Animation Revelation Forum

It's Revelation Time! => General Animation Discussion => Topic started by: Spark Of Spirit on May 29, 2011, 09:07:40 PM

Title: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 29, 2011, 09:07:40 PM
We have no Simpsons topic? For shame.

Anyway, reasons this is one of the best shows ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86zPFR4R0Ko (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86zPFR4R0Ko)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs74VYDNDXE&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs74VYDNDXE&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGFwLHCTsfk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGFwLHCTsfk&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cD9x1xTSjw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cD9x1xTSjw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEZVZ-2k6Po&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEZVZ-2k6Po&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJQEl5vcAo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJQEl5vcAo&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFGYXZFReiE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFGYXZFReiE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-TZ8Z5S9rI&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-TZ8Z5S9rI&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fa7qTeCwZw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fa7qTeCwZw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR7m-4Vc3MU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR7m-4Vc3MU&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRNOjFl4bC0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRNOjFl4bC0&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAHHTbzL_Bc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAHHTbzL_Bc)


... But I could go on all day.

Does anyone else have any favorite moments and episodes to share from this show?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 29, 2011, 09:15:25 PM
This is still up there. (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1044840404204)

But there's plenty of classic scenes we can list all night.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 29, 2011, 09:45:06 PM
Do you remember the first episode you saw?

I barely remember seeing the early seasons, but I was watching the show since before I can even remember. I used to have Homer At Bat on a tape and would watch it all the time, I used to love that episode. I would catch reruns every day, too. Since this was long before DVDs, and this was the only way to see the show on any sort or regular basis.

I think I stopped watching about three seasons ago. Not out of any sort of malice towards it, but I just felt that I had seen enough and was ready to move on. I still own the first ten seasons on DVD and rewatch them (well more 2-9 than the other two) every now and then, and am really surprised at how well it all holds together.

I'm still kind of surprised that MacFarlane could get 3/4 shows and we couldn't get one Simpsons spin off. I would have watched "Skinner & The Superintendent"!

Still, what a fantastic show.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 29, 2011, 09:55:00 PM
Oh man, I have no idea. I do remember when I first started watching the show, though. I was finally allowed to watch a "grown-up cartoon" and watched the syndication slots daily. I think that happened around the time season 9 was airing, so I caught on around the glory years.

I also remember having a 3-tape set of Halloween-themed VHSes I got a year or two after I got into the show. Only one of them had Treehouse of Horror eps, but another one had "Cape Feare", so I watched them pretty regularly.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 29, 2011, 10:04:09 PM
Yeah, I personally consider season 9 one of the classics. I know it has its detractors, but I personally think it's really funny and the writing still has a lot of life to it. Season 10 has a lot of cracks, but it has a lot of gems in it, so I don't mind having it in my collection.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 29, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
I'm still paying catch-up on the DVDs, and I'll stop after 10 myself, maybe on discount. Same with the first 2.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 29, 2011, 10:26:32 PM
Also, I would say this show is the prime example of not knowing when to stop. While it still makes money (mostly merchandizing), around season 10 when the cracks began to show and the staff was all but gone, they probably should have called it a day.

Like, you all know how much I loathe seasons 11 and 12 (while newer seasons may be forgettable, nothing they've ever done is as terrible on average as these seasons) but when Al Jean came back in season 13 as show runner.... The show became locked in time, it never changed, it never really tried anything new, and it fell into the loud humor Family guy style of comedy, forgetting character humor along the way. It feels like an overly long epilogue that just won't end, nothing to add to the main story, just forever wrapping up loose ends while creating others and repeating plot points you might have forgotten.

None of the show's creators were even involved post-season 10 and it shows. I'm hoping they just end it soon and move on. There's just nothing left to do in Springfield and there hasn't been in years.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on June 01, 2011, 03:00:41 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on May 29, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
I'm still paying catch-up on the DVDs, and I'll stop after 10 myself, maybe on discount. Same with the first 2.
Same here. Well I got up to season 4 or 5 on library DVDs anyway. Made me consider The Simpsons the most immersize show ever.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on June 10, 2011, 07:21:31 PM
Only one of my favorite things ever.  I've been watching this damn show about as long as I can remember(somewhere in the late second season), actually remember when it aired on Thursdays instead of Sundays, remember when they moved it back to Sundays, was there when it entered syndication and I could watch it for an hour every day, and only really stopped watching the new seasons a couple years ago.  I had toys, keychains, T-shirts, and of course the video games for the SNES and Game Boy(didn't play the NES games until I actually got a NES later on in my life) at an early age.  My parents never objected to me watching the show either, which I was always grateful for, because I knew kids that couldn't watch Hey Arnold!, never mind The Simpsons.

For me, pretty much anything from season one to season sixteen is watchable, but my favorites are seasons 3-7.  At this point though, I don't really care if the show stops or not, because even if it does it's bound to come back again down the road(hopefully when it does, the quality will be better than it is now).  The only thing that I think that should end is Al Jean's tenure as showrunner.  He's been in way to long and has dragged the show down with him.  I truly think if you got some new blood in there that potentially the show could be awesome again.

As for one of my favorite moments, it comes from an episode I don't really recall(I think it was "Trilogy of Error", but I could be wrong) and it's where Chief Wiggum receives a dispatch to "123 Fake Street", and later on in the episode you see the address surrounded by cops.  I love how over the top the joke is, that what seems to be an obviously fake address is actually a real place in Springfield.

And of course some of the classics are always good.  "I for one welcome our new insect overlords", "My Eyes!  The goggles do nothing!", etc.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on June 12, 2011, 11:56:37 PM
Quote from: SNES Chalmers on June 10, 2011, 07:21:31 PM
Only one of my favorite things ever.  I've been watching this damn show about as long as I can remember(somewhere in the late second season), actually remember when it aired on Thursdays instead of Sundays, remember when they moved it back to Sundays, was there when it entered syndication and I could watch it for an hour every day, and only really stopped watching the new seasons a couple years ago.  I had toys, keychains, T-shirts, and of course the video games for the SNES and Game Boy(didn't play the NES games until I actually got a NES later on in my life) at an early age.  My parents never objected to me watching the show either, which I was always grateful for, because I knew kids that couldn't watch Hey Arnold!, never mind The Simpsons.

For me, pretty much anything from season one to season sixteen is watchable, but my favorites are seasons 3-7.  At this point though, I don't really care if the show stops or not, because even if it does it's bound to come back again down the road(hopefully when it does, the quality will be better than it is now).  The only thing that I think that should end is Al Jean's tenure as showrunner.  He's been in way to long and has dragged the show down with him.  I truly think if you got some new blood in there that potentially the show could be awesome again.

As for one of my favorite moments, it comes from an episode I don't really recall(I think it was "Trilogy of Error", but I could be wrong) and it's where Chief Wiggum receives a dispatch to "123 Fake Street", and later on in the episode you see the address surrounded by cops.  I love how over the top the joke is, that what seems to be an obviously fake address is actually a real place in Springfield.

And of course some of the classics are always good.  "I for one welcome our new insect overlords", "My Eyes!  The goggles do nothing!", etc.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Lord Dalek on July 03, 2011, 08:48:29 PM
I did a Best Episode Ever entry extolling my love for Cape Feare, so I'm gonna go with that.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 03, 2011, 10:33:11 PM
There's a reason Conan is a national treasure.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Geezer on July 03, 2011, 11:23:55 PM
I don't know why, but I find this scene hysterical. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMoJ0ZjEI3s)  It's still one of my favorites.

Pretty sad what the show's become.  I stopped watching it regularly ten years ago and haven't looked back since.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on July 04, 2011, 12:41:39 AM
Quote from: Geezer on July 03, 2011, 11:23:55 PM
I don't know why, but I find this scene hysterical. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMoJ0ZjEI3s)  It's still one of my favorites.

Pretty sad what the show's become.  I stopped watching it regularly ten years ago and haven't looked back since.
I stopped watching around the same time as well. adult swim replaced the show just because I had cable. I had no clue it gotten so bad until I checked it out again years later
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Eddy on July 05, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
I also stopped watching the show on a regular basis years ago. It is sad to see what The Simpsons has become, but nothing can take away what made those great seasons so great. When I catch Simpsons reruns they still manage to make me crack up. I should really get those classic seasons on DVD.

"Hello, my name is Mr. Burns. I believe you have a letter for me."
"Alright, Mr. Burns, what's your first name?"
"...I don't know."
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on July 05, 2011, 07:18:16 PM
Quote from: Eddy on July 05, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
I also stopped watching the show on a regular basis years ago. It is sad to see what The Simpsons has become, but nothing can take away what made those great seasons so great. When I catch Simpsons reruns they still manage to make me crack up. I should really get those classic seasons on DVD.

"Hello, my name is Mr. Burns. I believe you have a letter for me."
"Alright, Mr. Burns, what's your first name?"
"...I don't know."
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on August 15, 2011, 06:56:14 PM
So... in case you guys haven't heard, I thought I'd pass along a bit of information here:

Right now, Best Buy has every season of The Simpsons (those that are currently available on DVD, obviously) on sale for $17.99. If you still have any catching up to do on your collection, especially with some of the older and harder to find sets, I'd suggest heading down there soon. For these prices, it's a great deal (especially since the majority of Simpsons DVD sets tend to cost at least $20-$25 on Amazon alone).
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on August 15, 2011, 07:56:38 PM
I'm still behind on a few, but I'm also really low on cash. I'll probably get another one or two at Target on Black Friday this year, when they're around $10-$13.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on August 15, 2011, 08:00:10 PM
Pffft, you guys are slow.  Just about every set I've gotten on launch day, with only a couple being very soon after.

And I could care less if I spent full price on them, to me it was worth it(well, for most them so far).
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on August 15, 2011, 08:20:51 PM
Sounds cool, but I'm content with my first ten season sets.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on August 15, 2011, 09:01:12 PM
I would assume most people are already pretty well caught up, but still; it's a good sale for those who are lagging behind a bit.

...anyway, I did buy one set today; Season 11, to be specific. Yes, that Season 11, when the hit-or-miss ratio really went off the charts. For $18, though, it's not a bad deal... and since it's been a while since I've seen the majority of this season (usually I tend to avoid these episodes when they're on TV, for obvious reasons), I may find a few hidden gems that I missed the first time around.

I may or may not buy the other two I'm still missing later this week; we'll see. I've got some money saved up, but being out of work again and all, I've been trying to keep most of my purchases lately under $30.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on September 17, 2011, 02:14:17 PM
Still wonder why [as] or other cable networks aren't airing repeats of the show? This might explain it. (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/tv/the-simpsons-network.html)

There's enough episodes now to fill up a channel, and there should be plenty more by the time it ends (and I, for one think Fox will call it a day when one of the main voice actors dies; they can take out Phil Hartman's characters, but Dan Castellaneta and Hank Azaria are irreplaceable), but is there really a demand for an all-Simpsons channel? Just about all the best episodes are already out on DVD. Who in their right mind would want to watch season 21 repeats at 2 AM?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on September 17, 2011, 02:24:38 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on September 17, 2011, 02:14:17 PM
Still wonder why [as] or other cable networks aren't airing repeats of the show? This might explain it. (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/tv/the-simpsons-network.html)

There's enough episodes now to fill up a channel, and there should be plenty more by the time it ends (and I, for one think Fox will call it a day when one of the main voice actors dies; they can take out Phil Hartman's characters, but Dan Castellaneta and Hank Azaria are irreplaceable), but is there really a demand for an all-Simpsons channel? Just about all the best episodes are already out on DVD. Who in their right mind would want to watch season 21 repeats at 2 AM?
There's someone who can watch decade-old Family Guy reruns or random Spongebob episodes. Surely, they can find someone who thinks this is the best use of their time.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on September 17, 2011, 02:31:28 PM
Eh, true. You'd think that repeats would be a dying thing, thanks to the age of DVDs and the internet, but syndication seems as viable as ever.

There probably is a market for an all-Simpsons channel, as much as I'd like to think otherwise.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on September 17, 2011, 06:36:17 PM
I find the proposed idea of an all-Looney Tunes channel much more intriguing, as it, IMO, actually makes sense. Sure, the average LT short isn't as long as an average Simpsons episode... but the sheer volume of material in that animation library alone would be more than enough to fill out a days/weeks worth of programming. At the very least, it's a far more viable idea than an all-Simpsons network (which, just saying the mere idea aloud, sounds ridiculous).

If they are seriously considering this, they might as well just go ahead and make the Animation Domination brand its own network, or what have you. At least that makes a little sense, for variety sake. Simpsons, Family Guy, AD, Cleveland, King of the Hill... hell, maybe even throw in some old Futurama (or raise Jay Sherman from the grave) for kicks. Certainly they can do better than run one series, and one series only, ad nauseum for 24 hours a day.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on September 17, 2011, 06:58:22 PM
I can't see that working very well at all.  Even with the amount of episodes they have at the moment, if the channel was launched this fall it'd would have long grown old by the end of the year.  I honestly don't see a whole channel dedicated to one sole franchise(no matter what it is) working well at all, it would become stale, and vastly contribute to the staleness of the franchise itself.

I still think giving the rerun rights to cable networks is the best route.  Every other classic show from television history has gone this way, and many of the best ones are still ran somewhere on cable to this day.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on October 05, 2011, 02:27:05 AM
I'm surprised nobody's brought this up yet. (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-simpsons-20111005,0,4380485.story)

Thoughts?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Lord Dalek on October 05, 2011, 11:30:53 AM
Quote from: Kiddington on October 05, 2011, 02:27:05 AM
I'm surprised nobody's brought this up yet. (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-simpsons-20111005,0,4380485.story)

Thoughts?
A load of smoke and mirrors.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on October 05, 2011, 12:03:29 PM
I still think Fox will cave in and give the VAs all the money they demand like all the other times this has happened.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 05, 2011, 12:16:55 PM
They'll reach a compromise. I don't think the show's going to end just yet.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on October 05, 2011, 06:12:00 PM
As if the show's ratings are the reason why they keep it around.

They'll cave.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 05, 2011, 08:10:26 PM
I don't know, I think this time the show actually stands a pretty good chance of getting the axe, as evidenced by the attention it's getting.  The last few times the headlines read "Simpsons cast members in contract dispute".  Now they read "The Simpsons Facing Cancellation?"  It just seems more serious this time around.

There's several other factors. Like the fact that it's not profitable anymore, and the ratings are low.  Or, as pointed out in several places like here (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-the-simpsons-cancellation-syndication-243776), Fox could conceivably gain hundreds of millions of dollars by ending the show.  Fox would still get buttloads of money from merch and such too, since if they sell the air rights to cable you know the show will be all over the place.

I don't know, anything could happen, but I honestly think it doesn't look good for the show.  Even if Fox caves, I don't think it'll be that dramatically, and the VA's won't get what they want.  I personally don't think it'll get canceled, something will be worked out, but at the same time I can't say I'm honestly hoping it doesn't get axed.  I just don't want it to be dumped unceremoniously; I'd like to see it end with some dignity.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on October 05, 2011, 08:31:10 PM
You could be right, but honestly I think they're still going to try to squeeze a few more seasons out of the show if only for the attention it would receive after surpassing a few other records. I don't see it making it far past season 25, though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 05, 2011, 09:09:56 PM
To be fair, when I first heard about the possible Simpsons channel, I did start to think that the show might end soon enough if they're talking about cancellation like that now. But I wasn't expecting it to come this soon.

And I still think they'll reach a compromise. At the same time though, Fox makes enough with MacFarlene's shows, Glee and American Idol (and New Girl isn't a slouch in that department itself so far) that they could do without the show at this point. Anything can happen.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Lord Dalek on October 05, 2011, 09:55:27 PM
Yeah didn't something similar occur 5-6 years ago?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on October 05, 2011, 10:23:57 PM
Quote from: SNES Chalmers on October 05, 2011, 08:10:26 PM
I don't know, I think this time the show actually stands a pretty good chance of getting the axe, as evidenced by the attention it's getting.  The last few times the headlines read "Simpsons cast members in contract dispute".  Now they read "The Simpsons Facing Cancellation?"  It just seems more serious this time around.

There's several other factors. Like the fact that it's not profitable anymore, and the ratings are low.  Or, as pointed out in several places like here (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-the-simpsons-cancellation-syndication-243776), Fox could conceivably gain hundreds of millions of dollars by ending the show.  Fox would still get buttloads of money from merch and such too, since if they sell the air rights to cable you know the show will be all over the place.

I don't know, anything could happen, but I honestly think it doesn't look good for the show.  Even if Fox caves, I don't think it'll be that dramatically, and the VA's won't get what they want.  I personally don't think it'll get canceled, something will be worked out, but at the same time I can't say I'm honestly hoping it doesn't get axed.  I just don't want it to be dumped unceremoniously; I'd like to see it end with some dignity.

Yeah, this cannot be stated enough. It'd be a real shame for the show to just have the axe dropped on it without even getting a proper finale in the process. It's done too much, and deserves a far better outcome than that (even if the last few seasons have been... well, you know).
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Sketch on October 06, 2011, 06:00:50 AM
Honestly at this point I don't remember what a "good" episode of The Simpsons is. I'm just so used to it being mediocre.

It'd be nice if it could make it to 25 seasons but it's coming upon the 500th episode and many would argue it should have ended years ago.

Now that I hear that ceasing production would mean FOX could get The Simpsons on cable and I could see the old episodes on TV again, I'm kind of leaning towards cancellation but cancelling a show for money disputes is such a lousy way to go after so many years on the air.

I think the voice actors could take the pay cut of 45 percent but their offer to take 30 percent is a lot more reasonable and FOX should just do that and extent it for 2 more years but if it ends with this season I'm not gonna shed a tear. I generally agree with the folks who feel the conclusion of the show is long overdue.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 07, 2011, 07:44:13 PM
Well, the feud is over, the cast took a pay cut, and Fox has renewed the series for two more seasons.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150853795895557

For those that choose not to use FaceBook:
QuoteFOX ORDERS DOUBLE D'OHS OF "THE SIMPSONS"

Longest Running Scripted Series on Television is Renewed Through Season 25



FOX has renewed THE SIMPSONS, the longest-running comedy in television history, for an incredible 24th and 25th season, bringing the series total to an astonishing 559 episodes. THE SIMPSONS airs Sundays (8:00-8:30 PM ET/PT) on FOX.



