The Simpsons recently started showing up in my newsfeeds again with the episode 'Lisa the Boy Scout'. This got me thinking some probably controversial thoughts about the show's most infamous episode 'The Principal and the Pauper'. Please scream at me now.
I find it really hypocritical that people talk so dreadfully about the principal and the pauper while Homer the great is such a great episode despite doing the exact same thing if not worse. I'm convinced many people who hate on that episode never watched it because it's a good episode that sends more depth into Skinner's character.
One of the biggest things that hurts it for me now is the voices. Some actors are clearly struggling with their old voices and others have retired and been replaced to mixed results.
Until a few months ago, I hadn't watched a new simpsons episode since around 2007/8. Then I put a season 30ish episode on and left the room. The voices sounded so different I thought I put the wrong show on.
@@tiffanielafleur6597 in some cases, it's a different actor like Mr. Burns or smithers because Harry shearer left the show some years ago. In other cases it's just age. The actress from Marge is clearly struggling and I can't blame her with that voice!
The writers have become so aware of how the internet operates that they made an episode specifically designed to generate outrage from people who haven't watched the show in years. People who just watch random clips on social media and immediately go on tangents about how The Simpsons jumped the shark and their childhood is ruined. Can't help but respect it.
Honestly, if I wrote for a show that nobody watched, and it had been running for so long and forgotten for so long that I knew that nothing I did could change the show's reputation in any way, it would do weird things to my head, too.
They can start having time move forward by having the kids go up a grade and continue on that way. Slowly having them actually age. Or they may as well have a season take place while Bart and Liza are in high school. I feel like this show can basically do anything because I don't see it getting cancelled due to them wanting to keep the title of "Animated show with the most amount of episodes".
@@user-ig4dl4iv1j clickbaity episodes were the topic of the video. What we were discussing involves permanent change. Simpsons: 10 years later, for example. Bart, Lisa and the rest of their friends being teens etc No backpedaling.
If I were running The Simpsons, I would try doing a season long storyline. Not like South Park Season 20 levels of serialization (that shit sucked), but add in some subtle arc to make things interesting and keep people watching. Maybe do like an arc where say, Mr. Burns becomes the mayor. We would start off the first episode just normally, and then somehow the events of that episode lead to Mr. Burns running for mayor. In episode 2 he’ll become mayor, and then he’ll just be the mayor for the rest of the season, and we’ll have a bunch of episodes exploring how the town changes because he’s the mayor. Not every episode has to be about Burns being mayor, but maybe like half of them will involve it in some kind of way. The whole thing would build up to an eventual big finale where he would probably be ousted and things would go back to normal. You could probably come up with a better idea for a storyline, but I think this is a good example of how one could work.
Dude people who still watching the show don't care about the show being bad at all, in any case the show is already dead to this point a long storyline would make anything at all, people who watch it don't care about get anything better, and people who stop watching wish the show just finish, say whatever you want about SP but there's a lot of people who enjoy the actual show not matter a bunch of losers cry in social media about it... Dude if you don't like the thing just stop watching.
@@theothertonydutch Dude they having doing that for 15 years already, people don't mind, I don't think anyone actually can tell you the difference between a 20 season's episode and a 27 season's episode.
The problem with TP&TP is that it doesn't fit with Skinner's characterisation, his upbringing by his mother is what made him who he is, you can't just write that out. It's also clear that he's just never rebelled in his life, and can't relate to people who do.
LoL you mean people is what they used to be 20 years ago... Dude you're the reason why Simpsons suck so much, you guys don't want to things change, but the thing is they still changing... Simpson changed anyway.
Something that I think hurts a show on this long is not having the characters age. I'd love if the show tried having Bart at 18 and Lisa at 16 (permanently or just a full season or two). You could do so many new ideas now that they can drive, show them at various jobs, have more high school scenarios that don't fit elementary school settings, utilize Maggie more now that she's age 9 and can have much more to her character... That would breathe new life into the show for sure.
Honestly the best thing the Simpsons can do is age everyone up by at least 5 to 10 years permanently just to force them to CHANGE and take some big creative swings
marge and homer would probably stay the same, maybe marge has a growing grudge about homer being a alcoholic or or something , Lisa would be in middle school and bart high school, think it would be funny if bart constantly is failing to go after girls. but the real funny part is that what if maggie still won’t speak she’s in kindergarten now and still doesn’t would be pretty funny
The Simpsons has basically become Commedia dell'Arte, just a set of stock characters that can be put in any situations because there is no continuity, but it's in denial about it. It thinks it needs to justify every reset. It doesn't. If there was a non-Treehouse of Horror episode where Homer died and he was just fine in the next episode with no explanation, that would not be that weird and would honestly be kind of par for the course, given all the dumb shit they've made Homer recover from already
That's actually quite an astute comparison. American Dad actually does that quite a lot where it kills off characters in random episodes and then just resets it
I mean they do have that episode where the kids get stranded on an island lord of the flies style, and instead of bogging it down with some last-minute rescue at the end just to fix the status quo, a narrator appears and just says "and then they were saved by...I don't know, moe?" and it ends
The reason Principal and the Pauper ended the way it did is because Groening wanted the show to be a subversive take on traditional sitcoms. One of the unspoken, but instinctually understood, rules of classic sitcom structure is that no matter what happens the episode must always end where it began, owing to the serial nature of TV sitcoms. If Ralph Kramden got fired from his job and had to work with Norton down in the sewers, by the end of the episode he had to get his old job back, because people who missed that week's episode couldn't tune in the next week and suddenly Ralph had a completely different job. If Fred got super powers from Great Kazoo for an episode, he had to give them up at the end because this is the Flintstones, not Captain Caveman. People would get confused and just stop watching because there was no real way to catch up with what you already missed other than from word of mouth. That episode of the Simpsons was also the result of what Groening, in DVD commentaries, called elastic reality. While early episodes were fully grounded in full reality, around season 6 is when we would get jokes involving things like animation errors or overtly cartoonish sight gags. A quick step from being based in reality, to cartoon absurdity, and back again was a powerful comedic tool. Principal and the Pauper was an experiment to see how far they could stretch disbelief before snapping it back. Sadly, they stretched it TOO far. Homer going to space? Fine. Homer fighting ersatz Mike Tyson? Fantastic. Straight-laced Seymour Skinner being a dyed-in-the-wool ne'er-do-well? Shut up and get out.
It's somewhat telling that the Treehouse of Horror episodes (i.e the episodes that deliberately mess with the canon) tend to have the highest viewership in their individual seasons.
That and the fact that Treehouse of Horror episodes managed to get away with elements common in thriller or horror genres, such as the obvious gory stuff, to the point only adult animated shows outmatches it. Being non canon also allows for risky moves since the audience knows none death in there will stick, but what can happen, will happen.
I do agree that I think Principal and the Pauper would be taken a lot better today. The ending was, to me, one of the funniest jokes the show ever did: the way the judge and entire town intentionally declare that they will be upholding the old status quo was basically a mockery of episodic comedy and it was great.
As a Simpson’s fan born in 2005, I was aware of Skinner’s real origins from a young age and when I saw it, when I was 7 or something , I loved it because I’d never seen an episode being subversive and people having secret pasts fascinated me.
I've never understood why ppl are so bothered by TP&tP. The way the townsfolk react to "Real" Seymour is exactly how the writers were counting on the audience reacting. It's a not so subtle commentary on how ppl are usually just shallow enough to accept a fake over the genuine article if they decide they like it better. Integrity is fine 'till you realise having it enivitably means you gotta make compromises.
@@AxelWedstar411Honestly it always annoys me when people call The P&TP the worst Simpsons episode ever when garbage like Lisa Goes Gaga, The Boys of Bummer, The Elon Musk episode & The SJW Episode (I forgot the names of the last two) exist. Sure it’s an absurd episode but the classic era humor is still there (for example: “Up yours, children”). And people are way too hard on Seasons 9 & 10 in general, sure they’re a step down from 3-8 and they had a few more clunkers than the previous seasons but they still have a lot of classic too especially compared to 2008+ Simpsons
The real problem with the Principal and the Pauper isn't that it changed Skinner as a character, it's that they didn't continue with the change they set up. They immediately hit the reset button to try and undo the changes, but it didn't really work because you can't really undo a change like that. That's really what hurt the episode and why people didn't like it at the time. They could've easily just kept it as canon and had Armin as effectively a new character, but they couldn't really do that because the real Skinner was voiced by a celebrity guest and needed to be kicked out of the show by the end of the episode. There's plenty of other changes on the show over the years that were permanent (killing off characters, Homer having a long lost brother, Brockman's lottery win, etc) and while those changes fundamentally alter some characters, people generally just accepted them as a new part of the show. For example, just five episodes after 'The Principal and the Pauper', Apu's character is changed permanently by marrying him off to Manjula when his parents force him to go through with his long-ignored arranged marriage. That's a fairly popular episode, despite being past the classic seasons. But imagine if the writers had instead caved on the idea at the last minute by having Homer's attempts at ruining the marriage actually work, and Manjula just returned to India leaving Apu's character back at status quo. I think people would've been just as irritated with that episode as with 'TPatP'.
It would be really funny if they changed up the status quo by making canon the original plan of homer being krusty and marge having bunny ears even if its super contradictory at this point lmao
The thing is, there were some status quo changes that stuck. Ned got remarried to Mrs Krabappel that only got reversed when Marcia Wallace died. They also had the Comic Book Guy get married and his wife’s still around. And nobody batted an eyelid! We’re okay with these. Do more of this Simpsons!
I am morbidly fascinated with the Comic Book Guy marriage episode. Not only they let someone the show dunk on for 25 years get in a serious relationship with [generic japanese manic pixie dream girl], they couldn't find a decent plot about it so the episode ended up being half filler.
I always describe it as the first few seasons felt like they were a believeably real family, like I could see my own family doing something like that, but then it became... scripted... cartoony... In that I could never see any real family doing any of the things they're doing. For example, when they "met" a celebrity by name for the first time, it was a whole spectacle, but now, it's either a running gag or cliche, like "Oh the prime minister greets everyone at the airport", or "Celebrity X visits the simpson household for reason Y"
I will say, the more recent episodes of the Simpsons are absolutely FASCINATING. Like early seasons are trying to figure out what it's set out to do. The "golden era" which we all love is beloved to a huge chunk of the people who grew up watching and loving it. Then it took that shift in the "late era Simpsons" (Which is now the MID seasons because we're all old now) and now it's taken this VERY odd turn in the last decade to be kind of bonkers and experimental. Like I absolutely LOVED A Serious Flanders where it feels like they're actually doing a stylistic experiment. Everyone complaining about "Jerk Ass Homer" needs to see the latest season where Homers actually super lovable and nice. The writing in the mid teen seasons was INCREDIBLY hit and miss and super meta, but I think the BEST thing to come out of the Simpsons in recent years is the fan community where it's got such an insane level of creativity. Also, Stu, just wondering if you can give "Stan Against Evil" a watch. It's created by dana Gould who made a live action horror comedy that feels VERY Simpsons.
If you listen to the audio commentary for Principal and the Pauper, you'll realise just how firmly and passionately Ken Keeler (the episode's writer) believed in it's premise and how proud he was of it, regardless of what audiences thought. It's hard to be funny if you're too self-conscious about what people think of you and if more episodes were written with P&tP's level of conviction, the show would definitely be more interesting.
