Like a lot of people, I used to be a huge Simpsons fan and then kind of drifted away from the show over the years. The movie, though, is totally hysterical, much like the show in its happiest of days. It even has an awesomely mixed politcal message so I'm sure the blogosphere can spend next week arguing over it.
« Worst Corner Post Ever? | Main | Nazis Everywhere »
The Simpsons Movie
28 Jul 2007 08:42 pm
Comments (47)
That's good to hear. I think seasons 2-8 are pretty much the best TV ever, just incredible. But the last ten years I've found near unwatchable.
The best TV ever? Get another grip, you hyperbolic twit.
The last few years of the Simpsons have been fantastic - every bit as rich and inspired as the early years. When people lump the last ten years of the Simpsons together I wonder if they've given the show a chance again in the last 5 years or so...
If The Simpsons movie is a major cultural event, then it's only a sign of how far things have fallen. Why not go the whole hog and award Best Picture Oscar to Transformers?
Judging by the first few posts it appears the Simpsons may capable of generating more hostility towards the unwashed masses than even Harry Potter could muster.
Judging by the first few posts it appears the Simpsons may capable of generating more hostility towards the unwashed masses than even Harry Potter could muster.
Yeah. I had no idea there were that many Simpsons haters out there. Or maybe this is just one person posting with different names. Seth McFarland, is that you?
I really enjoyed the movie. Just seeing Homer's face on the big screen was enough for me after eighteen years. But I'm a fan. . . so I guess I'll just have to "get a grip" or something.
I generally think that the more political the crowd, the more atrocious the sense of humor. So if we are going to see any weird viewpoints on this it would likely be here. I mean, best tv ever? There have been great moments, but still.
I think that for the most part, the Simpsons has been genuinely creative and funny, which alone makes it better than 95% of all cable tv comedy series ever written. But this doesn't forgive the all the dreary moralizing and "family moments" which tend to take over certain episodes and make things boring. In all it's no more than a very solid tv show.
fwiw, I do think Seth Macfarlane's stuff has run circles around Groening & co's work for a while now.
MacFarlane is derivative to the point of absurdity, including actual theft of specific Simpsons plotlines (e.g., Homer gets a gun, Peter gets a gun).
The last few years of the Simpsons have been fantastic - every bit as rich and inspired as the early years. When people lump the last ten years of the Simpsons together I wonder if they've given the show a chance again in the last 5 years or so...
I definitely agree. I think its a similar pattern to what's been going on with SNL for a while:
- SNL slumps
- People tune out
- There's a lot of griping about how terrible SNL has become
- Then it gets better again
- People still aren't watching and continue to gripe
- Rumors about how "SNL is good again" start to spread
- Everyone starts watching again right as the show hits another slump.
I mean, best tv ever? There have been great moments, but still.
Wasn't it Time Magazine that declared the show the greatest TV of the 20th Century? This isn't really that crazy a position.
Matt, your judgment on foreign policy issues is first-rate, but whenever you post on indie music or films, the angels weep.
Some specific criticisms of the film that aren't so specific as to be spoilers:
1. Way too much slapstick. The show normally has a fair bit of slapstick too, but I thought the movie was overstuffed with physical humor at the expense of what really makes The Simpsons great for its adult viewers--witty dialogue. I got the feeling throughout the film that, with the exception of two moments that wouldn't have made it on television, the movie was intended for younger audiences.
2. Excessive sentimentality and unnecessary subplots. Why so much maudlin family drama? What did the subplot with Lisa and Colin add?
3. Blandness. Who did this movie make fun of? Matt's reference to an "awesomely mixed politcal message" is better interpreted as a convenient plot device without a message. There is not one line--not one--that is memorably offensive or biting. Even Ned Flanders, who in recent years has become a very attractive pinata for the show's satirical writers, is let off the hook easy despite having quite a bit of screen time. Contrast this to the show's history of making hamburgers out of all kinds of sacred cows (left and right).
4. Finally, why should you pay to see something at the movies you can see for free? This question is even posed by Homer at the beginning of the movie. Did this movie have a plethora of funny celebrity cameos? No (just two mildly amusing ones). Edgier humor than the show? No. Answers to questions we've been wondering since the show began? No. Nothing new or striking at all, in fact. And this is after Matt Groening and company have been working on the movie for three years!
