I'd say so, especially since familial relationships don't seem to be a strongsuit of Simpson character design. I can't really glean a visible similarity between Bart and Homer and Marge until Bart gets older in episodes set in the future. Then again, I may be dumb and the relationships are always visible (the Flanders all look related) and Agnes and Armin were part of that design structure.
I really liked this episode because everything just seemed to make sense, and the jokes were hilarious. The dynamic between Tamzarian and Skinner was interesting as well. I especially love the line, “It’s your life. I just kept it warm for you”.
Well yeah. But it also kind of destroyed the character. But its simpsons. Nothing is canon so much. Evets usually not have consequences so it’s easily ignorable
I didn't mind this episode. It didn't really change anything about the character, just his past. In comparison, *none* of the current versions of the Simpsons characters make any sense whatsoever 👽
I always liked this episode. For me, it gave Skinner a really nice twist to what I before regarded as a boring character. “Principal Skinner” being an imposter made his character much more interesting to me.
Thank you for making this video! I always thought this episode had a lot of merit: it had great pacing, LOTS of great gags and some fun character moments. I don’t get all the hate.
More like “forgettable concept”, seriously they’ve since retconned it so that Seymour is Agnes’s son by birth. I’m not even joking, look up the Season 21 episode “Boy Meets Curl”, Agnes has a flashback wherein she’s pregnant with Seymour and he cost her her victory at Olympic pole vaulting 😓😓😓
@@LadyLeomon Her being pregnant with somebody named Seymour does not make any difference. There was no question of her having a son named Seymour. The issue is that the one we all got used to for eight seasons was not the real Seymour. For all we know, the Seymour she was pregnant with is the fat guy from the episode, who's name is actually Seymour. So no, it was not retconned. I can't believe that had to be explained to you! 🤣
@@dannyspelman1468 it does when the Seymour _we know_ apologised for the complaints Agnes had, why apologise for something he didn’t do unless it’s him?
@@LadyLeomon Because the judge at the end of the episode, Principal and the Pauper, decreed that the matter was to be forgotten about and never brought up again "...under penalty of torture!" and that Armen was to assume the identity of Seymour, including all incidences PAST, present or future. So he has to take responsibility for everything that Seymour did, even though he is really Armen, thus owing the apology to his mother.
While I still think this episode did not favor Skinner's character, I believe modern Simpsons episodes did more damage to him. This episode just gave him a backstory that simply doesn't work. Modern Simpsons, on the other hand, ruined his dynamic with Bart: the kid had no longer a nemesis he could fear, since now Seymour is just incompetent at everything. Skinner was clumsy and naive, but not stupid. Modern Simpsons ruined his funny dynamic with Chalmers: the jokes are more predictable. Chalmers is supposed to be a realistic character that contrasted Seymour's goofiness, but now he doesn't feel real either. Nowadays he can't be 5 min far away from Skinner's buttocks, despite he is supposed to be a superintendent who needs to inspect other schools. Modern Simpsons not only overdid but also ruined Seymour's dynamic with his mother: Agnes was much funnier when she was just a cranky and bitter old lady struggling to accept that his son is an adult. Nowadays she is an exaggerated monster who is just there to make predictable jokes about insulting Seymour. Modern Simpsons dedicated to ruin his relationship with Mrs. K. In Grade School Confidential, Skinner DID NOT accept to give up on Edna, no matter if his own boss asked for it. In modern Simpsons, on the other hand, even made him act out of character getting cold feet and not wanting to marry her. *TL;DR: Principal and the Pauper doesn't deserve ALL the blame for ruining Seymour's character. Modern Simpsons episodes deserve the blame a lot more.*
well Chalmers addressed that already "Why is it that every time there's a problem is in this school and one of the Simpsons children!" and in Road to Cincinnati, Chalmers actually wanted to go there with another principal not Skinner.
@@fixedfunshow That doesn't change the fact that in many other episodes Chalmers is in Springfield school for no real reason in many scenes where his presence isn't necessary.
@@CorazonMexica It is the most dilapidated school and the one always in risk of getting shut down, I see Super Nintendo Chalmers is a good sport in helping the school more often instead of just firing Skinner like in previous occasions as he saw what would happen (religion in school), the "Inspector" Chalmers has grown to like Skinner more as they have things in common, not much, but they do.
@@fixedfunshow That's why their dynamic is not funny anymore. They find every single excuse to milk character dynamics bone dry and Skinner is not longer able to be a character of his own who owns his own butt. Only writers like Bill Oakley managed to make their dynamic hilarious.
I never minded the idea of Skinner being a ruffian before his service honestly. It kind of gave a layer of irony to his relationship and dynamic with Bart. He looks at a troublesome child and sees a lot of himself and his past in the boy. Maybe he’s trying to steer him straight like a father figure would which he himself lacked. I don’t think Agnes’ treatment of him warranted an explanation though. Some people and parents are just like that. Or possibly worse. And it was kinda influenced by Norman Bates’ relationship with his mother I think.
The car gag gets me every time. I was in the boat of hating this episode early on but have grown the appreciate the greatness of it. (And almost all of Season 9 at that)
I never thought there was anything wrong with the episode. This episode recontextualized previous episodes where if one were to retroactively reexamine those episodes with the new information presented in this one, Armin Tamzarian is someone clearly going through psychosis. He had been living someone else's life for so long that he started to lose touch with reality, and slowly, but surely, started to believe that he truly was Seymour Skinner; with delusional memories of his childhood as Seymour Skinner that he made up in his head according to the details Agnes Skinner told him. He didn't fully lose himself to that identity because the real Seymour Skinner showed up and proved to everyone that he was still alive, allowing Armin Tamzarian to maintain his sanity and live the life he built up for himself in Springfield. To me, this episode is a gem and the writers shouldn't be ashamed for making it.
The Futurama episodes are incredibly good. I suspect that The Simpsons just couldn't accommodate so much change and weirdness by comparison, being more grounded in reality during much of its run.
I have in fact a fan theory to make this fit in to the show’s cannon. Skinner (Arman) was born to Agnus but as given up for adoption out side Springfield. Later Agnus would return and find her son was adopted by a new family and she took the other Skinner in his place. Later Skinner (Armen) is sent back for being a troubled youth and everything that plays out the same.
7:35 my god. Each and every mention of his work just made it more and more impressive. It is hard to believe someone could write that many iconic episodes of TV.
This episode is just flat out funny as hell. I've been going through the series and finally getting to this episode I was shocked at how much I liked it. I get why it would make people mad, but like the whole POINT of the episode is that it doesn't matter at all.
I am one of the people who considers Season 9 the last real season of the simpsons. And I have always really liked this episode. Way better than what they try to pass as The Simpson's now.
I agree, Season 9 is the last golden age season for me. With me liking 20/25 episodes, and even the worst are miles better than modern simpsons or even seasons 11/12.