That insecurity is so visible now to the point that it overshadows the creativity that goes into the show. You can tell that some writers and animators genuinely still love working on this but I don't get what they're trying to achieve anymore. The simpsons isn't counterculture anymore.
@@finchcarvingadiamond They were always a little insecure. That's why the Comic Book Guy character exists, to mock internet criticism of the show (yes even in the 90s, there were lots of nerds on usenet).
I dunno if there is a long-term solution to some of this argument because some of it comes down to, "most people just don't need 30 seasons of a TV show." The Simpsons were doing big stunts to retain viewers all the way back in Season 5 and 6 with Homer going to space or Who Shot Mr. Burns. I'd imagine a bunch of people at the time watched some of Season 7 afterward and stopped, saying "it's just more Simpsons." Everyone's media diet is different. I would love to see The Simpsons evolve into a Community-esque show that is utterly bizarre each week, but am unsure how sustainable that is over a long period. For what it's worth, Matt Selman (who basically showruns The Simpsons now) really embraces the weirdness of The Simpsons and its long-running nature. He wrote "That 90s Show" which brought a similar amount of fan fury. Since running the majority of Season 33 episodes to today, his influence is one of the reasons why the show is a little weirder and experimental. Even in his more conventional episodes, they seem to be trying to find some topical or character concept they've never done before. I don't know if the series will ever really change format-wise in the long term but am glad that the current writing staff has the self awareness that they shouldn't be afraid to try more stuff. Maybe after the positive reception of the Season 34 episodes you mentioned, they will be emboldened to do more.
I will admit there is a degree of inevitability to it. Thirty seasons is far too long for most people. As said, I am more intrigued by season 34 than I have been in recent years. That was easily the best treehouse of horror I've seen in a long time and Lisa the boy scout is certainly encouraging. Ps. Love your channel :)
@@Stubagful Thanks! I really enjoyed your video! I don't watch too many Simpsons video essays on RUclips, but yours drew me in with the observation about Every Man's Dream and the way they hook the audience. Your observations about the online media cycles and the psychological damage done by The Principal and the Pauper were really incisive 😀
Thanks! I'm planning more Simpsons content. If anything good has come out of this it's it made me dust off my fandom that I forgot about. I recently found that I still have my copy of hit and run for GameCube
I think South Park as a show has generally been far more successful over it's long running time due to the fact that Matt and Trey aren't afraid to change up the status quo now and then, I imagine it makes it easier since they are the original creators, where as creators inheriting a story a more likely to play it safe at times
Yeah, but they had to do the "Maude Flanders died" episode because the voice actress left the show. (I mean, yes, there were other options - hire someone else to do her voice, etc.), but at least they had an excuse.
@@AnAverageGoblin Wasn't it because she wanted to live in a different state to the recording studio, and wanted Fox to pay for her travel expenses to and from the studio?
@@cookieface80 She already lived in Denver, and she was paying her own travel costs. She asked for a raise from 2 to 6 thousand per episode, but Fox offered a $150 raise. Fox wound up making a deal for her to record her lines from home 3 years later.
It’s interesting what you say about click bait because what initially made The Simpsons popular was that when it was a series of sketches in the Tracy Ullman show people came to watch it as there had never been a cartoon made before in which characters said the word ‘crap’. And the dynamic character driven style of the writing drew people in and got them invested in the characters. This was in a time where cartoons weren’t trying to be edgy and were considered as being for children meaning it stood out being more like a live action sitcom. I just find it interesting that the Simpsons started and became popular because it shook the format and got people watching with big actions that it actually committed to. Whereas now it seems to be the antithesis of that where it’s stagnating and refusing to commit to anything new.
I'd say it would have to be a dream. The simple fact is, Marge and Homer can't break up. There's too much precedent that no matter what Homer has ever done - even MARRY ANOTHER WOMAN - Marge forgives him because she loves him, no matter what. They've actually divorced in the past, but that was purely so Homer could re-marry Marge and give her the wedding she felt she deserved. people wouldn't really be "accepting" of any stupid new changes. They'd just call it stupid and move on with apathy, because that's how most people view The Simpsons now. Not something worth watching, just something that happens to be on.
I thought The Principle and the Pauper was fine when I saw it at the time. It was an hilarious plot twist. Homer has been tempted to be unfaithful to Marge but he couldn't go through with it eg in "The Last Temptation of Homer". I think if Homer went through with an affair audiences would HATE him. Seriously. I know I would.
Cheating is one of the few lines Homer hasn’t crossed and would be very appalled with himself if he did go there. As you say, Last Temptation of Homer explored this concept in a far more nuanced way than a Simpsons storyline has any right.
Yeah, I didn't like Every Man's Dream episode even though it was a "it was all a dream" episode. It has been a long time since I viewed the Simpsons but to me, even though Homor has his flaws, he's still a loyal, caring, father. If there was an affair ark in the show, it would change my views on him because I view cheating as one of the most disrespectful thing you can do to your partner. It would have a far more negative outcome from the audience than a positive one. It would definitely cause the show to get more attention. But it would be like if you want to get more attention, all you have to do is just light yourself on fire. Now everyone is looking at you. You get that attention you want, but you quickly destroy yourself in the process and as soon as that fire is out, no one cares about you anymore.
It's also a completely self aware twist- the fact that Skinner just immediately starts looking like Fonzie from Happy Days, known best in modern culture for "jumping the shark" by having Fonzie do just that - exactly the kind of story they were telling with Principle And The Pauper - the status quo returns in a hilarious way and even gets referenced a couple times down the line as having been a thing
The simpsons could of sailed of into the sun set being one of the greatest shows ever made if they just stopped after the film, but now we got session 1 to 10 golden age, the rest so so, and that honestly breaks my heart I think the simpsons was a massive part of most people's childhood they had it all if they just stopped at the right time.
Imo there's no real quality drop off point. It was more gradual than people give it credit for. Sure after a lt of the core writers left in series 8 it was inevitable but not insant, you still get quality episodes just gradually less and less and gradually more vapid and bland feeling epsidoes clog it up untila round when it went HD where there was non left of real quality
I’m not sure if it was intended this way, but I’ve always thought the speech Homer gives at the end of Principal and the Pauper shows that it’s about somebody’s connection to the character and not who the character literally is. He says that he doesn’t care that it’s not really Skinner, and his mom doesn’t care, and then he asks the rest of the town if any of them care that skinner isn’t really Skinner. To them it’s about liking him, not about his name (he lied which is bad of course, but the idea is that he was likeable and genuine even if he was uptight and milquetoast. I felt it sweet that his mom felt a connection to a wayward stranger that showed up on her door and pretended he was her son when really she thought she had lost her son (now why don’t you go up to your room, third door on the left). Now they really are mother and son, because blood doesn’t matter, love does.
I'm seeing comments saying they'd try serialization if they ran the show these days, and I'd do the same. What if some episodes had changes but things DIDN'T reset at the end? Take an idea like the Hank Scorpio ep. It starts off the same but the Simpsons DON'T go back to Springfield til a full season later, and there's a whole "Cypress Creek" season. A full 24 episodes or whatever of the family living in this new town.. Homer's new job, with new supporting characters.. A full season of Hank Scorpio! How fun would that be? And the season takes its time, really builds up to this new life not working out for the rest of the family, and by the end of the season they ultimately move back to Springfield and we see all our supporting characters again. I think serialization like that would breathe new life into the show at this point.
The best way the show has adapted to streaming is simply being on a streaming service after being a holdout for several years. Now we can endlessly repeat the golden years as background noise, which I've done a couple of times now!
Just curious - when do you see the golden years as 'stopped?' cause everyone has a different answer. Mine's sort of season 10 but 11 has some of my favourite episodes
@@Stubagful personally, I don't think it was a hard cutoff, as there were certainly episodes in season 10 that I found just as good as the golden years and seem to fit in with them pretty seamlessly. For example, 'Mayored to the Mob'. Overall, I could see the season had a noticeable dip in quality compared to its recent predecessors, but that classic era spirit could still be found. I would say the same for season 11 as well, haven't gone far enough to properly analyse the rest.
If you haven't, check out TheRealJims's channel. He does season retrospectives and he's all the way up to 15 currently. Really good in-depth reviews of each season without immediately dismissing everything past Season 8 as "bad" or "unwatchable".
While it would certainly open some creative doors and turn some heads if the characters started acting out of turn, you would probably end up with a show like 'Family Guy' where the family, friends, and other relationships throughout the show feel inconsistent and hollow because the writer's will sacrifice anything the audience cherishes for a bit. That's something unique 'The Simpsons' has retained, even in its boresome longevity. The audience really does give a damn about the characters, so sentimental moments still feel sentimental and the family still feels like a family. If I had to choose, I prefer the show's characters metastasize rather than erode.
I honestly think the Simpsons changed its purpose after the first years. Yes it was at somepoint the pinnacle of entertainment and creating a path for cartoon shows for adults. But it always was too profitable for its own good. Its not a show to be watched like most series. Its like Seinfeld. Watch its when it comes on and ull be entertained. Actually its really decent for that. Not serialized its great.
It's funny that as soon as you broke down the premise of the Marge and exercise bike episode. It immediately reminded me of the Bowling Instructor episode, from all the way back in Season 1.
@@Stubagful There is still something really special in the first few seasons. You also gave me pause when you could cite a specific season that you trailed off the show. I can't think of the last time I watched more than just a standalone episode repeat? Just like South Park, Family Guy etc I'm often surprised to read they are all still going.
I'm just ready for the show to have one bombastic, experimental final season and for the very last scene to be the moments leading up to the snowy drive to the Christmas pageant in the very first episode, just like what Groening wants. Maybe the series could have a sequel one day but I feel like the Simpsons needs one hell of a break.
I feel like simpsons click bait that actually is the main plot of the episode is a rarity though. Simpsons usually has like a big staging set piece that leads to a completely different plot in about 3 minutes. But those first three minutes are what was plastered all over the weekly ads. But now instead of bait and switch bait, the click bait is just the bait.
The difference between the Pauper episode and the attempts at it now is that Principal and The Pauper was all about how shows will bullshit everything only to pretend like it never happened but now they do it without being able to properly surprise people, either by having to back-out of the plot or just not actually being clever.
I don't think Principal and the Pauper is that bad, as it has a lot of great jokes, but the main flaw is that Skinner was chosen to be the focus, when his backstory and personality had been so firmly established over the years. It would have made more sense if they had done this story for someone like Superintendent Chalmers or Mr. Largo, characters we really don't know much about when you get down to it, especially back then.
I currently am watching thru the Simpsons… And I really didn’t think of the Principal and the Pauper as that big of a deal of an episode. Early simpsons has lots of running continuity things and it wasn’t like Skinner was a sacred character like Marge. It was just fine an episode. Homer’s Enemy was the first episode that felt truly different and I wasn’t sure if I liked the way it painted a main character or not.
I loooove hearing modern takes on episodes that used to be seen as a show's 'death' - it sets the stuff people get pissed off about online now in perspective
I always thought it would be amazing if the Simpsons grew up/got older as the show went on. We could have Bart and Lisa with their own families with Marge and Homer being the Grand Parents and sometimes old characters die off so new ones can replace them. A evolving world like real life TV shows where actors get older and the times change, South Park kind of did this with them going up a few grades in school and there are permanent changes made to South Park itself such as the new mall, PC Principal, Mr Garrison becoming president, etc which actually sticked to the show and weren't just one and done gimmick episodes. Hell they even made a whole season where everyone was adults!