I'm not a Simpsons-hater, but here's my advice to Matt Groening: Let the show die a dignified death in the next couple of years. Then you can focus on the rebirth of Futurama, which I think was such fantastically imaginative and creative television that it still holds up well on Cartoon Network even years after its cancellation.
I suppose that technically people are entitled to their opinions regarding the Simpsons, even if those opinions really make no sense at all. What is bizarre is listening to people try to explain why their negative verdicts must be right according to some allegedly objective criteria. The Simpsons has earned its place in history, and while I can understand why not everyone might like the show (or the movie), I can't understand why anyone would think liking the show is an indicator of an aesthetic error that needs to be corrected.
Wasn't it Time Magazine that declared the show the greatest TV of the 20th Century? This isn't really that crazy a position.
It's not a crazy position, just an innaccurate one, appeals to authority notwithstanding. I think a show being called the "greatest ever on tv" would have a certain profundity that the Simpsons, for all its other strengths, lacks.
What it has is a certain recognizability, widespread appeal, the span of decades and accumulation of content and development which create this kind of "beloved familiarity" feeling, which isn't actually in response to any specific merit in the writing itself.
As for family guy being derivative, those kinds of claims occur quite often in the world of comedy, and even if true I don't think its significant enough an aspect that you can just define the whole series in terms of it.
Anyway, Simpsons are good, I'm glad the series was created, I think it raised the bar for comedy on TV all around.
I think I just re-proved g.l.'s point with my last comment. but you kind of have to have something objective in mind if you are going to talk about this kind of stuff in any meaningful way. probably over-nerdy of me to get this deep into it, but hey.
The show is awful now and has been steadily declining since season 8 (I say the peak was 6, but 4-7 are all possibilities). There's so many reasons it's bad now. Here are a few:
-they ran out of plot ideas. the simpsons used to mock the sort of gimmicks shows use after they run out of ideas, but now it embraces them (e.g. the simpsons go to london/japan/brazil! selma's a lesbian! the comic book guy and skinner's mom go out!). the writers have strayed SO far from the genuinely funny and often touching character-driven plots of earlier years.
-over-reliance on guest stars/celebrity culture. guest stars often used to play characters other than themselves, and even if they did play themselves, their parts were usually very small. now any guest star appearance is filled with VH1-style "topical" jokes about the star's real-world personality (contrast with Dustin Hoffman's early and brilliantly understated appearance).
-way too much slapstick. excellent writing has given way to endless pratfalls etc.
-homer did get way too dumb. some of the best moments from earlier seasons are when characters play against type, when Homer says something genuinely smart, when we get to see Lisa acting like a little kid ("We got beets!"), when Moe reads Black Beauty to hospitalized children, when the Bumblebee Guy reads the evening news in pitch-perfect English, etc. this also has to do with the plots becoming less character-driven.
My theory is that Groening was never really that funny, he just happened to hire some of the best writers in the business. Heck, he apparently thinks that the show's better now than it ever has been. Harry Shearer disagrees with him.
I haven't seen the movie, and I'm dreading it even though I know I'll end up going. The trailer is entirely laugh-free. Homer swings between a ROCK and a bar implausibly named A HARD PLACE. It's just like that old idiom! Yes, Homer likes to eat even though the food is hot. Is this a Garfield comic strip?
Also, I would guess that people who automatically dismiss The Simpsons haven't really seen much of it (particularly the season 4-7 sweet spot).
So then I guess the question becomes, If not the Simpsons, then what's the greatest show in TV history?
Sopranos? I Love Lucy? Seinfeld? M*A*S*H? The Wire?
Well, I never had HBO, so my sopranos experience is limited. But I would say that a show like that, or the whole genre of drama/thrillers in general would offer some good contestants for "best show ever".
Comparison across genres is unfair, but I think there is a fundamental secondariness about any kind of humor, such that there is likely to be more entertainment value in a well-done thriller show than a well done, say, sitcom.
It shouldn't be thought of as a criticism that the simpsons isn't the greatest tv show ever made. It would probably be better to think of it in terms of how it fares against all other comedy, that is, all other shows that tried to strike the funny bone in a similar manner and how well they fared in comparison to the simpsons. Here, I think the Simpsons is one of the best. That's to its merit and I think it makes a bit more sense than trying to call it the best show ever.
"If not the Simpsons, then what's the greatest show in TV history?"