You know a point people who talk about this show never seem to break up in regards to this "breaking the show's continuity" is that in some ways it actually strengthens the show's continuity. I mean even when I first saw this back in 1997 I had remembered that bit in "Sweet Seymour Skinner's Badass Song" where in that letter he wrote to Bart, Skinner admitted the only thing that had given his life meaning was school AND being in the army. Which to me actually makes the backstory of being this punk troubled kid who was just this hellraiser actually make a lot MORE sense and why he not only is so hard probably on someone like Bart (who he used to be a lot like) but why he had no problem forgetting that life as he found so much more value in the actual Skinner's and grew to care about that more. I guess you could argue stuff like "but then how come in "Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson In Curse Of The Flying Hellfish" when Abe was talking about his batallion one of them was SKinner's father who acted and looked like the Seymour Skinner we knew not anything like this supposed real Seymour skinner" but yeah that in itself ties into a greater issue of the Simpsons "cares more for the sake of joke then continuity" which did not start with season 9. See believe it or not the team admitted in the first couple of seasons (mostlys 1-2, and somewhat in 3) they were though not going to be totally grounded and realistic still trying to have a more basic and believable world where things even if they didn't draw attention to it added up and made sense. The house layout they always tried to match and a fair amount of the character relationships as well. That's something that broke apart in season 4 and totally fell apart in season 5. Hell listen to the team's commentary for say "Homer and Apu" and "Bart Gets An Elephant" where they break down "okay at this point things happen in the story because of the plot or because we want to tell specific jokes even if it doesn't make any sense whatsoever". Like for example in "Bart Gets An Elephant" there's a pair of revovling doors in front of the kitchen only for the gag of how quickly the family wrecks the kitchen right after cleaning it that hadn't been there before nor would be there again but they just did because of how funny they found that idea. Stuff like that had been in the show and you know it also did involve the characters as well. Going back to "Grumbling Abe Simpson..." that episode points out that Abe and Monty Burns were on the same World War II squandron and knew each other from that but apparently weren't that aware of the other previously in "Lady Bouvier's Lover" because yeah "Grumbling...." story just called for them to have known one another even though they really hadn't in the past but they cared more about the story and jokes of the week then the overall series canon. And that's something you can say with a lot of the show. I mean everyone remembers how classic "Steamed hams" is from "22 Short Films About Springfield" but that bit implies that Seymour's house is like a 3 minute run from Krustyburger which obviously isn't the case in any other episode but again it fits that joke and bit. So this is pretty much the same thing except in a weird way it does actually make more sense. I guess it's also implying that Seymour had been lying who he is for ages but the episode itself explained why he did so and even that Agnes (who BTW if you look at her earliest appearences in stuff like "The Crepes of Wrath" her personality and attitude is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy different from how later episodes would define her as especially in her relationship with Seymour) knew about it. So why does this one get signaled out so much? Well in addition to specifically saying "no this character isn't who they say they are it's this totally other different character" it's that whole "we are committed to keeping everything the same no matter what" the writers try peddling that yeah that's where I stop defending them. First off though clear some people wanted Seymour back like Bart and Edna and Agnes obviously.... why in the hell would the rest of the town care about this they were perfectly fine railroading someone else and telling them not to go back? As corrupt and messed up as some stuff that happens in Springfield it does seem weird for Judge Snyder to go "oh let's just have the seymour we knew be Seymour and have no one bring it up ever again" since yeah what does everyone else get out of this? Not to mention that mishandling the real Seymour Skinner so darkly and messed up doesn't work. Like a character being offed or being dealt with darkly isn't new for the Simpsons. We saw Rex Banner get taken out in "Homer Vs The 18th Amendment" and Frank Grimes off himself in "Homer's Enemy" and didn't have a problem with that. However those episodes there was a feeling of catharsis with how much of a jerky hardass Banner was or just how determined Grimes was to bust Homer even though Homer was just trying to be friendly with them. We aren't on those characters side. And I guess we aren't on this new Skinner's side but he didn't do anything wrong either. He wanted his life back and was just fufilling that in a not jerky way and... we're punishing him for that? How is that supposed to be funny? Plus yeah though something like "Homer Loves Flanders" makes fun of the status quo, I don't think this episode is so much making fun of it as much as dutifully following it. Which sorry to me makes a show feel lamer if things just automatically reset and nothing changes. Yeah you can't expect shows to be like Bojack Horsemen especially back then on FOX as this is an animated sitcom but stuff like South Park if they do make a change more stick to it or has more a reason for changing it but this wanting to keep going back to it's precious status quo doesn't do so which makes endings like this feel much more lame in comparison. I don't think it's the worst as there are great comedic bits (I love the scene where Homer asks why everyone is in his car to get Seymour back, including Grandpa with the topper "cause Jasper would get lonely" is great) and it's an interesting idea but it's a show that isn't willing to commit to the bit or really play with it. Which shows now can do. I mean isn't Gravity Falls "A Tale of Two Stans" like that though I guess in that case the show planned out that twist and kept it while here they thought of it and then tried taking it back.
I like The Principal and The Pauper, I also like what it's original title was, Skinnersby! I also thought Martin Sheen did an incredible job as real Skinner, and I do believe that Armon and Seymour are somehow infact half brothers!
This episode might have been a lot better if it hadn't have been the real skinner but instead a third party who knew that Skinner wasn't who he said he was. Skinner would have to maintain the lie while keeping him quiet or something idk
If the show had ended a season or two after this episode, I don't think it would be hated as much. I still watch and enjoy the post-classic era Simpsons though.
Despite the hate this is still a really funny episode. I love the bit with Homer questioning why everyone is going to Capital City. Skinner explaining his backstory and reason he got into the Military. Everything with Agnes. The fact they got Martin Sheene to play a real character and not just himself. I think it's a pretty good episode on it's own and if this was an episode in an early season this could have worked but it being the 9th season yeah it was too late to pull something like this with a character so well established.
Why people hate so much this episode? Did ANYONE got the joke? It's a PARODY of the "surprise twists" in popular shows. In the end NOTHING MATTERS. Because it's a joke. It's like when with Poochie they parodied extra characters and even had their own extra character to make fun of the concept. Somebody did not get the memo.
I am so glad someone was willing to defend this episode. I liked it! Frankly, I adore that the entire town gathered to literally ride a man out on a rail because they preferred the status quo. Its one of the only examples of the SQ being *reset on screen.*
I was going to esquire whether or not you were drunk. But you had to go and include the "Up yours children." line at the very end and completely win me over.
Just because you point out something as dumb doesn’t make it less dumb and that once you have a series with established characters it’s harder to make big revelations are the lessons from this episode
Not really, because we don't know everything about everyone in a show. Also while Skinner is a big secondary character, he is still a secondary character. It would be different if it was Homer that was the imposter.
It’s horrible in the sense that it completely changes skinner aka the funniest man in Springfield It’s great because outside of that it’s not a bad episode
The problem with this episode is that it completely ignores the previously established character tropes for Principal Skinner from multiple seasons. He was a hilariously tragic character who was a Vietnam War POW who barely held it together for the sake of the kids in school. Mere valentine's day candy activated his PTSD, he was a Green Beret who beat down Disney lawyers who tried to sue a school festival, and lots of other references to his time in the Army. Flanders for example had beatnik parents who didn't believe in rules, so he became a devout christian to establish some semblance of rules in his life to the point of therapy. Skinner being an imposter that removes all his backstory punishes the audience for paying attention all those seasons.
When I saw the Simpsons 1st time (around 2001 it was, I think), Principal and Pauper was something like 2nd or 3rd episode I ever watched. I sincerely liked the whole comedic absurdity of this episode. It was a big surprise decade later when I found out people collectively consider it a failure
I would have liked it better if they either made the real Skinner a permanent character going through a change and the old Skinner being demoted to vice principal, or they changed the story so that both characters were fraternal twins and Skinner and Agnes kept it a secret from the school board assuming that the twin died in Vietnam when both of them were druggies in the street, with the twin taking it personally when everyone assumed that he died.
The guatemalan insane asylum peppers episode with Johnny Cash as the coyote was great. But brother from another series, who cares about Cecil? Why would he blow up Springfield? Why would he care? It's just funny jokes without an actual plot. This is what ended up happening to each and every Simpson episode.
The episode itself has some funny jokes but Skinner’s mother being different from his biological mother was a bridge too far. Skinner’s relationship with his mother is integral to the comedy of his character, and this episode just shits all over it. Based on the ending of the episode, the only way to go about it is to basically assume it’s non canon
This used to be my favorite episode. Cause I just liked the idea of someone changing who they were on a dime. Someone who was a principle nerd for 20 years changes on a dime to become a biker nogoodnik. The controversy always blew me away cause they reset it good enough at the end and it is an episodic show. I know it's cliched and less creative but no one would have cared if they just made it a dream.
