinforced by time, but also by syndication.
It gets to the point where no possible new Simpsons joke will get the reaction as the old ones. New jokes just work in the brain differently from jokes we've lived with and referenced for years.
This is not unique to the Simpsons, it happens with any long-running show. The SNL "cowbell" or "David S. Pumpkins" sketches seemed kind of funny at first viewing, but the constant references since have made them seem way funnier.
This is wrong based off the wealth of Simpsons Instagram Meme accounts there are.. I am talking thousands of memes... Zero of them based off content past season 9 .. Why is that?
Because most people who saw the first 9 seasons over and over and over, thanks to syndication and DVDs, etc., haven't seen the seasons past 9 nearly as much. That's certainly true for me. I haven't seen most episodes in the past 5 years more than once or twice.
Also, the first 9 seasons were just that much better.
Also, the first 9 seasons were just that much better.
Thats a good point, but I have tried to watch the the show every year or two, just to see if it got funny again.. And the jokes are all bad, all satirical, homer is too stupid now.. also the characters voices are starting to sound weird and old..
It could be for some, though I remember distinctly feeling, years ago, that the episode called Homer Simpson vs The State of New York was the last solid episode, and the one with N*Sync was the first that I really didn't like and it was a marker for the transition to more farcical humor with celebrity cameos. It's just not my thing, and I gave the Simpsons many chances after that. There's a reason nearly all the current Simpsons memes come from the Golden Era.
I've been watching "The Simpsons" since season 1 and I think the decline described here is absolutely correct. The show is a zombie version of itself, but I still watch it.
I'd say there are usually about 4 really good shows per season. Most of them are pretty forgettable, and none of them are as funny as the show was 25 years ago.
I'd say there are usually about 4 really good shows per season. Most of them are pretty forgettable, and none of them are as funny as the show was 25 years ago.
Interesting it's possible, but there are explanations out there that aren't based on nostalgia but actually joke complexity among other things: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk
Keep in mind the decline started over 20 years ago. It probably stopped declining a long time ago (around 15 years?), and reached what people consider its current quality level.
This analysis doesn't demonstrate anything, unfortunately, except that ratings declined over time and that writers changed over time.
Any factor could have caused the show's decline (like less time given for script writing, less collaboration or rewrites, management directives to change aspects of the show, etc.) -- and it would show the same result.
Any factor could have caused the show's decline (like less time given for script writing, less collaboration or rewrites, management directives to change aspects of the show, etc.) -- and it would show the same result.
Did you know, there’s a direct correlation between the decline in the perceived quality of the show, and the decline in Spirograph? Think about it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IYaftepO-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IYaftepO-s
Purely anecdotal, but as a Simpsons fans many years ago (and not really following the show anymore), I think there are many of us who grew up with the Simpsons who simply don't have the time (as we've gotten older and have other chores and priorities to take care of first) to follow the show anymore.
My theory is that the show started to decline after about eight or nine years on the air, which is just about enough time for young fans to grow up, go to college, start their career in writing, and then end up on the Simpsons team.
The last person you want writing on a show like that is a life-long super-fan.
The last person you want writing on a show like that is a life-long super-fan.
I cannot say whether your theory is correct or not, but your theory resonates with something director Hayao Miyazaki said[1]: that the Japanese animation industry is suffering because the staff of a modern studio is full of people who grew up watching anime rather than looking at real people.
[1] https://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131872-Hayao-Miya...
[1] https://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131872-Hayao-Miya...
This is a good theory. Just look at the shitshow superhero comics have become after a couple of cycles of this.
This reminds me of this video which attributes the decline of the Simpsons to the changes in writers and how the type of comedy itself changed.
I still catch episodes when possible, the old ones definitely have a different depth than the current ones.
The fall of the Simpsons: How it happened: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk
I still catch episodes when possible, the old ones definitely have a different depth than the current ones.
The fall of the Simpsons: How it happened: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk
I ravenously consumed The Simpsons for most of my youth and loved it. I watch it now whenever I get the chance and love it, but life happened. I don't like my kids to watch it so they don't grow up Fd in the brain like me. Having a bad kid as a role model I think does impact children.
It's also not the only game in town. Cartoon network quality has gone way way up. I used to watch 3-hour cartoons on Saturday morning, and the simpsons et. al on Sunday night. That was it for cartoons on TV. Grandparents broke out VHS tapes occasionally as well. We didn't have a lot of options so The Simpsons was mind blowing. Not so much anymore.
It's also not the only game in town. Cartoon network quality has gone way way up. I used to watch 3-hour cartoons on Saturday morning, and the simpsons et. al on Sunday night. That was it for cartoons on TV. Grandparents broke out VHS tapes occasionally as well. We didn't have a lot of options so The Simpsons was mind blowing. Not so much anymore.