In the words of Homer Simpson, "Woo Hoo! I outlasted Andy Rooney!"



The longest-running scripted show in television history, THE SIMPSONS exploded into a cultural phenomenon in 1990 and has remained one of the most groundbreaking and innovative entertainment franchises, recognizable throughout the world. Matt Groening created the iconic family: Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie. In February 2012, THE SIMPSONS will celebrate its historic 500th episode. The series has won 27 Emmy Awards, been the subject of a hit feature film, created "Krustyland" and a revolutionary virtual coaster – The Simpsons Ride – at Universal Studios, received a star on The Hollywood Walk of Fame, been honored with five U.S. postal stamps personally designed by Matt Groening, and named the "Best Show of the 20th Century" by Time Magazine.



Following the MLB American League Championship Series and World Series games on FOX, THE SIMPSONS returns with all-new episodes beginning with "Treehouse of Horrors XXII," on Sunday, Oct. 30 (8:00-8:30 PM ET/PT). In the spooky opener, Homer takes a dangerous dive into an isolated canyon on Candy Peak, but when a crashing boulder traps his arm, he channels Aron Ralston (guest voicing as himself) to save himself. In "The Diving Bell and Butterball," the first of three hair-raising Halloween tales, a venomous spider bite leaves Homer paralyzed, but when Lisa discovers Homer's ability to communicate through natural gases, he is able to express his love for Marge. The killer spells continue in "Dial D for Diddly," when Ned Flanders, devout preacher by day, transforms into a cold-blooded vigilante by night. In the final terrifying tale, "In the Na'Vi," Bart and Milhouse are assigned on a mission to access a sacred extract on a distant planet. They morph into the land's indigenous one-eyed avatars, but when Bart finds love and an eternal mate abroad, he is caught in planet warfare.



THE SIMPSONS is a Gracie Films Production in association with 20th Century Fox Television. James L. Brooks, Matt Groening and Al Jean are the executive producers. Film Roman, a Starz Media Company, is the animation house.



Visit THE SIMPSONS website at www.TheSimpsons.com. Become a fan of the series on Facebook at www.facebook.com/thesimpsons and follow Homer Simpson @HomerJSimpson.
They'll never stop The Simpsons, have no fears, we'll have stories for years...
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Rosalinas Spare Wand on October 07, 2011, 07:57:45 PM
25 is a good number to end it on for those with intense OCD and for anniversary purposes.

Still, I am very curious to see how the lead up to the last season will be. Prime time shows never fail to promote the hell out of their last year on the air, and considering how iconic The Simpsons has been for Fox, I'm willing to bet they'll get a huge year long send off from the network itself.

All of which will be countered by the show making constant cancellation jokes until the very last episode.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 07, 2011, 08:05:09 PM
Yeah, but nothing's saying that season 25 will be the last one though.  True, we now know that Fox doesn't have too much interest in keeping the show for much longer(then again this could have just been a ploy to get what they wanted), but who's to know if season 26 and beyond is somewhere down the pipeline?

Still, I'm rather surprised that Fox damn well knew they could've made hundreds of millions of dollars by ending the show after the season, and they chose to keep it for at least two more years(thus losing money for two more years).  I guess that option is always on the table though, no matter how long the show goes on for, once it does end it'll be a popular syndication and cable distribution choice.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on October 07, 2011, 08:16:02 PM
I'm pretty sure this is it for the show now. If the actors were willing to take the cut, it was probably only to squeeze these two seasons out and at least end it right.

There's really no reason to keep it going past that point, anyway.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Lord Dalek on October 07, 2011, 09:02:30 PM
Yeah if Fox Animated Sitcoms are cursed by anything, its lousy unfulfilled finales.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on October 08, 2011, 10:23:43 AM
Season 25... I'm assuming that will be 2013 correct?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on October 08, 2011, 12:36:58 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on October 08, 2011, 10:23:43 AM
Season 25... I'm assuming that will be 2013 correct?

Nope; 2014, actually. We're in the midst of Season 23 right now (2011-2012); 24 will be in 2012-2013, and 25 will conclude in 2013-2014.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Angus on November 21, 2011, 02:23:51 PM
I was trying to figure out if the show still gave me a laugh. It almost did. What? Neil Gaiman in yesterday's episode?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Rosalinas Spare Wand on November 22, 2011, 03:14:47 AM
Oh yeah, when did they stop having new couch gags? I noticed the last 2 episodes immediately jumped into the episode after the logo faded out towards the screen
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on November 22, 2011, 03:25:36 AM
No kidding. The chalkboard gag has been AWOL for years (last time I cared to tune in), but now they're doing away with the couch as well?

Man, just goes to show that I haven't payed attention to this show in a long ass time. Any other obvious changes from the old days?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on November 22, 2011, 01:58:48 PM
From what I heard, there's been a shift in command for the showrunner. Makes sense, since the episode this week is surprisingly watchable.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on January 31, 2012, 04:17:10 PM
Synopsis from the latest episode: "Moe's beloved bar rag, voiced by Jeremy Irons, recounts its long life story. After it goes missing Moe realizes he has more friends than he thought."

I haven't watched a full episode of the show this whole season, and I think I only saw like 2 or 3 last season, but I'm actually thinking about watching this, due to the premise and the subsequent negative reviews it's gotten(people are saying the show has hit a new low).
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Rosalinas Spare Wand on January 31, 2012, 06:13:14 PM
I saw it, or at least had it on in the back. The commercials made it sound like time traveling would be involved, but its just Springfield citizens in the roles of the story that rag recounted. It was boring as fuck.

There was also a Bart/Milhouse subplot where they had a falling out AGAIN. Bart plays the role of needy emotional girlfriend as always.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on January 31, 2012, 06:43:44 PM
So is there a new showrunner, or is it still Al Jean?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on January 31, 2012, 08:04:31 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on January 31, 2012, 06:43:44 PM
So is there a new showrunner, or is it still Al Jean?
I think it's like a co-op at the moment, where one does some episodes and Al does the others.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Eddy on February 02, 2012, 01:35:27 AM
This was the first episode of The Simpsons I have bothered watching in years.

It reminded me why I stopped watching.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on February 19, 2012, 06:15:37 PM
The 500th episode, titled "At Long Last Leave", airs tonight(in 45 minutes on the East Coast, to be exact), who's watching?  I wish I could, but I'm at work.  I'll catch it on the internet tomorrow.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on February 19, 2012, 07:24:48 PM
I just got home, and I forgot to record. I'll watch it on Hulu later.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on February 19, 2012, 07:31:24 PM
All I got to see was the post credits with Skinner.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on February 19, 2012, 11:01:38 PM
I watch Elimination Chamber. I'll probably watch on my cable provider's "On Demand" service later, along with the other shows I missed out due to EC.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on March 10, 2012, 01:29:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA-FoG-RgSE
This is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

OOOOHHHMMMMYYYYGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDD!
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on March 10, 2012, 01:36:10 PM
Aww, for a moment, I was hoping that this would be a Simpsons/Troll 2 mash-up.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on March 10, 2012, 06:17:50 PM
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0p22pztiC1r6se0bo1_500.jpg)

I saw these at Barnes & Noble and thought they looked pretty cool. Well, Krusty, Itchy and Sratchy do, anyway. Homer and Bart look kind of weird.

They're $10 each, and I'm considering getting Krusty later.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on March 10, 2012, 06:21:56 PM
they look very japan inspired. pretty cool though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on March 10, 2012, 06:26:36 PM
Yeah, I think they're made by the guys that do the Marvel and DC chibi plushes and vinyls, especially since they're all lumped together at B&N.

They also have vinyl Simpsons with similar designs, for Homer, Bart, Marge and Krusty.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 09, 2012, 07:55:14 PM
haha, check out Wiki's article of the day.

So yeah, what's your favorite Sideshow Bob episode? Besides the ever-so-obvious "Cape Feare", I really like "Brother From Another Series". It's a great little Frasier reunion and one of the last Bob stories I remember really enjoying.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on April 09, 2012, 08:11:11 PM
Sideshow Bob Roberts. I just like it's take on politics and Watergate parody, along with the Rush Limbaugh parody and Bart actually enjoying going to preschool.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 09, 2012, 08:40:17 PM
Well, other than the obvious ones, I quite enjoyed Brother From Another Series for turning the whole Bob Vs. Bart relationship on its head. I was actually hoping they'd twist it and make Bob the hero that tries to save Bart and Krusty from Cecil from then on.

They kinda ruined that with Day Of The Jackanapes, though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on April 09, 2012, 08:49:47 PM
I like Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming, so I'll go with that one.

Day of the Jackanapes is actually the last Sideshow Bob episode I liked.  I think Bob should've been retired a while ago, because his schtick gets old fast when the writing isnt good, and clearly they don't know how to write for him anymore.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on April 10, 2012, 02:18:47 AM
In addition to Brother From Another Series, I kinda liked Funeral For a Fiend as well. It's not great, but it does the whole Frasier reunion thing nicely (John Mahoney is perfect as Bob's dad), and for a late-run episode, I'd say it's probably one of the better ones.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 10, 2012, 12:53:01 PM
I thought Day Of The Jackanapes was funny, but I didn't really like how they went back on Bob's character like that so fast. There was a lot of potential with "good Bob" that we never got to see because they just rushed out another typical one.

Funeral For A Fiend was okay, as was the episode where Bob was the detective, but other than those I haven't been able to enjoy a Bob episode since the classics.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on April 21, 2012, 06:42:38 PM
FYI, Fox is airing "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire"(aka the first Simpsons episode to air) tomorrow night in conjuction with not only the franchise's 25th anniversary this past week, but also the year long 25th anniversary of the Fox Network in general.  So yeah, catch it if you want.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 21, 2012, 06:55:15 PM
Plus the MWC pilot. And they're airing a special after both.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on April 21, 2012, 06:56:24 PM
Does that air tomorrow too?  Cool.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 21, 2012, 06:58:07 PM
I think it'd be just as cool and a real kick in the face if they aired "Serenity" (the pilot, not the movie). They probably wouldn't, but I'd love it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 21, 2012, 07:10:27 PM
Wow, I hope I remember to catch that.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Rosalinas Spare Wand on April 24, 2012, 02:18:18 AM
I used to have that episode on VHS. I had no idea it was actually the first stand alone episode produced until a couple years ago.

I nostalgia hard every time I see it though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on April 24, 2012, 09:31:29 AM
It wasn't the first one produced(that's Some Enchanted Evening), it was the first one to air.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Lord Dalek on April 24, 2012, 09:52:41 AM
Yeah Some Enchanted Evening was originally going to be the first episode broadcast but it was sent back due to poor off-model animation. IIRC the amount of money they spent fixing certain episodes is what made season 1 a mid season replacement show.

Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on April 24, 2012, 11:48:50 AM
According to that John Ortved book from a few years ago Fox initially was weary of making The Simpsons a full on series, and wanted to test the waters by making specials, aka a Halloween special or a Christmas special.  James L Brooks and Sam Simon refused, and since they pulled a lot of weight at the time(they were both veterans in the TV biz, and Fox was a brand new network) production as a series began.  Ironically, when Some Enchanted Evening came back looking like shit and the show depended on Bart The Genius coming back looking alright(which thankfully it did, only small bits had to be touched up, versus the roughly 70% of Evening needing to be redone), they couldn't start off as a normal series and had to resort to airing a Christmas special.  It's just funny looking back at it.

Also, either Al Jean or Groening himself have said how much of a corner they backed themselves into with the episode, specifically Santa's Little Helper.  The dog appeared in the first episode aired, but not in the next several to air, he wasn't really established as being part of the family beyond the Christmas episode until Season 2.  Something that wasn't originally supposed to be a big part of the show pretty much had to be(including his name, which was originally just supposed to be part of the setup of Homer at the dog track and needing an omen), and the dog appeared and even starred in episodes in the future, the next episode being "Bart's Dog Gets an F".
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 24, 2012, 03:18:06 PM
Quote from: Lord Dalek on April 24, 2012, 09:52:41 AM
Yeah Some Enchanted Evening was originally going to be the first episode broadcast but it was sent back due to poor off-model animation. IIRC the amount of money they spent fixing certain episodes is what made season 1 a mid season replacement show.
And it still looks like garbage compared to the rest of the season.

Quote from: Comeau on April 24, 2012, 11:48:50 AM
According to that John Ortved book from a few years ago Fox initially was weary of making The Simpsons a full on series, and wanted to test the waters by making specials, aka a Halloween special or a Christmas special.  James L Brooks and Sam Simon refused, and since they pulled a lot of weight at the time(they were both veterans in the TV biz, and Fox was a brand new network) production as a series began.  Ironically, when Some Enchanted Evening came back looking like shit and the show depended on Bart The Genius coming back looking alright(which thankfully it did, only small bits had to be touched up, versus the roughly 70% of Evening needing to be redone), they couldn't start off as a normal series and had to resort to airing a Christmas special.  It's just funny looking back at it.

Also, either Al Jean or Groening himself have said how much of a corner they backed themselves into with the episode, specifically Santa's Little Helper.  The dog appeared in the first episode aired, but not in the next several to air, he wasn't really established as being part of the family beyond the Christmas episode until Season 2.  Something that wasn't originally supposed to be a big part of the show pretty much had to be(including his name, which was originally just supposed to be part of the setup of Homer at the dog track and needing an omen), and the dog appeared and even starred in episodes in the future, the next episode being "Bart's Dog Gets an F".
As off-balance as season one can be at times, other than Some Enchanted Evening, I thought the animation turned out pretty well as a whole. SLH missing in some episodes was no big deal since he was just a dog I figured he was in the backyard or something. It wasn't like they introduced a new kid that lived with them or something. That would have been odd.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 24, 2012, 07:58:21 PM
Enjoy (http://moviesimpsons.tumblr.com/).
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on May 24, 2012, 08:00:42 PM
Quote from: Brak's Dad on May 24, 2012, 07:58:21 PM
Enjoy (http://moviesimpsons.tumblr.com/).

Hah.

Citizen's Kane "No Trespassing" is easily the best.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 24, 2012, 08:02:20 PM
So much effort in the early seasons.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 24, 2012, 08:02:29 PM
You could easily make gifs of Skinner scenes and find every bit of footage of Norman Bates to accompany it with.

This is going to turn out to become a fun blog.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 29, 2012, 06:50:44 PM
Huh, "The Last Temptation of Krust" was Wiki's article of the day yesterday.

You know, I haven't actually seen that one in ages.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on May 29, 2012, 07:07:10 PM
That episode is awful.  Not a fan of much of season 8.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 29, 2012, 07:07:51 PM
I thought season 8 was excellent. It has the best season finale, too.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on July 22, 2012, 05:40:12 PM
Have you guys been keeping up with the movie blog I posted not that long ago?

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7appaFqyv1rwuq4jo2_500.gif)

This is one of my favs.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on July 22, 2012, 06:25:15 PM
Man, how many references to The Birds did A Street Car Named Marge have? Jesus man.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on July 22, 2012, 06:36:10 PM
Thanks to The Simpsons, every single Kubrick film was spoiled for me years before I ever got to watch them.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on July 22, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
The Simpsons sure had a knack for referencing movies all over. They even did stuff with Ace in the Hole, for crying out loud.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on August 22, 2012, 09:42:17 PM
I hate how in The Simpsons movie, Springfield becomes more exciting than ever...and they leave. Alaska was boring as hell except for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t774IRMqY1w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t774IRMqY1w) The film would have been 10 times better if they stayed. I know movies like to go on adventures but The Simpsons hiding out from the rest of the town until they can figure out how to break the dome would have been easy gold.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on August 22, 2012, 09:45:03 PM
Well, they were about to be killed. They had no choice but to leave.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on August 22, 2012, 09:52:06 PM
I know, I'm mostly complaining about how much Alaska sucked. :sly:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on August 23, 2012, 08:25:36 AM
I realized something yesterday. Since Community's ending next season, and The Simpsons' waning popularity shows that FOX might be willing to take a risk, why don't they hire the writers and producers of the former as the new staff of the latter?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on August 23, 2012, 04:23:18 PM
Probably because they don't want to risk anything with the show at this point. Just let it slide to its ending point and quietly end it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on August 23, 2012, 04:24:42 PM
I would not be surprised if the show does end next year with its 25th season.

It's not SNL or Sesame Street. The show does have an expiration date.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on August 23, 2012, 04:32:47 PM
As bad as the show is now, I don't want it to die like a diseased animal. It should be allowed to have at least one more spark of glory before being put down.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on August 23, 2012, 04:36:06 PM
That would be nice, but I don't see Fox agreeing with this method. It's a shame that the show is likely going to end be being filler before Bob's Burgers.

Really though, a new set of writers would add some much-needed blood into the show, and if getting the people behind Community and Better Off Ted would help, so be it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Eddy on August 24, 2012, 02:45:19 AM
The Simpsons is long overdue to be killed.

But once it is will "Animation Domination" have anything, aside from Bob's Burgers, that isn't a Seth MacFarlane show?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on August 24, 2012, 01:19:02 PM
Eh, they'll experiment. The Cleveland Show doesn't have much life left in it either, and Bob's Burgers probably won't become more than a mid-season replacement.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on August 24, 2012, 07:07:29 PM
I see a LOT of fluctuating in the schedule after the Simpsons leaves for good.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 09, 2012, 08:08:49 PM
Let the bears pay the bear tax, I pay the Homer tax.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 09, 2012, 08:12:06 PM
ahuh huh, what tax?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on October 09, 2012, 08:22:32 PM
(http://poots.com/card/images/img_1134.jpg)

Because I love you all.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 09, 2012, 08:27:48 PM
Get eurass back to Eurasia.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 09, 2012, 08:28:22 PM
Free John Schwartzwelder.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 09, 2012, 08:29:29 PM
John 3:16
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 10, 2012, 01:30:01 AM
Quote from: Comeau on October 09, 2012, 08:29:29 PM
John 3:16
And the lord said, "Go Sox".
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 10, 2012, 05:24:32 AM
Go away Simpson!  We don't love you like we did in 1993!
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 10, 2012, 05:47:12 AM
Is it just my imagination or is TV getting worse?