I think the real problem with the episode is that it tried to do something similar to You Only Move Twice a season after that episode. Quite a few episodes in the Golden Age have an element of meta commentary about sitcoms when they’ve been on for too long. Of course, we see it most prominently with Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie, but those aren’t the only episodes. In You Only Move Twice, you’ve got the writers giving us a status quo shake up, but it’s a fake out. The Simpsons end up moving back to Springfield, which they were always going to do. With The Principal and the Pauper, they tried to make a meta commentary on the status-quo-shake-up-fake-out. The problem is, though, that they played it a little too straight. Had they been a bit more on the nose with the meta commentary and a bit more direct with the satire, this episode would have been better received. And, if they’d done that and hadn’t already done You Only Move Twice, this episode would probably be considered a classic today. As is, they understated the satire, and people thought they were doing the thing (ie teasing a change then snapping back to the status quo, which people strongly dislike in sitcoms late in their life cycles) unironically instead of ironically.
Of course, You Only Move Twice is very well regarded. It was always a gamble trying to pull off the same trick twice, and this episode would have been better if You Only Move Twice didn’t exist. However, I would never give up You Only Move Twice for a better The Principal and the Pauper.
One thing I’ll never get, it was a good episode with a bad premise. I liked the jokes, but Skinner not being Skinner was terrible. I think if they just made Skinner a degenerate who adopted the personality of a deceased friend, along with his dreams would’ve worked better; because you still keep the character but build his backstory in this narrative. You could even build the joke that his friend was alive at the end, making Skinner question does he need to keep being a principal then, since it wasn’t his dream.
i saw this episode when it aired when i was a kid and i liked it, i didnt learn it was controversial till many years later listening to a commentary track on some futurama dvds
1:40 Lisa Simpson was brutally tortured for 10 hours after that soon after she was freed she apologized to Skinner and snowball 2 was once again the family cat that is until Lisa went missing around season 20 and was never seen or heard from again
i always liked this episode because it added more to a character i really liked and being a kid at the time all the things people say are bad about the episode wouldn't really have crossed my mind at the time and so didn't effect my enjoyment of the episode and even if i hadn't watched it as a kid and wtached it now i would likely feel the same way about the episode tho i might nitpick the writing a little but other then that my enjoyment would likely be the same as when i was a kid
You brought up an interesting point - maybe he grew atached to his mother so much after witnessing so many deaths and misery in the war. She was the only family he had after all.
THANK YOU!!! I've always liked this episode and never understood why so many people criticized it. Great jokes; great use of secondary characters; it just flowed so smoothly.... So many great scenes. Always a pleasure to watch. And I'm gld the crew took the chance to do something like this- it helps to keep the show fresh and from falling into the formulaic duldrums in which seemed to resort more and more aas the series went along. They kill the show with too much drama- but in this ep. they kept it light, as a cartoon should be- and it worked!
you could argue that modern simpsons is all in the vein of this episode, ever since they started ret-conning the back stories all consistency has gone to pot and nothing much matters, the characters have become "actors" in their own lives and stories. anything is prone to change at any moment which makes investment hard.
Not a fan. I felt the betrayal and was further angered when Agnes would say Skinner costed her the olympics. Its not only ignoring continuity, it got confusing and left me going " Oh Well. Move along I guess."
Completely agree. Even Season 10 is pretty solid. Season 11, while flawed, was fairy solid as well and it was the last dying light of classic Simpson’s. Season 12, aside from the episode “HomR”, was without a doubt the season that spelled a dreadful shift for the show.
@@miahthorpatrick1013 honestly i'm gonna disagree here. i've been watching a bunch of season 16 lately and while the show is clearly not the same as it once was, there's a handful of really enjoyable episodes. i think the movie really marked the downfall, as much as i enjoyed that a lot. i mean heck, there's good episodes past that, but i think the consistency completely changed to be more miss than hit at that point.
I would consider S10 as the end of Classic Simpsons. S10 because it contained the last episode with the late Phil Hartman and the last full season of the 1990's aka the Simpsons' greatest decade.
I like the episode and I’d say the end of the golden age was after the Simpsons movie. But since season 30 it’s entered a 2nd golden age. Each episode especially this season has been great I think. I’m hoping they do another movie and end on a high note.
Thank you. I love The Simpsons in the 90s. I think I went downhill in the 2000 I think it went down in the 2000s since that's when I stopped watching. I don't like the episode. It's nonsensical. I don't like the way they drove the real Seymour Skinner out of town and tied him up.
Hardcore fan from the frist episode and I liked it. This is Arman's copy of Swank is an all-time favorite line. There were plenty of farfetched episode before this one, such as Homer the Great.
Harry, harry... When you're living in a solid golden house with a rocket car, perhaps you can just chill about the damn show? You are not Skinner. You play him on TV. You make more money an episode than I will ever see. Go jam with Nigel.
Fair defenses and well-made video, but I think this is still too out of character for Armin/Original Skinner, since the idea of Agnes being abusive and overly-demanding towards him was established as early as that Psycho reference in one of the series' earlier episodes. "Sexless freak" and "It's the children who are wrong" don't hit as hard or strike me as possible coming from a guy who not only used to have a disrespectful past but is currently shadier than most other people in Springleaf. I think it also hurts the few badass moments Armin got in earlier episodes to know he was always like that and hiding it rather the situation being that this boring, uptight square had seen more things and was more capable than we'd been giving him credit for. It also seems to be making a lot of assumptions for the episode to say that Armin became disdainful of his rebellious past and began to truly savor the boring tendencies Actual Skinner gave him if the episode itself doesn't say so, especially since Simpsons is not known for being cryptic. The cynical ending of pretending something didn't happen doesn't bother me (as similar things were present even outside of "Homer Loves Flanders"), but it does bother me that they didn't commit to it. They introduced a huge thing for two or three characters and then threw it away as soon as they brought it up. Keeler thought that fans didn't like change, but this episode doesn't really change anything even though things like Barney's bout of sobriety and the Vanhousen marital status were always sources of change in the show and people love tracking the continuity of this show whenever it asserts itself enough to be noticed. They probably weren't going to get Martin Sheen to consistently voice Actual Skinner (especially not after The West Wing took off), but I'd count that as prioritizing a shock over what the episode was saying. I still can't buy the idea of Armin being a decades-long liar and having a history of criminal behavior he seems to have forgotten (you'd think he'd be way more hip to how kids misbehave even if he preferred being a square after his service), but I think the idea may have been more interesting to follow if they stuck with it and kept Actual Skinner around for a while, even if just to send/kill him off later and have Armin return to Agnes' side, maybe in a sentimental moment like how Homer's mom eventually passed away before going back to the status quo of never talking about her. Simpsons makes a lot of jokes at its own structure and blasé relationship with continuity and worldbuilding, but everyone knows how much it tries to keep love between family members and friends alive in its stories, not afraid to prioritize a touching ending over a funny one. The Skinner family being so callous and not even Lisa doing anything to stop the deportation of Actual Skinner is just too cynical for a show that was never as mean as the Bush Administration would have us believe. With how much Armin admired Actual Skinner, you'd think he wouldn't allow his mentor to be driven away and, for all of Agnes' faults, she was never implied to have Mr. Burns-levels of disdain for her own family. Agnes having two sons and them living a weird life together (even if only for a few episodes) would have fit this show's mixture of satire and heart better than leaning completely into satire to make a statement about audiences hating change that I don't think is even true and has never described the Simpsons' appeal. I appreciate some widely-hated media like Sonic the Hedgehog 20006 and Keeler's work on Futurama is among the best of the best (not too big on Bender's Big Score, but Wild Green Yonder was the best of the movies), but I have to say I'm glad this episode was thrown out the window, if only because they didn't commit enough to their idea. Still, this is a good video with very thorough arguments on both sides! Bravo!
the truth is points of change in direction are always arbitrary when studying history, be it the history of wars to that of a TV series. Stalingrad was not "the point where the war changed", as wars don't change on a dime, but rather a myriad of billions of events big and small led to the change of course. Same way as, The Simpsons didn't turn from going up to the downfall at this episode in and on itself. The episode is just unlucky enough to stand chronoligcally somewhere in the middle of this change of course, and sadly, the episode does display the key characteristics the show is accused of afterwards. Instead of being a one-time whacky episode with insane plot, it's nonsensicallity and character-breaking elements became the norm... if it was a one-time thing it would be a fun experimental episode, but once it became the norm, it became hateful to see.