While I happen to think that a lot--maybe even most--television nowadays is crap, I think most shows before the 90s are borderline unwatchable. Part of the reason for this is that even extremely popular sitcoms of the past used to rely almost entirely on broad physical comedy (I Love Lucy, for example) or trite writing (Happy Days) whose punchlines a modern viewer could fairly reliably predict before they are actually uttered. And of course a lot of material was basically off limits for much of broadcast history--sex, organized religion, etc. On I Love Lucy they couldn't even use the word "pregnant" when Lucy was going to have a baby. So I'm inclined to think that the best show ever has to be from the post-1990 period.
There is not one line--not one--that is memorably offensive or biting.
"For once, the rich white man is in control."
"Of course I'm mad with power. You ever try to go mad without power? People don't take you seriously."
"Nice work Maggie! You're the best little accident ever!"
That's three. I imagine there are more.
Interesting take, glenstein, though I have to say I really prefer television comedy to television thrillers or drama; I think the shorter, primarily episodic format lends itself better to comedy, where long character arcs and the careful planning of suspense timing are less integral to the overall success of the show.
Then again, I'm a comedy writer who makes his living writing for television, so perhaps that's a self-serving view.
Yeah, I don't see why comedy can't be so highly regarded. Shakespeare wrote comedy.
The Simpsons early seasons were absolutely among the best TV ever, along with The Sopranos, The Wire and Season 3 of News Radio.
Well I am kind of lying, because I think there is a certain sect of comedy (like the adult swim programming) that has extremely ambitious aims and huge entertainment value, but that is an entirely different can of worms. But I distinguish between those kinds of comedy shows and "mainstream" comedy shows.
I don't think drama shows can be really successful in any meaningful way unless their storyline extends out over multiple episodes. It minimizes itself when the whole mystery, progress, climax, resolution have to occur show after show. A series that unravels over a long period of episodes can go essentially wherever it wants. I think the second kind of show can function on tv quite well. 24, which I used to watch is an example of this (though it's "seasons" are like long winded episodes which themselves keep repeating).
But yes, comedy by its very nature seems to do quite well in isolated episodes, which I think in turn makes something like a comedy movie hard to do because it needs something like a serious plot to unify everything, which is tough because that very unification has to be sensible in some manner but also has to constantly be underplayed and deviated from to give some elbow room to the humor itself. I haven't yet seen the Simpsons movie, but a big criticism seems to be that it should have been something more than just another episode of the simpsons, yet it couldn't be. Similar criticisms could be made of the South Park movie, and the Family Guy movie utterly sucked (but probably for different reasons).
Not that good comedy movies aren't made, they are. But they have to keep things going, and have many more chances to fail. They can't just brood and develop like a suspense/mystery/romance/etc. movie.
"because it needs something like a serious plot to unify everything"
but then there is napolean dynamite where this doesn't apply at all...
De gustibus non disputandum est and all that, but... Family Guy? Seriously, it's hellishly bad.
For a nice rundown of all Seth MacFarlane's horriblosity, see: http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2004/09/why-i-hate-family-guy.html
Awesome line:
"There are 2 things they don't teach you at Harvard Business Sschool, One, How to accept horrible failure..."
And I think Matt's right that the message is mixed insofar as the plot centers around an irrational big government agency threatening to destroy Springfield. The rest is comfortingly progressive.
Really though, what kind of person is that invested in their Simpsons hating that they toss around 'hyperbolic twit'. The slapstick was actually very funny I thought.
The Simpsons early seasons were absolutely among the best TV ever, along with The Sopranos, The Wire and Season 3 of News Radio.
And I say this as a die-hard News Radio fan, you, sir, are a News Radio troll.
Movie was great. Not the greatest the show's ever been, but a fitting book end. If you are complaining about maudalin family moments, then you have missed the show's central premise of deconstructing the various myths of the American family contained with in the sitcom formula. Even the mostly annoying "Simpsons Abroad" episodes usually have a few interesting takes on this idea. Though I won't go so far as to defend Comic Book Store Guy and Skinner's mom.