Eh, it's about the same.  Uh-oh, look out Smithers!

CRASH!

He he, I love this show.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 12, 2012, 10:23:49 AM
Nice PJs, Simpson!  Did your mommy buy them for you?

Of course she did, who else would have?

Alright Simpson, you win this round!
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Eddy on October 17, 2012, 03:03:56 AM
Around these times of the presidential election I can't help but think of that classic Treehouse of Horror episode.

"Abortions for all!"
"Booooooo!"
"Very well... no abortions for anyone!"
"Booooooo!"
"Hmm... abortions for some. Miniature American flags for all of us!"
"Yaaaaaay!"

"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos!"
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 17, 2012, 01:37:01 PM
Don't forget your stinking flag!
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Rosalinas Spare Wand on October 19, 2012, 02:07:30 AM
You call that a knife? THIS...IS A KNIFE.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on October 19, 2012, 02:19:55 AM
Quote from: Rosalinas Spare Wand on October 19, 2012, 02:07:30 AM
You call that a knife? THIS...IS A KNIFE.

That's not a knife. That's a spoon.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on November 19, 2012, 10:13:51 PM
AWFUL SCHOOL IS AWFUL RICH.

Why is it when I heard the words "school" and "explosion" I immediately thought of the word "SKINNER"?!

You know those guitars that are, like, double guitars?  Woah.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on November 20, 2012, 11:29:57 PM
Uh... (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-simpsons-is-filming-a-judd-apatow-spec-script,88996/)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on December 04, 2012, 11:56:29 AM
So season 15's out today. It actually has some pretty good episodes from what I recall, but I still probably won't ever get it.

You guys?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on December 04, 2012, 12:40:33 PM
The DVD? What the hell?! I haven't seen it advertised or mentioned anywhere.

Is this the season with the Battle Bots parody? I actually kind of like that episode.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on December 04, 2012, 12:46:07 PM
Yeah I didn't even know it was coming out until I saw someone I follow on tumblr do a late-night run for it. I double-checked and saw that it is, in fact, out.

Otto's on the cover this time.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on December 04, 2012, 03:41:51 PM
I was settled with ten and even that's a bit shaky for my tastes. I'm good where I am.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on December 04, 2012, 04:42:29 PM
I knew it was coming out, but then again I do semi-frequent a Simpsons message board.  Yes, I am getting this season, and in fact it is the last season I plan on getting.  I like a few episodes from 16, but not enough for me to justify buying the set, and I don't care about anything 17+.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on December 04, 2012, 06:16:39 PM
You're still on No Homers?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on December 06, 2012, 09:39:55 AM
I said semi.  I go on once every week or so, sometimes more, and occasionally post, though more often then not in the ot.  Every once in a great while I post about The Simpsons.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on December 25, 2012, 07:23:34 PM
It's so weird watching season 15 episodes, I can't believe they are this old already.  I remember watching episodes like "Today I Am A Clown" and "Diatribe of a Mad Housewife" like it literally was yesterday, but they are nearly a decade old.  Crazy.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Rosalinas Spare Wand on March 02, 2013, 06:46:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNrn-7zjmYw
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on March 03, 2013, 01:55:50 AM
Quote from: Rosalinas Spare Wand on March 02, 2013, 06:46:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNrn-7zjmYw

This makes as much sense as the time they did Ke$ha's Tik Tok as a couch opening gag.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Mr. Big on March 09, 2013, 06:37:41 PM
So Bill Plympton did a second couch gag for the Simpsons. According to him, it was originally done for another episode but Fox rejected it. Eventually they changed their minds, and it will air on tomorrow's episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYI2_dErdds
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 07, 2013, 02:29:10 PM
Found season 3 for $6 at GoodWill and hit that up.

I'm still surprised at how few seasons of the show I own on DVD.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 23, 2013, 12:06:37 AM
Anddd now they have season 2 as well. I don't think I'd care to spend double digits on the first 2 years, so I'm certainly interested in picking it up, but I just don't have much money, and by the time I will, it'll probably be sold out.

But on the bright side, I am enjoying season 3.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on April 23, 2013, 12:18:57 AM
I only own seasons 1-5 at this point.

Just not one of those shows on my "must own" list right now. Of course, I've been spending a lot more money on games than DVDs over the past couple of months, so there's also that.

One of these days I'll finish it up, to a certain degree at least (I figure Season 10 or 11 is a good stopping point).
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on April 23, 2013, 12:20:17 AM
Got 2-4, and 6-9. Don't know why I never bought 5.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 23, 2013, 12:23:22 AM
Five is kind of weird and has an off start, if memory serves me. But "Cape Feare" more than makes up for whatever's wrong with it.

At this point, I want to own at least the first 9 or 10 seasons, give or take the first, since it's a great show and its syndication package sucks. Not only is it awesome to own the full, uncut episodes, but now I don't have to wait through cycles of the 17th or whatever season to catch maybe a week's worth of episodes from season 4.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on April 23, 2013, 12:24:53 AM
God, that was a bitch when the late-season episodes started outnumbering the good episodes. It got to a point where you couldn't even watch a rerun that premiered earlier than 2010.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on April 23, 2013, 12:36:22 AM
It's one of those shows were DVDs are definitely a must, just given the sheer volume of material alone (and the fact that most markets don't care about any episode older than 2-3 years).

I was shocked when one of the local channels here had a Season 1 episode on the other day (think it was The Crepes of Wrath IIRC). This is definitely not the norm, though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 23, 2013, 12:40:52 AM
Stopping at 10 is the best idea. Starting with season 11 even the commentary gets awful along with most of the episodes. Season 10 is a bit shaky at times but it's still solid and the commentary has some interesting tidbits that help some episodes out a bit. Mike Scully even apologizes a few times (though Matt Selman tries to defend some stupid choices instead) and has a pretty good personality.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on April 23, 2013, 12:48:14 AM
I have the first fourteen. Fifteen is the last season I like, but I'm waiting until I can find the DVD at a lower price. Screw $40.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on April 23, 2013, 12:06:49 PM
When do you guys predict this show will finally come to an end?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on April 23, 2013, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on April 23, 2013, 12:06:49 PMWhen do you guys predict this show will finally come to an end?

2050 :sly:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: The Shadow Gentleman on May 23, 2013, 07:33:33 PM
So I'm going to watch the first 10 seasons.

I'll post my thoughts about each season when I finish it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 23, 2013, 07:37:14 PM
Cool, I'd like to here 'em.v :)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: The Shadow Gentleman on May 31, 2013, 09:45:00 AM
                                                                                        Season One
                                                                        *Foggle voice* Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

One thing that I noticed as that there isn't a lot of early installment weirdness (for the most part). The characters all seem fairly well defined. I really like how, unlike a lot of sitcom families, you can actually believe these people really love each other. Not as many moments I found laugh out loud funny, but the humor still works just fine. I might not buy this season on DVD though.

Favorite Episodes: Bart the General, The Telltale Head, and Krusty Gets Busted

Favorite Quote: "If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd put them on in prime time."
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 31, 2013, 11:39:37 AM
Yeah season 1 is a solid start, it's probably because the shorts helped to define the characters early.

The only episodes that seem really off to me are The Crepes Of Wrath, Some Enchanted Evening, and the one where Homer is the most reasonable and least embarrassing family member.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on May 31, 2013, 01:12:17 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on May 31, 2013, 11:39:37 AM
, and the one where Homer is the most reasonable and least embarrassing family member.

For me the only part I liked in that episode was the part where they all shocked each other in that therapy session. Other than that, it does feel out of place for the Simpsons.

But yeah, my favorite episodes in Season 1 are pretty much the same as SG's.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on May 31, 2013, 01:21:32 PM
Homer's Odyssey is the only episode I don't like, mainly because the characterizations are way off.  Homer himself changes character like three or four times alone in the episode.

And I find Some Enchanted Evening interesting just because of the production history of that episode.  It almost killed the show before it even got off the ground.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 31, 2013, 03:25:25 PM
Quote from: Daxdiv on May 31, 2013, 01:12:17 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on May 31, 2013, 11:39:37 AM
, and the one where Homer is the most reasonable and least embarrassing family member.

For me the only part I liked in that episode was the part where they all shocked each other in that therapy session. Other than that, it does feel out of place for the Simpsons.

But yeah, my favorite episodes in Season 1 are pretty much the same as SG's.
Oh yeah, that segment was good.

But it still illustrated how out of character Homer was since he went right back into being normal Homer in the sequence.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 31, 2013, 04:33:44 PM
I haven't seen much of season 1 in a while, but I remember exactly what you're talking about. I think it was a good idea that they swept this aspect of Homer under the rug almost immediately.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on May 31, 2013, 06:31:46 PM
Some Enchanted Evening is an interesting story (production wise), but it's just too weird and kinda hard to watch given all that. The shifts in animation are still noticeable, and really, I always found it to easily the weakest episode of the season anyway.

...of course, it's been ages since I've even watched Season 1, so it might be time to bust out the DVDs again to see if that's changed at all. I don't remember being a huge fan of The Call of the Simpsons either, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on July 18, 2013, 02:50:47 PM
Fox has FINALLY given in to peer pressure. (http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/07/18/simpsons-family-guy-crossover-episode)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on July 18, 2013, 02:52:18 PM
Huh, well Matt and Seth are friends, so I never thought this was a complete impossibility. Should hopefully be good.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Lord Il on July 18, 2013, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: Daikun on July 18, 2013, 02:50:47 PM
Fox has FINALLY given in to peer pressure. (http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/07/18/simpsons-family-guy-crossover-episode)
I gotta admit, this could be fun.

There's been playful little shots at each other as well as cameos between these shows for quite a while. It was inevitable.

Since this is going to be a one-shot alternate thing, I'd like to see Maggie pull that pacifier out of her mouth and get the guest voice treatment from someone like Tara Strong - If Stewie can speak and be perfectly understood, so should Maggie. At least for this episode.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on July 18, 2013, 06:36:52 PM
Hopefully Quagmire won't be anywhere near Marge this time.  :wth:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on July 18, 2013, 08:24:52 PM
Quote from: Peanutbutter on July 18, 2013, 06:36:52 PM
Hopefully Quagmire won't be anywhere near Marge this time.  :wth:
One thing's for sure about this special- Fox is going to make sure something like that doesn't happen again.

Also, am I weird for wondering who else will show up in this special? Like other MacFarlane or Groening creations, or maybe KOTH or Bob's Burgers characters?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Lord Il on July 18, 2013, 08:40:24 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on July 18, 2013, 08:24:52 PMAlso, am I weird for wondering who else will show up in this special? Like other MacFarlane or Groening creations, or maybe KOTH or Bob's Burgers characters?
Not weird at all! Since learning of this crossover here today, I'm actually quite intrigued by what could happen. 8)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 18, 2013, 11:59:51 PM
Saw this coming honestly, it was only a matter of time.  Both are desperate now for the attention, and Fox will do anything to make money, so it was only natural that this would happen.  The good thing is that this is happening at a time when it can't possibly make either show worse than they already are(in The Simpsons case, nothing's worse than Lady Gaga/Glee/American Idol crossovers they've already done), and actually it might even be watchable.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on July 19, 2013, 04:21:44 AM
Eh, that Lady Gaga episode wasn't great, but it was far from horrible. Better than it had any right to be honestly.

I love crossovers, but I honestly have zero interest in one between The Simpsons and Family Guy. I'd rather have an animated adaption of The Simpsons/Futurama crossover crises comic, to be perfectly honest. I don't have  any expectations for this, but hopefully it will be a fun watch for the fans of both series.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Goldstar on July 19, 2013, 07:27:46 AM
I'm indifferent about this news. First, I'm not a huge fan of crossovers in general, as most of them have no real story or anything to hold my interest beyond the novelty of "Hey! It's so-and-so on the same screen as such-and-such!" Second, I haven't watched either The Simpsons nor Family Guy in years. This might have been news years ago when TS and FG were relevant, but now, not so much. I might look in on a few minutes of the episode, but I can't say that I'm motivated enough to sit through an entire episode.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on July 19, 2013, 07:55:38 AM
To the guy who thought this was a good idea.

(http://i.imgur.com/OiYOLqF.jpg)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Silverstar on July 19, 2013, 11:25:58 AM
Good one, Doc.  :lol:

But yeah, this would be news to me if a) I still watched either show and b) both shows weren't already well past their prime. Now this whole thing just smacks of "attention-grabbing ratings gimmick". All I can say about this is "OK, so that's happening. Now, are there any Twinkies left?"  :thinkin:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 20, 2013, 07:20:34 PM
Well hey, at least there's gonna be a Simpsons/Futurama crossover as well.

Shit, maybe the end of the show is coming after all.  It sure seems like an exit stage left.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on July 20, 2013, 08:12:17 PM
Quote from: Comeau on July 20, 2013, 07:20:34 PM
Well hey, at least there's gonna be a Simpsons/Futurama crossover as well.

Shit, maybe the end of the show is coming after all.  It sure seems like an exit stage left.


In the back of my mind, that's what I've been thinking as well. That this isn't necessarily only a ratings stunt, but a weird way of The Simpsons officially passing the torch just before they leave.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on July 20, 2013, 08:17:21 PM
There are Simpsons/Futurama comics?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 20, 2013, 08:23:29 PM
There have been Simpsons/Futurama comics almost as long as there has been Simpsons/Futurama TV shows.  The Simpsons alone has several different series of comics that are released throughout the year(there's a regular Simpsons one, a THOH one, a Bart Simpson's Stories one, and so on).

Don't forget too that Matt Groening is a comic artist at heart, that's where he started out.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on July 21, 2013, 04:18:30 PM
I meant crossover comics
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Lord Il on July 21, 2013, 04:57:18 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 21, 2013, 04:18:30 PM
I meant crossover comics
Yep!
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Futurama/Simpsons_Infinitely_Secret_Crossover_Crisis

I remember picking these up and reading them in the local comic book stores.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on July 30, 2013, 11:51:11 AM
And now the show might be coming to cable. (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-simpsons-are-going-to-cable-next-year,100903/)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on July 30, 2013, 12:24:55 PM
Man, if it gets on [adult swim], their weekday schedule is gonna be FOX show reruns all night for sure (well, maybe Robot Chicken would keep it's weekday slots).
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 30, 2013, 06:28:20 PM
Fuck cable, at this point strike a deal and get it on Netflix.  That'd be the best situation.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 30, 2013, 06:31:45 PM
Only if we can finally get KOTH on Netflix up here first.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 30, 2013, 06:35:55 PM
But we already have Kin... oh right, Canada.


Actually it'd be funny to see the show end up on Nick at Nite.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on July 30, 2013, 07:29:30 PM
I was going to say that it would be the first time they ever aired a show that was currently in production but not an original for them, but they used to air 70's era SNL in like the late 80's/early 90's. And when Victorious was airing at 8 PM, that was technically part of Nick@Nite too, for whatever reason.

That would be the first animated series they aired though, besides that one show Bill Cosby produced, but no one remembers.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 30, 2013, 08:20:37 PM
House Of Cosby?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on July 30, 2013, 08:23:13 PM
Little Bill? Oh wait.. that was Nick Jr.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Goldstar on July 30, 2013, 08:23:50 PM
QuoteThat would be the first animated series they aired though, besides that one show Bill Cosby produced, but no one remembers.

That would be Fatherhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherhood_(TV_series)), Nick at Nite's 1st original animated series (although it would have been the 2nd, had Ralph Bashki's Tattertown gone beyond the 1 special). I never saw that series, but I was aware of it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 30, 2013, 08:25:06 PM
I watched some of it, just standard Bill Cosby schlock.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 30, 2013, 08:26:18 PM
Oh yeah, I was thinking of that weird web series from a while back.

I remember Fatherhood existing, but that's about it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on July 30, 2013, 08:33:10 PM
I thought we were doing a bit here.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 30, 2013, 08:35:12 PM
With the hippin' and the hoppin' and the bippin' and the boppin'.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 30, 2013, 08:36:11 PM
Look at me, I'm going down the hill!  Zip Zop Zoobity Bop!

Pokemon!  Pokemon!  With the poke poke and the mon mon and the rahr rahr rahr.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 30, 2013, 08:38:15 PM
Jazz is like the New Coke, it'll be around forever and ever.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 30, 2013, 08:40:26 PM
You see the kids










don't know what the Jaaazzz.... IS ALL ABOUT.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 30, 2013, 08:41:41 PM
For real though, that Dr. Dre/Bill Cosby mashup song is one of the funniest things I've ever heard.  I still crack up whenever I hear it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 30, 2013, 08:46:10 PM
Highly relevant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZwgu8_b0Vw)

It comes back around.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on July 30, 2013, 08:57:27 PM
Dad, I have a serious problem! I got a girl pregnant!
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on July 30, 2013, 09:14:15 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 30, 2013, 08:46:10 PM
Highly relevant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZwgu8_b0Vw)

It comes back around.

Welp.... you can't say we were never warned about it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on July 30, 2013, 10:53:22 PM
I remember when I got to that scene while watching the season 3 set I got a few months ago. Holy shit, is that prophetic.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on September 25, 2013, 04:53:34 PM
Alright, so my local Fox syndicate dropped the show for Modern Family. A quick look elsewhere makes it seem like my area isn't the only one to lose the show's long-standing slot.

How about you guys?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on September 25, 2013, 06:35:48 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on September 25, 2013, 04:53:34 PM
Alright, so my local Fox syndicate dropped the show for Modern Family. A quick look elsewhere makes it seem like my area isn't the only one to lose the show's long-standing slot.

How about you guys?

The Simpsons moved from Fox 5 to My9 where I live. Fox now airs Modern Family reruns as well. So far they've been airing some of the older episodes as well, along with the newer ones. Today was Kamp Krusty as the older one. I know one of my Latest Hits station played an ad saying that the Simpsons and Big Bang Theory moved to My9, which is why I knew it was on that channel. Though, the ad didn't mention that the Simpsons starts at 6:30, they only included the 7 o'clock hour.