I remember watching it bran new (well in the UK) and M brother (12) reacted badly to it while I (14) defended it. but as I defined it, on the grounds it was expanding the shows backstory (and skinner wasn't a main, so, so what), I knew it kinda sucked...And for me that was mostly down to how different Skinner/armen was portrayed. It's hard to buy that such a jackass would do something so kind and become a principle. Was amusing to imagine Skinner as such, but was too incongruous. Still IMO the downfall of the Simpsons a few seasons later....Not sure exactly whe but the episode that killed my enthusiasm for the show was the Max Powers episode.
Compared to what passes for the show these days, this episode (which is the first time an Armenian American is featured on the Simpsons) has aged like a fine wine... with bits of cork floating in it.
not really caring about the simpsons or cultural phenomena aside - i never seen anyone talk in-depth about the idea of a known person being impersonated in the same critical eye as the reception of the episode, imposters fascinate me if there's any possibly of them acting as psyops
@internetmeta It was good writing, the people didn’t understand that the episode was about the people who hated the episode. How was Skinners backstory changed, they never said anything about his teen years? The storyline actually makes sense, Seymour was a rebel and seeing the real Skinner “die” made him change from a rebel to an acceptable member of society.
@@giantsr1eva Nah, they just got lazy and went the whole "subvert the audience expectations" route. It was just lazy writing for a character they didn't realize that so many people really liked.
@@giantsr1eva They took preestablished character back story, went back and changed the meaning again to subvert. They can try to retcon was to why they made the episode, but it's funny how they never said anything about the "meaning behind the episode" it till years after all the continued backlash. Their excuse that "the episode was about the people who hated the episode." is nonsense, how can someone make something that people are meant to hate because they hate it.? The writers where just coping and seething.
@@internetmeta It’s simple, it’s a critique of people who like things just the way they are, and things are not what they seem to be. It upset and scared the town. It’s a critique of modern conservatism. It was the reaction that Ken Keeler wanted. When the episode aired, a group of people who like things just the way they are got mad. It was supposed to be a wake up call for people to care about real people rather than fictional cartoon characters.
Me and my best friend argued a lot over this episode, with me adamantly defending it, and him hating it with a passion. Now, while we still stand on the same sides, we both have a more nuance in our viewpoints. I see why people object it, and why it's considered "the beginning of the end", while he admits that the episode does contain a few good jokes, and that much worse episodes came after anyway....
Season 8 was still pretty good. Episodes such as the New York or the garbage ones were close enough to classic Simpsons. It's around Season 19 that the show truly begins to take a nosedive.
There is only one aspect of this episode I truly hate is that it used and reinforced the now long (and even then long) debunked myth that POWs were kept in Vietnam for many years and even decades after the war ended either as strait up POWs or as slave labor for various communist countries. It was already long established that Vietnam handed over all POWs by 1973 and after that, no POWs are known to have been held in Vietnam or anywhere for that matter involving the Vietnam government or communist governments involved with Vietnam. This episode tries to reinforce (possibly by parody, but it's too serious and too politically charged of a subject to be properly parodied) the now long debunked POW-MIA conspiracy that has been used by conservative media for decades to try to reinforce passionate conspiracy theories to rally up the base of conservative voters. The whole plot hinges on the ridiculous idea that the "real" Seymore Skinner was held as a POW/slave worker for decades after the war which is totally ridiculous and simply reinforces that old POW-MIA conspiracy theory. Shame on Ken Keeler for making THAT the plot.
Terrible episode. Could have pulled it off years earlier before they established Skinner's back story, but once they did, this episode is off limits. The ending is a giant FU to the fans and the episode itself The first truly terrible episode of the series.
I remember as a teenager finding most of the jokes funny, but thinking the actual story was very unnecessary. I mean I was freaking 15 I wasn't going to get upset about a Simpsons episode at least not yet haha
Personally, I enjoy this episode partially because it showed a very interesting aspect of principal Skinner‘s character. That is still unwilling to hurt the feelings of an elderly woman that he took the place of her son for over 20 years, just to spare her, the news that her son had died.
The sudden Bojack comparison is an extremely forced and irrelevant addition to this video's script. The Simpsons is a satirical sitcom and follows the traditional trope of sitcoms to be largely self-contained episodes with no real narratives that audiences are expected to remember or follow from one episode to the next. Bojack is specifically not that. Bojack has a continuous narrative that carries on from ep to ep. I see no reason for comparing Bojack to this episode of The Simpsons, or any. They are completely different shows. Also, Bojack is far from unique in this regard. There are many animated shows that don't reset their status quo at the end of each episode, and that predate Bojack. Off the top of my head; Avatar the Last Airbender and The Venture Bros. What The Simpsons did at the end of this episode was obviously very intentional and very sarcastic. Whether one likes it or not, its basically true to Simpsons formula. So what is the point of the Bojack comparison? It feels like a weird nonsequitur included for no other reason than the author of this video had an obsession with Bojack and couldn't stop themselves from forcing a mention in somehow.
You want to ultimate defense of The Principal and Pauper... this episode aired over 25 years ago and people are still talking about it to this day. You can't say that about many episodes of The Simpsons
I get the objections, but watching him peel out on a Harley declaring "Up yours, children!" was pretty epic.
I felt the episode really helped explain Skinner's leniency with Bart.
Definitely one of the quotes I find the most memorable.
"So why is Grandpa coming?"
"Because Jasper didn't wanna go on his own"
Top 10 simpsons jokes
“When I grow up, I want to be a principal or a caterpillar”
It is strange how similar Agnes and Armin look despite supposedly not being related.
I'd say so, especially since familial relationships don't seem to be a strongsuit of Simpson character design. I can't really glean a visible similarity between Bart and Homer and Marge until Bart gets older in episodes set in the future. Then again, I may be dumb and the relationships are always visible (the Flanders all look related) and Agnes and Armin were part of that design structure.
I really liked this episode because everything just seemed to make sense, and the jokes were hilarious. The dynamic between Tamzarian and Skinner was interesting as well. I especially love the line, “It’s your life. I just kept it warm for you”.
Well yeah. But it also kind of destroyed the character. But its simpsons. Nothing is canon so much. Evets usually not have consequences so it’s easily ignorable
I feel the same exact way
it is just really dumb
@@handznet i guess i just dont fully understand why people feel it ruins the character-
I never felt like it destroyed Skinner's character, but it contradicts his relationship with his mother too much.
I didn't mind this episode. It didn't really change anything about the character, just his past.
In comparison, *none* of the current versions of the Simpsons characters make any sense whatsoever 👽
I always liked this episode. For me, it gave Skinner a really nice twist to what I before regarded as a boring character. “Principal Skinner” being an imposter made his character much more interesting to me.
Thank you for making this video! I always thought this episode had a lot of merit: it had great pacing, LOTS of great gags and some fun character moments. I don’t get all the hate.
This episode is an example of “bad concept, decent execution.”
Notice how the video poster only likes comments that agree with him.
