- Oct 6, 2001
Now I'm rethinking my position on a lot of things about the show as a whole; its ideology (because my own has changed dramatically) and its characters. I'm rethinking whether the show was ever any good.
That's an extremely vague statement-what do you mean by it's and your's ideology? And of course the show was good. There is a difference between whether you like something and whether something is good...the Simpsons is good, no matter if you like it or not.
As for this episode, I thought it was generally good. I enjoyed Scott Thompson, but couldn't stand the absolutely horrible Weird Al cameo. If they had've cut him out, it would have been about 10 times better for me.
I'm finding that in a post-9/11 society, The Simpsons have become very dated.Without venturing into the no-no areas of politics and religion, could you clarify? The world didn't stop spinning on 9/11; America was shaken free of it's illusion of invulnerability, but I don't see how it permeates down to animated pop culture.
I don't comprehend the distinction. The only thing that decides whether something is good or bad is people; like wise with whether something is liked.True, but I believe what the original author is saying is that even though you may not like something, there may be enough that do to call it "good". On the other hand, the author may be saying that something is intrinsicly "good"... after all, a lot of people LIKE pan and scan and yet around here people thing it is bad. If the majority like pan and scan, to believe widescreen is better you must believe it is intrinsicly better.
In either case, a not insignificant number of people either like the simpsons, or believe it to be "intrinsicly good".
That said, and while I personally have not had my feelings change about the Simpsons lately, I have found my attitudes about a lot of things changing. I don't think it's just 9/11 though. Take 9/11 and the war, combine in the chilling effects of every citizen being treated as a criminal through the DMCA, RIAA, the Patriot Act, CAPPS II (the one where you need to be subject to a credit check before you can fly on a plane), our idiotic leaders looking to pick fights with other countries (I'm talking the liberals picking fights with Americans here, I'm Canadian), an upcoming recession, and then top everything off with a trend towards extremism as common sense and the middle ground get tossed out the window, and you have our currently troubled times. I do agree, however, that things should (knock on wood) be back to normal in 10-15 years. Until then, I'll enjoy the simpsons as a break from reality, perferably on season sets on DVD so I can go back to a simpler time when the biggest concern people had was the leader of the free world splooging on a dress =p
True, but I believe what the original author is saying is that even though you may not like something, there may be enough that do to call it "good". On the other hand, the author may be saying that something is intrinsicly "good"... after all, a lot of people LIKE pan and scan and yet around here people thing it is bad. If the majority like pan and scan, to believe widescreen is better you must believe it is intrinsicly better.
Basically. A little from column A, a little from column B. If you don't like Citizen Kane, it doesn't make it bad. Even though Citizen Kane isn't the most popular movie, it could very well be the best. Another poster (I'm sorry I've forgotten who, and the search is down) once posted their art professor said that if you don't like the Mona Lisa, it says more about you than it does da Vinci.