Hell, I was surprised when I saw the syndicated Simpsons off of Fox as well, even more surprised when I saw ads that Modern Family was entering syndication. When I saw they gave an hour to it, I was like "Then, what's gonna happen to Simpsons and TBBT?"
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on September 25, 2013, 07:29:26 PM
TV Guide says it plays every night at midnight here.  Don't give two shits though, can't remember the last time I watched The Simpsons on TV.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on September 25, 2013, 07:38:17 PM
These channels are probably getting ready for the show's new syndication package as well.  It's one of the few older holdouts that still airs on over-the-air channels, but I think after 20th TV strikes a deal with a cable network or multiple cable networks it will no longer be readily available on these channels, they have too many more modern sitcoms to air instead.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on September 25, 2013, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: Lord Il on July 21, 2013, 04:57:18 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 21, 2013, 04:18:30 PM
I meant crossover comics
Yep!
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Futurama/Simpsons_Infinitely_Secret_Crossover_Crisis

I remember picking these up and reading them in the local comic book stores.
Thanks.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Eddy on September 30, 2013, 02:40:15 AM
Man, Netflix really needs to add The Simpsons so I can relive all the good seasons. Which I'm sad to realize are now in the minority and have been for years.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on October 04, 2013, 06:44:04 PM
To the surprise of no one... (http://www.tvmediainsights.com/highlights/32189/fox-renews-the-simpsons-for-season-26/)

They might as well just go for 30 at this point. Wrapping it up at some weird number like 27 or 28 just doesn't have the same mystique to it, even if at least 1/3 of those seasons are forgettable/crap.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on October 04, 2013, 06:46:15 PM
If they don't go for 30 I'd be surprised.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on October 04, 2013, 07:22:03 PM
Man, I got to wonder if this show will go on for as long as my life.

Also, I thought this was entertaining. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifLzSgIZrS0)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on October 04, 2013, 07:25:22 PM
Oh god, this show really just won't die will it?  :shit:

Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 04, 2013, 08:48:36 PM
haha, people thought the show would call it a day at 25.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 04, 2013, 08:58:39 PM
Yeah, I was wrong there.

Oh well.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on October 04, 2013, 09:05:33 PM
Considered the production getting higher plus that dispute with the cast earlier, I think The Simpsons could very well end on 26 or 27. It would take a lot to keep it going for much longer, and there are certain signs that even they thought this season would be their last.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on October 04, 2013, 09:15:56 PM
I think they'll gamble on the buzz that "30 seasons!" could provide them with a sharp bump, plus there will be more episodes for syndication. I don't think they'll get much out of something like that, but I could see it happening.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on October 04, 2013, 09:21:31 PM
How many more episodes does the Simpsons need to have to beat Gunsmoke again?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on October 04, 2013, 09:36:52 PM
Gunsmoke has 635 episodes, a number The Simpsons will reach around season 29, if it lasts that long. HOWEVER, 402 of those episodes of Gunsmoke had an hour-long runtime, so technically to match Gunsmoke in minutes would be for The Simpsons to last 1037 episodes, which would take around 2.5 more decades for the show to reach.

...yeaaahhhhh
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 26, 2013, 01:42:39 PM
RIP Edna (http://www.avclub.com/articles/rip-marcia-wallace-aka-the-simpsons-mrs-krabappel,104770/) :(
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on October 26, 2013, 03:46:41 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on October 26, 2013, 01:42:39 PMRIP Edna (http://www.avclub.com/articles/rip-marcia-wallace-aka-the-simpsons-mrs-krabappel,104770/) :(

Damn. That was a bad time to make this announcement (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/the-simpsons-death-season-25_n_4022964.html) earlier this month.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 26, 2013, 04:13:10 PM
Well according to Al Jean-

"Earlier we had discussed a potential storyline in which a character passed away. This was not Marcia's Edna Krabappel. Marcia's passing is unrelated and again, a terrible loss for all who had the pleasure of knowing her."
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 26, 2013, 07:40:55 PM
"But one thing I can tell you, any time I hear the wind blow it will whisper the name...Edna."

R.I.P.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on October 27, 2013, 02:18:22 PM
Yes R.I.P Marcia Wallace. Will her character will be retired?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on October 27, 2013, 02:22:44 PM
I'd expect so. When Phil Hartman died, Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz were retired, after all.

I wonder how they'll write her out of the show, though. Especially considering the fact Edna is married to Ned, now. I guess this means he's going to have to become a widower twice...
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on October 27, 2013, 02:42:38 PM
Quote from: Cartoon X on October 27, 2013, 02:22:44 PM
I'd expect so. When Phil Hartman died, Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz were retired, after all.

I wonder how they'll write her out of the show, though. Especially considering the fact Edna is married to Ned, now. I guess this means he's going to have to become a widower twice...
Jesus fucking Christ, REALLY?! :whuh:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 27, 2013, 04:30:56 PM
It's sad, but it's really something that they need to keep in mind considering some of the cast members are getting up there in age and they don't seem to want to end the show.  Harry Shearer is getting up there, what are they gonna do when he goes, retire the dozen or so regular characters that he voices?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on October 27, 2013, 04:35:52 PM
They'd be better off canceling the show if Harry Shearer or other principal cast members like Dan Castellaneta, Nancy Cartwright, or Hank Azaria die. I can't imagine anyone else replacing their iconic voices.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 27, 2013, 05:06:09 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on October 27, 2013, 02:18:22 PM
Yes R.I.P Marcia Wallace. Will her character will be retired?
I don't have a link with me right now (Daikun probably does though), but they will.

Quote from: Cartoon X on October 27, 2013, 04:35:52 PM
They'd be better off canceling the show if Harry Shearer or other principal cast members like Dan Castellaneta, Nancy Cartwright, or Hank Azaria die. I can't imagine anyone else replacing their iconic voices.
I'm pretty sure they will. You can't retire any of the primary Simpsons, and it's hard to imagine anyone replacing their voices.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on October 28, 2013, 01:05:24 PM
It's unimaginable. That should solicit a cancellation.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on October 28, 2013, 03:30:43 PM
R.I.P.

Quote from: Cartoon X on October 27, 2013, 02:22:44 PM
I'd expect so. When Phil Hartman died, Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz were retired, after all.

I wonder how they'll write her out of the show, though. Especially considering the fact Edna is married to Ned, now. I guess this means he's going to have to become a widower twice...
Or just not have her in a speaking role again. I'd rather that to killing her off.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on October 28, 2013, 04:01:43 PM
I vote for the unexplained absence route.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on October 28, 2013, 08:07:52 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on October 28, 2013, 03:30:43 PM
R.I.P.

Quote from: Cartoon X on October 27, 2013, 02:22:44 PM
I'd expect so. When Phil Hartman died, Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz were retired, after all.

I wonder how they'll write her out of the show, though. Especially considering the fact Edna is married to Ned, now. I guess this means he's going to have to become a widower twice...
Or just not have her in a speaking role again. I'd rather that to killing her off.

Yeah. As I said on TZ, I'd still like to see her in background shots, preferably with Ned to show that that's still going well, but she doesn't need a prominent role ever again.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Goldstar on October 28, 2013, 08:20:18 PM
According to this article (http://www.thewrap.com/edna-krabappel-will-retired-marcia-wallaces-death-simpsons-producer-says/) Mrs. Krabapple will be retired, but not killed off.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Silverstar on October 29, 2013, 07:52:18 AM
I'm probably going to catch a lot of flack for this (I KNOW I'd get shit flung at me if I said it on Toon Zone, which is why I'm not going to), but what is this thing the producers of this show have against just replacing voice actors? They'd rather retire characters or write them off than just get new people to voice them. I don't get it. Hanna-Barbera didn't retire their characters when Mel Blanc, Daws Butler and Don Messick and the principle voice cast of The Flinstones passed away, Warner Bros. didn't retire the Looney Tunes when Mel Blanc passed away, Sega didn't retire Sonic the Hedgehog when Jaleel White stopped voicing him. Disney didn't retire Mickey Mouse after Walt Disney passed away. Kermit the Frog wasn't retired after Jim Henson passed away. DiC didn't retire Inspector Gadget when Don Adams passed, and all of those characters are far more popular and iconic than Maude Flanders or Edna Krabappel, so why can't The Simpsons producers just hire new voices and get on with the show? Yeah, some voices become iconic and it's hard to imagine new people voicing certain characters, but IMO it's ridiculous to assume that only one person can be permitted to voice a character and if something happens to them or they leave, the character has to die or be retired. No one lives forever. If every cartoon did that, then eventually all cartoons would either be dead or permanently retired.

It especially makes no sense when you consider they had no problem replacing a voice actor on Futurama; the character of Zapp Branagan was originally going to be voiced by Phil Hartman, but when he was tragically killed, they didn't shelf the character, they just gave him to Billy West, so I really don't see why the same can't be done on The Simpsons.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on October 29, 2013, 09:19:28 AM
Well, Phil wasn't alive when they actually made any episodes featuring Zapp.  It's the equivalent of shelving a character just because one of the audition actors died. With Edna, the producers felt that the role was just as much Marcia Wallace's as it was the show's after over two decades. Plus, Krabappel's not really one of The Simpsons or somebody carrying the show. The reason they replaced Kermit and Inspector Gadget was because, well, they're the leads. And even in Jim Henson's death, they kept Rowlf in stasis for a while before deciding to replace him.

Plus, the cast & crew saw her as family. (http://gobbingoff.tumblr.com/post/65406585631/i-was-just-thinking) It's hard to immediately replace people you've known and loved for years with someone right off the bat.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Goldstar on October 29, 2013, 09:57:18 AM
I would say that for the most part, whether or not or how soon the voice actor/actress should be replaced would depend on how famous the person doing the voice is. Marcia Wallace and Phil Hartman, for example were both known comedic actors whose faces were recognized on camera; they weren't just voice actors. People knew who they were, as opposed to the likes of Mel Blanc, Don Messick and Daws Butler, who were mainly known for the cartoon characters whom they provided the voices for, so they were easier to replace.

In the case of Phil Hartman, the characters of Lionel Hutz and Troy McLure, were clearly written with Phil Hartman in mind, so it's not surprising that the shows' producers wouldn't simply cast someone else in those roles. In the case of Maude Flanders, however, I still believe that it wasn't necessary to kill off her character simply because her voice actress quit the show. Edna Krabapple was a major player on the show, but Maude barely made a dent went she was alive. I didn't know the name of the actress who voiced Maude and still don't today. The shows' producers could have just gotten someone else to voice to Maude and doubt anyone would but the most hardcore of fans would have even cared.

In the case of Fred Flintstone, the syndicated series Fred Flintstone and Friends was the 1st series with Henry Corden as the voice of Fred. FF&F debuted 4 months after the death of Alan Reed, Fred's original voice actor, but most of the Flintstones material used on FF&F was recycled from Pebbles & Bamm-Bamm and The Flinstones Comedy Hour, which was the last series in which Fred was voiced by Reed. Henry Corden only voiced Fred in the wraparounds for the show, which I guess made for an easier transition.

I probably explained that very badly, but that's my take on it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on October 29, 2013, 02:23:58 PM
Quote from: Silverstar on October 29, 2013, 07:52:18 AMwhat is this thing the producers of this show have against just replacing voice actors? They'd rather retire characters or write them off than just get new people to voice them. I don't get it. [long list] why can't The Simpsons producers just hire new voices and get on with the show?

Well, as you would state right after...

QuoteYeah, some voices become iconic and it's hard to imagine new people voicing certain characters

That's exactly it. Have you HEARD some of these replacements after their VAs passed away? They sounded TERRIBLE. Many of the LT characters sounded awful post-Mel Blanc. Heck, even Blanc himself was starting to sound like a pale imitation of his own voices during his final years. The only people I can think of to nail some of Mel's classic voices today would be Joe Alaskey and Bob Bergen. It's hard to hear anyone else try their hand at Bugs Bunny and the crew.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on October 29, 2013, 02:25:30 PM
Phil Hartman and Marcia Wallace's characters were specifically modeled after the actors and the actors' performances on them. It isn't like Maude Flanders who nobody really noticed when she was replaced for that brief time, nobody really sounds or acts quite like them.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 29, 2013, 04:51:19 PM
Quote from: Silverstar on October 29, 2013, 07:52:18 AM
I'm probably going to catch a lot of flack for this (I KNOW I'd get shit flung at me if I said it on Toon Zone, which is why I'm not going to), but what is this thing the producers of this show have against just replacing voice actors? They'd rather retire characters or write them off than just get new people to voice them. I don't get it. Hanna-Barbera didn't retire their characters when Mel Blanc, Daws Butler and Don Messick and the principle voice cast of The Flinstones passed away, Warner Bros. didn't retire the Looney Tunes when Mel Blanc passed away, Sega didn't retire Sonic the Hedgehog when Jaleel White stopped voicing him. Disney didn't retire Mickey Mouse after Walt Disney passed away. Kermit the Frog wasn't retired after Jim Henson passed away. DiC didn't retire Inspector Gadget when Don Adams passed, and all of those characters are far more popular and iconic than Maude Flanders or Edna Krabappel, so why can't The Simpsons producers just hire new voices and get on with the show? Yeah, some voices become iconic and it's hard to imagine new people voicing certain characters, but IMO it's ridiculous to assume that only one person can be permitted to voice a character and if something happens to them or they leave, the character has to die or be retired. No one lives forever. If every cartoon did that, then eventually all cartoons would either be dead or permanently retired.

I think the main differance here is that the directors of The Simpsons are deciding/decided to retire their characters after the VA dies, not the company.  It's a sign of respect.  Phil Hartman wasn't just a voice on their cartoon show.  He was their friend. Same with Marcia Wallace. If (god forbid)Mel Blanc had died in the 40s at the peak of the Looney Tunes creative output, I think that Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck may have been retired if Jones and Clampett and Freleng could get their way.  But the reason we still have the characters is because WB decided to recast them.  Nothing is saying that Fox can't recast Edna or Lionel Hutz, but I guarantee it wouldn't go over well with Matt Groening and Jim Brooks and Al Jean and the rest of the show's staff.

Another thing is that characters like Edna are more of side characters.  Sure they added a lot to the show over the years, but they could easily be pushed aside without greatly affecting the final product.  If Dan Castellenata dies tomorrow it's going to be a lot harder for them to try and keep the show alive with Homer down(not even mentioning the other characters he voices).  But if Fox really wanted to they could continue on, just likely with very little or none of the show's current staff(although I personally think with Jim Brooks' connections in Hollywood any chance of the show continuing without Homer would be slim to none).  And of course without Homer Fox risks alienating the audience, which would just lose them money.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 31, 2013, 07:55:07 PM
Nice call here, Fox. (http://www.avclub.com/articles/fox-will-air-bart-the-lover-in-honor-of-marcia-wal,105011/)

Since I now have the season this episode came from, I did end up rewatching the episode the other day. But this is nice for those who don't own it or just want to see it again.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: DarthGonzo on October 31, 2013, 09:00:55 PM
Quote from: Silverstar on October 29, 2013, 07:52:18 AM
Kermit the Frog wasn't retired after Jim Henson passed away.

No, but Rowlf the Dog went completely silent for over a decade while Scooter was retired completely for a long time after Richard Hunt passed away...
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on October 31, 2013, 09:22:49 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on October 31, 2013, 07:55:07 PM
Nice call here, Fox. (http://www.avclub.com/articles/fox-will-air-bart-the-lover-in-honor-of-marcia-wal,105011/)

Since I now have the season this episode came from, I did end up rewatching the episode the other day. But this is nice for those who don't own it or just want to see it again.


That is still the best peformance of Ms. Wallace in the entire show. A shame that aside from her realtionships with Skinners and Flanders, Mrs. Krabapple never got that kind of episode ever again. Unless I'm forgetting an episode.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on November 01, 2013, 01:18:35 AM
Off topic I know, but I amazed Caroll Spinney is still alive.  Was reading something the other day and it mentioned how he's been performing Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch since day one.  It's just simply amazing he's still able to do it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on November 15, 2013, 12:57:19 PM
And the channel that gets the syndication rights to the show is... (http://www.avclub.com/articles/money-can-be-exchanged-for-goods-and-servicesand-t,105670/)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on November 15, 2013, 02:12:23 PM
$750 million? The previous press release (http://www.toonzone.net/2013/07/the-simpsons-win-the-lottery) said it would cost a billion.

I guess FXX got a family discount. Yay, nepotism!

Anyway, I'm glad that Adult Swim didn't wind up being the winner. Hopefully, they can now grow up and not depend on Fox as much.

They also don't have any reason to keep the 9PM hour after the new year. Heh heh. Funny how that works out.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on November 15, 2013, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: Daikun on November 15, 2013, 02:12:23 PM

They also don't have any reason to keep the 9PM hour after the new year. Heh heh. Funny how that works out.

Why? Are they losing King of the Hill?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on November 15, 2013, 02:51:25 PM
Quote from: Cartoon X on November 15, 2013, 02:46:05 PMWhy? Are they losing King of the Hill?

I don't think they can. I'm just stating that any reason to keep the 9PM hour has been shafted. They had a chance and they blew it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on November 15, 2013, 03:03:51 PM
Saw this coming. They are gonna try and use the show to save their (unnecessary) new channel, considering it's not doing so hot right now. Fox is also probably hoping this will be a bartering chip to try and get the many cable companies that have the channel in a premium tier to move it down to the basic tier where they want it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on November 15, 2013, 05:09:42 PM
Best Buy knocked the price of Season 15 down from $40 to $20, so I finally picked that up almost a year after it came out.

Looking through this episode list, and I can't believe some of these episodes are 10 years old already. I've only just seen some of these in the last three or so years and thought they were newer than that.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on December 17, 2013, 01:30:25 AM
Have you ever wondered what this tasted like? (http://www.firebox.com/product/4613/Duff-Beer-24-Can-Pack)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on December 17, 2013, 12:23:59 PM
Is this the same Duff you can get at Universal?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on January 11, 2014, 06:19:09 PM
Okay, so I finally got to go back to Universal yesterday, and made my way through Springfield. The whole place is basically Matt Groening and James L. Brooks' wet dream- a perpetual money-making event for the Simpsons. It's also fun to walk into Moe's and see the Jebediah Springfield bronze statue.