More like “forgettable concept”, seriously they’ve since retconned it so that Seymour is Agnes’s son by birth. I’m not even joking, look up the Season 21 episode “Boy Meets Curl”, Agnes has a flashback wherein she’s pregnant with Seymour and he cost her her victory at Olympic pole vaulting 😓😓😓
@@LadyLeomon Her being pregnant with somebody named Seymour does not make any difference. There was no question of her having a son named Seymour. The issue is that the one we all got used to for eight seasons was not the real Seymour. For all we know, the Seymour she was pregnant with is the fat guy from the episode, who's name is actually Seymour. So no, it was not retconned. I can't believe that had to be explained to you! 🤣
@@dannyspelman1468 it does when the Seymour _we know_ apologised for the complaints Agnes had, why apologise for something he didn’t do unless it’s him?
@@LadyLeomon Because the judge at the end of the episode, Principal and the Pauper, decreed that the matter was to be forgotten about and never brought up again "...under penalty of torture!" and that Armen was to assume the identity of Seymour, including all incidences PAST, present or future. So he has to take responsibility for everything that Seymour did, even though he is really Armen, thus owing the apology to his mother.
While I still think this episode did not favor Skinner's character, I believe modern Simpsons episodes did more damage to him.
This episode just gave him a backstory that simply doesn't work.
Modern Simpsons, on the other hand, ruined his dynamic with Bart: the kid had no longer a nemesis he could fear, since now Seymour is just incompetent at everything. Skinner was clumsy and naive, but not stupid.
Modern Simpsons ruined his funny dynamic with Chalmers: the jokes are more predictable. Chalmers is supposed to be a realistic character that contrasted Seymour's goofiness, but now he doesn't feel real either. Nowadays he can't be 5 min far away from Skinner's buttocks, despite he is supposed to be a superintendent who needs to inspect other schools.
Modern Simpsons not only overdid but also ruined Seymour's dynamic with his mother: Agnes was much funnier when she was just a cranky and bitter old lady struggling to accept that his son is an adult. Nowadays she is an exaggerated monster who is just there to make predictable jokes about insulting Seymour.
Modern Simpsons dedicated to ruin his relationship with Mrs. K. In Grade School Confidential, Skinner DID NOT accept to give up on Edna, no matter if his own boss asked for it. In modern Simpsons, on the other hand, even made him act out of character getting cold feet and not wanting to marry her.
*TL;DR: Principal and the Pauper doesn't deserve ALL the blame for ruining Seymour's character. Modern Simpsons episodes deserve the blame a lot more.*
well Chalmers addressed that already "Why is it that every time there's a problem is in this school and one of the Simpsons children!" and in Road to Cincinnati, Chalmers actually wanted to go there with another principal not Skinner.
@@fixedfunshow That doesn't change the fact that in many other episodes Chalmers is in Springfield school for no real reason in many scenes where his presence isn't necessary.
@@CorazonMexica It is the most dilapidated school and the one always in risk of getting shut down, I see Super Nintendo Chalmers is a good sport in helping the school more often instead of just firing Skinner like in previous occasions as he saw what would happen (religion in school), the "Inspector" Chalmers has grown to like Skinner more as they have things in common, not much, but they do.
@@fixedfunshow That's why their dynamic is not funny anymore. They find every single excuse to milk character dynamics bone dry and Skinner is not longer able to be a character of his own who owns his own butt.
Only writers like Bill Oakley managed to make their dynamic hilarious.
@@CorazonMexica Watch Road to Cincinnati, that's all I can say.
I never minded the idea of Skinner being a ruffian before his service honestly. It kind of gave a layer of irony to his relationship and dynamic with Bart. He looks at a troublesome child and sees a lot of himself and his past in the boy. Maybe he’s trying to steer him straight like a father figure would which he himself lacked.
I don’t think Agnes’ treatment of him warranted an explanation though. Some people and parents are just like that. Or possibly worse. And it was kinda influenced by Norman Bates’ relationship with his mother I think.
if it was in an earlier season and there were clues building up like photos in skinner's house...
could have been a great hit like who shot mr burns.
The car gag gets me every time. I was in the boat of hating this episode early on but have grown the appreciate the greatness of it. (And almost all of Season 9 at that)
I never thought there was anything wrong with the episode. This episode recontextualized previous episodes where if one were to retroactively reexamine those episodes with the new information presented in this one, Armin Tamzarian is someone clearly going through psychosis.
He had been living someone else's life for so long that he started to lose touch with reality, and slowly, but surely, started to believe that he truly was Seymour Skinner; with delusional memories of his childhood as Seymour Skinner that he made up in his head according to the details Agnes Skinner told him.
He didn't fully lose himself to that identity because the real Seymour Skinner showed up and proved to everyone that he was still alive, allowing Armin Tamzarian to maintain his sanity and live the life he built up for himself in Springfield.
To me, this episode is a gem and the writers shouldn't be ashamed for making it.
The Futurama episodes are incredibly good. I suspect that The Simpsons just couldn't accommodate so much change and weirdness by comparison, being more grounded in reality during much of its run.
Even this episode is still a gem in comparison to HD episodes.
I have in fact a fan theory to make this fit in to the show’s cannon.
Skinner (Arman) was born to Agnus but as given up for adoption out side Springfield.
Later Agnus would return and find her son was adopted by a new family and she took the other Skinner in his place.
Later Skinner (Armen) is sent back for being a troubled youth and everything that plays out the same.
7:35 my god. Each and every mention of his work just made it more and more impressive. It is hard to believe someone could write that many iconic episodes of TV.
Personally I chose to see this episode as a what-if.
This episode is just flat out funny as hell. I've been going through the series and finally getting to this episode I was shocked at how much I liked it. I get why it would make people mad, but like the whole POINT of the episode is that it doesn't matter at all.
A bad idea executed brilliantly is an arguable deacription of the episode. That being said i actually rather liked the episode
It had a lot of hallmarks of the golden age of The Simpsons. Decent jokes, a guest star who didn't just play himself, and an interesting plot.
I am one of the people who considers Season 9 the last real season of the simpsons. And I have always really liked this episode. Way better than what they try to pass as The Simpson's now.
I agree, Season 9 is the last golden age season for me. With me liking 20/25 episodes, and even the worst are miles better than modern simpsons or even seasons 11/12.
You know a point people who talk about this show never seem to break up in regards to this "breaking the show's continuity" is that in some ways it actually strengthens the show's continuity. I mean even when I first saw this back in 1997 I had remembered that bit in "Sweet Seymour Skinner's Badass Song" where in that letter he wrote to Bart, Skinner admitted the only thing that had given his life meaning was school AND being in the army. Which to me actually makes the backstory of being this punk troubled kid who was just this hellraiser actually make a lot MORE sense and why he not only is so hard probably on someone like Bart (who he used to be a lot like) but why he had no problem forgetting that life as he found so much more value in the actual Skinner's and grew to care about that more. I guess you could argue stuff like "but then how come in "Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson In Curse Of The Flying Hellfish" when Abe was talking about his batallion one of them was SKinner's father who acted and looked like the Seymour Skinner we knew not anything like this supposed real Seymour skinner" but yeah that in itself ties into a greater issue of the Simpsons "cares more for the sake of joke then continuity" which did not start with season 9.