Just last year the show took a chance by taking the Treehouse of Horror premise and did a whole episode as an It parody alongside the usual three shorts episode. A few years ago it did Thanksgiving of Horror, using Thanksgiving as the basis for three non-canon episodes.
Regarding fan theories though, do people actually believe them? I've always assumed they were more jokes that fans come up with, often along the lines of "ooh, this cute/wholesome series is actually dark and twisted", and it's all a game to see who can come up with the most dark and twisted theory. Like, are there seriously fans who watch the show with the mentality that everything after Homer going into a coma in the S4 clip show episode is just his coma-dream and he's never woken up? Because if the show is going to acknowledge fan theories as truth, it'd be good if the fans did legitimately believe them, rather than it just being a thing they spread around social media for sh*ts & giggles while entertainment news outlets write about these theories to fill time on slow news days.
I don't know, there are examples I can think of from other media where some believers become so confident they've cracked some hidden lore of the game that they will aggressively argue its true and that they're intellectually superior for having seen through the "misdirection"
ugh! i hate those future eps after the 3rd. i hate bart's kids and that they're with jenda ,and lisa and milhouse, what a waste! just let her die of fentanyl at 13, like angelica from rugrats. it's more humane
This is a pretty interesting video. As a somewhat avid watcher of the current era of the show and a part of that modern fanbase, I have a lot of thoughts about this that range from agreement to disagreement. I think my main point of disagreement is that while I get what you're saying about the show proper, I feel like Lisa the Boy Scout is the exact wrong episode to use for this discussion, because the episode is specifically in conversation with its fanbase and the fact that its in a fictional setup is kind of the point. If you look at how the current showrunner) was tweeting about it on twitter he was talking about the things in episode with no context and there were people who dont watch the show anymore talking about how bad it is and getting clowned on. I think that alongside things like showing clips of past episodes in the discussion of "clips that wil ruin the show forever" show that the show in its current state is aware of its legacy and I feel playing something like the Martin thing straight would just come across as actually desperate for headlines rather than having a willingness to play with the universe. The conclusion I came to at the end of Lisa the Boy Scout ended up being the opposite of yours, in that the show realises the position its in and is really is willing to start playing with the universe. Maybe not in terms of long term changes to the characters, but playing with the format is becoming a lot more common. I think a part of this is due to the fact that in Season 32, the showrunner duties changed from Al Jean to Matt Selman, and a lot of the gimmick episodes of the early HD era were done under him. In the past 2 seasons alone we got a non canon 2 parter based around Ned Flanders parodying Fargo, a second Halloween episode this season based on It, an episode told entirely through someone clicking through different RUclips videos, the aformententioned Lisa the Boy Scout, two different episodes that jump to the future, and in season 33 we got 2 seperate musical episodes. I dont necessarily think these are meant to start headlines, and is more just the people working on the show knowing what's going on here and making their own more playful version of the show instead of trying to match up to how it is in the past.
In terms of the fanbase, while I do think the changes are mostly reacted to positively, a somewhat common thought among some people is that the show is actually doing too many gimmicks and they want more episodes that just use the standard storytelling formula, which is why Im not entirely sure if the people still watching would look at something like Martin being an undercover cop and just accept it. In fact, the show has been playing with things like that lately, adding new lore to people or giving us underused character dynamics. We recently got an episode where it was revealed Wiggum's wife was secretly a criminal who was hiding her perosnality the whole time, and this change has somewhat stuck, and some people are very much not happy about that. That being said, I do agree with you that the show seems to be afraid of committing to changes. A lot of other small things have happened lately, like revealing Brandine was actually being smart the whole time and walked away from it for love, giving Bart a new full time teacher, Making Comic Book Guy's wife actually talk about wanting to have a child with him, bringing back Maya to actually get into a relationship with Moe, and some other spoilery stuff. Presumably the show will do something with all these things later on, but hasnt yet, and it does feel annoying that a lot of the interesting character changes are piling up and taking so long to get followed up on. That being said, I do think in terms of looking at the show doing interesting things I feel its a lot less shallow than it may seem in passing, even if its not perfect, and even the more standard episodes feel more interesting. Ironically, I watched a lot of the HD era and also basically stopped watching after season 28 and only came back into it recently.
Personally, I had no problems with the principle and the pauper myself, indeed I remember a lot of the jokes and scenes quite fondly "jasper didnt' want to come by himself!" The reason I stopped watching the Simpsons was due to the major decline in writing quality. Characters becoming one note (this was the show that invented the word flanderization), satire turning to propping up the establishment, the jokes becoming repetitive, shallow and laboured, or the scripts simply having characters say nonsensical lines to save time. indeed, the trend where shows like She hulk and Velma go: "Look! the writers are doing this! isn't it funny!" Is one I first noticed in the Simpsons from seasons 11 onward. There is the odd good joke in zombie Simpsons it's true, but after Lisa goes Gaga, I just stopped wanting to expend the time and trouble having to sit through all the blandness. Whatever the plot does or does not do, since then I've not seen much evidence that things have changed, or that the writing is out of it's slump. It doesn't matter what the twist is, Edna Krabappel gets together with Ned lfanders, commic book guy gets married, Patty adopts a Chinese orphan, they all ended up feeling really flat, since the character writing, jokes and just plane over all quality of the script has gone down so badly. That's why for me, I honestly can't care what subversive stuff the Simpsons does or what changes it makes, since the basic nuts and bolts that hold the show together rusted a long time ago. Oh I don't doubt there are one or two smile worthy jokes still, but again that's not enough, especially compared to the tight, focused writing of classic simpsons.
it's funny how he mentions the dream episode as being "interesting" and got him to be intrigued by season 27, because this was the one episode that made me completely give up on Modern Simpsons. I wasn't big on it before at all, but I had decided to check on how the show had developed by then, since maybe I was being too harsh and cynical, but no, it was unfunny and clearly wanted to capitalize on the tease of the status quo finally changing but not really committing to it in a terrible cop-out and cheap way, making it ultimately hollow. since I saw "Every Man's Dream" I have decided to stick to just up to season 20-1, at a push, and that pretty much everything after that wasn't worth my time. then I watched the Death Note parody, and I stand by my decision, specially because it was obvious that the show did it in a attempt to reel people back in, not because they had a super crazy and awesome idea for a THoH segment
I really disagree with your solution to the Simpsons status quo state, I don't think experimental and weird stuff should become canon, at least not to a certain degree, and I really don't want the Simpsons to become like family guy and be able to kill off the characters and screw with them whenever it wants, because that just ISN'T the Simpsons. I'd say the solution has been present in the show already since Edna started dating Flanders, and that is to simply maintain the small status quo changes it makes, I think the relationship between those two was the best part of the Simpsons for that time, and if everything in the show started changing in small ways then we'd be interested because everything would have something new added onto it, it would be the same show but it would keep your interest at the same time. It kinda sucks the way the new season has tried to do this with giving Moe a girlfriend and replacing Edna's character with a new teacher in school, both episodes don't negate the status quote change they've done by the end of the episode, but none of the later episodes explore this stuff at all, I wish we could see more of Bart and his New teacher in more episodes than just one.
I may have overegged this point somewhat. I will admit yours is the more sensible approach. When I say these two different sides of the Simpsons could bleed together I don't necessarily mean just bluntly hammering the two together, and there are instances where they bleed across and have created some of my favourite episodes. E.g the computer wore tennis shoes is one of the wildest episodes the show's done and it leaves it open-ended.
People hate The Principal and the Pauper because it's fucking terrible. Completely destroying a character in a completely nonsensical way like that isn't good character development. Meanwhile, compare The Principal and the Pauper to something like Hurricane Neddy and the latter is much better and more believable.
I think the simpsons should do one big, season-spanning story arc like what South Park attempted years ago. For a show like this I think it'd really open the door for more out-there ideas. You could even still have things return to the status quo after the end of said season but it'd still be a good way to bring back interest imho.
I think it's worth noting the pressure of syndication in this formula. Yes, streaming changes things, especially shows made for streaming, but The Simpsons is still in syndication on multiple channels. You point out it's a relic of a bygone era, but that's literally true, it's one of the last shows in existence that still has to always maintain the status quo because it's one of the last shows in existence still being made with syndication in mind.
The fact that your social media feed was full of people gossiping about a show none of them have watched for 15 years or cared about in the slightles is more of an indictment of social media in general than of the Simpsons.
It's still kind of sad that with every new season the simpsons is more blatantly desperate for viewers attention. The depressing current state is like the giant elephant in the room like every episode now. It's like a late stage capitalism cliche. :(
The Simpsons should learn from It's Always Sunny, the other longest running sitcom from the live action realm of television. The Simpsons is afraid of shaking things up and making changes because they don't want to mess with what is known and is expected. However it's always sunny is able to do new things that shake things up with the canon, while also still being able to keep the old reliable iconic things that keeps It's Alway Sunny (same main characters all working at the bar.) An idea I always thought could be good for The Simpsons is to have Marge and Homer break up for real this time at the start of a season, of course having them get back together but leaving that to the very last episode of the season but leaving a 20 episode run of how things would be in that scenario.
Idea for a full canon season of changes: First episode: Homer does something that pushes marge to her breaking point and she kicks him out like she has a million times before but this time the show ends with her not taking Homer back. The next few episodes is exploring how this change affects the kids, maybe have Bart show his mother some kindness and try to behave and do well and he could have a bonding moment with his dad, maybe homer spends some time with his dad and grows as a father. Lisa could also end up having problems with everything giving Bart attention cause they think that Lisa isn't the one who will spiral and as à result she gets further down a path than she should have done cause no one notices (maybe she gets hooked on something or has a mental breakdown). Have things settle for a bit with a few standard stories. Then maybe have the reveal that Ralph isn't wiggum's biological child, I think it could end one of two ways, either a complete destruction of his relationship with his wife and kid or the one I like more is maybe his marriage is over but he still views himself as Ralph's dad (insert yondu's line from GOTG2). In this story maybe we get to see Homer and wiggum hang out. Maybe this revelation could lead to a few more truths to be uncovered. Screw it Martin is actually an undercover cop and his cover gets discovered by Bart and Lisa, this being the mystery episode of the season, maybe seeing how miserable Martin is Bart and Lisa help him finish his undercover mission and he leaves the show or becomes a regular as his new character. Another truth could be revealed, maybe revisit the truth about skinner again. Or something else, definitely need a big character change, this time with one of the adult characters. Have burns do something big and evil, someone else commented him becoming mayor, which I like and definitely has a lot of potential but I don't want to steal their idea (so go read that comment). This could end with smithers actually leaving Mr burns and starting a new life after burns goes to far. Maybe smithers becomes the new mayor. Also free from his crush on burns he gets a boyfriend. Have homer and marge finally work things out in a touching episode, where at the end homer moves back in and for the rest of the season he sometimes is shown doing odd chores around the house, like washing the dishes. A couple of standard episodes, maybe focusing more on the Simpson family now that homer is back with the family. Next big status quo shift: rod comes out as gay, flanders doesn't take it very will and the episode ends with rod moving in with the simpsons. Over the next few episodes the darker more toxic side of Ned's parenting is explored, with his religious views being challenged and his son no longer being in such a sheltered home starts to grow as a character as he has the same freedoms as the simpsons kids do and is forced to do things for himself. After some time homer (being character who used to be homophobic) talks to Ned and the fact that homer of all people is the one telling him to stop being an idiot and to be a good parent knocks some sense into Ned and rod moves back home. This also shows homer's growth in this season. A large change with this would also be that rod as a character has changed in more ways than one, he's still polite and kind (and even Christian) but will now be part of Bart's core friend group and take part in other activities outside of the church due to no longer being as sheltered and wanting to get out more (this could lead to more stress for Ned as he has to accept that his son is growing up and making his own choices). The last big change of the season: the characters all move up a year and Lisa and Nelson get together properly. The next season would be a big change, with new teachers, an aging cast, new character dynamics and actual character growth. The next season could have other big changes, I actually liked the idea that Bart has ADHD, like in that one episode and maybe he could get some help with that, maybe a classroom assistant as a reoccurring character. Lisa now has a boyfriend and maybe gets into more situations in and outside of school. Homer and marge are in a stronger relationship, rod is now part of the main friend group of Bart, millhouse, Nelson and Lisa, and sometimes Ralph. The dynamics have changed quite a bit and the show can feel fresh again after 30 years. I'd be tempted to say make every season an actual year and use it as a way of winding the show down towards an actual end. If Disney wants you could keep the show going afterwards with a simpsons lost stories show, which is the same old formula. I'm also thinking that the next season does kill off Abe Simpson as homer will have fixed his relationship with his dad by then and time is progressing forwards, this could also create opportunities to do something with both Bart and Lisa as they have to deal with it. Maybe Bart also has a relationship with someone or apu could have a story that isn't a having kids is depressing story (but maybe get someone in the writing room to consult about whether or not something works or not). There's a lot you can do with characters who we have 30 years of history with and know so well. And after 30 years they really should do something with them.