I'll try to post some pictures I took later. And I didn't get a Duff, since I hear that it's basically an overpriced Bud, but I did get a Flaming Moe. It was okay, not sure if it was worth the $8, but I did get to keep the cup. Next time I'll the giant Lard Boy donut. My friends who work there and got me in tried it before, and it was a challenge for the three of them, so we'll see.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on January 11, 2014, 06:49:00 PM
Does the Flaming Moe have alcohol in it?  What about cough syrup?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on January 11, 2014, 07:19:26 PM
Quote from: Comeau on January 11, 2014, 06:49:00 PM
Does the Flaming Moe have alcohol in it?  What about cough syrup?
Nope, and nope. It kinda tastes like orange soda, with some smoke added in.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on February 11, 2014, 11:55:13 AM
I went to Toys R Us earlier today and saw that there's a new line of Simpsons figures for the 25th anniversary, this one highlighting particular guest stars from the show. There were classic choices with Hugh Hefner and James Brown, some more modern ones with Tom Hanks and Yao Ming (as well as Homer in basketball gear from that same episode, to keep up with tradition of adding at least one variant of a family member per set), and of all choices, Kid Rock. Why the hell would they want us to remember that train wreck of an episode?

That said, if I had money, I'd consider the James Brown figure.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on March 09, 2014, 04:42:45 PM
Remember when we did rankings of series by seasons on here? I'm gonna try to do the same for The Simpsons, but without explaining cause I'm kinda rusty at various points of the series.

Season 1- 7/10
Season 2- 8/10
Season 3- 9/10
Season 4- 10/10
Season 5- 9/10
Season 6- 10/10
Season 7- 1010
Season 8- 9/10
Season 9- 8/10
Season 10- 6/10
Season 11- 4/10
Season 12- 4/10

Everything else after that would be a 6 at best, 3 at worst. What do you guys think?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on March 09, 2014, 04:49:37 PM
I can generally agree with those rankings, though I'd rate seasons 10 and 12 a bit higher myself. That said, I need to revisit parts of the series before I'd do my own rankings, since I haven't rewatched a lot of it in a while, and when I do I tend to just watch seasons 6-10 since I have those on dvd but don't have 2-5, yet.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on March 10, 2014, 01:16:58 PM
http://video.vulture.com/video/The-Simpsons-Says-Farewell-to-E
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on March 10, 2014, 04:03:42 PM
R.I.P. Edna.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on March 10, 2014, 04:15:53 PM
Season 1- 7/10
Season 2- 8/10
Season 3- 10/10
Season 4- 10/10
Season 5- 10/10
Season 6- 10/10
Season 7- 10/10
Season 8- 10/10
Season 9- 9/10
Season 10- 7/10
Season 11- 1/10
Season 12- 1/10
Season 13 - 6/10
Season 14 - 7/10
Season 15 - 7/10

Everything else is a six or five. Completely mediocre.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on March 10, 2014, 06:44:00 PM
Eh, I think season 12 is higher than a 1 myself.

Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 10, 2014, 04:15:53 PM
Everything else is a six or five. Completely mediocre.

I'd actually give season 24 a 7. It had some pretty decent episodes throughout. Aside from that, everything after season 13 is below a 5 for me, except maybe season 18 which I could give a six for the virtue of it's three very good episodes ("Homerazzi," "Marge Gamer," ""24 Minutes").
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on March 11, 2014, 12:32:27 PM
I have a bit of a soft spot for a handful of season 14 and 15 episodes myself. It's not even out of the episodes being so fresh for me when I first saw them, since I was already watching the show as far back as seasons 9 or 10. I just like a surprising handful of episodes from those two years.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on March 11, 2014, 12:58:53 PM
I dunno. I started watching the show in syndication with episodes from season 7 onwards, and then starting watching new episodes with season 17, but over the years I've grown to dislike pretty much any episode between seasons 14-23, even though I mostly enjoyed them as a kid and when I watched them the first time. Maybe I could revisit those seasons again, but I can't think of a single moment from those seasons I enjoyed at the top of my head at the moment.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on March 11, 2014, 04:47:47 PM
I actually like season 14 and 15, its just that their highs aren't very high and their lows are nowhere near as bad as most other post-season 10 seasons.

One writer whose material has dated badly for me was anything Matt Selman wrote. He has a very obvious formula and it has not aged particularly well at all. Since he basically took over most of the writing duties after season 9, it really shows.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on March 11, 2014, 05:06:58 PM
The Simpsons has so many seasons that I've sort of lost track. What was the point that they started getting good, and then started getting bad? I honestly tend to get episodes and seasons mixed up.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on March 11, 2014, 05:14:38 PM
It started as a good show that got great and started petering out around season 9 and came into full collapse in season 11. They smoothed everything out by season 14, but never managed to hit consistent heights again.

I would advise anyone to watch at least season 4. I think that would give you the best idea of what the entirety of the show is like.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on March 11, 2014, 05:35:24 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 11, 2014, 05:14:38 PM
It started as a good show that got great and started petering out around season 9 and came into full collapse in season 11. They smoothed everything out by season 14, but never managed to hit consistent heights again.

I would advise anyone to watch at least season 4. I think that would give you the best idea of what the entirety of the show is like.

Well, for me personally, I've watched my fair share of it. I asked because there's just so much that I was honestly unsure what was what. It's like SpongeBob. Everything after the first three seasons blurs into a giant season 4.

Also, I wasn't a big season 1 fan.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on March 11, 2014, 05:39:22 PM
Season 1 is closer to the idea of the shorts than the proper show.

That Spongebob blur you're talking about is pretty much every season after 14/15 where it becomes one long season. I think every season before that has its own distinguishing feature from the others.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on March 29, 2014, 07:22:30 PM
Simpsons LEGO sets are coming. (http://www.toonzone.net/2014/03/lego-toon-news-simpsons-minifigures-revealed-village-roadshow-pictures-cut-lego-movie-2)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on March 29, 2014, 09:37:18 PM
It's such a shame LEGO sets are so expensive. I'd be all over those otherwise.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on March 31, 2014, 02:05:00 PM
Lunchlady Doris is now Lunchlady Dora. (http://www.avclub.com/article/simpsons-lunchlady-doris-lunchlady-dora-now-202862)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on March 31, 2014, 02:13:24 PM
Kinda a random and pointless name change, but whatever.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on March 31, 2014, 02:22:11 PM
Tell me when Mr. Snrub becomes head of the SNPP.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: King Hippo on March 31, 2014, 04:10:30 PM
The problem with new Simpsons is that everything is about jokes every minute or so. The characters no longer have any personality and just exist so that jokes can be told using them. There's not even a hint at a "real" world beyond Springfield.

Also, and I'm not sure if this makes any sense, the character designs now have a very short and squatty look to them with oversized heads.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on April 09, 2014, 06:10:51 PM
FX is planning a 12-day Simpsons marathon (http://www.avclub.com/article/upfront-roundup-fx-plots-12-days-nonstop-simpsons--203267). 522 episodes, all in a row.

I don't know when this is happening, but I will make sure to watch the first 4 days whenever it does.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on April 09, 2014, 06:21:47 PM
(http://download.lardlad.com/framegrabs/3F12/022.jpg)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on April 09, 2014, 06:37:26 PM
Boy, I sure could go for 100 tacos about now.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 09, 2014, 06:38:58 PM
This seems like the sort of thing they should have done years ago.

Like a THOH marathon on Halloween.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 09, 2014, 06:59:15 PM
I have a feeling that FXX will become like 70% Simpsons marathons now. The other 30% will be repeats of HIMYM and Parks, while Sunny and The League will likely go back to FX.

Just a hunch, though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on April 09, 2014, 09:01:07 PM
If they have Matt Groening or Dan Castellaneta hosts this marathon, I'll try to tune in live.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on April 26, 2014, 09:12:57 PM
Even though I haven't cared for this show in a long time, the couch gags can still be pretty inventive.

Check out the latest one. (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/titles/polish-animator-michal-socha-creates-the-most-creative-simpsons-opening-yet-98756.html)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on April 28, 2014, 05:20:39 PM
Last night's episode set an all time ratings-low for the series. (http://www.avclub.com/article/last-nights-simpsons-episode-set-all-time-ratings--203924)

The sad thing is that it's still doing better than a lot of other shows airing against it on Sunday nights. And it's even sadder to think that FOX will probably keep renewing it even if the ratings continue to decline even lower.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 28, 2014, 05:31:07 PM
Eh, Fox has made it clear for a while that they primarily keep the show alive for merchandising profits.

So basically, fi you want the show to end, stop buying Smpsons shit.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on April 28, 2014, 05:34:48 PM
I stopped buying it ages ago, so no blame on me. :??:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on April 28, 2014, 05:52:57 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on April 28, 2014, 05:34:48 PM
I stopped buying it ages ago, so no blame on me. :??:

Same.  :D
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on April 28, 2014, 11:44:42 PM
Welp, at least my sister opting not to go to Universal this summer and going to Disney for our trip to Florida will at least make sure I don't spend any money in the Simpsons park, so money not earned. :P
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 29, 2014, 12:22:24 PM
Aww, Springfield is worth a look (but I'd take Disney over Universal every time as well, unlike some of my friends).

I didn't buy any merch, but I did get a Flaming Moe. Next time I might try to split one of those giant Lard Boy donuts with my friends.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on July 21, 2014, 02:24:56 PM
The Simpsons/Futurama crossover episode will air this November. (https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/simpsons-futurama-crossover-air-november-010700275.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on July 28, 2014, 02:31:31 PM
Here's 5 minutes of clips from the upcoming Simpsons/Family Guy crossover special. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7YzXMzZ1bU)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 28, 2014, 03:51:21 PM
Who cares?




... Wow, that was mean. Okay, I'm sorry. I just... can't bring myself to care.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on July 28, 2014, 03:54:23 PM
thats an understatement. that could have been said 5 years ago.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on July 28, 2014, 04:22:45 PM
I'll probably end up watching this when it time to air.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on July 28, 2014, 05:19:49 PM
The last two seasons have unfortunately been on the mediocre side besides a few episodes. From the preview, it looks really good but that's not really surprising since about all their special episodes have been good.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Skeeter Valentine on July 31, 2014, 08:17:10 PM
I wonder how many girlfriends Bart is going to get this season.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on August 09, 2014, 01:04:08 AM
This amuses me. (http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/08/reminder-the-internet-even-hated-on-the-simpsons-during-the-golden-era/)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on August 21, 2014, 05:52:12 AM
The FXX marathon starts today.

Will you be watching it?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on August 21, 2014, 09:43:31 AM
I'll probably try to catch some episodes from seasons 2-5, since I still don't have the dvd sets for those yet and don't get a chance to rewatch them as often. I doubt I'll be able to watch that much of this, though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on August 21, 2014, 11:27:43 AM
My cable isn't working here, but even if it was, probably not.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on August 21, 2014, 12:57:12 PM
In spite of what I intended, I've been watching this since about episode 3. And I'm enjoying it. A lot.

Man, even after years of shitty episodes, I can still enjoy classic episodes of The Simpsons just as good, if not more, than I ever did.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Lord Dalek on August 21, 2014, 05:00:07 PM
We won't be getting to the "good stuff" until tomorrow. Season 2's aged badly and Season 1 is just awful outside of Crepes of Wrath and Krusty Gets Busted.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Eddy on August 21, 2014, 05:47:12 PM
I'd watch it if I had FXX.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on August 21, 2014, 07:35:29 PM
Quote from: Lord Dalek on August 21, 2014, 05:00:07 PM
We won't be getting to the "good stuff" until tomorrow. Season 2's aged badly and Season 1 is just awful outside of Crepes of Wrath and Krusty Gets Busted.

Mmm, well, I can't say I think a season with episodes like "Bart gets a F" and "Three Men and a Comic Book" has aged too badly, myself.   :P

I don't think season 1 is really any awful, either. The show was definitely finding it's footing, something that it's still working on in season two and doesn't get down until season three, but it came out with some solid episodes and few really bad episodes, imo. Having watched it again, I think episodes like "Bart the General" and "Lisa's Sax," as well as the two episodes you mentioned, are particularly strong efforts, myself.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on August 21, 2014, 07:40:11 PM
Season 2 is great, such crazy talk Dalek.

I'd be watching it right now, but I am currently on the other side of the planet.  Whatever, by the time I get back the show will be on several times a day anyway, it's not like FXX has much else to run.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Speedy on August 22, 2014, 08:51:53 AM
Bah.  I can't think of any genuinely bad season 2 episodes (though its first "Treehouse of Horror" was understandably pretty rough).  How can you hate a season with:

"Homer, it's really coming down.  Can you check on the boys?"
(brief glimpses of Bart, Milhouse, and Martin fighting in the treehouse during the lightning strikes)
"They're fine."

"Homer Simpson is a... brilliant man with lots of well thought-out, practical ideas.  He is ensuring the financial security of this company for years to come.  Oh, and his personal hygiene is ABOVE reproach."

"Homer J. Simpson, I hate you."
"Hey Barney.  GUESS WHO'S GOT A DATE FOR THE PROM!!!"

"I should be able to run over as many kids as I want!"

And so on.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on August 22, 2014, 11:21:23 AM
"Way to go, Lisa."

"Wait, there's still more spacedust on here!"

"Nevermore-
WHY YOU LITTLE!"

The first THOH is awesome to me.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Speedy on August 22, 2014, 11:28:54 AM
^ It's not awful but I liked the second THOH much better.  Still, there are some good lines:

"You know what would've been scarier than nothing?  ANYTHING!!"
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on August 25, 2014, 07:52:47 PM
The Simpsons marathon has made me think about what my favorite episodes were, so I decided to make a list. I managed to make a pretty solid top 25, which is kinda much, but since the show is 25 years old anyway, I figured why not (though, most of the episodes on my list are from seasons 4-9).

25 - Trilogy of Error
24 - Lisa the Iconoclast
23 - Treehouse of Horror VI
22 - The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson
21 - Home Sweet Homediddly-Dum-Doodily
20 - Marge Be Not Proud
19 - The Springfield Connection
18 - $pringfield (or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling)
17 - Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment
16 - Krusty Gets Cancelled
15 - Treehouse of Horror IV
14 - 22 Short Films About Springfield
13 - Treehouse of Horror V
12 - Who Shot Mr. Burns Parts 1 & 2
11 - Lisa's Wedding
10 - Homer at the Bat
9 - The Simpsons Spinoff Showcase
8 - Bart Gets an F
7 - Cape Feare
6 -  Marge vs. the Monorail
5 - Last Exit to Springfield
4 - Lemon of Troy
3 - Mother Simpson
2 - Radioactive Man
1 - Lisa's Sax
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on August 29, 2014, 10:23:58 PM
I just finished watching the movie during the marathon. I skipped out on its theatrical run since I was burned out by The Simpsons long before then.

The movie is surprisingly better than I was expecting. It beats out most of the episodes in the post-shark-jump seasons. The Alaska sub-plot seemed kind of weird, though.

I also liked the intro to the season 18 premiere, showing what Springfield looked like right after the movie ended. :sly:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on August 31, 2014, 02:24:49 AM
You know what's weird to me?

The Simpsons never really had a rebound or true second wind like King of the Hill did; once 11 hit (which was such a backbreaker for this show), it just kinda flatlined for good. Like, 11 and 12 are definitely the worst, and while everything after that is a marginal (if not outright) improvement, it's hardly anything to write home about. KOTH, on the other hand, had some of it's best episodes in the final 3 seasons.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on August 31, 2014, 11:56:12 AM
What do you guys think is better, modern Simpsons or modern SpongeBob?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on August 31, 2014, 12:03:59 PM
Modern Simpsons. At least there's some good episodes every now and again. Can't say the same for the Sponge these days.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on August 31, 2014, 06:14:40 PM
sponge from what i've seen.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on August 31, 2014, 07:15:45 PM
I think they are both equally mediocre. As in, if I watch a new Simpsons or SpongeBob episode, I might get a few laughs, but I'll forget about it the next day. Neither has made me willing to watch it in years. And when, for one reason or another, I do end up watching a new episode, neither convinces me to change that pattern.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Speedy on September 08, 2014, 03:38:17 PM
It's a bit old, but I listened to the Animation Guild's interview with Mark Kirkland last night.  It's a lengthy interview (split in two parts!) but worth the time for a Simpsons fan, especially when he starts discussing his work on The Simpsons:  http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/mark-kirkland-converses-part-i.html
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on September 12, 2014, 12:16:04 PM
http://www.avclub.com/article/simpsons-showrunner-has-idea-how-end-it-should-eve-208456

QuoteMy idea for last episode -- ends w/arrival at Xmas pageant (beginning of first episode).  Whole series a continuous loop.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on September 12, 2014, 12:22:32 PM
That would actually be a pretty neat meta-ending for the series. By having the series be a continuous loop, The Simpsons will just go on and on forever, never ending.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on September 12, 2014, 12:24:24 PM
Too bad the shorts would be cut out of that loop, but I agree. It's a fitting place to end it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on September 12, 2014, 12:29:09 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 12, 2014, 12:24:24 PM
Too bad the shorts would be cut out of that loop, but I agree. It's a fitting place to end it.

The shorts always came off as really detached to me, anyway.

Or maybe they can just be spliced into random spots in the series.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on September 21, 2014, 06:41:30 PM
Realistically, when do you guys think they should have made the movie?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on September 21, 2014, 06:51:15 PM
It would have been a nice gift for the 20th anniversary, but at the same time, I think the timing was right for its release. The crew clearly wasn't ready for the movie to happen beforehand, and it came out after enough mediocre to bad years for it to work as an apology of sorts.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on September 21, 2014, 06:52:08 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on September 21, 2014, 06:51:15 PM
It would have been a nice gift for the 20th anniversary, but at the same time, I think the timing was right for its release. The crew clearly wasn't ready for the movie to happen beforehand, and it came out after enough mediocre to bad years for it to work as an apology of sorts.

What do you mean they weren't ready?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on September 29, 2014, 10:05:46 PM
I take it I'm the only one on here who watched The Simpsons/Family Guy crossover special?