See believe it or not the team admitted in the first couple of seasons (mostlys 1-2, and somewhat in 3) they were though not going to be totally grounded and realistic still trying to have a more basic and believable world where things even if they didn't draw attention to it added up and made sense. The house layout they always tried to match and a fair amount of the character relationships as well. That's something that broke apart in season 4 and totally fell apart in season 5. Hell listen to the team's commentary for say "Homer and Apu" and "Bart Gets An Elephant" where they break down "okay at this point things happen in the story because of the plot or because we want to tell specific jokes even if it doesn't make any sense whatsoever". Like for example in "Bart Gets An Elephant" there's a pair of revovling doors in front of the kitchen only for the gag of how quickly the family wrecks the kitchen right after cleaning it that hadn't been there before nor would be there again but they just did because of how funny they found that idea. Stuff like that had been in the show and you know it also did involve the characters as well. Going back to "Grumbling Abe Simpson..." that episode points out that Abe and Monty Burns were on the same World War II squandron and knew each other from that but apparently weren't that aware of the other previously in "Lady Bouvier's Lover" because yeah "Grumbling...." story just called for them to have known one another even though they really hadn't in the past but they cared more about the story and jokes of the week then the overall series canon. And that's something you can say with a lot of the show. I mean everyone remembers how classic "Steamed hams" is from "22 Short Films About Springfield" but that bit implies that Seymour's house is like a 3 minute run from Krustyburger which obviously isn't the case in any other episode but again it fits that joke and bit. So this is pretty much the same thing except in a weird way it does actually make more sense. I guess it's also implying that Seymour had been lying who he is for ages but the episode itself explained why he did so and even that Agnes (who BTW if you look at her earliest appearences in stuff like "The Crepes of Wrath" her personality and attitude is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy different from how later episodes would define her as especially in her relationship with Seymour) knew about it.
So why does this one get signaled out so much? Well in addition to specifically saying "no this character isn't who they say they are it's this totally other different character" it's that whole "we are committed to keeping everything the same no matter what" the writers try peddling that yeah that's where I stop defending them. First off though clear some people wanted Seymour back like Bart and Edna and Agnes obviously.... why in the hell would the rest of the town care about this they were perfectly fine railroading someone else and telling them not to go back? As corrupt and messed up as some stuff that happens in Springfield it does seem weird for Judge Snyder to go "oh let's just have the seymour we knew be Seymour and have no one bring it up ever again" since yeah what does everyone else get out of this? Not to mention that mishandling the real Seymour Skinner so darkly and messed up doesn't work. Like a character being offed or being dealt with darkly isn't new for the Simpsons. We saw Rex Banner get taken out in "Homer Vs The 18th Amendment" and Frank Grimes off himself in "Homer's Enemy" and didn't have a problem with that. However those episodes there was a feeling of catharsis with how much of a jerky hardass Banner was or just how determined Grimes was to bust Homer even though Homer was just trying to be friendly with them. We aren't on those characters side. And I guess we aren't on this new Skinner's side but he didn't do anything wrong either. He wanted his life back and was just fufilling that in a not jerky way and... we're punishing him for that? How is that supposed to be funny? Plus yeah though something like "Homer Loves Flanders" makes fun of the status quo, I don't think this episode is so much making fun of it as much as dutifully following it. Which sorry to me makes a show feel lamer if things just automatically reset and nothing changes. Yeah you can't expect shows to be like Bojack Horsemen especially back then on FOX as this is an animated sitcom but stuff like South Park if they do make a change more stick to it or has more a reason for changing it but this wanting to keep going back to it's precious status quo doesn't do so which makes endings like this feel much more lame in comparison. I don't think it's the worst as there are great comedic bits (I love the scene where Homer asks why everyone is in his car to get Seymour back, including Grandpa with the topper "cause Jasper would get lonely" is great) and it's an interesting idea but it's a show that isn't willing to commit to the bit or really play with it. Which shows now can do. I mean isn't Gravity Falls "A Tale of Two Stans" like that though I guess in that case the show planned out that twist and kept it while here they thought of it and then tried taking it back.
Wtf bro
Yes@@tehjamerz I am that awesome for knowing and typing that all down.
I like The Principal and The Pauper, I also like what it's original title was, Skinnersby! I also thought Martin Sheen did an incredible job as real Skinner, and I do believe that Armon and Seymour are somehow infact half brothers!
This episode might have been a lot better if it hadn't have been the real skinner but instead a third party who knew that Skinner wasn't who he said he was. Skinner would have to maintain the lie while keeping him quiet or something idk
This makes sense, nothing else suggested here does
If the show had ended a season or two after this episode, I don't think it would be hated as much. I still watch and enjoy the post-classic era Simpsons though.
Nice to see someone who does appreciate the post classic stuff.
I think the episode's plot is a reference to the case of Martin guerre.
Despite the hate this is still a really funny episode. I love the bit with Homer questioning why everyone is going to Capital City. Skinner explaining his backstory and reason he got into the Military. Everything with Agnes. The fact they got Martin Sheene to play a real character and not just himself. I think it's a pretty good episode on it's own and if this was an episode in an early season this could have worked but it being the 9th season yeah it was too late to pull something like this with a character so well established.
Why people hate so much this episode? Did ANYONE got the joke? It's a PARODY of the "surprise twists" in popular shows. In the end NOTHING MATTERS.
Because it's a joke. It's like when with Poochie they parodied extra characters and even had their own extra character to make fun of the concept. Somebody did not get the memo.
Principal Skinner was the first don Draper
I am so glad someone was willing to defend this episode. I liked it! Frankly, I adore that the entire town gathered to literally ride a man out on a rail because they preferred the status quo.
Its one of the only examples of the SQ being *reset on screen.*
I was going to esquire whether or not you were drunk. But you had to go and include the "Up yours children." line at the very end and completely win me over.
Just because you point out something as dumb doesn’t make it less dumb and that once you have a series with established characters it’s harder to make big revelations are the lessons from this episode
Not really, because we don't know everything about everyone in a show.
Also while Skinner is a big secondary character, he is still a secondary character.
It would be different if it was Homer that was the imposter.
It’s horrible in the sense that it completely changes skinner aka the funniest man in Springfield
It’s great because outside of that it’s not a bad episode
This is actually one of my favorite episodes funnily enough
You can have good intentions and a solid set of reasons for doing something, but the end result can still end up as shite.
The problem with this episode is that it completely ignores the previously established character tropes for Principal Skinner from multiple seasons.
He was a hilariously tragic character who was a Vietnam War POW who barely held it together for the sake of the kids in school. Mere valentine's day candy activated his PTSD, he was a Green Beret who beat down Disney lawyers who tried to sue a school festival, and lots of other references to his time in the Army.
Flanders for example had beatnik parents who didn't believe in rules, so he became a devout christian to establish some semblance of rules in his life to the point of therapy.
Skinner being an imposter that removes all his backstory punishes the audience for paying attention all those seasons.
I can’t lie, but this is one of my favourite Episodes!
When I saw the Simpsons 1st time (around 2001 it was, I think), Principal and Pauper was something like 2nd or 3rd episode I ever watched. I sincerely liked the whole comedic absurdity of this episode. It was a big surprise decade later when I found out people collectively consider it a failure
I would have liked it better if they either made the real Skinner a permanent character going through a change and the old Skinner being demoted to vice principal, or they changed the story so that both characters were fraternal twins and Skinner and Agnes kept it a secret from the school board assuming that the twin died in Vietnam when both of them were druggies in the street, with the twin taking it personally when everyone assumed that he died.
The guatemalan insane asylum peppers episode with Johnny Cash as the coyote was great. But brother from another series, who cares about Cecil? Why would he blow up Springfield? Why would he care? It's just funny jokes without an actual plot. This is what ended up happening to each and every Simpson episode.
Lore of In Defense of 'The Principal and the Pauper' momentum 100
Also. Knowing what came next... Calling THIS the "worst" episode ever is like an OLYMPIC POOL STRETCH. Remember Gaga or Musk?
Never had a problem with it
This is a great episode, I can't for the life of me understand why people think it's bad. One of the last few greats.
skinner is an imposter among us?????
If you watch the original episode and skip to the 13:07 mark you can clearly hear principal Skinner say A M O G U S.
64 views is criminal
The episode itself has some funny jokes but Skinner’s mother being different from his biological mother was a bridge too far. Skinner’s relationship with his mother is integral to the comedy of his character, and this episode just shits all over it. Based on the ending of the episode, the only way to go about it is to basically assume it’s non canon
This used to be my favorite episode. Cause I just liked the idea of someone changing who they were on a dime. Someone who was a principle nerd for 20 years changes on a dime to become a biker nogoodnik. The controversy always blew me away cause they reset it good enough at the end and it is an episodic show. I know it's cliched and less creative but no one would have cared if they just made it a dream.