Haven't watched the video yet, so I can technically only _assume_ this is completely off-topic: I sent you a message regarding Season 2 of "Joey". Did you get it? I don't have a twitter account, so I did it via email.
I think that some episodes that feel more fresh are the ones that focus on side characters (Duffman, Martin, Comic Book Guy). Maybe I'm just boring or it's just because of nostalgia, but I don't feel like I want The Simpsons to have any long term changes. I like full story arcs and changes in my other shows, but not so much The Simpsons.
I think the Skinner reveal is one of the funniest things the show has done, setting up this huge groundbreaking twist just to have all the characters involved decide they don't really care and forget it ever happened. It's great meta humour! But a part of what has left the Simpsons behind for most people is that is has no greater purpose to fulfil anymore. Without any longer arcs or changes to the groundwork of the show, characters become joke dispensers and dynamics become stale. I'd love if the show came back with a vengeance with some sort of actual plot to it, by the time the question of "How does the Simpsons end?" rolls around it'd be great to have some narrative buildup to get people to really care again. But really, I don't know what's best for the show
Is it weird to anyone else that the "simpsons is bad now" era keeps and getting pushed farther and farther back, i mean die hards that constantly rewatch do have the seasons and show runs that they detest. But more casual viewers def start referencing episodes from eras I swear people used to complain a lot about For me modern simpsons has always been a show that is just fine to wtach(usually after a football game) but not something to seek out for. Compared to other sitcoms on modern broadcast, I do not think it is that much worse than what other people are throwing together
I wouldn't say the simpsons storylines are the problem these days. I'd say its the lack of quick one liner comedy writing that made the original series so great. Anytime I've tried to watch a modern episode of the Simpsons I feel as though the gag is cheap at best. And I have given it a lot of chances
I'd say the overall message of this video is that changes in the status-quo HAVE to be a commitment or they're boring. They have to be something relevant in future episodes otherwise they're just a stunt.
For me I don't mind PatP. If it happened in an earlier season when Skinner was starting to be developed, with his first 'spotlight' episode being Principal Charming, whom he shares with Patty. But I feel by season 9 we already know who he is as a character. That being said, his delinquent ways prior to his time serving in the Vietnam War does shine a new light on his relationship with Bart. He sees his younger self through Bart and hopes the lessons he learnt from the real Seymour Skinner could be passed onto Bart. We have seen cases where they have a healthy relationship in episodes like Separate Vacations, where Bart becomes the hall monitor as his 'future career' is predicated to be a police officer and the other being Sweet Seymour Skinners Baadasssss Song. Here Bart feels guilty for getting Skinner fired and this guilt leads him to build a friendship with Skinner. Even knowing said friendship will end if he succeeds in convincing Chalmers to give Skinner his job back. You could also sense that Angus believing that "Skinner" was her son was her way of avoiding the news that her actual son had died during the war. (only to learn way later that he actually survived). However by this time, somewhere down the line, the lie Angus told herself, which "Skinner" rolled with became reality. To the point that she did actually think "Skinner" was her son. Hence her anger at the 'imposter'. Only to find that the 'imposter' was more of a son to her than her biological son. Who basically started taking her for granted. Then you have Edna who fell in love with the Skinner we know and love that she doesn't care about his true backstory. As he is no longer that person. PatP is a good episode which expands upon the relationship between Skinner and Bart, Skinner and Angus along with Skinner and Edna. I just feel the timing of it and the season where it was released was the major factor as to why people generally hate it.
I mean why not experiment and go wild its not like disney is going to cancel them at this point, they have a huge opportunity to really try new and different things with a huge safety net.
I suspect the choice of first-run platforms change before the show does. Fox Corporation doesn't own _The Simpsons._ It sold the production side to Disney, and Fox invests in newer animated content at this point. While the US ratings still justify the Fox program service renewing _The Simpsons,_ moving to a Disney platform doesn't mean as much when Disney+ already uses _The Simpsons_ to cross-promote things. Fox, both pre-and-post Murdoch pump-and-dumping on Disney, has a tendency to keep things going even when it's clear the creatives just want to move on. At some point, "we're not _Family Guy,_ we care about the audience a _bit_ more" won't be enough, and _The Simpsons_ will need to do more than the click bait stuff.
Your view of The Simpsons is the same as mine. This happened to me I randomly saw episode where Ned was a crime Boss. I think it was a two-parter. I ended up watching that entire season and then stopped again
The thing about modern Simpsons - like the HD seasons - is I constantly hear people bitch about it any time it's brought up but they're people who haven't watched it… they stopped watching back around seasons 9-15 and just assume the show never did anything from there. Sure, the show is nothing like classic Simpsons now but it's not the worst thing of all time. In fact it's pretty funny and clever a lot of the time, even if it's still not anything as good as seasons 2-7
Completely agree, and I think this video elaborates on that a bit by stating the show is stlll sometimes funny, well written, and heartwarming, but there's just so much of it and so much else competing for our attention. I'd argue there's at least one good, if not great, episode per season, even up to present day.
I jumped back onto the bandwagon around Season 30, because... well... 30 is a nice number to use as a jumping on point. I haven't watched Seasons 33 and 34 in full yet, but that's only because I'm undergoing my own "watch every episode on Disney+" binge (I'm currently on Season 18).
If The Simpsons are being more experimental nowadays, they should go all out. I would like to see the show take a more serialised approach, to mix up its status quo.
i honestly think the simpsons should try changing showrunners again every few seasons like they did in the earlier eras. same with writers. bring some new people in every once in a while to try and freshen things up more maybe take the show in more different directions. not that this would necessarily make the show better or fix anything but it could make things feel a bit more fresh. back in the golden era from seasons 2-8 they changed runners every couple seasons and that lead to a very different vibe between the seasons that felt nice. season 2 was more grounded in family stuff then. season 8 was more wacky in a fun way, etc. different seasons had different flavor and id like to see something more like that again tho idk i havent watched as much past the golden era and a few seasons after so im not as experienced in the different vibes of those later seasons but still
The biggest problem is that the shows writers are unable to come up with funny and witty dialogs and don't know how the characters work. The early seasons managed to cram every episode with clever and amazingly timed gags and the every episode felt well filled. However NOWDAYS,,,, things.... just... happen... and then suddenly the episode is over. There is absolutely no sense of timing anymore and at the end you're always like "Wait.. that's it?". It all feels so anticlimactic and meaningless. Because the stories lead nowhere and just feel like a waste of time.
The problem is shows are not meant to go on for this long, usually after 10 years a show starts to decline, because of lack of ideas. I think after season 12 they should’ve changed what The Simpsons was and age the characters, so Bart could be 16, Lisa could be 14, Maggie could be 6. And have them at those ages for another 10 to 12 years. Imo The Simpson’s should’ve called it a day after season 12.
The Simpsons recently started showing up in my newsfeeds again with the episode 'Lisa the Boy Scout'. This got me thinking some probably controversial thoughts about the show's most infamous episode 'The Principal and the Pauper'. Please scream at me now.
*AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA*
@@elijahcandage *mission complete*
@@DinMamma2200 could you do an article on days.
@@elijahcandage "AAAAAAAAAAAA, put a sock in it"
--- Serious Sam
I find it really hypocritical that people talk so dreadfully about the principal and the pauper while Homer the great is such a great episode despite doing the exact same thing if not worse.
I'm convinced many people who hate on that episode never watched it because it's a good episode that sends more depth into Skinner's character.
One of the biggest things that hurts it for me now is the voices. Some actors are clearly struggling with their old voices and others have retired and been replaced to mixed results.
Until a few months ago, I hadn't watched a new simpsons episode since around 2007/8. Then I put a season 30ish episode on and left the room. The voices sounded so different I thought I put the wrong show on.
@@tiffanielafleur6597 in some cases, it's a different actor like Mr. Burns or smithers because Harry shearer left the show some years ago. In other cases it's just age. The actress from Marge is clearly struggling and I can't blame her with that voice!
@@theshadowdirector It's still Harry Shearer. He never left.
Same
@@alexbradley-stocks5109 huh, okay I was misinformed. Boy, does he is Mr Smithers sound off these days.
The writers have become so aware of how the internet operates that they made an episode specifically designed to generate outrage from people who haven't watched the show in years. People who just watch random clips on social media and immediately go on tangents about how The Simpsons jumped the shark and their childhood is ruined.
Can't help but respect it.
They're just hustlers
Honestly, if I wrote for a show that nobody watched, and it had been running for so long and forgotten for so long that I knew that nothing I did could change the show's reputation in any way, it would do weird things to my head, too.
it is not worth it
It seems lacking in creative merit though. It’s like “ooooh watch!” but you look and see nothing but an “eh” Simpsons episode.
Did it succeed? Was there any major complaints about it?
One of the big issues is that the characters never age. It robs you of the ability to find new material.
That is the biggest trump card they've yet to play.
They can start having time move forward by having the kids go up a grade and continue on that way. Slowly having them actually age. Or they may as well have a season take place while Bart and Liza are in high school. I feel like this show can basically do anything because I don't see it getting cancelled due to them wanting to keep the title of "Animated show with the most amount of episodes".
I think it's more that they never develop
They've played that card in form of clickbaity episodes: Barthood, Holidays of Future Passed, etc.
@@user-ig4dl4iv1j clickbaity episodes were the topic of the video. What we were discussing involves permanent change. Simpsons: 10 years later, for example. Bart, Lisa and the rest of their friends being teens etc No backpedaling.
