The Simpsons

[Guest Boo_Bradley]

I am pissed enough that they changed Barney and Killed Maude and put Gil in the place of Lionel Hutz (I know why they killed Maude and obviously couldn't raise Hartman from the dead - but it's just not the same)

 

RRR: Hates change

Why did they kill Maude?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

The actor that played her quit the show.

[Guest Boo_Bradley]

The actor that played her quit the show.

What other characters did she voice?

[Nighthawk 0]

The actor that played her quit the show.

What other characters did she voice?

Helen Lovejoy

Ms Hoover

Luanne Van Houten

misc others

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I agree that having the kids age is pointless at this point. Besides, those who are saying it's a good idea would surely be bitching about it as soon as they did it, as these are more or less the same people who are complaining about changes the show has made over the year. Admittedly Barney isn't nearly as funny or even noticeable anymore, but you need to change the characters up a bit as time goes by, otherwise they get stagnant.

[Guest El Satanico]

If they aged the kids and let them do more grown up things, I'm sure plenty of people will find a way to bitch that it's ripping off South Park.

 

Even if they aged the kids the tone and humor won't change that much. Unless they bring in some new writers, drastic format changes wouldn't change a thing.

[Guest mst3krules]

The thing that made me laugh last night was during the newscast, Kent Brockman saying:

 

"Mr. Burns, shown here terrorizing children in a 19th century woodcarving..."

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

^^^

 

That got the biggest laugh out of me, too.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I thought Barney DID fall off the wagon in one episode...I'm not sure though. I don't watch every episode anymore. Shoot me.

 

I think the Simpson's biggest problem right now is that it's a decent show. It's REALLY not that bad - but it used to be one of the funniest shows there's ever been. I think that simple fact, that it's a shadow of what it was, is what's making people be so critical of it.

 

Like, standing alone (if it were possible) the last few seasons really WOULDN'T be that bad. They only look really bad because of what could've been.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

The Simpsons that I love is back, what, 7 seasons ago??? This Simpsons is not that Simpsons... not even close... it is much, much, much worse. If I didn't see seasons 1-8, I wouldn't care and I would probably enjoy the shows like I do Futurama (they have the same comedy style)... but I did... and everything they do betrays those characters established in the earlier seasons.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

That's one perspective on it, but I really think some people take the "it's changed for the worse" attitude so far. It's still one of the funniest shows on there, and although a lot of the characters have gone through changes (some less popular than others), I still stand by the statement that any show that fails to have their characters grow in some way, are pretty much doomed for failure. Obviously there are exceptions, but that's generally the case. Hell, Urkel was funny once upon a time, but the writers insisted on never changing him (I don't count him being turned into Stephan and Bruce Lee and all that garbage as "changing") and the character became extremely stale, as did the show, since the characters and stories failed to change, as well.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Plus the animation is horrible. In Season 3 and 4, it LOOKED funny. It wasn't perfect, but it's imperfections are what made it great.

 

Now it's too smooth. They actually concentrate on shadow... the fuck?

 

In terms of developing characters - it's a cartoon. With Live-action you have to because the characters themselves physically change and we can personally relate to them because they look like us. The Simpsons are yellow, they have big white eyes, Homer defies human physiology, what is the deal with Bart and Lisa's hair... you dig? The Simpsons is run episodically, they don't have giant year-long storyarcs. They don't have to develop characters. Seinfeld didn't. I mean, there were subtle changes and that's cool, but in terms of "wow, they're so different from when they began", they weren't (cept for George doing his best Woody Allen impression in the first season). With the Simpsons, Bart and Homer are COMPLETELY different. Bart is a pussy and Homer is a megalomaniac.

 

Usually, in terms of sitcoms, they just add a baby or new cast member rather than change a character. With the Simpsons they've tried to have eps. that focus on the secondary characters they've created - Moe, for example, get's MUCH more play then he did from Season 1 - 7. This is just a way of hiding the fact that they've ran out of ideas for the core characters. That's why every week is "Let's have Homer do something stupid and make some crack on modern life" (which is SO annoying! The nuclear family has become Y2K compatible).

 

Yes, there is a certain shelf-life to a series if they don't "change", but then again, why should a series go 15 seasons? Seinfeld ended when it should have. The Simpsons should have ended around that time as well.

 

I think a big turning point was when they stopped calling them "Yellow" and instead just called them "White"... they aren't true to the universe they created.

 

And the Frank Grimes tombstone...

Edited November 11, 2003 by RavishingRickRudo

[Guest El Satanico]

One of your reasons for disliking the show is that the animation is done too well? No offense, but that's simply a stupid reason.

 

The fans who are ultra serious about the show are humerous.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

How so? Animation is key in an ANIMATED SHOW. It looked funnier in Season 3 and 4. The eps where Homer gives up god is a perfect example - the look on homers face when he's trying to trade off biblical references with Rev Lovejoy is hilarious. They don't allow for that in todays animation.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Plus their pupils were bigger in the older eps, along with their eyes in proportion to their heads. There was less definition in their faces when they spoke or reacted. The colours themselves are more vibrant - almost electric yellow. You can tell the differences between seasons (or at least, animation eras).

 

I don't understand what's so stupid in not liking the animation in an animated show...

[Guest Ray]

Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't they switch to computer animation?

 

Perhaps this could be the problem?

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Yep, they're all computer animated now, ala Futurama.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I'll admit that the animation in past years (like seasons 5-9 or so) were just the way I liked it, but they still give great amounts of attention to details like facial expressions and the like. Paying close attention to Homer or Bart, you'll often see them with a sly look on their face that goes unnoticed if you're not paying attention close enough. I agree that the show should've gone out while it was on top, but you act like everyone despises the show, when in fact, it's primarily all these whiney-ass people on the 'net, who just like to slam any and everything, even things they claim to like.