I think the real problem with the episode is that it tried to do something similar to You Only Move Twice a season after that episode. Quite a few episodes in the Golden Age have an element of meta commentary about sitcoms when they’ve been on for too long. Of course, we see it most prominently with Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie, but those aren’t the only episodes. In You Only Move Twice, you’ve got the writers giving us a status quo shake up, but it’s a fake out. The Simpsons end up moving back to Springfield, which they were always going to do. With The Principal and the Pauper, they tried to make a meta commentary on the status-quo-shake-up-fake-out. The problem is, though, that they played it a little too straight. Had they been a bit more on the nose with the meta commentary and a bit more direct with the satire, this episode would have been better received. And, if they’d done that and hadn’t already done You Only Move Twice, this episode would probably be considered a classic today. As is, they understated the satire, and people thought they were doing the thing (ie teasing a change then snapping back to the status quo, which people strongly dislike in sitcoms late in their life cycles) unironically instead of ironically.
Of course, You Only Move Twice is very well regarded. It was always a gamble trying to pull off the same trick twice, and this episode would have been better if You Only Move Twice didn’t exist. However, I would never give up You Only Move Twice for a better The Principal and the Pauper.
One thing I’ll never get, it was a good episode with a bad premise. I liked the jokes, but Skinner not being Skinner was terrible. I think if they just made Skinner a degenerate who adopted the personality of a deceased friend, along with his dreams would’ve worked better; because you still keep the character but build his backstory in this narrative. You could even build the joke that his friend was alive at the end, making Skinner question does he need to keep being a principal then, since it wasn’t his dream.
i saw this episode when it aired when i was a kid and i liked it, i didnt learn it was controversial till many years later listening to a commentary track on some futurama dvds
1:40 Lisa Simpson was brutally tortured for 10 hours after that soon after she was freed she apologized to Skinner and snowball 2 was once again the family cat that is until Lisa went missing around season 20 and was never seen or heard from again
i always liked this episode because it added more to a character i really liked and being a kid at the time all the things people say are bad about the episode wouldn't really have crossed my mind at the time and so didn't effect my enjoyment of the episode and even if i hadn't watched it as a kid and wtached it now i would likely feel the same way about the episode tho i might nitpick the writing a little but other then that my enjoyment would likely be the same as when i was a kid
Up yours children
You brought up an interesting point - maybe he grew atached to his mother so much after witnessing so many deaths and misery in the war. She was the only family he had after all.
THANK YOU!!! I've always liked this episode and never understood why so many people criticized it. Great jokes; great use of secondary characters; it just flowed so smoothly.... So many great scenes. Always a pleasure to watch. And I'm gld the crew took the chance to do something like this- it helps to keep the show fresh and from falling into the formulaic duldrums in which seemed to resort more and more aas the series went along. They kill the show with too much drama- but in this ep. they kept it light, as a cartoon should be- and it worked!
you could argue that modern simpsons is all in the vein of this episode, ever since they started ret-conning the back stories all consistency has gone to pot and nothing much matters, the characters have become "actors" in their own lives and stories. anything is prone to change at any moment which makes investment hard.
Don't forget there's a guest star in like every episode nowadays
I've always liked this episode, subbed to you my man keep up the great work.
Not a fan. I felt the betrayal and was further angered when Agnes would say Skinner costed her the olympics. Its not only ignoring continuity, it got confusing and left me going " Oh Well. Move along I guess."
And you are what the episode is mocking.
Me as a baby child watching reruns on the CW: wow this show’s got plot????
Baby child
I don’t think it was the start of the downfall of the Simpsons as season 9 is still a solid season
Completely agree. Even Season 10 is pretty solid. Season 11, while flawed, was fairy solid as well and it was the last dying light of classic Simpson’s. Season 12, aside from the episode “HomR”, was without a doubt the season that spelled a dreadful shift for the show.
@@miahthorpatrick1013 honestly i'm gonna disagree here. i've been watching a bunch of season 16 lately and while the show is clearly not the same as it once was, there's a handful of really enjoyable episodes. i think the movie really marked the downfall, as much as i enjoyed that a lot. i mean heck, there's good episodes past that, but i think the consistency completely changed to be more miss than hit at that point.
@@thebasedgodmax1163
Fair enough
I would consider S10 as the end of Classic Simpsons. S10 because it contained the last episode with the late Phil Hartman and the last full season of the 1990's aka the Simpsons' greatest decade.
@@rayvenkman2087 yeah season 10 is where you start seeing cracks. Jerkass Homer is more common from this season
I got a kick out of that episode. It was so random.
I like the episode and I’d say the end of the golden age was after the Simpsons movie. But since season 30 it’s entered a 2nd golden age. Each episode especially this season has been great I think. I’m hoping they do another movie and end on a high note.
there's a lot of simpsons channels but you're radiating RealJims levels of Quality if not higher, keep up the great work
Thank you. I love The Simpsons in the 90s. I think I went downhill in the 2000 I think it went down in the 2000s since that's when I stopped watching. I don't like the episode. It's nonsensical. I don't like the way they drove the real Seymour Skinner out of town and tied him up.
Hardcore fan from the frist episode and I liked it. This is Arman's copy of Swank is an all-time favorite line. There were plenty of farfetched episode before this one, such as Homer the Great.
Harry, harry... When you're living in a solid golden house with a rocket car, perhaps you can just chill about the damn show? You are not Skinner. You play him on TV. You make more money an episode than I will ever see. Go jam with Nigel.
Worst ..episode…EVER!!!
Fair defenses and well-made video, but I think this is still too out of character for Armin/Original Skinner, since the idea of Agnes being abusive and overly-demanding towards him was established as early as that Psycho reference in one of the series' earlier episodes. "Sexless freak" and "It's the children who are wrong" don't hit as hard or strike me as possible coming from a guy who not only used to have a disrespectful past but is currently shadier than most other people in Springleaf. I think it also hurts the few badass moments Armin got in earlier episodes to know he was always like that and hiding it rather the situation being that this boring, uptight square had seen more things and was more capable than we'd been giving him credit for. It also seems to be making a lot of assumptions for the episode to say that Armin became disdainful of his rebellious past and began to truly savor the boring tendencies Actual Skinner gave him if the episode itself doesn't say so, especially since Simpsons is not known for being cryptic.
The cynical ending of pretending something didn't happen doesn't bother me (as similar things were present even outside of "Homer Loves Flanders"), but it does bother me that they didn't commit to it. They introduced a huge thing for two or three characters and then threw it away as soon as they brought it up. Keeler thought that fans didn't like change, but this episode doesn't really change anything even though things like Barney's bout of sobriety and the Vanhousen marital status were always sources of change in the show and people love tracking the continuity of this show whenever it asserts itself enough to be noticed. They probably weren't going to get Martin Sheen to consistently voice Actual Skinner (especially not after The West Wing took off), but I'd count that as prioritizing a shock over what the episode was saying. I still can't buy the idea of Armin being a decades-long liar and having a history of criminal behavior he seems to have forgotten (you'd think he'd be way more hip to how kids misbehave even if he preferred being a square after his service), but I think the idea may have been more interesting to follow if they stuck with it and kept Actual Skinner around for a while, even if just to send/kill him off later and have Armin return to Agnes' side, maybe in a sentimental moment like how Homer's mom eventually passed away before going back to the status quo of never talking about her.