The political message was decidedly not mixed. There was an irritatingly "bi-partisan" take on the movie and the show generally in a slate video this week. I'm sad to see Matt lend credence to it (although I'll live as long as he keeps having Obama's back on this diplomacy row--btw, Matt, check the rec'd diary on dkos about the youtube questioner; puts the issue that much more to rest in Obama's favor). Anyone who wants to argue that the Simpsons makes an honest case against the threat of the EPA and the evils of big government regulating the environment is confusing a parody for an allegory. If anything, it reinforces a generalized fear of right-wing autocrats and mocks the arguments of the right-wing with hyperbole. And, of course, the more direct shots at the Bush administration and right-wing abuse of the environment are as plain as day. The idea that we aren't sure which way the show or the movie is meant to lean is pretty patently absurd.
"The last few years of the Simpsons have been fantastic - every bit as rich and inspired as the early years. When people lump the last ten years of the Simpsons together I wonder if they've given the show a chance again in the last 5 years or so..."
you are a fool
The movie is very good. Not "Lisa the Vegetarian" good (assuming they could have sustained that for over 22 minutes) but very good.
"The last few years of the Simpsons have been fantastic - every bit as rich and inspired as the early years. When people lump the last ten years of the Simpsons together I wonder if they've given the show a chance again in the last 5 years or so..."
I'm afraid Mr. hand is correct. If you've enjoyed the last four or five years, more power to you, but please do not try to associate them with the previous ten.
I object to the idea of comparing Seth Mcfarland favorably to the Simpsons. Not because I mind Seth Mcfarland, whose work did draw a couple laughs from me during my early years as an undergraduate. (Family Guy stops being funny when the first digit of your age hits '2', I have noticed)
Family Guy was essentially a second-rate re-run of the Simpsons back when the Simpsons were really the Simpsons. They weren't competing at the same time. I mean, its like praising Jose Reyes for outrunning Rickey Henderson. Again - i have no problem with McFarland (though his best days are long over) but I think he is overrated.
Futurama, on the other hand, belongs to the category of the supremely underrated. The show still had a few good seasons in it - and needs to be brought back. I mean,there were jokes in that show that were ridiculously high-brow - like complicated math and programming shit.
I think trying to explain why I laugh at what I do is both tough and boring, so for the most I absolutely loathe conversations about The Simpsons along this arc. Nothing quite like trying to defend your enjoyment of a television show...
That avoidance may also be due to the fact I'm one of the silent few who's loved and enjoyed The Simpsons from the beginning to the end. Without wading too deep into this inescapably subjective muck, I'd say TV comedy is like baseball: if you hit .333 lifetime, you're going to the Hall. And I think the show's been a year-in, year-out .406, at least.
I very much enjoyed the movie, even with - and maybe in some ways because of - all the accumulated expectations.
Let's see, in one show we have:
1) The founding of an entire format (TV cartoons for adults) that has spawned many successful imitators.
2) Show after show that breaks topical taboos.
3) The most antisocial lead characters ever on network TV.
4) Has been wildly popular for 18 years.
5) Episodes from the early shows are still entertaining.
But, _______________ (insert your contrarian pick here) is a better show.
Sure.
I'd say TV comedy is like baseball: if you hit .333 lifetime, you're going to the Hall. And I think the show's been a year-in, year-out .406, at least.
I appreciate the fact that you don't enjoy these debates, although I don't think they're "inescapably subjective" - it is possible to find a common metric for these sorts of things, it's just difficult to do so (otherwise art criticism is doomed). But it's worth noting that these sorts of analogies are pretty useless. For example: I'd say TV comedy is like flying a plane - one mistake and everybody dies.
I think a show being called the "greatest ever on tv" would have a certain profundity that the Simpsons, for all its other strengths, lacks.
There's a lot to object to in here, but this is perhaps the worst. The idea that drama has a claim to profundity, meaning or quality that comedy lacks is just wrong, wrong in every sense.
But it's worth noting that these sorts of analogies are pretty useless. For example: I'd say TV comedy is like flying a plane - one mistake and everybody dies.
Hahaha (aka LOL) - fair enough!
It's also pretty stupid to say the Simpsons lacks "profundity."
I'm personally of the opinion that seasons 3-8 of The Simpsons are not only the greatest television ever, but maybe the greatest thing in American pop culture in the last 20 years. So there.
The movie was good. Not as good as one of the best episodes from those years, but still very good. Worth the 9 bucks or whatever it is.
The problem for the Simpson's, they are being compared to their previous TV work, which is some of the best in the the history of Western Civilization.
