What's new

The Simpsons - 04/13/03 (1 Viewer)

Jeremy Allin

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 6, 2001
Messages
895
Funny episode I thought!

Marge dumping out the pieces of the puzzle was great as was Weird Al's parody of "Jack & Diane".

Here's a couple of images from the show:



 

MatthewA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
This episode could be quite funny...

sporadically. But the whole gay stuff was beyond hackneyed and Weird Al's cameo was the disappointment of the season.

When people said this show was old I refused to believe it. But by the standards of television this show is now old. 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.

Edit: Yes, the show has been consistently funny for most of its run, in my opinion, but I am now convinced that it is not now, nor was it ever, infallible.
 

Scott Weinberg

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Messages
7,477
I've been somewhat disappointed in this season, but tonight's episode had me giggling rather consistently.

Good one!
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
24,721
Location
Albany, NY
I agree... a high point for the season. The fact that they stuck with an idea for the whole episode impressed me. I thought it would have been even better without the forced guest star, although I enjoyed the hell out of Weird Al's parody of 'Jack and Diane.'

A crappy episodes by the standards of the earlier seasons, but better than average for the current times.
 

Jaime_Weinman

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
786
This episode was originally supposed to have Homer moving in with Carl (Homer's super-efficient gay assistant from the second-season episode "Simpson and Delilah") and his partner. Unfortunately Harvey Firestein declined to come back, and they rewrote it with new characters. Too bad because I'd have loved to see Carl again (Matt Groening and Al Jean even mention, on the DVD commentaries, how funny he is and how they should bring him back).
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,195
Not bad, got some laughs, but I was afraid that they were going to pull a Barney Gumbel on Homer and have him stop drinking.
 

ThomasC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Messages
6,526
Real Name
Thomas
Another ho-hum episode.

Ooh, they were going to bring Carl back? That would've been nice. On another second season guest star note, it'd be nice if Dustin Hoffman would come back as Mr. Bergstrom (Lisa's Substitute). I wonder what it would take for Michael Jackson to come back...:D
 

Ike

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 14, 2000
Messages
1,672
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.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
20,901
Real Name
Malcolm
Favorite lines:

--Yoo-Hoo! Waylon! Who's the bear? Is this the mysterious "Mr. Burns" you're always going on about?

--He's made us a perfectly fine breakfast and all you can do is ride his butt...and not in a good way.


:laugh:
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason
I missed most of this episode, but what I was seeing was pretty good for this season. I even liked the Wierd Al cameo, tho the longer version of the song over the credits was better.

Jason
 

MatthewA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
Ike, I find your comments to be very patronizing.

I'm finding that in a post-9/11 society, The Simpsons have become very dated. The show I canonized for most of my life will never be what it once was again. I'm wondering whether it was that to begin with. I don't have the answer. Have I grown out of it? Have I become less cynical? Like Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In and SNL, this show started as anti-establishment and then became the new establishment. Furthermore, I'm wondering whether "The Establishment" is all that bad to begin with.

There are other things about me and about this show that are out of bounds for HTF discussion. All I will say is that on the season 2 DVD commentary when they condemned "rotten shows that tell you what to think" I couldn't help but smell the hypocrisy in that statement.

It's just difficult to realize the naysayers were right. The writing is still better than most TV today, but they've done everything, EVERYTHING. Dick Martin said the same thing when "Laugh-In" went off the air in 1973.

I have not come to a full conclusion yet, though.
 

Richard Kim

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2001
Messages
4,385
Anyone catch the HDTV (complete with HT speakers, the center speaker resting on top of the TV) during the end credits? ;)

I thought this episode was very good, and seems more like a throwback to an early seasons Simpsons episode.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
24,721
Location
Albany, NY
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.
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058
MatthewA, you're making no sense with your vague allusions to some change for you as a person. Come right out and say what it is about Simpsons that bother you now, that didn't use to bother you before, I'm sure we can handle it.

/Mike
 

Stephen Heath

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
91
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
 

Ike

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 14, 2000
Messages
1,672
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.
 

MatthewA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
Well, right now I think it's that the show has become so one-sided politically partially that bothers me. Plus, that they can make Weird Al unfunny to me means my faith in this show has shaken.

When I was young and impressionable, I believed the show could do no wrong. My heart sank when I read people talking about a decline in quality. Now I realize the show is not unflawed now and never was unflawed, and admitting I was wrong is such a large step for me.

There are some things about the show that are still intrinsically good (the characters, and much of the humor).

I'm becoming more conservative, with a little of small-l libertarianism mixed in; five years ago this was unthinkable, but so was 9/11. My change in attitudes has something to do with 9/11, yes, but I think because I'm becoming older and more rational I don't take everything at face value anymore. And I began to seriously question my views before 9/11.

Don't worry, I still oppose any laws that intrude on individual rights, as I always have. I just don't see things solely in black-and-white terms anymore. I see gray areas where I didn't before.

There'll always be room for satire, and there's plenty to make fun of. I'm just starting to disagree with this show's perspective. George Bernard Shaw was a great writer but his support for the Soviet Union bothers me.

I'm just not impressed by cynical smartness as I once was. MAD Magazine is going through a slump now because they've become so knee-jerk in their opinions.

"The Simpsons" grew out of the cynical mentality of the Baby Boomer generation. As one who is part of a subsequent generation, I'm wondering whether they were right or not. I'm not going from loving this show to hating it, but its message is "question everything," and I'm just questioning them.

Apologies all around for bad writing form, but I'm writing this as I think it.
 

MatthewA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
Ike, you do make a point about something being "intrinsically good," and I'm simply wondering that about The Simpsons. The last consistently funny episode aired in February, and the episodes since them have been a little uneven.
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058


IMO the show didn't either, the few times they really dealt with anything significant. But it seems to me that you liked the show because you perceived it as anti-authoritarian and anti-consverative, and now your personal views are more a,ong those lines, so you start to dislike the show, and question why you liked it in the first place.

I just don't read that much into the show, maybe that's why I've been able to enjoy it all this time. :)


/Mike
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
349,105
Messages
4,868,456
Members
142,479
Latest member
cabinguy
Recent bookmarks
0
Top