Simpsons makes a lot of jokes at its own structure and blasé relationship with continuity and worldbuilding, but everyone knows how much it tries to keep love between family members and friends alive in its stories, not afraid to prioritize a touching ending over a funny one. The Skinner family being so callous and not even Lisa doing anything to stop the deportation of Actual Skinner is just too cynical for a show that was never as mean as the Bush Administration would have us believe. With how much Armin admired Actual Skinner, you'd think he wouldn't allow his mentor to be driven away and, for all of Agnes' faults, she was never implied to have Mr. Burns-levels of disdain for her own family. Agnes having two sons and them living a weird life together (even if only for a few episodes) would have fit this show's mixture of satire and heart better than leaning completely into satire to make a statement about audiences hating change that I don't think is even true and has never described the Simpsons' appeal. I appreciate some widely-hated media like Sonic the Hedgehog 20006 and Keeler's work on Futurama is among the best of the best (not too big on Bender's Big Score, but Wild Green Yonder was the best of the movies), but I have to say I'm glad this episode was thrown out the window, if only because they didn't commit enough to their idea. Still, this is a good video with very thorough arguments on both sides! Bravo!
The Simpsons: Phantom Pain
It beats any modern episode
the truth is points of change in direction are always arbitrary when studying history, be it the history of wars to that of a TV series. Stalingrad was not "the point where the war changed", as wars don't change on a dime, but rather a myriad of billions of events big and small led to the change of course. Same way as, The Simpsons didn't turn from going up to the downfall at this episode in and on itself. The episode is just unlucky enough to stand chronoligcally somewhere in the middle of this change of course, and sadly, the episode does display the key characteristics the show is accused of afterwards. Instead of being a one-time whacky episode with insane plot, it's nonsensicallity and character-breaking elements became the norm... if it was a one-time thing it would be a fun experimental episode, but once it became the norm, it became hateful to see.
I remember watching it bran new (well in the UK) and M brother (12) reacted badly to it while I (14) defended it. but as I defined it, on the grounds it was expanding the shows backstory (and skinner wasn't a main, so, so what), I knew it kinda sucked...And for me that was mostly down to how different Skinner/armen was portrayed. It's hard to buy that such a jackass would do something so kind and become a principle. Was amusing to imagine Skinner as such, but was too incongruous. Still IMO the downfall of the Simpsons a few seasons later....Not sure exactly whe but the episode that killed my enthusiasm for the show was the Max Powers episode.
1:50 I assume you meant end at season 9?
I never understood the hatred aimed at this episode. It’s whacky, but that’s The Simpsons! I love the deus ex machina spoof at the end lol 😆
I don't get the whole "canon, non-canon" thing. If it was on the air, isn't it canon?
I didnt mind this episode as a kid, as an adult hated it hah there is still some funny moments in this episode though
Compared to what passes for the show these days, this episode (which is the first time an Armenian American is featured on the Simpsons) has aged like a fine wine... with bits of cork floating in it.
I never had a problem with this episode.
Only the ones that like the status quo hated it.
not really caring about the simpsons or cultural phenomena aside - i never seen anyone talk in-depth about the idea of a known person being impersonated in the same critical eye as the reception of the episode, imposters fascinate me if there's any possibly of them acting as psyops
Ultimately it was just bad writing.
@internetmeta
It was good writing, the people didn’t understand that the episode was about the people who hated the episode. How was Skinners backstory changed, they never said anything about his teen years? The storyline actually makes sense, Seymour was a rebel and seeing the real Skinner “die” made him change from a rebel to an acceptable member of society.
@@giantsr1eva Nah, they just got lazy and went the whole "subvert the audience expectations" route.
It was just lazy writing for a character they didn't realize that so many people really liked.
@@internetmeta
How was Skinners backstory changed though?
@@giantsr1eva They took preestablished character back story, went back and changed the meaning again to subvert.
They can try to retcon was to why they made the episode, but it's funny how they never said anything about the "meaning behind the episode" it till years after all the continued backlash.
Their excuse that "the episode was about the people who hated the episode." is nonsense, how can someone make something that people are meant to hate because they hate it.?
The writers where just coping and seething.
@@internetmeta
It’s simple, it’s a critique of people who like things just the way they are, and things are not what they seem to be. It upset and scared the town. It’s a critique of modern conservatism. It was the reaction that Ken Keeler wanted. When the episode aired, a group of people who like things just the way they are got mad. It was supposed to be a wake up call for people to care about real people rather than fictional cartoon characters.
Honestly I liked some jokes here
there is none Semore Skiner is who he is.
A funny Episode with a Bad premise
Me and my best friend argued a lot over this episode, with me adamantly defending it, and him hating it with a passion. Now, while we still stand on the same sides, we both have a more nuance in our viewpoints. I see why people object it, and why it's considered "the beginning of the end", while he admits that the episode does contain a few good jokes, and that much worse episodes came after anyway....
I like this episode
Season 8 was still pretty good. Episodes such as the New York or the garbage ones were close enough to classic Simpsons. It's around Season 19 that the show truly begins to take a nosedive.
I liked this episode tbh
There is only one aspect of this episode I truly hate is that it used and reinforced the now long (and even then long) debunked myth that POWs were kept in Vietnam for many years and even decades after the war ended either as strait up POWs or as slave labor for various communist countries. It was already long established that Vietnam handed over all POWs by 1973 and after that, no POWs are known to have been held in Vietnam or anywhere for that matter involving the Vietnam government or communist governments involved with Vietnam. This episode tries to reinforce (possibly by parody, but it's too serious and too politically charged of a subject to be properly parodied) the now long debunked POW-MIA conspiracy that has been used by conservative media for decades to try to reinforce passionate conspiracy theories to rally up the base of conservative voters. The whole plot hinges on the ridiculous idea that the "real" Seymore Skinner was held as a POW/slave worker for decades after the war which is totally ridiculous and simply reinforces that old POW-MIA conspiracy theory. Shame on Ken Keeler for making THAT the plot.
Terrible episode. Could have pulled it off years earlier before they established Skinner's back story, but once they did, this episode is off limits. The ending is a giant FU to the fans and the episode itself The first truly terrible episode of the series.
People: Hate the Skinner/Armin plot
Also people: love the Cloud Strife/Zack Fair plot
Not even related at all 💀 Audience wise lol
@@iddyyoht Simpsons is for all audiences
What most fans who hate Principal and The Pauper don’t realize is that the episode is about them, which makes it one of my favorites.
Nah, it was awful on every level
I remember as a teenager finding most of the jokes funny, but thinking the actual story was very unnecessary. I mean I was freaking 15 I wasn't going to get upset about a Simpsons episode at least not yet haha
Personally, I enjoy this episode partially because it showed a very interesting aspect of principal Skinner‘s character. That is still unwilling to hurt the feelings of an elderly woman that he took the place of her son for over 20 years, just to spare her, the news that her son had died.
The sudden Bojack comparison is an extremely forced and irrelevant addition to this video's script. The Simpsons is a satirical sitcom and follows the traditional trope of sitcoms to be largely self-contained episodes with no real narratives that audiences are expected to remember or follow from one episode to the next.
Bojack is specifically not that. Bojack has a continuous narrative that carries on from ep to ep. I see no reason for comparing Bojack to this episode of The Simpsons, or any. They are completely different shows. Also, Bojack is far from unique in this regard. There are many animated shows that don't reset their status quo at the end of each episode, and that predate Bojack. Off the top of my head; Avatar the Last Airbender and The Venture Bros.
What The Simpsons did at the end of this episode was obviously very intentional and very sarcastic. Whether one likes it or not, its basically true to Simpsons formula. So what is the point of the Bojack comparison? It feels like a weird nonsequitur included for no other reason than the author of this video had an obsession with Bojack and couldn't stop themselves from forcing a mention in somehow.
It's a dumb story.
It was a damn good episode. Anyone who says otherwise, doesn't know what they are talking about
You want to ultimate defense of The Principal and Pauper... this episode aired over 25 years ago and people are still talking about it to this day. You can't say that about many episodes of The Simpsons