If I were running The Simpsons, I would try doing a season long storyline. Not like South Park Season 20 levels of serialization (that shit sucked), but add in some subtle arc to make things interesting and keep people watching. Maybe do like an arc where say, Mr. Burns becomes the mayor. We would start off the first episode just normally, and then somehow the events of that episode lead to Mr. Burns running for mayor. In episode 2 he’ll become mayor, and then he’ll just be the mayor for the rest of the season, and we’ll have a bunch of episodes exploring how the town changes because he’s the mayor. Not every episode has to be about Burns being mayor, but maybe like half of them will involve it in some kind of way. The whole thing would build up to an eventual big finale where he would probably be ousted and things would go back to normal. You could probably come up with a better idea for a storyline, but I think this is a good example of how one could work.
Good pitch, I think that would work pretty well.
I just wrote a comment about maybe a mystery plot akin to Jebediah Springfield being a traitor.
At this point I would love it if the Simpsons would pull a Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya plot just to fuck with people.
Dude people who still watching the show don't care about the show being bad at all, in any case the show is already dead to this point a long storyline would make anything at all, people who watch it don't care about get anything better, and people who stop watching wish the show just finish, say whatever you want about SP but there's a lot of people who enjoy the actual show not matter a bunch of losers cry in social media about it... Dude if you don't like the thing just stop watching.
@@theothertonydutch Dude they having doing that for 15 years already, people don't mind, I don't think anyone actually can tell you the difference between a 20 season's episode and a 27 season's episode.
The problem with TP&TP is that it doesn't fit with Skinner's characterisation, his upbringing by his mother is what made him who he is, you can't just write that out. It's also clear that he's just never rebelled in his life, and can't relate to people who do.
The actor hated it himself too, it just didn't fit with anything he'd had in his mind when performing the role.
LoL you mean people is what they used to be 20 years ago... Dude you're the reason why Simpsons suck so much, you guys don't want to things change, but the thing is they still changing... Simpson changed anyway.
Something that I think hurts a show on this long is not having the characters age. I'd love if the show tried having Bart at 18 and Lisa at 16 (permanently or just a full season or two). You could do so many new ideas now that they can drive, show them at various jobs, have more high school scenarios that don't fit elementary school settings, utilize Maggie more now that she's age 9 and can have much more to her character... That would breathe new life into the show for sure.
They have actually done it and they could easily get away with it because they have done stuff like that in the past.
my thing is maybe having maggie be a selective mute still not speaking at age 9
Honestly the best thing the Simpsons can do is age everyone up by at least 5 to 10 years permanently just to force them to CHANGE and take some big creative swings
I am all for this.
Or end the bloody show already
simspons time skip arc
marge and homer would probably stay the same, maybe marge has a growing grudge about homer being a alcoholic or or something , Lisa would be in middle school and bart high school, think it would be funny if bart constantly is failing to go after girls. but the real funny part is that what if maggie still won’t speak she’s in kindergarten now and still doesn’t would be pretty funny
@@nsk1911 this, it's too late to try any character development, they should try that back when they did that Skinner episode.
The Simpsons has basically become Commedia dell'Arte, just a set of stock characters that can be put in any situations because there is no continuity, but it's in denial about it. It thinks it needs to justify every reset. It doesn't. If there was a non-Treehouse of Horror episode where Homer died and he was just fine in the next episode with no explanation, that would not be that weird and would honestly be kind of par for the course, given all the dumb shit they've made Homer recover from already
That's actually quite an astute comparison.
American Dad actually does that quite a lot where it kills off characters in random episodes and then just resets it
I mean they do have that episode where the kids get stranded on an island lord of the flies style, and instead of bogging it down with some last-minute rescue at the end just to fix the status quo, a narrator appears and just says "and then they were saved by...I don't know, moe?" and it ends
Carl: "Oh my God! They killed Homer!"
Lenny: "You bastards!"
@@nousukas This is genius.
1:20 "but I found season 27-" is such a crazy line to hear, I can't believe the Simpsons has more than 26 seasons.
Well guess what
The reason Principal and the Pauper ended the way it did is because Groening wanted the show to be a subversive take on traditional sitcoms. One of the unspoken, but instinctually understood, rules of classic sitcom structure is that no matter what happens the episode must always end where it began, owing to the serial nature of TV sitcoms. If Ralph Kramden got fired from his job and had to work with Norton down in the sewers, by the end of the episode he had to get his old job back, because people who missed that week's episode couldn't tune in the next week and suddenly Ralph had a completely different job. If Fred got super powers from Great Kazoo for an episode, he had to give them up at the end because this is the Flintstones, not Captain Caveman. People would get confused and just stop watching because there was no real way to catch up with what you already missed other than from word of mouth.
That episode of the Simpsons was also the result of what Groening, in DVD commentaries, called elastic reality. While early episodes were fully grounded in full reality, around season 6 is when we would get jokes involving things like animation errors or overtly cartoonish sight gags. A quick step from being based in reality, to cartoon absurdity, and back again was a powerful comedic tool. Principal and the Pauper was an experiment to see how far they could stretch disbelief before snapping it back. Sadly, they stretched it TOO far.
Homer going to space? Fine. Homer fighting ersatz Mike Tyson? Fantastic. Straight-laced Seymour Skinner being a dyed-in-the-wool ne'er-do-well? Shut up and get out.
It's somewhat telling that the Treehouse of Horror episodes (i.e the episodes that deliberately mess with the canon) tend to have the highest viewership in their individual seasons.
That and the fact that Treehouse of Horror episodes managed to get away with elements common in thriller or horror genres, such as the obvious gory stuff, to the point only adult animated shows outmatches it.
Being non canon also allows for risky moves since the audience knows none death in there will stick, but what can happen, will happen.
@@TheCommenterSam exactly. And all of those things have "this is radically different from your normal episode" too.
At least Clickbait episodes are better than Celebrity episodes...
....*shudders*
LISA
SIMPSON
LISA
SIMPSON
LISA
SIMPSON
S U P E R S T A R
@@Stubagful could you do an article on Days please.
5:00 "No one has the time and patience to watch all of it" ... except LS Mark
I do agree that I think Principal and the Pauper would be taken a lot better today. The ending was, to me, one of the funniest jokes the show ever did: the way the judge and entire town intentionally declare that they will be upholding the old status quo was basically a mockery of episodic comedy and it was great.
ja, then the time he tried to call lisa out on something, and she says, okay, principal tamzarian, and he's like, moving along
4:10 Clearly the extra finger is the fault of Aurora Borealis
@Edward Vincent Laybourn Waller Yes
@@iKillerZombie May I see it?
@@thebestonumeritos …No
turns out the aurora borealis inside Skinner's kitchen is actually an orphaned source of cobalt-60
*_SEYMOUR, THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE!_*
As a Simpson’s fan born in 2005, I was aware of Skinner’s real origins from a young age and when I saw it, when I was 7 or something , I loved it because I’d never seen an episode being subversive and people having secret pasts fascinated me.
Huh, interesting perspective. I've only ever known it as "that episode that pissed everybody off"
I've never understood why ppl are so bothered by TP&tP. The way the townsfolk react to "Real" Seymour is exactly how the writers were counting on the audience reacting. It's a not so subtle commentary on how ppl are usually just shallow enough to accept a fake over the genuine article if they decide they like it better. Integrity is fine 'till you realise having it enivitably means you gotta make compromises.
@@AxelWedstar411Honestly it always annoys me when people call The P&TP the worst Simpsons episode ever when garbage like Lisa Goes Gaga, The Boys of Bummer, The Elon Musk episode & The SJW Episode (I forgot the names of the last two) exist. Sure it’s an absurd episode but the classic era humor is still there (for example: “Up yours, children”). And people are way too hard on Seasons 9 & 10 in general, sure they’re a step down from 3-8 and they had a few more clunkers than the previous seasons but they still have a lot of classic too especially compared to 2008+ Simpsons
Born in 2005 just hits me in the gut
The real problem with the Principal and the Pauper isn't that it changed Skinner as a character, it's that they didn't continue with the change they set up. They immediately hit the reset button to try and undo the changes, but it didn't really work because you can't really undo a change like that. That's really what hurt the episode and why people didn't like it at the time. They could've easily just kept it as canon and had Armin as effectively a new character, but they couldn't really do that because the real Skinner was voiced by a celebrity guest and needed to be kicked out of the show by the end of the episode.
There's plenty of other changes on the show over the years that were permanent (killing off characters, Homer having a long lost brother, Brockman's lottery win, etc) and while those changes fundamentally alter some characters, people generally just accepted them as a new part of the show.
For example, just five episodes after 'The Principal and the Pauper', Apu's character is changed permanently by marrying him off to Manjula when his parents force him to go through with his long-ignored arranged marriage. That's a fairly popular episode, despite being past the classic seasons. But imagine if the writers had instead caved on the idea at the last minute by having Homer's attempts at ruining the marriage actually work, and Manjula just returned to India leaving Apu's character back at status quo. I think people would've been just as irritated with that episode as with 'TPatP'.
It would be really funny if they changed up the status quo by making canon the original plan of homer being krusty and marge having bunny ears even if its super contradictory at this point lmao
homer was krusty
The thing is, there were some status quo changes that stuck. Ned got remarried to Mrs Krabappel that only got reversed when Marcia Wallace died.
They also had the Comic Book Guy get married and his wife’s still around. And nobody batted an eyelid!
We’re okay with these. Do more of this Simpsons!
I think those changes make a little more sense, so people took them better.
I am morbidly fascinated with the Comic Book Guy marriage episode. Not only they let someone the show dunk on for 25 years get in a serious relationship with [generic japanese manic pixie dream girl], they couldn't find a decent plot about it so the episode ended up being half filler.
I always describe it as the first few seasons felt like they were a believeably real family, like I could see my own family doing something like that, but then it became... scripted... cartoony... In that I could never see any real family doing any of the things they're doing.
For example, when they "met" a celebrity by name for the first time, it was a whole spectacle, but now, it's either a running gag or cliche, like "Oh the prime minister greets everyone at the airport", or "Celebrity X visits the simpson household for reason Y"
yeah, damn scripted animation! they should just improvise, ya know, candid shots... but seriously, i do hate all those celebrity appearances
I will say, the more recent episodes of the Simpsons are absolutely FASCINATING. Like early seasons are trying to figure out what it's set out to do. The "golden era" which we all love is beloved to a huge chunk of the people who grew up watching and loving it. Then it took that shift in the "late era Simpsons" (Which is now the MID seasons because we're all old now) and now it's taken this VERY odd turn in the last decade to be kind of bonkers and experimental. Like I absolutely LOVED A Serious Flanders where it feels like they're actually doing a stylistic experiment. Everyone complaining about "Jerk Ass Homer" needs to see the latest season where Homers actually super lovable and nice.
The writing in the mid teen seasons was INCREDIBLY hit and miss and super meta, but I think the BEST thing to come out of the Simpsons in recent years is the fan community where it's got such an insane level of creativity. Also, Stu, just wondering if you can give "Stan Against Evil" a watch. It's created by dana Gould who made a live action horror comedy that feels VERY Simpsons.
love a serious flanders, so good. i was hoping for more like that, but so it goes
Hearing marges voice now makes me feel very sad
@@leejones8582 Contracts are a bitch.
@@leejones8582 she's just so very old.. I'd be worried about my gran if her work took such a toll at that age
If you listen to the audio commentary for Principal and the Pauper, you'll realise just how firmly and passionately Ken Keeler (the episode's writer) believed in it's premise and how proud he was of it, regardless of what audiences thought. It's hard to be funny if you're too self-conscious about what people think of you and if more episodes were written with P&tP's level of conviction, the show would definitely be more interesting.