Was kind of too up it's own ass in being self-referential, but I actually did enjoy it overall, and surprisingly got some good laughs from it. There were certainly parts in it I didn't care for, and the fight between Peter and Homer at the end got a little too violent for my tastes (definitely the most violent of FG's "chickenfights" to date), but still, a pretty decent effort, and better than I expected or it had any right to be.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on September 29, 2014, 10:07:56 PM
It's like fifteen years too late for me to care, man.

Are they still milking the chickenfight thing?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on September 29, 2014, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 29, 2014, 10:07:56 PM
It's like fifteen years too late for me to care, man.

Are they still milking the chickenfight thing?

Eh, I watched it for the novelty of it. It's honestly kind of sad to think the only thing that can get me to watch modern Simpsons now is curiosity over a crossover with one of it's fellow FOX animated sitcoms. Regardless of whether it's good or not, I will also watch the Simpsons/Futurama special that's coming in November, just 'cause.

As for the chicken fights, I haven't watched FG in years, so I wouldn't know. I seem to recall there only being around 4 fights at the point where I stopped watching, though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on September 30, 2014, 05:25:52 AM
I watched it with Dalek, Mahou, and Juu. It was the best. I can't believe FOX would air such a scathing deconstruction of The Simpsons and Family Guy, subtly mocking both shows' age and anti-humor in one simple hour. It's Kojima levels of fucking with the audience, guys. I would recommend this to everyone who likes both shows. Favorite clip is here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Rk_DC3B9c) Anyone who thinks that Family Guy is a stupid show should really check their privilege and realize the brain-playing madness that goes on within this special. It's almost as funny as those Chico tapes from Ground Zeroes.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on September 30, 2014, 06:09:57 AM
I enjoyed it way more than I thought I would, though I'd agree that most of the humor was on the meta side and that the "chicken fight" got a bit too violent for what I'm used to seeing in The Simpsons, though it's right at home on the Family Guy side of things.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on September 30, 2014, 10:40:13 AM
I saw it and I thought it was fantastic. Had numerously good jokes like Maggie and Chris quarreling over her pacifier and then she plops another in his mouth from out of nowhere. I enjoyed the Emmys gag and Roger's cameo even though I'm not a Roger fan.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on September 30, 2014, 01:31:13 PM
Was not as Terribad as I was expecting it to be. Was more of a what if the Family Guy staff handled The Simpsons and added their style of humor into it. Still better than the Simpsons season opener, since the Simpson Guy is technically a Family Guy episode.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: hobbyfan on September 30, 2014, 02:13:51 PM
I caught the fight at halftime of Cowboys-Saints, then watched the full show On Demand the next night. Meh. Groening didn't have enough involvement in this, i.e. collaborating with MacFarlane and his staff, else
this would've been much, much different. It's Fox catering to Seth and his crew. We all knew Homer & Peter are two of the dumbest TV dads of all time, and tossing in cameo references to Bob's Burgers and American Dad
only added to the fact that in 2014, the Simpsons is on the downturn, insofar as Fox is concerned.

I gave it a B+, because there were some good spots, but just not enough to push it further up the scale.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on September 30, 2014, 02:17:51 PM
Does Groening even still do anything for The Simpsons?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on September 30, 2014, 02:31:01 PM
The only important thing Groening ever did for The Simpsons was create it. He never had any influence on the writing of the show or helped shape what it came to be as time went on.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: talonmalon333 on September 30, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
Quote from: Cartoon X on September 30, 2014, 02:31:01 PM
The only important thing Groening ever did for The Simpsons was create it. He never had any influence on the writing of the show and what it came to be as time went on.

Fair enough. Then none of the original writers still have any involvement, right? :P
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on September 30, 2014, 02:41:24 PM
Well, Al Jean is the show runner, but I don't believe the rest of Sam Simon's original writing team still works on the series in any notable capacity.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on September 30, 2014, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on September 30, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
Quote from: Cartoon X on September 30, 2014, 02:31:01 PM
The only important thing Groening ever did for The Simpsons was create it. He never had any influence on the writing of the show and what it came to be as time went on.

Fair enough. Then none of the original writers still have any involvement, right? :P
Sam Simon bowed out in the early 90s, George Meyer hasn't been funny since his first stint on the show, Al Jean is better with Mike Reiss, Mike Reiss' solo stuff has been subpar, David Mirkin has nothing to do with it anymore, Oakley & Weinstein are pitching new shows but haven't made a new show since Mission Hill, the best writers of the classic period went on to shows like King of the Hill and Futurama around season 9 when Mike Scully came on, and Mike Scully is a better writer than showrunner who has long since left behind the show. All the writers still there are the worst ones from season 10 on. Almost nobody who worked on the first 8-9 seasons is there anymore.

Matt Groening currently has as much influence on the show as Jonathan Collier. In other words, none.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on September 30, 2014, 03:57:59 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on September 30, 2014, 02:17:51 PM
Does Groening even still do anything for The Simpsons?
Yeah, he does the intros for the DVD sets.

Real talk though, Matt has always been the marketing face of the show, the only reason it took off in the first place was Jim Brooks and Sam Simon.  It's debateable to say that Matt even created it, really all he did was create the core family(and crude versions of them at that), everything else that has come from it was built by the writers.  But what looks better in news stories about the show, two writers with much experience in television create yet another hit show, or indie cartoonist living out of his car in Slumville Los Angeles creates hit show?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on September 30, 2014, 04:03:55 PM
He does at least give (or did give) notes on the show, so it isn't like he did nothing at all. I'm fairly certain Jim Brooks hasn't had much of any involvement since the early years either and I'm pretty sure his input creatively has been pretty low.

But again, it doesn't really matter in regards to the question because none of them have anything to do with the show right now.

I also forgot to mention that John Swartzwelder hasn't written a script for the show since season 15. And as we all know, he hasn't been in the writing room since even longer, which means any edits on his scripts have none of his input.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on September 30, 2014, 04:06:44 PM
And Groening isn't even a very good artist to begin with.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Speedy on September 30, 2014, 04:10:31 PM
I'd like to think David Silverman deserves a lot of credit for The Simpsons being what they are today, visually anyway.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on September 30, 2014, 04:14:08 PM
Matt Groening is actually a fairly decent writer from what I've read of things he's done. Artist, not so much. But then, not all cartoonists are great artists.

Quote from: Speedy on September 30, 2014, 04:10:31 PM
I'd like to think David Silverman deserves a lot of credit for The Simpsons being what they are today, visually anyway.
I agree. Look at the early shorts and then what it became by as early as early season 2. His direction really added a lot and smoothed it out really fast.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on September 30, 2014, 04:15:48 PM
Groening's art has always been crude, but he has a sharp wit and a great sense of humor, things that are evident all the way back to the very first Life in Hell strip.  He's not without talent, that's for sure.

Also, I echo the David Silverman thing.  With all the former talent that they brought back for the movie, Silverman's animation on it is one of the few things that was done right.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on September 30, 2014, 04:20:50 PM
Silverman's still around, as well. The guy is definitely one of the big names when it comes to The Simpsons.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 06, 2014, 11:13:05 PM
I wasn't planning on watching the Family Guy crossover, but I saw that someone put it up on YouTube, and decided what the hell.

For an one-long pat on the back, it wasn't that bad.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Speedy on October 07, 2014, 01:24:59 PM
Season 17's Blu-ray/DVD release date was finally announced yesterday for December 2nd:  http://tvshowsondvd.com/news/Simpsons-Season-17/20355 .  Not sure if I'll get it-  that was a really lackluster season IMO.

It'll be interesting seeing what classic era episodes they throw on as high def bonuses, though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Speedy on October 08, 2014, 09:06:01 AM
^ The bonus episodes are Krusty Gets Busted, Cape Feare (someone alert Joel!) and...... The Man Who Grew Too Much.  Huh.  I know they were going with Sideshow Bob-themed episodes, but... why not Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming?  Or Brother From Another Series?  Or Black Widower?  Or Sideshow Bob Roberts?  I'd even take Day of the Jackanapes!
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on October 24, 2014, 06:05:05 PM
So, this launched (http://www.simpsonsworld.com) earlier this week.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on October 24, 2014, 06:46:10 PM
Oh sweet! Now I can rewatch all the classic episodes from the begin-

(sees that Dish is not a participating cable provider)

...sigh, never mind, then.  :imnothappy:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on October 24, 2014, 07:15:03 PM
If you're able to in your area, have you considered maybe switching?

Right now, Dish are being dicks to Turner. (https://twitter.com/CartoonNetPR/status/524445250023329793) Considering they're not broadcasting CN or participating in the eventual move to online...
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on October 24, 2014, 07:22:13 PM
Not my call, unfortunately. It depends on whether my dad cares enough in order to change up...and he probably doesn't, since he doesn't watch many Turner networks.  :-\
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on October 24, 2014, 07:29:02 PM
Out of curiosity, what would happen if you selected the wrong cable provider?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on October 24, 2014, 07:42:19 PM
You have to authenticate your account with your provider using your username and password in order to use the service, so unless you have an account with a participating cable provider, you just don't have access to any full episodes or other restricted content.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on October 26, 2014, 06:24:43 AM
I wasn't able to do it with the browser version(unless I used a VPN or something), but I was able to log on with my Cox credentials from back home and watch a couple episodes on the FX Now iOS app, even though I am in fabulous Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates at the present time.  Playing the system.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on January 22, 2015, 07:15:42 PM
Watching an airing of Homie The Clown on FXX, and they just cut out "Stop, stop!  He's already dead!"  What the hell, that's one of the best lines.  I thought these FXX showings were supposed to be uncut?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on January 22, 2015, 07:20:06 PM
I thought that was only for the marathon. I could be wrong, but I could have sworn someone brought up that after the marathon the episodes would have their regular syndication tapes or whatever air on FXX instead. Shame really.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on January 22, 2015, 07:28:51 PM
sheesh, didn't think we'd have to worry about the simpsons being censored these days.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on January 22, 2015, 07:40:18 PM
It's funny though, because according to The Simpsons Archive, the line wasn't cut out for syndication.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on January 22, 2015, 07:47:43 PM
Oh yeah, that is kind of odd then. Then I guess FXX just needs that delicious commercial time.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on January 22, 2015, 08:37:41 PM
There's more commercial airtime now than when the early seasons first aired. To fit it in nowadays, they have to make cuts. That line is unfortunately expendable in the story department even if it is probably the funniest line in the episode.  :(
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on January 22, 2015, 08:44:37 PM
wait, has the simpsons ever even been syndicated?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on January 22, 2015, 08:48:58 PM
Yes, it's been syndicated on local television stations(usually Fox or CW stations) since 1993.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on January 22, 2015, 09:02:33 PM
i didn't think fox counted. or even fxx. this also shows how much i paid attention to cw.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on January 22, 2015, 11:43:38 PM
Yeah, most Fox syndicates had the show until they replaced it with Modern Family a year or so ago.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Speedy on January 23, 2015, 09:20:52 AM
Quote from: Comeau on January 22, 2015, 07:15:42 PM
Watching an airing of Homie The Clown on FXX, and they just cut out "Stop, stop!  He's already dead!"  What the hell, that's one of the best lines.  I thought these FXX showings were supposed to be uncut? 
Oh you've gotta be kidding.  Of all the moments to cut, they cut this one?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on February 16, 2015, 07:05:04 PM
They cut out the Grinch parody in the end of LETS.  Man, fuck FXX.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on March 09, 2015, 11:33:37 PM
Co-creator Sam Simon passed away. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/sam-simon-dead-simpsons-co-creator-5301064)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on March 09, 2015, 11:35:38 PM
I heard about that.

RIP Mr. Simon.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on March 10, 2015, 12:04:30 AM
R.I.P. Sam Simon. I'm checking out the link now.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on March 10, 2015, 01:07:19 AM
I forgot to post about this, but yeah. RIP
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 08, 2015, 10:56:29 PM
No more Simpsons season sets. (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/09/no-more-simpsons-seasons-released-on-dvd)

This sucks for completionists, but at least we have the good seasons out. As well as the app, for non-collectors.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on April 08, 2015, 11:05:05 PM
They could have at least put out 18 and 19, since 20 already had a set. But, as for the rest, it doesn't really matter. The good seasons are on dvd, and that's all I'd expect most people really cared to own. Most of the series can be purchased and watched legally digitally now anyways, so the lack of means to rewatch the later seasons is a non-issue.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 08, 2015, 11:14:17 PM
I stopped with ten and that one was a stretch.

My friend continued to get them, and I borrowed them for the commentaries and promptly returned them. It gave me a new appreciation for Mike Scully as a stand up guy ready to admit to his faults (who also seemed like a fun guy to talk to) while simultaneously wondering how Matt Selman could defend crap like having the Loch Ness Monster employed in a casino and other wretched ideas as well as being irritating and obnoxiously repetitive most of the time. Why people wanted him to be showrunner, I have no idea. He would be far worse than Al Jean.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on April 08, 2015, 11:16:23 PM
 :burn:

Well, I am a completionist... so... so...

:cry:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on April 08, 2015, 11:21:07 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on April 08, 2015, 11:14:17 PM
I stopped with ten and that one was a stretch.

My friend continued to get them, and I borrowed them for the commentaries and promptly returned them. It gave me a new appreciation for Mike Scully as a stand up guy ready to admit to his faults (who also seemed like a fun guy to talk to) while simultaneously wondering how Matt Selman could defend crap like having the Loch Ness Monster employed in a casino and other wretched ideas as well as being irritating and obnoxiously repetitive most of the time. Why people wanted him to be showrunner, I have no idea. He would be far worse than Al Jean.
:whuh: ....  :thinkin: *youtubes it*
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 08, 2015, 11:25:55 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on April 08, 2015, 11:21:07 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on April 08, 2015, 11:14:17 PM
I stopped with ten and that one was a stretch.

My friend continued to get them, and I borrowed them for the commentaries and promptly returned them. It gave me a new appreciation for Mike Scully as a stand up guy ready to admit to his faults (who also seemed like a fun guy to talk to) while simultaneously wondering how Matt Selman could defend crap like having the Loch Ness Monster employed in a casino and other wretched ideas as well as being irritating and obnoxiously repetitive most of the time. Why people wanted him to be showrunner, I have no idea. He would be far worse than Al Jean.
:whuh: ....  :thinkin: *youtubes it*
It's a fairly stupid ending to a fairly stupid episode. I believe on the commentary Mike Scully apologized for it and Matt Groening kept pointing out how dumb it all was.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on April 08, 2015, 11:28:05 PM
That makes me want to see it even more. I love stupid shit like that. :lol:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on April 08, 2015, 11:31:35 PM
I loved it whenever Groening was in the commentaries and just badmouthing whatever episode they were watching. I think his commentary on the jockey episode was the first time he ever saw the episode, and I don't remember exactly what his reaction was (haven't listened to any of the commentary tracks in years) but I don't remember it being positive.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 08, 2015, 11:48:56 PM
"WHAT IS THIS?" was his regular interjection. At the end he was pretty flabbergasted and Mike Scully apologized once more.

He never would have let most of the post-season 9 crap see the light of day if he wasn't busy with Futurama at the time. I know people like to say he has no "real" input on the series, but his criticisms in the commentaries are usually dead on which probably meant his old notes were too.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 09, 2015, 12:03:18 AM
Groening gets pretty defensive about the show nowadays, but I think that's more for brand recognition.

I don't think he tunes in regularly, let alone helps at all.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 09, 2015, 12:18:06 AM
He hasn't done anything for the show since he left with David X. Cohen for Futurama way back in season 10.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on April 09, 2015, 12:20:53 AM
That's why I thought his comment was strange.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on April 09, 2015, 04:44:29 AM
That's strange.  I don't care too much, I stopped at 15 because that was the last season I cared for in any capacity, but why not keep going?  Like with King of the Hill, it just seems weird to have a portion of the sets out, but not all of them.

And yeah, didn't they release like season 20?  So now we have some random season out there all by itself?  Makes no sense.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on April 09, 2015, 04:56:46 AM
Maybe DVD sales were decreasing for each season, rendering future installments unprofitable.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on April 09, 2015, 05:15:36 AM
Maybe the show can get cancelled now then.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 09, 2015, 11:56:06 AM
They seem to blame physical media's decline in sales, but that's only part of it. Only a small portion of hardcore fans would want to own every single season.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 09, 2015, 03:20:26 PM
When the show was first being put on DVD, the attention was HUGE, as were the sales. By now anyone who was interested in the show has gotten what they wanted.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on April 10, 2015, 09:52:07 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on April 08, 2015, 10:56:29 PMNo more Simpsons season sets. (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/09/no-more-simpsons-seasons-released-on-dvd)

Quote from Al Jean on Twitter: (https://twitter.com/AlJean/status/585824729958748160)

QuoteWe will do ... a master DVD when (if) show ever goes off air.

Oh, you kidder. :>
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on April 10, 2015, 10:06:49 PM
Quote from: Daikun on April 10, 2015, 09:52:07 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on April 08, 2015, 10:56:29 PMNo more Simpsons season sets. (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/09/no-more-simpsons-seasons-released-on-dvd)

Quote from Al Jean on Twitter: (https://twitter.com/AlJean/status/585824729958748160)

QuoteWe will do ... a master DVD when (if) show ever goes off air.

Oh, you kidder. :>



....But he said if.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on April 10, 2015, 10:10:57 PM
So after we are all dead.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 10, 2015, 10:12:55 PM
They have staff on the show now that are technically younger than Lisa.