And the structure of a TV show is much different than the structure of a movie. Flanders in the movie was cast as the anti-homer. So you couldn't take shots at him - It would ruin the story. And there's plenty of great Simpson's episodes where Flanders is treated quite well.
In addition what makes for a great 20 minute TV show, just can't get stretched out to 90 minutes.
What we need to do is compare the Simpson's movie to all other summer movies. And simply stated, it just kicks ass on so many levels.
the movie was alright, but unfortunately just that--alright. the jokes seemed focus-grouped and re-written to death (which was, apparently, the case). the whole thing seemed incredibly stale as a result, although it certainly had some lol moments. have to disagree strongly with matt on this one--nowhere near the show in its heyday.
I liked the movie, it was better than any episode I've seen in several years, but still nowhere near as good as the middle era of the show, seasons 3-8.
The major (or at least a major) reason for the superiority of The Simpsons is its understated reverence of the canon of great western culture. I'm not talking here about the broad pastiches of The Odyssey or Joan of Arc that have graced(?) recent seasons but rather the stuff that's in the background, that repays close attention - Maggie piling up her blocks to read EMC2, Nelson and his buddies whitewashing a fence, the gorgeous throwaway line (by Homer) "I'll bet that in all of history nobody's ever done anything this clever" as he and his accomplices climb out of what can only be described as the Trojan RV, the fact that the only character with 10 fingers is God, Skinner's response to the Lovejoy/Flanders demand that Springfield Elementary teach an alternative to Darwinian Evolution ("Lamarckian evolution?") - and so on ad infinitum. While I'll concede that recent seasons have had more misses and fewer classics than the early years (although there were some stinkers back then, too. Apart from the one immortal line "Lisa, do you remember when your cat Snowball died? Well, we'll do what we did then. We'll go down to the pound and get you another jazz musician" the episode in which Bleeding Gums Murphy dies is horribly maudlin) I'll hold up (eg) the attempt to move the 'topes to Albuquerque, the evolution episode, and the single-sex school ("Is seven odd, or just different?") against the very best of the good old days.
"3) The most antisocial lead characters ever on network TV."
Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer?
If you think drama is more profound than comedy, you're just caught up in the propaganda. Of course, the propaganda machine involved is rather more impressive than most, even Karl Rove didn't get started in Ancient Greece.
Still, I think it's worth narrowing down on the question: which TV comedies were better than The Simpsons?
"I suppose that technically people are entitled to their opinions regarding the Simpsons, even if those opinions really make no sense at all. "
Freedom of thought - that's one of the four basic technicalities, right?
"meh", if you're still here.. first, I think tv drama is more profound than tv comedy. When drama does what it does successfully, it has more impact than a well-done simpsons joke (but its still admittedly a comparison that can run into trip ups).
I would say that several comedies on the adult swim program are better than the Simpsons, including Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Harvy Birdman, Sealab 2021, and Tom Goes to the Mayor. Outside of that sphere, I also think the english show The Young Ones and select moments of Kids in the Hall got to a level of humor that was better than the best Simpsons episodes.
And again, I think Family Guy is better, but that the Simpsons get points that Family Guy doesn't get because of its franchise status, and that debates over the two always eventually defer to that, which is really seperate from the offerings of the show itself. All this love for them manifests this need to crown unnecessary titles on it like "best tv show ever made" or that it was the "first" this or that, the "most" this or that, which end up overprojecting the shows actual merits, which are still significant. And I think people take it personally when such claims are disputed because these claims reveal personal investments into the type of thing you think of as worth experiencing, which is always at stake if you have to admit that something besides what you have chosen to like is better than it.
I think claims of the simpsons greatness are for the most part quite legit, just that their type of greatness should be put in context. The value of that show doesn't come crashing down merely because there were other shows in the history of network tv that were better than it.
You really think Harvey Birdman and Aqua Teen Hunger Force are better than The Simpsons? Really?
I don't even know how to start arguing with that. If you were to say, "in fact, The Simpsons falls below the works of Shakespeare on the list of greatest things ever," that I could argue about. But Harvey Birdman?
You really think The Simpsons are better than Aqua Teen Hunger Force? Really?
As you can see, I totally shredded your position.
Comments closed August 11, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Totally hysterical? Get a grip, man. Or a life.
Posted by Lieslotte | July 28, 2007 8:55 PM