That insecurity is so visible now to the point that it overshadows the creativity that goes into the show. You can tell that some writers and animators genuinely still love working on this but I don't get what they're trying to achieve anymore. The simpsons isn't counterculture anymore.
@@finchcarvingadiamond They were always a little insecure. That's why the Comic Book Guy character exists, to mock internet criticism of the show (yes even in the 90s, there were lots of nerds on usenet).
@@cookieface80 heck, the nerds were doing that even before there was a net
I dunno if there is a long-term solution to some of this argument because some of it comes down to, "most people just don't need 30 seasons of a TV show." The Simpsons were doing big stunts to retain viewers all the way back in Season 5 and 6 with Homer going to space or Who Shot Mr. Burns. I'd imagine a bunch of people at the time watched some of Season 7 afterward and stopped, saying "it's just more Simpsons." Everyone's media diet is different. I would love to see The Simpsons evolve into a Community-esque show that is utterly bizarre each week, but am unsure how sustainable that is over a long period.
For what it's worth, Matt Selman (who basically showruns The Simpsons now) really embraces the weirdness of The Simpsons and its long-running nature. He wrote "That 90s Show" which brought a similar amount of fan fury. Since running the majority of Season 33 episodes to today, his influence is one of the reasons why the show is a little weirder and experimental. Even in his more conventional episodes, they seem to be trying to find some topical or character concept they've never done before.
I don't know if the series will ever really change format-wise in the long term but am glad that the current writing staff has the self awareness that they shouldn't be afraid to try more stuff. Maybe after the positive reception of the Season 34 episodes you mentioned, they will be emboldened to do more.
I will admit there is a degree of inevitability to it. Thirty seasons is far too long for most people.
As said, I am more intrigued by season 34 than I have been in recent years. That was easily the best treehouse of horror I've seen in a long time and Lisa the boy scout is certainly encouraging.
Ps. Love your channel :)
@@Stubagful Thanks! I really enjoyed your video! I don't watch too many Simpsons video essays on RUclips, but yours drew me in with the observation about Every Man's Dream and the way they hook the audience. Your observations about the online media cycles and the psychological damage done by The Principal and the Pauper were really incisive 😀
Thanks! I'm planning more Simpsons content. If anything good has come out of this it's it made me dust off my fandom that I forgot about. I recently found that I still have my copy of hit and run for GameCube
I think South Park as a show has generally been far more successful over it's long running time due to the fact that Matt and Trey aren't afraid to change up the status quo now and then, I imagine it makes it easier since they are the original creators, where as creators inheriting a story a more likely to play it safe at times
Yeah, but they had to do the "Maude Flanders died" episode because the voice actress left the show. (I mean, yes, there were other options - hire someone else to do her voice, etc.), but at least they had an excuse.
the voice actress left because fox was penny pinching and didn't want to pay her.
@@AnAverageGoblin Wasn't it because she wanted to live in a different state to the recording studio, and wanted Fox to pay for her travel expenses to and from the studio?
@@cookieface80 She already lived in Denver, and she was paying her own travel costs. She asked for a raise from 2 to 6 thousand per episode, but Fox offered a $150 raise. Fox wound up making a deal for her to record her lines from home 3 years later.
It’s interesting what you say about click bait because what initially made The Simpsons popular was that when it was a series of sketches in the Tracy Ullman show people came to watch it as there had never been a cartoon made before in which characters said the word ‘crap’. And the dynamic character driven style of the writing drew people in and got them invested in the characters. This was in a time where cartoons weren’t trying to be edgy and were considered as being for children meaning it stood out being more like a live action sitcom. I just find it interesting that the Simpsons started and became popular because it shook the format and got people watching with big actions that it actually committed to. Whereas now it seems to be the antithesis of that where it’s stagnating and refusing to commit to anything new.
do you have a source for that crap claim?
I'd say it would have to be a dream. The simple fact is, Marge and Homer can't break up. There's too much precedent that no matter what Homer has ever done - even MARRY ANOTHER WOMAN - Marge forgives him because she loves him, no matter what. They've actually divorced in the past, but that was purely so Homer could re-marry Marge and give her the wedding she felt she deserved.
people wouldn't really be "accepting" of any stupid new changes. They'd just call it stupid and move on with apathy, because that's how most people view The Simpsons now. Not something worth watching, just something that happens to be on.
This is unrelated but the death of Phil Hartman also really hurt the show
hartman was in like 2 episodes per season
that was so senseless
I thought The Principle and the Pauper was fine when I saw it at the time. It was an hilarious plot twist. Homer has been tempted to be unfaithful to Marge but he couldn't go through with it eg in "The Last Temptation of Homer". I think if Homer went through with an affair audiences would HATE him. Seriously. I know I would.
Cheating is one of the few lines Homer hasn’t crossed and would be very appalled with himself if he did go there. As you say, Last Temptation of Homer explored this concept in a far more nuanced way than a Simpsons storyline has any right.
Yeah, I didn't like Every Man's Dream episode even though it was a "it was all a dream" episode. It has been a long time since I viewed the Simpsons but to me, even though Homor has his flaws, he's still a loyal, caring, father. If there was an affair ark in the show, it would change my views on him because I view cheating as one of the most disrespectful thing you can do to your partner. It would have a far more negative outcome from the audience than a positive one.
It would definitely cause the show to get more attention. But it would be like if you want to get more attention, all you have to do is just light yourself on fire. Now everyone is looking at you. You get that attention you want, but you quickly destroy yourself in the process and as soon as that fire is out, no one cares about you anymore.
It's also a completely self aware twist- the fact that Skinner just immediately starts looking like Fonzie from Happy Days, known best in modern culture for "jumping the shark" by having Fonzie do just that - exactly the kind of story they were telling with Principle And The Pauper - the status quo returns in a hilarious way and even gets referenced a couple times down the line as having been a thing
@@bluetiger2468 how 'bout swinging?
The simpsons could of sailed of into the sun set being one of the greatest shows ever made if they just stopped after the film, but now we got session 1 to 10 golden age, the rest so so, and that honestly breaks my heart I think the simpsons was a massive part of most people's childhood they had it all if they just stopped at the right time.
Imo there's no real quality drop off point. It was more gradual than people give it credit for. Sure after a lt of the core writers left in series 8 it was inevitable but not insant, you still get quality episodes just gradually less and less and gradually more vapid and bland feeling epsidoes clog it up untila round when it went HD where there was non left of real quality
I’m not sure if it was intended this way, but I’ve always thought the speech Homer gives at the end of Principal and the Pauper shows that it’s about somebody’s connection to the character and not who the character literally is. He says that he doesn’t care that it’s not really Skinner, and his mom doesn’t care, and then he asks the rest of the town if any of them care that skinner isn’t really Skinner. To them it’s about liking him, not about his name (he lied which is bad of course, but the idea is that he was likeable and genuine even if he was uptight and milquetoast. I felt it sweet that his mom felt a connection to a wayward stranger that showed up on her door and pretended he was her son when really she thought she had lost her son (now why don’t you go up to your room, third door on the left). Now they really are mother and son, because blood doesn’t matter, love does.
I'm seeing comments saying they'd try serialization if they ran the show these days, and I'd do the same. What if some episodes had changes but things DIDN'T reset at the end? Take an idea like the Hank Scorpio ep. It starts off the same but the Simpsons DON'T go back to Springfield til a full season later, and there's a whole "Cypress Creek" season. A full 24 episodes or whatever of the family living in this new town.. Homer's new job, with new supporting characters.. A full season of Hank Scorpio! How fun would that be? And the season takes its time, really builds up to this new life not working out for the rest of the family, and by the end of the season they ultimately move back to Springfield and we see all our supporting characters again. I think serialization like that would breathe new life into the show at this point.
8:40 No, it's not the exact same Principal! There were two of them! That was the problem everybody had with The Principal and The Pauper!
So we should turn the simpsons into family guy? . . .
The best way the show has adapted to streaming is simply being on a streaming service after being a holdout for several years. Now we can endlessly repeat the golden years as background noise, which I've done a couple of times now!
Just curious - when do you see the golden years as 'stopped?' cause everyone has a different answer. Mine's sort of season 10 but 11 has some of my favourite episodes
@@Stubagful personally, I don't think it was a hard cutoff, as there were certainly episodes in season 10 that I found just as good as the golden years and seem to fit in with them pretty seamlessly. For example, 'Mayored to the Mob'. Overall, I could see the season had a noticeable dip in quality compared to its recent predecessors, but that classic era spirit could still be found. I would say the same for season 11 as well, haven't gone far enough to properly analyse the rest.
If you haven't, check out TheRealJims's channel. He does season retrospectives and he's all the way up to 15 currently. Really good in-depth reviews of each season without immediately dismissing everything past Season 8 as "bad" or "unwatchable".
@@BB-te8tcI've watched all his videos on the golden years plus some others. They are just his opinion so I can't really judge only on those.
While it would certainly open some creative doors and turn some heads if the characters started acting out of turn, you would probably end up with a show like 'Family Guy' where the family, friends, and other relationships throughout the show feel inconsistent and hollow because the writer's will sacrifice anything the audience cherishes for a bit.
That's something unique 'The Simpsons' has retained, even in its boresome longevity. The audience really does give a damn about the characters, so sentimental moments still feel sentimental and the family still feels like a family. If I had to choose, I prefer the show's characters metastasize rather than erode.
I honestly think the Simpsons changed its purpose after the first years. Yes it was at somepoint the pinnacle of entertainment and creating a path for cartoon shows for adults. But it always was too profitable for its own good. Its not a show to be watched like most series. Its like Seinfeld. Watch its when it comes on and ull be entertained. Actually its really decent for that. Not serialized its great.
It's funny that as soon as you broke down the premise of the Marge and exercise bike episode. It immediately reminded me of the Bowling Instructor episode, from all the way back in Season 1.
Me too. Was thinking about doing a bit on life in the fast lane but decided to leave it for a bigger video I'm writing notes for on the golden age
@@Stubagful There is still something really special in the first few seasons.
You also gave me pause when you could cite a specific season that you trailed off the show. I can't think of the last time I watched more than just a standalone episode repeat? Just like South Park, Family Guy etc
I'm often surprised to read they are all still going.
4:10: To answer Supernintendo Chalmers' question: Because Armin Tamzarian is GOD.
actually, i binge watch the simpsons all the time. I believe ive seen everything simpsons on dinsey plus
I'm just ready for the show to have one bombastic, experimental final season and for the very last scene to be the moments leading up to the snowy drive to the Christmas pageant in the very first episode, just like what Groening wants. Maybe the series could have a sequel one day but I feel like the Simpsons needs one hell of a break.
I feel like simpsons click bait that actually is the main plot of the episode is a rarity though. Simpsons usually has like a big staging set piece that leads to a completely different plot in about 3 minutes. But those first three minutes are what was plastered all over the weekly ads. But now instead of bait and switch bait, the click bait is just the bait.
At this stage, the Simpsons should do a time jump. Bart and Lisa are middle aged, Homer and Marge are approaching Grandpa Simpsons' age.
The difference between the Pauper episode and the attempts at it now is that Principal and The Pauper was all about how shows will bullshit everything only to pretend like it never happened but now they do it without being able to properly surprise people, either by having to back-out of the plot or just not actually being clever.
Honestly, I treat pretty much every Simpsons episode as existing in its own bubble universe. Where some prior stories happened but others didn't.