That's weird to think about.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on April 10, 2015, 10:18:25 PM
 :whuh: :wth:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on April 10, 2015, 11:28:52 PM
I have to wonder just how much a complete series set would cost. Or if making one would even be feasible in the first place.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Foggle on April 10, 2015, 11:41:05 PM
Even for 50 cents per episode it wouldn't be anything close to affordable.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on April 11, 2015, 06:31:47 PM
It's not just The Simpsons. Fox seems to be ceasing physical media releases of TV shows (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/040915_1430) altogether.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on April 11, 2015, 06:37:45 PM
Ugh. :srs:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on April 11, 2015, 11:26:15 PM
I really do hope that isn't true. I was hoping to collect The Americans soon, and I don't have any desire to use iTunes for TV shows.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on April 13, 2015, 12:27:34 PM
Then it's a good thing Olive Films grabbed hold of KOTH.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 05, 2015, 09:34:19 PM
So it has been renewed for season 27 and 28. I guess it's pretty obvious they're going to go for the big 30, huh?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 05, 2015, 09:41:47 PM
This show is going to outlive me.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on May 06, 2015, 12:06:12 AM
The Simpsons has outlived millions of children.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 06, 2015, 12:34:36 AM
 :SHOCK: That statement hurts my heart.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LordGoku on May 06, 2015, 03:11:31 AM
Meh I'm much better with The Simpsons being renewed then Family Guy. At least The Simpsons have the occasional laugh Family Guy hurts to watch.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 06, 2015, 10:35:07 AM
Good point. :srs:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on May 06, 2015, 09:39:50 PM
I have the same reaction to reading Simpsons being renewed as I do reading that Big Bang Theory has been renewed.  Who really cares at this point, and if so, why?  To me it's simply two more seasons of The Simpsons that I'm unlikely to ever watch.  People still being worked up about it still going are dumb.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 06, 2015, 11:14:34 PM
True but I'd still like to see the series put to rest already.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 06, 2015, 11:40:09 PM
It probably will when it gets to 30. It's pretty obvious they were trying to go for the record for a while now.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 06, 2015, 11:58:20 PM
30 seasons would be more than any live action show?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 07, 2015, 12:26:53 AM
I think the only one close is Gun Smoke.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on May 07, 2015, 12:32:47 AM
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/e526ee3818fac70d6afea4a0cd0524e3/tumblr_nny5zs6Mzn1r5zq6ao1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 07, 2015, 12:38:42 AM
Just short of And I Must Scream. :'(
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on May 07, 2015, 12:26:53 AM
I think the only one close is Gun Smoke.
I caught a good episode of that on tv a few months ago. Decent show
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on May 07, 2015, 01:46:09 AM
So, how many more episodes does the Simpsons need to beat Gunsmoke again? Gunsmoke has 635 episodes while The Simpsons will have 574 when this season ends and there are only 2 more episodes left this season. 635-574=61 more episodes left. Each season of The Simpsons does have about 22 episodes in it. So The Simpsons need 3 more seasons to surpass that total. Even though Gunsmoke was an hour long show, I think Fox only cares about the number of episodes rather than their length.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on May 07, 2015, 01:51:03 AM
Oh God, the thought of The Simpsons trying to match Gunsmoke's runtime.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 07, 2015, 02:16:11 AM
the more important question is how many episodes does Case Closed have.

Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on May 07, 2015, 01:51:03 AM
Oh God, the thought of The Simpsons trying to match Gunsmoke's runtime.
This made me spit laugh on my laptop screen.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 07, 2015, 04:13:14 PM
Gunsmoke has 635 episodes over 20 seasons. By season 30 it will have beat the record.

QuoteThe television series remains the longest running, prime time series of the 20th century. As of 2014, it had the highest number of scripted episodes for any, U.S. primetime, commercial live-action television series . . . Outside the United States, there are some foreign-made programs that have been broadcast in the United States which contend for the position as the longest-running series. As of 2010, Gunsmoke is rated fifth globally, after Doctor Who (1963–89, 2005–present), Taggart (1983–2010), and The Bill (1984–2010)
But it's not going for the global record, I'm sure.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on May 07, 2015, 04:19:42 PM
And that quote only mentions series that have also been broadcasted in the U.S. Could you imagine them trying to make the show last as long as, say, the second Doraemon anime or, god forbid, Sazae-san?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 07, 2015, 04:50:07 PM
They did say live action too. :P Should I be ashamed that I have no clue what Taggart or The Bill is. :sweat:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 08, 2015, 11:05:18 PM
A voice actor is holding back on signing. (http://www.tmz.com/2015/05/08/the-simpsons-renewal-delayed-actor-renewed-seasons/)

It seems likely that it's Shearer, since he declined to participate for the ride, and he's among the most vocal voices towards the show's declining quality among the people involved. But he'll probably settle, anyway.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 08, 2015, 11:07:51 PM
The guy's gotta be stupid rich by now, what's the point in still dragging this along?

That said, he'll sign.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on May 08, 2015, 11:31:38 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on May 08, 2015, 11:05:18 PM
A voice actor is holding back on signing. (http://www.tmz.com/2015/05/08/the-simpsons-renewal-delayed-actor-renewed-seasons/)

It seems likely that it's Shearer, since he declined to participate for the ride, and he's among the most vocal voices towards the show's declining quality among the people involved. But he'll probably settle, anyway.

He also refused to be in the Family Guy crossover episode as well. None of his characters talked except for an "eh" from Lenny which could have well been archive audio. He'll probably budge sooner or later.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on May 10, 2015, 12:36:53 AM
Ten animators from The Simpsons who went onto bigger projects. (http://thatfellowinthecoat.com/coatsimpsonsnames.php)

This is a pretty interesting video if you want to see where many of these people got their start. You might recognize some of them.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on May 14, 2015, 01:44:24 AM
Appropriate clip. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG6lmHOM39c)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on May 14, 2015, 01:56:46 AM
I'd be surprised if Shearer quitting would stop them.  It wouldn't be difficult to relegate most of his characters to background status and the more important ones, like Skinner, Burns, Smithers, and Flanders, to be recast and have less dialogue.  At least for two more seasons.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on May 14, 2015, 01:59:09 AM
Whatever the case, time to stockpile on good Skinner/Flanders/Burns/Smithers/Lovejoy/Otto episodes to remember him by.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 14, 2015, 02:10:02 AM
Now it's definitely time to wrap it up. A Simpsons without those characters isn't even worth bothering with.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on May 14, 2015, 02:39:55 AM
Just for a laugh, I'm imagining Al Jean keeping the characters by using a soundboard of archived Shearer audio.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on May 14, 2015, 02:56:34 AM
South Park did it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on May 14, 2015, 08:07:15 AM
Now for something completely different. (https://twitter.com/adultswim/status/598835285305069569)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 14, 2015, 09:27:59 AM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on May 14, 2015, 02:10:02 AM
Now it's definitely time to wrap it up. A Simpsons without those characters isn't even worth bothering with.
Amen. Just throw them in the background, my ass!! >:(
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on May 14, 2015, 09:50:42 AM
Shearer has officially left the show. His major roles, like Mr. Burns and Flanders, will be recast (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/harry-shearer-simpsons-star-tweets-that-hes-leaving-the-show/?_r=1).

If losing one of it's most integral voice actors can't kill this show, nothing will.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 14, 2015, 09:54:46 AM
smh. Just (http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/kill_it_with_fire.gif) already.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 14, 2015, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on May 14, 2015, 08:07:15 AM
Now for something completely different. (https://twitter.com/adultswim/status/598835285305069569)
Now this is awesome news.

Shearer leaving isn't.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 14, 2015, 12:20:10 PM
They're actually going to recast?

Wow, I guess those jokes about them recasting Homer if Dan Castellaneta died aren't far from the truth. They actually expect people to accept a recasting after a quarter of a century.

They're crazy.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 14, 2015, 12:25:23 PM
The could just as easily write out the power plant entirely, since the show likes to give Homer random new jobs anyway. Besides, Mr. Burns is only used sparingly for old people jokes that fit Abe better, anyway.

But it'd be difficult to imagine the show without Skinner.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 14, 2015, 12:41:31 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on May 14, 2015, 12:25:23 PM
But it'd be difficult to imagine the show without Skinner.
If I was writing I'd just make Superintendent Chalmers the principal as some kind of demotion. Skinner would still be missed, but it's the best choice, really.

Recasting wouldn't even be on my radar.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 14, 2015, 12:43:48 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on May 14, 2015, 12:25:23 PM
The could just as easily write out the power plant entirely
I can't believe I just read this. Also, the rest of your post sounds like the series turned into the last season of Johnny Bravo. :whuh:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 14, 2015, 12:54:09 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on May 14, 2015, 12:43:48 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on May 14, 2015, 12:25:23 PM
The could just as easily write out the power plant entirely
I can't believe I just read this. Also, the rest of your post sounds like the series turned into the last season of Johnny Bravo. :whuh:
We're just thinking of ways they could continue the series without recasting characters.

Could you imagine if they recast Lionel Hutz or Troy McClure, for instance? The Simpsons is not a show where recasting really works. Even Maude Flanders' new voice never sat well with me, I can't imagine how a character who has had the same voice for near thirty years could even been remotely tolerable.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on May 14, 2015, 12:56:12 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on May 14, 2015, 08:07:15 AMNow for something completely different. (https://twitter.com/adultswim/status/598835285305069569)

It's a couch gag. (https://twitter.com/aljean/status/575431380634464256) Sorry, guys.

Well, at least we don't have to watch the full 22 minutes. ;D
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 14, 2015, 02:12:36 PM
Quote from: Daikun on May 14, 2015, 12:56:12 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on May 14, 2015, 08:07:15 AMNow for something completely different. (https://twitter.com/adultswim/status/598835285305069569)

It's a couch gag. (https://twitter.com/aljean/status/575431380634464256) Sorry, guys.
Yeah, I caught all of this earlier today, and I'm still excited. This'll be a hell of a couch gag.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on May 14, 2015, 02:38:35 PM
Man, this sucks. I don't watch it religiously, but I still enjoy the occasional episode when nothing else is on. Real ballsy of FOX to try to attempt moving on with a recast. There's no way they won't lose a number of people, Shearer had so many roles in the show that I can't imagine how they can write around it all.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on May 14, 2015, 04:13:21 PM
Quote from: Daikun on May 14, 2015, 12:56:12 PM
Well, at least we don't have to watch the full 22 minutes. ;D

You don't have to watch it at all. [adult swim] has already uploaded the couch gag on Youtube. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ecYoSvGO60)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 14, 2015, 06:52:59 PM
The most relevant clip. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHaXdl20Prg)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on May 14, 2015, 07:16:31 PM
In relevant news, here is Al Jean's word on the matter. (http://www.ew.com/article/2015/05/14/simpsons-harry-shearer-exit-al-jean?hootPostID=275ef3eb3b20906a71a8f84b5c409004)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 14, 2015, 07:25:46 PM
QuoteAssuming he does leave, how big of a loss is this for the show?
I'd be lying if I said it was no loss. He's talented and he just won an Emmy for The Simpsons. But I also have to say that I'd be lying if I said he was irreplaceable. I think that he could be replaced, and if need be, will have to be. We're not going to get rid of the characters.
If this was season 2 or 3, or even 8, I might be able to understand this point of view. But 26 seasons? At this point he IS irreplaceable.

Either get rid of the characters or end it. No one is going to accept anything else.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on May 15, 2015, 10:57:11 AM
Never seen Rick and Morty, although I've been strongly advised to check it out by several parties, but that couch gag was pretty good.  I feel like I've gotten to the point where The Simpsons should just ditch the 22 minute show and do short animations like the couch gags, maybe a little longer in format.  Of course it would be similar to the Ullman shorts that they started out as, but this time around there is much more material.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 15, 2015, 12:44:46 PM
Simpsons shorts would actually be a really good idea. Of course they would be hit or miss, but it would offer a lot variety from the main show.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on May 15, 2015, 03:02:11 PM
Quote from: Commode on May 15, 2015, 10:57:11 AMNever seen Rick and Morty, although I've been strongly advised to check it out by several parties, but that couch gag was pretty good.  I feel like I've gotten to the point where The Simpsons should just ditch the 22 minute show and do short animations like the couch gags, maybe a little longer in format.  Of course it would be similar to the Ullman shorts that they started out as, but this time around there is much more material.

Agreed. Or better yet, give Itchy & Scratchy their own show already. No matter how stale the show gets, those two are still funny.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on May 15, 2015, 03:07:10 PM
You'd think at some point here, the quote unquote "greater good" in regards to the integrity of the series would actually mean something to these guys, but I guess not.

If they cared at all about keeping things fresh they'd simply use this a good excuse to write these characters out, and maybe reboot it in a sense. The show is already a cast of thousands, what harm could come from taking things in a different direction and adding a few new faces? Better that than outright recasting so many voices that everyone's become accustomed to for the past 25 years.

Honestly though, it's just too hard for me to even care at this point. It's gonna go to 30, and hell maybe even 40, so why even get upset? As long as people continue to watch (have ratings ever really taken a serious nosedive yet?), and more importantly continues to sell, it'll continue to plow along.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 15, 2015, 03:14:59 PM
Plus, if this has proved anything, if anything happens to the main cast they'll just plow ahead without them and replace all their voices.

Which means it could really go on forever at this rate.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on May 15, 2015, 03:21:05 PM
I feel like there'd have to be a point when fan backlash finally says enough is enough, but does anybody even truly care at this point?

Like I mean, it's been mediocre for so long. It's just really kinda "there"; people watch, people buy Duff shirts and what all, and life goes on. If a guy like Shearer (who could just as easily have signed back on and phone it in for another 4-5 years), making a point by not coming back doesn't change anything, then short of it pulling in a .5 in ratings and people suddenly not buying merchandise, what even would?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 15, 2015, 03:56:54 PM
The crazy thing is that the Simpsons could actually outlast SNL. I've read that NBC would seriously consider ending that when Lorne dies.

Think about that. Isn't that crazy?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on May 15, 2015, 04:18:44 PM
Well I mean they almost gave it up when Lorne briefly left in the 80s.

Also the Itchy and Scratchy shorts are fine, but I'm okay with Scratchy loosing his voice.  Maybe they can make them a bit more like the Tom and Jerry cartoons they were inspired by, was never too big of a fan when the two would sit there and try and carry on a conversation, with the obvious exception being the " Love and Share" Itchy and Scratchy cartoon.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 15, 2015, 04:21:38 PM
Yeah, SNL already was about to have the plug pulled once before because of him leaving, so I could easily see them wrapping it up without him.

I wouldn't mind Itchy & Scratchy shorts as well, but I'd still want ones featuring as many characters as possible if they went that way. Chief Wiggum, for instance, is usually really funny in short spurts, I think he'd fit the format great.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 15, 2015, 04:26:23 PM
Yeah, they do not want to repeat the early 80's again.

I wouldn't mind if the show kind of morphed into the 22 Short Films-inspired spin-off they considered at some point. Just find a way to keep the family involved for the majority of it. Shouldn't be too hard to keep up.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on May 15, 2015, 04:26:37 PM
At this point too maybe the voice actors' deaths might not be enough to end the show, but I think when Jim Brooks eventually goes then the staff won't have as much pull with Fox regarding the show.  The biggest reason the show has gone on as long as it has, the biggest reason the show succeeded for years without network interference, hell the reason the show ever made it onto Fox airwaves, is Brooks.  Fox is frankly intimidated by him, always has been, but once he's gone they might not see much reason to keep the show around.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on May 15, 2015, 08:24:58 PM
Quote from: Commode on May 15, 2015, 04:26:37 PM
At this point too maybe the voice actors' deaths might not be enough to end the show, but I think when Jim Brooks eventually goes then the staff won't have as much pull with Fox regarding the show.  The biggest reason the show has gone on as long as it has, the biggest reason the show succeeded for years without network interference, hell the reason the show ever made it onto Fox airwaves, is Brooks.  Fox is frankly intimidated by him, always has been, but once he's gone they might not see much reason to keep the show around.
Damn, someone Fox is scared of?! Does he shoot lightning out of his ass?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on May 15, 2015, 08:26:39 PM
The whole reason the Simpsons Movie was made was because his previous film flopped. Brooks has a LOT of pull in the industry.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on May 16, 2015, 01:14:46 AM
I mean, The Mary Tyler Moore Show is still one of the few series with an equal or greater influence in the industry besides The Simpsons itself. Make that, and you're bound to have some pull.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daxdiv on June 09, 2015, 01:28:32 PM
Let's be honest people, this is only gonna last for the episode. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/homer-and-marge-simpson-are-legally-separating/)

It's like Brian Griffin Death 2.0.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on June 09, 2015, 01:34:05 PM
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Foggle on June 09, 2015, 02:15:22 PM
QuoteIn the premiere, it's discovered after all the years Homer has narcolepsy and it's an incredible strain on the marriage. Homer and Marge legally separate, and Homer falls in love with his pharmacist, who's voiced by Lena Dunham. We'll have cameos from the other women from "Girls."
I'm vomiting uncontrollably.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on June 09, 2015, 03:45:20 PM
They've already been "legally separated", but whatever.

Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on June 09, 2015, 04:40:13 PM
This plot has been probably the most overdone plot in the past twenty five years of the show. It was even a major part of the movie. Why they think it's still a selling point (and adding in the Dunham on top of it) is far beyond me.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on June 09, 2015, 05:03:30 PM
Wait, THAT Lena? This is not funny anymore.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on June 09, 2015, 05:58:20 PM
What other Lena is there lol?  Lena Hyena?

(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130723072716/disney/images/thumb/e/e9/LenaHyenaYoohoo.jpg/500px-LenaHyenaYoohoo.jpg)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on June 09, 2015, 06:08:31 PM
Quote from: Daxdiv on June 09, 2015, 01:28:32 PMLet's be honest people, this is only gonna last for the episode. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/homer-and-marge-simpson-are-legally-separating/)

It's like Brian Griffin Death 2.0.

Nah, that only happened once. This is more like Comic Character Death.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on June 09, 2015, 06:09:20 PM
Quote from: Commode on June 09, 2015, 05:58:20 PM
What other Lena is there lol?  Lena Hyena?