What about the simpsons is unhealthy for kids?
Having a bad kid as a role model I think does impact children.
I.e., Bart.
Edit: I'm not sure people realize I'm not the grandparent, or that I was directly quoting him to answer the question?
I.e., Bart.
Edit: I'm not sure people realize I'm not the grandparent, or that I was directly quoting him to answer the question?
The goal posts have moved so far on what it means to be a little shit in cartoons that Bart seems almost angelic. I'd be more concerned if my children started aping Lisa's holier-than-thou idealism.
So, all cartoons then?
Bart is the archtype for screwing up amd learning your lesson. Omitting that seems worse parenting.
Bart is the archtype for screwing up amd learning your lesson. Omitting that seems worse parenting.
My kids have had no trouble screwing up and I try to help them learn lessons. There are many other shows that teach that same lesson without a cartoon cat and mouse filleting each other, dad drinking and bumbling around and choking their kids out.
I love The Simpsons; honestly I like Bob's Burgers more, but both shows live on a line between acceptable and unacceptable, like all adult cartoons do. They will find things that do the same and I won't know about it. But I don't spoon feed it to them.
I already give them all the vidya games in the world so they aren't starved for crude content. Also just living with me is all the crude TV-MA content they can handle. Mom and Dad are sort of fun to hang around (at least for Mom and Dad).
I love The Simpsons; honestly I like Bob's Burgers more, but both shows live on a line between acceptable and unacceptable, like all adult cartoons do. They will find things that do the same and I won't know about it. But I don't spoon feed it to them.
I already give them all the vidya games in the world so they aren't starved for crude content. Also just living with me is all the crude TV-MA content they can handle. Mom and Dad are sort of fun to hang around (at least for Mom and Dad).
I am pretty sure kids can grow up perfectly fine without watching whatever cartoon. Really, no matter what cartoon is, the kids will be fine. Why do people attack others parenting based on nonsense like that? You don't even know age of his kids. Sometimes parent recognize influences that shaped him in a bad way and then attempt to avoid the situation for his children.
Bart is not archetype for screwing up and learning lesson, Bart never learns lesson. Bart is archetype of out of control brat. Which is fine and there is nothing wrong with that and that is precisely why people enjoyed the character.
Bart is not archetype for screwing up and learning lesson, Bart never learns lesson. Bart is archetype of out of control brat. Which is fine and there is nothing wrong with that and that is precisely why people enjoyed the character.
There are 2 reasons a show are cancelled:
#1, and the reason in the majority of cases: not enough people watch. It doesn't matter if you think the current season of The Simpsons is good, terrible, or whatever. It only matters that you watch. If few enough people watch, it WILL be cancelled. This is NOT public access or PBS.
#2, the artist's discretion. Rare, but occasionally an artist decides to "go out on top". Jackie Gleason and "The Honeymooners" comes to mind. Seinfeld too. I'm sure there are others you will point out.
Point is, keep watching and they'll keep pumping out crap.
Point is, keep watching and they'll keep pumping out crap.
[deleted]
Because the humor went from funny and light-hearted to mean and angry in order to seem "edgy" and "current."
See also: Saturday Night Live
See also: Comedy Central
See also: Saturday Night Live
See also: Comedy Central
I think it was always edgy, a bit shocking, and what was edgy and shocking when they started became normal later on so they had to push the envelope a bit further.
Skim read the article and I would suggest watching these videos on YouTube.
The Fall of The Simpsons: How it Happened https://youtu.be/KqFNbCcyFkk
The Day The Simpsons Died https://youtu.be/I-TS-92KVDA
The Fall of The Simpsons: How it Happened https://youtu.be/KqFNbCcyFkk
The Day The Simpsons Died https://youtu.be/I-TS-92KVDA
If you'd like to see something really terrible, try watching the fantasy Simpsons/Futurama-esque mess that is Disenchanted on Netflix.
Some of the top writers I picked out (Bill Oakley, Josh Weinstein, David X/S Cohen) are involved in it, but I agree it's not great.
It started out pretty weak, but I think it's fair to admit it got a lot better by the last 3 episodes or so when it got a little more invested in the characters.
But the real test has been the fact that I haven't bothered to watch it again. I'd rather watch "The Simpsons" or "Futurama" for the N plus 1th time.
But the real test has been the fact that I haven't bothered to watch it again. I'd rather watch "The Simpsons" or "Futurama" for the N plus 1th time.
Also graphed and discussed by diffuseprior some time ago, here: https://diffuseprior.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/kalkalash-pinp...