I don't think Principal and the Pauper is that bad, as it has a lot of great jokes, but the main flaw is that Skinner was chosen to be the focus, when his backstory and personality had been so firmly established over the years. It would have made more sense if they had done this story for someone like Superintendent Chalmers or Mr. Largo, characters we really don't know much about when you get down to it, especially back then.
No way, Stu's Disco! It's like his name!
I currently am watching thru the Simpsons… And I really didn’t think of the Principal and the Pauper as that big of a deal of an episode. Early simpsons has lots of running continuity things and it wasn’t like Skinner was a sacred character like Marge. It was just fine an episode.
Homer’s Enemy was the first episode that felt truly different and I wasn’t sure if I liked the way it painted a main character or not.
I loooove hearing modern takes on episodes that used to be seen as a show's 'death' - it sets the stuff people get pissed off about online now in perspective
@@Stubagful loved the video. Do you remember the Brian/Vinny storyline that Family Guy did for clickbait?
I always thought it would be amazing if the Simpsons grew up/got older as the show went on. We could have Bart and Lisa with their own families with Marge and Homer being the Grand Parents and sometimes old characters die off so new ones can replace them. A evolving world like real life TV shows where actors get older and the times change, South Park kind of did this with them going up a few grades in school and there are permanent changes made to South Park itself such as the new mall, PC Principal, Mr Garrison becoming president, etc which actually sticked to the show and weren't just one and done gimmick episodes. Hell they even made a whole season where everyone was adults!
Just last year the show took a chance by taking the Treehouse of Horror premise and did a whole episode as an It parody alongside the usual three shorts episode. A few years ago it did Thanksgiving of Horror, using Thanksgiving as the basis for three non-canon episodes.
The Simpsons will soon be generated by an algorithm and outlast cosmic entropy itself. You cannot escape.
Regarding fan theories though, do people actually believe them? I've always assumed they were more jokes that fans come up with, often along the lines of "ooh, this cute/wholesome series is actually dark and twisted", and it's all a game to see who can come up with the most dark and twisted theory. Like, are there seriously fans who watch the show with the mentality that everything after Homer going into a coma in the S4 clip show episode is just his coma-dream and he's never woken up? Because if the show is going to acknowledge fan theories as truth, it'd be good if the fans did legitimately believe them, rather than it just being a thing they spread around social media for sh*ts & giggles while entertainment news outlets write about these theories to fill time on slow news days.
I don't know, there are examples I can think of from other media where some believers become so confident they've cracked some hidden lore of the game that they will aggressively argue its true and that they're intellectually superior for having seen through the "misdirection"
the annoying thing is that with these clickbait type episodes we will never see Bart's first meeting with his wife Jenda
ugh! i hate those future eps after the 3rd. i hate bart's kids and that they're with jenda ,and lisa and milhouse, what a waste! just let her die of fentanyl at 13, like angelica from rugrats. it's more humane
"UP YOURS CHILDREN!"- Seymour Skinner aka Armin Tamzarian.
This is a pretty interesting video. As a somewhat avid watcher of the current era of the show and a part of that modern fanbase, I have a lot of thoughts about this that range from agreement to disagreement. I think my main point of disagreement is that while I get what you're saying about the show proper, I feel like Lisa the Boy Scout is the exact wrong episode to use for this discussion, because the episode is specifically in conversation with its fanbase and the fact that its in a fictional setup is kind of the point.
If you look at how the current showrunner) was tweeting about it on twitter he was talking about the things in episode with no context and there were people who dont watch the show anymore talking about how bad it is and getting clowned on. I think that alongside things like showing clips of past episodes in the discussion of "clips that wil ruin the show forever" show that the show in its current state is aware of its legacy and I feel playing something like the Martin thing straight would just come across as actually desperate for headlines rather than having a willingness to play with the universe.
The conclusion I came to at the end of Lisa the Boy Scout ended up being the opposite of yours, in that the show realises the position its in and is really is willing to start playing with the universe. Maybe not in terms of long term changes to the characters, but playing with the format is becoming a lot more common. I think a part of this is due to the fact that in Season 32, the showrunner duties changed from Al Jean to Matt Selman, and a lot of the gimmick episodes of the early HD era were done under him.
In the past 2 seasons alone we got a non canon 2 parter based around Ned Flanders parodying Fargo, a second Halloween episode this season based on It, an episode told entirely through someone clicking through different RUclips videos, the aformententioned Lisa the Boy Scout, two different episodes that jump to the future, and in season 33 we got 2 seperate musical episodes. I dont necessarily think these are meant to start headlines, and is more just the people working on the show knowing what's going on here and making their own more playful version of the show instead of trying to match up to how it is in the past.
In terms of the fanbase, while I do think the changes are mostly reacted to positively, a somewhat common thought among some people is that the show is actually doing too many gimmicks and they want more episodes that just use the standard storytelling formula, which is why Im not entirely sure if the people still watching would look at something like Martin being an undercover cop and just accept it. In fact, the show has been playing with things like that lately, adding new lore to people or giving us underused character dynamics. We recently got an episode where it was revealed Wiggum's wife was secretly a criminal who was hiding her perosnality the whole time, and this change has somewhat stuck, and some people are very much not happy about that.
That being said, I do agree with you that the show seems to be afraid of committing to changes. A lot of other small things have happened lately, like revealing Brandine was actually being smart the whole time and walked away from it for love, giving Bart a new full time teacher, Making Comic Book Guy's wife actually talk about wanting to have a child with him, bringing back Maya to actually get into a relationship with Moe, and some other spoilery stuff. Presumably the show will do something with all these things later on, but hasnt yet, and it does feel annoying that a lot of the interesting character changes are piling up and taking so long to get followed up on.
That being said, I do think in terms of looking at the show doing interesting things I feel its a lot less shallow than it may seem in passing, even if its not perfect, and even the more standard episodes feel more interesting. Ironically, I watched a lot of the HD era and also basically stopped watching after season 28 and only came back into it recently.
wait who made all these simpsons episodes after it ended in 1999? why wasn't i informed?
Personally, I had no problems with the principle and the pauper myself, indeed I remember a lot of the jokes and scenes quite fondly "jasper didnt' want to come by himself!"
The reason I stopped watching the Simpsons was due to the major decline in writing quality.
Characters becoming one note (this was the show that invented the word flanderization), satire turning to propping up the establishment, the jokes becoming repetitive, shallow and laboured, or the scripts simply having characters say nonsensical lines to save time.
indeed, the trend where shows like She hulk and Velma go: "Look! the writers are doing this! isn't it funny!" Is one I first noticed in the Simpsons from seasons 11 onward.
There is the odd good joke in zombie Simpsons it's true, but after Lisa goes Gaga, I just stopped wanting to expend the time and trouble having to sit through all the blandness. Whatever the plot does or does not do, since then I've not seen much evidence that things have changed, or that the writing is out of it's slump.
It doesn't matter what the twist is, Edna Krabappel gets together with Ned lfanders, commic book guy gets married, Patty adopts a Chinese orphan, they all ended up feeling really flat, since the character writing, jokes and just plane over all quality of the script has gone down so badly.
That's why for me, I honestly can't care what subversive stuff the Simpsons does or what changes it makes, since the basic nuts and bolts that hold the show together rusted a long time ago.
Oh I don't doubt there are one or two smile worthy jokes still, but again that's not enough, especially compared to the tight, focused writing of classic simpsons.
The furniture frame is truly a painting.
it's funny how he mentions the dream episode as being "interesting" and got him to be intrigued by season 27, because this was the one episode that made me completely give up on Modern Simpsons. I wasn't big on it before at all, but I had decided to check on how the show had developed by then, since maybe I was being too harsh and cynical, but no, it was unfunny and clearly wanted to capitalize on the tease of the status quo finally changing but not really committing to it in a terrible cop-out and cheap way, making it ultimately hollow. since I saw "Every Man's Dream" I have decided to stick to just up to season 20-1, at a push, and that pretty much everything after that wasn't worth my time. then I watched the Death Note parody, and I stand by my decision, specially because it was obvious that the show did it in a attempt to reel people back in, not because they had a super crazy and awesome idea for a THoH segment
I would actually love to see the show they pitched in the spin-off showcase of Chief Wiggum and Skinner in New Orleans as P.I.s
i must respectfully disagree
@@intellectually_lazy I will respectfully accept your respectfully disagreeing with me
Which episode did they reference that scary maze game?
I too am wondering this lol
5:09 except LS Mark
I really disagree with your solution to the Simpsons status quo state, I don't think experimental and weird stuff should become canon, at least not to a certain degree, and I really don't want the Simpsons to become like family guy and be able to kill off the characters and screw with them whenever it wants, because that just ISN'T the Simpsons.
I'd say the solution has been present in the show already since Edna started dating Flanders, and that is to simply maintain the small status quo changes it makes, I think the relationship between those two was the best part of the Simpsons for that time, and if everything in the show started changing in small ways then we'd be interested because everything would have something new added onto it, it would be the same show but it would keep your interest at the same time. It kinda sucks the way the new season has tried to do this with giving Moe a girlfriend and replacing Edna's character with a new teacher in school, both episodes don't negate the status quote change they've done by the end of the episode, but none of the later episodes explore this stuff at all, I wish we could see more of Bart and his New teacher in more episodes than just one.
I may have overegged this point somewhat. I will admit yours is the more sensible approach.
When I say these two different sides of the Simpsons could bleed together I don't necessarily mean just bluntly hammering the two together, and there are instances where they bleed across and have created some of my favourite episodes. E.g the computer wore tennis shoes is one of the wildest episodes the show's done and it leaves it open-ended.
what the actual fuck, i literally just put on an episode of the simpsons stu..
I CAN SEE YOU
People hate The Principal and the Pauper because it's fucking terrible. Completely destroying a character in a completely nonsensical way like that isn't good character development.
Meanwhile, compare The Principal and the Pauper to something like Hurricane Neddy and the latter is much better and more believable.
The in-joke with the Lisa/fire episode is that they finally get to the fireworks factory.
I think the simpsons should do one big, season-spanning story arc like what South Park attempted years ago. For a show like this I think it'd really open the door for more out-there ideas. You could even still have things return to the status quo after the end of said season but it'd still be a good way to bring back interest imho.
Congrats on getting your own disco, Stu!!!
I think it's worth noting the pressure of syndication in this formula. Yes, streaming changes things, especially shows made for streaming, but The Simpsons is still in syndication on multiple channels. You point out it's a relic of a bygone era, but that's literally true, it's one of the last shows in existence that still has to always maintain the status quo because it's one of the last shows in existence still being made with syndication in mind.
Principal Skinner was a beloved character. Some weird episode using fan fiction is just the writers having no ideas.
The fact that your social media feed was full of people gossiping about a show none of them have watched for 15 years or cared about in the slightles is more of an indictment of social media in general than of the Simpsons.
It's still kind of sad that with every new season the simpsons is more blatantly desperate for viewers attention. The depressing current state is like the giant elephant in the room like every episode now. It's like a late stage capitalism cliche. :(
The Simpsons should learn from It's Always Sunny, the other longest running sitcom from the live action realm of television. The Simpsons is afraid of shaking things up and making changes because they don't want to mess with what is known and is expected. However it's always sunny is able to do new things that shake things up with the canon, while also still being able to keep the old reliable iconic things that keeps It's Alway Sunny (same main characters all working at the bar.) An idea I always thought could be good for The Simpsons is to have Marge and Homer break up for real this time at the start of a season, of course having them get back together but leaving that to the very last episode of the season but leaving a 20 episode run of how things would be in that scenario.
so your saying that for the Simpsons to be interesting it has to either 1. change the status que every episode or 2. be more like family guy?