(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130723072716/disney/images/thumb/e/e9/LenaHyenaYoohoo.jpg/500px-LenaHyenaYoohoo.jpg)

(http://31.media.tumblr.com/6434fc146748f4deb8c9b76566e97316/tumblr_n9aj54dhGp1r00543o1_r3_250.gif)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on June 09, 2015, 10:11:19 PM
This doesn't reek of desperation. Nope. Not at all.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on June 23, 2015, 04:21:18 PM
Is anyone really surprised? (http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/watch-homer-and-marge-simpson-quash-divorce-rumors-20150623)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on June 23, 2015, 04:31:58 PM
Nothing surprises me from The Simpsons these days.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on June 23, 2015, 06:03:27 PM
Quote from: Daikun on June 23, 2015, 04:21:18 PM
Is anyone really surprised? (http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/watch-homer-and-marge-simpson-quash-divorce-rumors-20150623)


That video was hilarious, actually.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on July 08, 2015, 12:17:14 AM
Guess who's back? (http://www.tvmediainsights.com/highlights/harry-shearer-returns-to-the-simpsons)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on July 08, 2015, 12:20:38 AM
Good lord, ALL of those characters are one man? Anyway, I wonder how much they paid him to cooperate.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on July 30, 2015, 10:11:01 AM
TVShowsonDVD examined the show's later sales (http://tvshowsondvd.com/news/Simpsons-simpsons-sales-numbers-examined/21379)- things really don't look that bad for the series.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on August 12, 2015, 04:36:42 AM
They've found a replacement for Mrs. Krabappel. (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/08/11/sofia-vergara-to-voice-character-on-simpsons)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: gunswordfist on August 12, 2015, 12:54:01 PM
*highlights link**doesn't go any further* I shouldn't have even gone that far  :gonk:
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on September 28, 2015, 04:12:52 PM
To end by season 30? (http://splitsider.com/2015/09/al-jean-says-the-simpsons-is-probably-ending-after-season-30/)

Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on September 28, 2015, 04:18:05 PM
I've been betting on 30 for a while now.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on February 17, 2016, 04:30:14 AM
Future episode to be broadcast live. (https://www.yahoo.com/tv/simpsons-air-live-episode-al-jean-tells-us-212454693.html)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on February 17, 2016, 09:40:20 AM
The thing about these lame gimmicks is that they usually work to boost the show's ratings a little, no matter what they are.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on February 17, 2016, 10:54:47 AM
"No, Homer. Very few cartoons are broadcast live. It's a terrible strain on the animators' wrists."
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on February 18, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
No cartoon has done something like this that I know of. If it leads to a fun episode, I don't mind them thinking outside the box a little.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on April 18, 2016, 07:11:19 PM
Watch 500 episodes AT THE SAME TIME! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTXQKK4C358)

(360° video-supported browser required. If not, it will show up as 2D.)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on June 11, 2016, 05:44:38 PM
Chad Rocco talks about the technical aspects of the live episode and how it could be utilized in the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbemHDdKq3w
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on September 22, 2016, 06:42:14 PM
FXX is doing the marathon again (http://www.avclub.com/article/fxx-declares-its-time-another-every-simpsons-ever--243041) to celebrate the show's 600-episode milestone.

The marathon begins November 24.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on July 22, 2017, 10:38:07 PM
The DVD's return! (http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/the-simpsons-dvd-panel-comic-con-1201858712/)

I have no real use for these episodes, but this is good for those who do or want to own the whole series. We're getting season 18 for sure, and they're working on commentaries for the next 2 seasons. They want to at least do 19, since season 20 was released for the 20th anniversary, but they also want to rerelease that year, since its set was barebones.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Nel_Annette on July 25, 2017, 12:37:53 AM
I'm glad it's back, as I wanted to collect everything, but now I'm a bit miffed about season 20. I originally held off on buying it because of the possibility of a rerelease with commentary, but when the DVDs were canceled I bought it just to make sure I would have it. Now I might have to double dip, which I was trying to avoid years ago to begin with.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on July 25, 2017, 12:48:43 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDAtj3nXoAANYUL.jpg)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on July 25, 2017, 12:49:18 AM
I've had no interest in collecting Simpsons DVDs past 9, but I do want to know what the commentaries will be like for the later seasons. Did they say anything interesting in the post-season 9 commentaries? I remember hearing that Matt Groening mocked that one episode where Mr. Burns meets the Loch Ness Monster.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 25, 2017, 01:58:01 AM
I borrowed my friend's DVDs for 11 and 12 because there was no chance of me ever buying the worst Simpsons seasons.

The commentaries were bad. Mike Scully was the only one there with self-awareness (other than Groening, when he was there) about how bad the plots and resolutions were. Everything else were people like Selman defending every stupid decision and explaining away every complaint as without merit. I can see why the series went downhill since no one who currently works on the show realizes just how bad what they are writing truly is. Scully deserves flack for season 11 and 12, but at least he was willing to cop to the crappiness. He even did so in season 9 and 10's lesser moments. None of the other writers ever did.

The commentaries went downhill with the show.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 25, 2017, 02:03:54 AM
Season 10 had a few good moments. Scully and Groening mocked a bunch of the dumber episodes like the Loch Ness monster (Scully actually apologized for this episode on the commentary) and the jockey crap in the horse episode. Season 10 was shaky enough, but the commentaries actually helped me warm up to them. It's not a great season, and it'll never be a favorite or one I'll rewatch much, but the commentaries are worth the entry price with the episodes. It's the last season with good commentary, though.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 25, 2017, 02:08:08 AM
Here's a database for all the commentaries up through season 17.

http://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/Simpsons

I stopped collecting the sets at 15 and I couldn't care less about buying anymore DVD sets.  I have FXNow if I really want to watch those episodes.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 25, 2017, 02:13:35 AM
I haven't even watched a Simpsons episode in I can't even tell you how long now.  Rarely watch TV in general though, really only use it for sports.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on July 25, 2017, 02:21:14 AM
The last episode I can recall watching was the one that crossed over with Empire. And only because I wanted to see how bad it was, only for it to be boring and undeservedly long.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Kiddington on July 25, 2017, 04:07:45 AM
I didn't even realize they discontinued these. Shows how much I care.

8 was the last one I bought? I think? Honestly I hate that I've become "that guy", but I've really started to drift away from physical media the past few years. There's just so much crap I have sitting around at home that I don't watch, and probably will never watch. CatDog? Wild Thornberries? Complete Series sets of shows I don't even like and will literally never do anything with? Definitely money well spent. If it's something I really want I'll still make room, but I just don't have the interest (or frankly, budget) for this stuff like I used to.....and anything post-Maude getting bunted off the grandstands doesn't and won't ever fall under "really want" status.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Foggle on July 25, 2017, 11:30:54 AM
I'm not drifting away from physical media but I have basically stopped buying TV series on video at this point. I got The Wire and Twin Peaks on Blu-ray because I know I'll be watching them over and over, but aside from that, I've started only focusing on getting my favorite films (of which there are many). I've very proud of my collection, which you can see here (https://letterboxd.com/foggle/list/the-fogglibrary/) if you'd like, but I can definitely understand the sentiment of finding something like that to be a waste of time. Me and my fiancee just really love movies. :P

More on topic, I've enjoyed a lot of early Simpsons material, but I'm one of those weirdos who never actively watched the series at all. The chart Daikun posted earlier made me wonder what the best stopping point in the show is. What season do you guys think was the last good one?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on July 25, 2017, 12:36:32 PM
I always say that the first decade is essential.

Season 9 is the last great season, and season 10 is the last good one. Every season after that is hit or miss or outright bad.

As for physical media, I buy very few series as it is. Nothing has changed for me on that front.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on July 25, 2017, 12:46:12 PM
Yea part of it is I don't buy much physical media any more.  I've got Sling TV, Netflix, and Amazon Prime that pretty much gives me access to all I need, and whatever isn't on those I use the various add ons on Kodi.  I realized a year or so back how much space I was wasting with all the DVDs and Blu Rays and game discs I had, and either sold off the stuff I didn't want anymore or put the discs into binders and threw the plastic cases away.  Freed up so much space.

Think I only have like two Simpsons DVD sets with me right now anyway, most of my sets are packed up at my parents house.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on July 25, 2017, 04:56:59 PM
I'd say that 8 was the end of the glory years, but season 9 was still a good to great season. The tenth is when things start going south, but there's some good episodes. If I find it for $5 or less, I'll consider buying it.

I'm still a bit of a physical media whore (I actually just bought the first 4 seasons of Archer for a few bucks a pop), but I'm also open to streaming. I'm just a little iffy on the longevity of streaming, like how Netflix loses shows left and right.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Painted Outlaw on July 29, 2017, 10:14:29 PM
So, I decided to finally close up on another thing I missed when I was younger (previously occupied by Robocop and... well, other stuff; it's a list in progress) by trying to watch what I can of the Simpsons.

So far, I can say that Homer has some nice expressions:
Spoiler
(http://i.imgur.com/uPourQZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/7gpZ8dq.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/UbalqGo.jpg)
[close]
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Painted Outlaw on August 06, 2017, 11:14:29 PM
Finished Season 1, I thought it was pretty enjoyable overall. That's not to say it was perfect, ones like "There's no Disgrace like Home (http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/There%27s_No_Disgrace_Like_Home)" were kind of a clunker in the sense that I was wondering where the humor was but the other 11 were fair enough.

I think if I had to pick any I liked over the others, one'd be "Homer's Night Out". It ran the concept to an outrageous point then ran with it. I got a laugh or two out of it.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on August 07, 2017, 11:00:17 AM
Season 1 is definitely the weakest season of the first ten, but it does have a lot of good points. Starting with season 2 you begin to see the framework solidify and by season 3 the show hits the ground running.

I do have to give episodes like Disgrace praise for one thing and that's treating Homer as if he isn't mentally deficient, but just dumb. Starting around season 10 the staff have had problems not just writing him as if he's two steps away from the nut house instead of simply ignorant and lower intelligence than the average.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Painted Outlaw on August 13, 2017, 07:52:29 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on August 07, 2017, 11:00:17 AMI do have to give episodes like Disgrace praise for one thing and that's treating Homer as if he isn't mentally deficient, but just dumb. Starting around season 10 the staff have had problems not just writing him as if he's two steps away from the nut house instead of simply ignorant and lower intelligence than the average.

Man, your latter point doesn't even sound like the same character. :wth: Yeah, I think I'm gonna stop after watching s9 if they miss(ed) the point that hard.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on August 13, 2017, 07:59:28 PM
Super Eyepatch Wolf made a great video showing how the show went downhill. (I was expecting Saberspark to get to this first, but hey, I'll take it.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk

My favorite part is when he sets up a simple gag and shows the different ways it would play out in an older and newer season.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Spark Of Spirit on August 13, 2017, 09:30:51 PM
The Principal & the Pauper is a good example of a well written episode centered on a bad core idea. Homer's Enemy might have been too meta for some (and is rightfully controversial for it), but the episode has that excuse. It doesn't change a core element of the show and characters to work. The Principal and the Pauper simply didn't take its own world and characters to heart, and it was something it did more and more of until the heart was completely absent in season 11. After that the series became a mindless mediocre joke factory.

But the simple answer to what happened to the Simpsons was that the last of the long running writers left during season 9. And George Meyer eventually came back weaker than he was before and John Swartzwelder either had all his scripts edited to oblivion or stopped caring. That's the core problem. The new writers from season 10 on were never on par with the older writers. Most of the writers went on to things like Futurama or King of the Hill which, if you pay attention to the dates, took off at the same time the Simpsons slid downhill.

There's no mystery as to what happened.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on August 31, 2017, 01:33:55 AM
The show's composer has been fired. (http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/simpsons-composer-alf-clausen-fired-1202543183)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on November 15, 2017, 05:59:02 AM
Steamed hams redux. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg_8RUb-nRk)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on November 25, 2017, 07:20:32 PM
Did anyone hear about this Simpsons documentary on TruTV? It's called The Problem With Apu.

http://www.trutv.com/full-episodes/the-problem-with-apu/2141759/index.html

I only discovered it through MovieBob's blog today.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on February 10, 2018, 04:04:09 AM
Pink Floyd: Steamed Hams version. (https://youtu.be/dYyTwxxAGcw)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on March 25, 2018, 08:18:18 PM
Bill Plympton animated tonight's couch gag! Check it out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbI8kJuSkkY
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on April 25, 2018, 06:58:34 PM
Apu might be dropped from the show. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/simpsons-star-hank-azaria-says-hes-willing-to-step-aside-from-apu-in-wake-of-controversy/ar-AAwiTOZ)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Peanutbutter on April 26, 2018, 07:23:08 AM
It's not Azaria's call to make. Nothing is official about this until we hear from Al Jean and or FOX's top brass.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on August 11, 2018, 05:44:35 PM
The Simpsons Movie is getting a sequel. (http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/08/10/fox-reportedly-developing-simpsons-movie-sequel-family-guy-live-action-hybrid-film)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on February 11, 2019, 08:51:12 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzGHDHqW0AAQwEP.jpg:large)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: LumRanmaYasha on March 09, 2019, 12:54:31 AM
Have no fears, they've got stories for years...

In other news, "Stark Raving Dad" is being pulled from syndication and streaming following new allegations about Michael Jackson molesting two minors in the new documentary Leaving Neverland. I'm sympathetic to James L. Brooks' reasoning even if I find it annoying when a show makes episodes unaccessible online, like all the South Park episodes featuring Muhammed. But so long as the episode remains on the dvds and fans can revisit it at their discretion I don't mind.

Also, I recently starting listening to Talking Simpsons, a Simpsons podcast that's been going through the show from the beginning episode by episode and does a great job dissecting them by considering the cultural context in which they were written. They also get a lot of pretty big name guests on the show regularly, like Bill Oakly, Josh Weinstein, and Matt Burnett to name a few.  I highly recommend listening to their episode on "The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show," (https://talkingsimpsons.libsyn.com/talking-simpsons-the-itchy-scratchy-poochie-show-with-rebecca-sugar-ian-jones-quartey-toby-jones) where they had Rebecca Sugar, Ian-Jones Quarterly, and Toby Jones on to discuss their perspective on the episode as cartoon creators, wherein they share many fascinating stories and insights into the ins and outs of fandom and tv cartoon production. It's a great podcast for Simpsons-lovers and is quickly becoming one of my favorites.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on August 06, 2019, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Daikun on August 31, 2017, 01:33:55 AMThe show's composer has been fired. (http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/simpsons-composer-alf-clausen-fired-1202543183)

He is now suing Fox. (https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-49248024)
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on August 17, 2019, 12:50:20 PM
Super Eyepatch Wolf made a followup video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8er83V2OJ1o) on the fall of The Simpsons.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on January 17, 2020, 07:13:20 PM
Update on the Apu situation: The character will still exist, but Hank Azaria will no longer voice him.
https://www.slashfilm.com/apu-voice-actor
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on March 21, 2021, 10:12:28 PM
So, I was in the mood to watch old seasons of The Simpsons recently, and figured that Disney+ would have addressed the cropped 16:9 aspect ratio by now, and wouldn't you know it....they still haven't done anything. Didn't they announce that they would fix that after all of the backlash at least a year ago, by this point?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on March 21, 2021, 10:32:02 PM
Disney+ should have an option to toggle the aspect ratio (instructions here (https://www.pocket-lint.com/tv/news/disney/152371-how-to-watch-the-simpsons-in-its-original-4-3-aspect-ratio-on-disney)). Maybe give that a try?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on April 22, 2022, 01:40:32 AM
Nine years after Krabappel's death, Bart finally gets a new teacher.
https://ew.com/tv/kerry-washington-joins-the-simpsons-bart-teacher-first-look
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on May 04, 2022, 12:57:39 AM
I watched the episode with Bart's new teacher. Meh. I've been hearing "The Simpsons is getting better again, guys!" talk over the last few years, and every time I listen and watch a recent episode, it's about as mediocre as The Simpsons episodes I saw when I stopped regularly watching. Sometimes, there's a surprising one, a Thanksgiving episode a few seasons ago was entertaining, but I genuinely don't get it when I hear talk about a new silver age of the show. I saw another episode a few months ago, the one that was homaging Fargo, and while I respect it for doing weird shit with the show, I didn't get all the praise I saw on Twitter at the time.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on May 04, 2022, 01:29:24 AM
I think these people have skewed expectations. "The crew made one good new episode, so the show must be getting better!"
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on July 16, 2022, 08:31:06 PM
TheRealJims, a YouTuber who dedicates his channel entirely to Simpsons retrospectives, pointed out that Homer is waaaaaaay nicer now than he was in his infamous "Jerkass" era.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsPu0q7dFxU

Do you think this shift in personality has made the show better?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on July 24, 2022, 07:12:54 PM
I mean, based off of the recent eps I watched, not really. Though I do agree with Jims that Simpsons discourse could look a little deeper than the same "everything after Season 9 is Zombie Simpsons" adage. And I agree with the consensus that Simpsons mostly hasn't been good in 20+ years, just that I think 20+ years of a TV show's still worth some kind of analysis beyond decade-old blanket statements.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Commode on August 07, 2022, 11:39:39 PM
I knew Jims before he was cool on YouTube
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on April 13, 2023, 10:59:37 PM
Rewatched a handful of episodes, and out of all the characters who used to show up in the golden years but dropped out because the writers forgot about them or their actor died, I miss Roger Meyers Jr. I doubt he's anybody's favorite, but he's a pretty vital element since he's the guy who makes all those Itchy and Scratchy cartoons the kids watch, while representing the corrupt underbelly of TV executives. His contempt for everyone and everything around him contrasting with how much Bart and Lisa loved his work made him stand out even in minor appearances, and when he dropped off the face of the show, suddenly all of his characters traits went to Krusty who wasn't nearly as interesting with them. At least when Meyers Jr was around, he could make Krusty look less nasty and unpleasant to watch by comparison. And that's one of the unsung reasons for why plenty of Simpsons characters don't work the way they used to, many of them were double acts, and removing the seemingly less important half of the duo gives the primary half nobody to bounce off of. A little like if there wasn't a Chalmers to balance Skinner out, or what eventually happened to Ned's character when Maude died.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Daikun on October 12, 2023, 06:46:07 PM
Super Eyepatch Wolf has come full circle on the show.

Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Avaitor on October 16, 2023, 11:07:32 AM
I keep hearing that the recent episodes are good, and whenever I try to watch it, there are decent jokes that tend to be ruined by a rapidly declining voice cast and awkward attempts at full animation that looks like the CD-i Zelda games. It's probably still better now than it was a decade ago when I jumped ship, but it's not that great.
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on November 03, 2023, 05:46:51 PM

Remember that time Sideshow Bob got an Italian family?
Title: Re: The Simpsons
Post by: Dr. Insomniac on December 01, 2023, 05:52:14 PM