It's a bit confusing. The author starts with the assumption the show got worse, and assumed a causal relation with an random piece of data. This is not proper Bayesian statistics.
The author claims there is no principled way, but there is. Confidence bounds are the way to measure what affect a variable had on an outcome.
The author claims there is no principled way, but there is. Confidence bounds are the way to measure what affect a variable had on an outcome.
I didn't assume a causal relationship. In the last line I state that a change in writers may not have caused a decline in quality, but the change in the make-up of the writing team around the team most people agree the show went downhill would lend some credibility to the idea.
What about that article suggested I was attempting to do proper Bayesian statistics? It's an exploratory analysis, I'm just looking at the data.
And where did I claim there was no principled way of doing this analysis?
What about that article suggested I was attempting to do proper Bayesian statistics? It's an exploratory analysis, I'm just looking at the data.
And where did I claim there was no principled way of doing this analysis?
To be fair, you said "There’s not really a principled way of doing this" but you were referring to cleaning up the data, not the analysis itself. My bad.
That said, you started with the following prior: Simpson ratings went down over time. Then you looked at 1 variable: The writing staff. You noticed: Aha, if we assign each writer a rating, then we see that later writers have lower ratings than writers that only worked on early episodes!
However that's a tautology. Of course the writers that worked on later episodes have lower scores than those that worked on earlier episodes. The fact the ratings went down over time was the prior we started with! This is the natural result of taking averages. The experimental setup was wrong from the beginning.
As for why I think you would want to do proper statistics, the reason is simple: I assume that people who publish these things are well intentioned, and they want to show off actual statistical correlations.
That said, you started with the following prior: Simpson ratings went down over time. Then you looked at 1 variable: The writing staff. You noticed: Aha, if we assign each writer a rating, then we see that later writers have lower ratings than writers that only worked on early episodes!
However that's a tautology. Of course the writers that worked on later episodes have lower scores than those that worked on earlier episodes. The fact the ratings went down over time was the prior we started with! This is the natural result of taking averages. The experimental setup was wrong from the beginning.
As for why I think you would want to do proper statistics, the reason is simple: I assume that people who publish these things are well intentioned, and they want to show off actual statistical correlations.
A built a framework called Lean Media for producing entertainment and informational media works (linked in my sig, for those who are interested) and did quite a bit of research on The Simpson's early years as well as other creative groups and solo creators.
While I didn't look into these media team's later development, I think the catalysts which helped them get early success may point the way to why their later output is not so consistently impressive.
The three early catalysts are:
1. Early audience feedback loops to help guide and validate media prototypes
2. Minimal business interference
3. Really strong creative core
In the case of The Simpsons, it wasn't Matt Groening (who had previously been a cartoonist, not an animator) who single-handedly made the show. Director James L. Brooks and showrunner Sam Simon built out the team of animators and writers. They had early audience feedback from the early animated shorts that appeared in the middle of the Tracey Ullman Show from 1987-1989. These shorts were bundled into 20-minute reels that were shown to Ullman's live studio audiences while there were set changes, and they laughter and cheering helped validate the idea of doing the Simpsons as a standalone half-hour show. Importantly, once The Simpsons was launched in 1989, Brooks protected the writing crew from Fox TV executives' attempt at interference.
Similarly, for the band Led Zeppelin, the same three catalysts were in place from the start. Early creative feedback came during their first Scandinavian tour in September 1968, which directly shaped the arrangements and songs that made it onto Led Zeppelin I. They didn't even have a record company when they recorded the album with Glyn Johns that October, so the leader -- Jimmy Page -- could really follow his own production instincts.
Later on, what happened with these two teams? Certainly, they continued to make great media, but things weren't quite the same. The Simpsons team broke up -- there was a lot of tension between Simon and Groening, and Simon left after three or four seasons. Other writers went on to different shows. Fox also started to exercise more control over the production, which became more corporate.
Led Zeppelin's team remained intact, but over time productions became more bloated (LZ1 recorded in 10 days, Physical Grafitti in 18 months) and I think like many 70s hard rock groups they lost touch with their audiences. After 1977 they did not tour much, and albums like In Through The Out Door and Presence are more musically experimental and influenced by the Plant and Jones than Page and Bonham.
While I didn't look into these media team's later development, I think the catalysts which helped them get early success may point the way to why their later output is not so consistently impressive.