Yeah, the voices are what stops me from watching the new episodes
Idea for a full canon season of changes:
First episode: Homer does something that pushes marge to her breaking point and she kicks him out like she has a million times before but this time the show ends with her not taking Homer back.
The next few episodes is exploring how this change affects the kids, maybe have Bart show his mother some kindness and try to behave and do well and he could have a bonding moment with his dad, maybe homer spends some time with his dad and grows as a father. Lisa could also end up having problems with everything giving Bart attention cause they think that Lisa isn't the one who will spiral and as à result she gets further down a path than she should have done cause no one notices (maybe she gets hooked on something or has a mental breakdown).
Have things settle for a bit with a few standard stories.
Then maybe have the reveal that Ralph isn't wiggum's biological child, I think it could end one of two ways, either a complete destruction of his relationship with his wife and kid or the one I like more is maybe his marriage is over but he still views himself as Ralph's dad (insert yondu's line from GOTG2). In this story maybe we get to see Homer and wiggum hang out.
Maybe this revelation could lead to a few more truths to be uncovered. Screw it Martin is actually an undercover cop and his cover gets discovered by Bart and Lisa, this being the mystery episode of the season, maybe seeing how miserable Martin is Bart and Lisa help him finish his undercover mission and he leaves the show or becomes a regular as his new character.
Another truth could be revealed, maybe revisit the truth about skinner again. Or something else, definitely need a big character change, this time with one of the adult characters.
Have burns do something big and evil, someone else commented him becoming mayor, which I like and definitely has a lot of potential but I don't want to steal their idea (so go read that comment). This could end with smithers actually leaving Mr burns and starting a new life after burns goes to far. Maybe smithers becomes the new mayor. Also free from his crush on burns he gets a boyfriend.
Have homer and marge finally work things out in a touching episode, where at the end homer moves back in and for the rest of the season he sometimes is shown doing odd chores around the house, like washing the dishes.
A couple of standard episodes, maybe focusing more on the Simpson family now that homer is back with the family.
Next big status quo shift: rod comes out as gay, flanders doesn't take it very will and the episode ends with rod moving in with the simpsons. Over the next few episodes the darker more toxic side of Ned's parenting is explored, with his religious views being challenged and his son no longer being in such a sheltered home starts to grow as a character as he has the same freedoms as the simpsons kids do and is forced to do things for himself. After some time homer (being character who used to be homophobic) talks to Ned and the fact that homer of all people is the one telling him to stop being an idiot and to be a good parent knocks some sense into Ned and rod moves back home. This also shows homer's growth in this season.
A large change with this would also be that rod as a character has changed in more ways than one, he's still polite and kind (and even Christian) but will now be part of Bart's core friend group and take part in other activities outside of the church due to no longer being as sheltered and wanting to get out more (this could lead to more stress for Ned as he has to accept that his son is growing up and making his own choices).
The last big change of the season: the characters all move up a year and Lisa and Nelson get together properly.
The next season would be a big change, with new teachers, an aging cast, new character dynamics and actual character growth.
The next season could have other big changes, I actually liked the idea that Bart has ADHD, like in that one episode and maybe he could get some help with that, maybe a classroom assistant as a reoccurring character. Lisa now has a boyfriend and maybe gets into more situations in and outside of school. Homer and marge are in a stronger relationship, rod is now part of the main friend group of Bart, millhouse, Nelson and Lisa, and sometimes Ralph. The dynamics have changed quite a bit and the show can feel fresh again after 30 years. I'd be tempted to say make every season an actual year and use it as a way of winding the show down towards an actual end. If Disney wants you could keep the show going afterwards with a simpsons lost stories show, which is the same old formula.
I'm also thinking that the next season does kill off Abe Simpson as homer will have fixed his relationship with his dad by then and time is progressing forwards, this could also create opportunities to do something with both Bart and Lisa as they have to deal with it. Maybe Bart also has a relationship with someone or apu could have a story that isn't a having kids is depressing story (but maybe get someone in the writing room to consult about whether or not something works or not).
There's a lot you can do with characters who we have 30 years of history with and know so well. And after 30 years they really should do something with them.
oh god homer is doing the seth macfarlane pose at 1:12
Haven't watched the video yet, so I can technically only _assume_ this is completely off-topic: I sent you a message regarding Season 2 of "Joey". Did you get it? I don't have a twitter account, so I did it via email.
I think that some episodes that feel more fresh are the ones that focus on side characters (Duffman, Martin, Comic Book Guy). Maybe I'm just boring or it's just because of nostalgia, but I don't feel like I want The Simpsons to have any long term changes. I like full story arcs and changes in my other shows, but not so much The Simpsons.
Is interesting what happening in all this time, i miss the old voiced from the simpsons.
I think the Skinner reveal is one of the funniest things the show has done, setting up this huge groundbreaking twist just to have all the characters involved decide they don't really care and forget it ever happened. It's great meta humour! But a part of what has left the Simpsons behind for most people is that is has no greater purpose to fulfil anymore. Without any longer arcs or changes to the groundwork of the show, characters become joke dispensers and dynamics become stale. I'd love if the show came back with a vengeance with some sort of actual plot to it, by the time the question of "How does the Simpsons end?" rolls around it'd be great to have some narrative buildup to get people to really care again. But really, I don't know what's best for the show
Is it weird to anyone else that the "simpsons is bad now" era keeps and getting pushed farther and farther back, i mean die hards that constantly rewatch do have the seasons and show runs that they detest. But more casual viewers def start referencing episodes from eras I swear people used to complain a lot about
For me modern simpsons has always been a show that is just fine to wtach(usually after a football game) but not something to seek out for. Compared to other sitcoms on modern broadcast, I do not think it is that much worse than what other people are throwing together
I wouldn't say the simpsons storylines are the problem these days. I'd say its the lack of quick one liner comedy writing that made the original series so great. Anytime I've tried to watch a modern episode of the Simpsons I feel as though the gag is cheap at best. And I have given it a lot of chances
"No one has the patience to watch all of it"
LS Mark would beg to differ
I'd say the overall message of this video is that changes in the status-quo HAVE to be a commitment or they're boring. They have to be something relevant in future episodes otherwise they're just a stunt.
For me I don't mind PatP. If it happened in an earlier season when Skinner was starting to be developed, with his first 'spotlight' episode being Principal Charming, whom he shares with Patty. But I feel by season 9 we already know who he is as a character. That being said, his delinquent ways prior to his time serving in the Vietnam War does shine a new light on his relationship with Bart. He sees his younger self through Bart and hopes the lessons he learnt from the real Seymour Skinner could be passed onto Bart. We have seen cases where they have a healthy relationship in episodes like Separate Vacations, where Bart becomes the hall monitor as his 'future career' is predicated to be a police officer and the other being Sweet Seymour Skinners Baadasssss Song. Here Bart feels guilty for getting Skinner fired and this guilt leads him to build a friendship with Skinner. Even knowing said friendship will end if he succeeds in convincing Chalmers to give Skinner his job back. You could also sense that Angus believing that "Skinner" was her son was her way of avoiding the news that her actual son had died during the war. (only to learn way later that he actually survived). However by this time, somewhere down the line, the lie Angus told herself, which "Skinner" rolled with became reality. To the point that she did actually think "Skinner" was her son. Hence her anger at the 'imposter'. Only to find that the 'imposter' was more of a son to her than her biological son. Who basically started taking her for granted. Then you have Edna who fell in love with the Skinner we know and love that she doesn't care about his true backstory. As he is no longer that person.
PatP is a good episode which expands upon the relationship between Skinner and Bart, Skinner and Angus along with Skinner and Edna. I just feel the timing of it and the season where it was released was the major factor as to why people generally hate it.
I mean why not experiment and go wild its not like disney is going to cancel them at this point, they have a huge opportunity to really try new and different things with a huge safety net.
I suspect the choice of first-run platforms change before the show does. Fox Corporation doesn't own _The Simpsons._ It sold the production side to Disney, and Fox invests in newer animated content at this point.
While the US ratings still justify the Fox program service renewing _The Simpsons,_ moving to a Disney platform doesn't mean as much when Disney+ already uses _The Simpsons_ to cross-promote things. Fox, both pre-and-post Murdoch pump-and-dumping on Disney, has a tendency to keep things going even when it's clear the creatives just want to move on. At some point, "we're not _Family Guy,_ we care about the audience a _bit_ more" won't be enough, and _The Simpsons_ will need to do more than the click bait stuff.
Your view of The Simpsons is the same as mine. This happened to me I randomly saw episode where Ned was a crime Boss. I think it was a two-parter. I ended up watching that entire season and then stopped again
2:09 it looks like that ww2 German late war
(or pretty much end of war) last ditch weapon that was a single second flamethrower
Dude how many times can you say the literal exact same thing over and over again with slight variation
The thing about modern Simpsons - like the HD seasons - is I constantly hear people bitch about it any time it's brought up but they're people who haven't watched it… they stopped watching back around seasons 9-15 and just assume the show never did anything from there. Sure, the show is nothing like classic Simpsons now but it's not the worst thing of all time. In fact it's pretty funny and clever a lot of the time, even if it's still not anything as good as seasons 2-7
Completely agree, and I think this video elaborates on that a bit by stating the show is stlll sometimes funny, well written, and heartwarming, but there's just so much of it and so much else competing for our attention. I'd argue there's at least one good, if not great, episode per season, even up to present day.
I jumped back onto the bandwagon around Season 30, because... well... 30 is a nice number to use as a jumping on point.
I haven't watched Seasons 33 and 34 in full yet, but that's only because I'm undergoing my own "watch every episode on Disney+" binge (I'm currently on Season 18).
If The Simpsons are being more experimental nowadays, they should go all out. I would like to see the show take a more serialised approach, to mix up its status quo.
i honestly think the simpsons should try changing showrunners again every few seasons like they did in the earlier eras. same with writers. bring some new people in every once in a while to try and freshen things up more maybe take the show in more different directions. not that this would necessarily make the show better or fix anything but it could make things feel a bit more fresh. back in the golden era from seasons 2-8 they changed runners every couple seasons and that lead to a very different vibe between the seasons that felt nice. season 2 was more grounded in family stuff then. season 8 was more wacky in a fun way, etc. different seasons had different flavor and id like to see something more like that again
tho idk i havent watched as much past the golden era and a few seasons after so im not as experienced in the different vibes of those later seasons but still
Season 33: Pixelated and Afraid was actually really good. Worth a watch imo.
The biggest problem is that the shows writers are unable to come up with funny and witty dialogs and don't know how the characters work. The early seasons managed to cram every episode with clever and amazingly timed gags and the every episode felt well filled. However NOWDAYS,,,, things.... just... happen... and then suddenly the episode is over. There is absolutely no sense of timing anymore and at the end you're always like "Wait.. that's it?". It all feels so anticlimactic and meaningless. Because the stories lead nowhere and just feel like a waste of time.
The problem is shows are not meant to go on for this long, usually after 10 years a show starts to decline, because of lack of ideas.
I think after season 12 they should’ve changed what The Simpsons was and age the characters, so Bart could be 16, Lisa could be 14, Maggie could be 6. And have them at those ages for another 10 to 12 years.
Imo The Simpson’s should’ve called it a day after season 12.