The three early catalysts are:
1. Early audience feedback loops to help guide and validate media prototypes
2. Minimal business interference
3. Really strong creative core
In the case of The Simpsons, it wasn't Matt Groening (who had previously been a cartoonist, not an animator) who single-handedly made the show. Director James L. Brooks and showrunner Sam Simon built out the team of animators and writers. They had early audience feedback from the early animated shorts that appeared in the middle of the Tracey Ullman Show from 1987-1989. These shorts were bundled into 20-minute reels that were shown to Ullman's live studio audiences while there were set changes, and they laughter and cheering helped validate the idea of doing the Simpsons as a standalone half-hour show. Importantly, once The Simpsons was launched in 1989, Brooks protected the writing crew from Fox TV executives' attempt at interference.
Similarly, for the band Led Zeppelin, the same three catalysts were in place from the start. Early creative feedback came during their first Scandinavian tour in September 1968, which directly shaped the arrangements and songs that made it onto Led Zeppelin I. They didn't even have a record company when they recorded the album with Glyn Johns that October, so the leader -- Jimmy Page -- could really follow his own production instincts.
Later on, what happened with these two teams? Certainly, they continued to make great media, but things weren't quite the same. The Simpsons team broke up -- there was a lot of tension between Simon and Groening, and Simon left after three or four seasons. Other writers went on to different shows. Fox also started to exercise more control over the production, which became more corporate.
Led Zeppelin's team remained intact, but over time productions became more bloated (LZ1 recorded in 10 days, Physical Grafitti in 18 months) and I think like many 70s hard rock groups they lost touch with their audiences. After 1977 they did not tour much, and albums like In Through The Out Door and Presence are more musically experimental and influenced by the Plant and Jones than Page and Bonham.
It would've been interesting to run a regression on the results, seeing if the writers were actually the largest contributing factor. Additionally, that graph with the average expected ratings should have the actual ratings in there for comparisons
I'm not a regular watcher any more, but I'll surely be watching at least one episode soon.
The annual 'TreeHouse of Horrors' Simpson Halloween special is must-see tv.
The annual 'TreeHouse of Horrors' Simpson Halloween special is must-see tv.
When Conan quit writing
What is best in life? To crush your comedy, to see played out before you, and to hear the felicitations of your patrons.
Cutbacks on writers, simplistic plot story arcs, worshipping celebrity... I probably missed a few. Simpson's ended in season 8 as far as I'm concerned.
Great analysis - but I also wonder if IMDb ratings have a bit (or more than a bit) of selection bias, where people rating the episodes are the "hardcore fans" who've already established the narrative the idea that the show was in decline past season 10, 11, 13 - and so since the data has potentially already been shaped by bias around a narrative, it can't reveal anything more than hardcore Simpsons fans prevailing attitudes.
In other words, you're asking a bunch of people who are obsessed with The Simpsons for their episode ratings; of course you're going to see a decline.
In other words, you're asking a bunch of people who are obsessed with The Simpsons for their episode ratings; of course you're going to see a decline.
[deleted]
Curious how much longer/shorter the code would have been had Python been used instead of R.
Or if I'd just used R correctly. The code surely isn't best practice in R, just kind of hashed together.
I had actually started doing this in Python, but my limited knowledge of Python meant I was resorting to two different libraries to scrape the two data tables.
> I gathered the average rating across all episodes by writers contributing more than ten episodes.
why 10? why not 12 or 8 or 5 ... ?
why 10? why not 12 or 8 or 5 ... ?
Our number system is base 10. The choice was arbitrary, I just wanted enough episodes to reduce the noise in the average ratings.
thanks for your reply! When I learned that Conan O'Brien had only 4 writing credits, I wondered if perhaps 3 would be an appropriate threshold. More generally, I was wondering how the results vary with different choices for this threshold.
It hasn't ended, still by far one of the best shows on cable TV.
I really dislike TV/Anime that never ends, seems to be the modus operandi for pretty much every mainstream show despite how bad the quality gets after 2-3 seasons.
Simpsons is a great showcase of the homogenization that every sitcom will go through given enough time. It starts out as a comedy with some wholesome family moments to bring it together but eventually every character is distilled to their most basic formula Homer -> Idiot who causes events to happen Bart -> Same as above Marge -> Straight man / Voice of reason or Satire of moralistic conservative adults depending on the situation Lisa -> same as marge but liberal piñata
Old episodes had genuine moments where you saw them become closer as family, now every episode is a hodgepodge of nonstop comedy.
Family Guy also went through this, especially after they got revived. The early episodes focused on the trials of the family with some goofy humor peppered throughout (Peter getting fired, Louis dealing with being a bored housewife) but now its just nonstop comedy.
Once you get syndicated it's not about making good episodes just churning out 26 more a year and cashing in that paycheck.
Even Steven Universe which has a very straightforward story with an end planned feels bloated with a bunch of filler episodes and lazy character development.