Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

April 19, 2024, 12:40:03 PM

Login with username, password and session length

When did The Simpsons jump the shark?

Started by ThisIsHardcore, June 23, 2013, 05:59:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ajsmith2

The new Me Blog Write Good review of the latest episode is harsh but very on point regarding the implications of this kind of thing for the long term sustainability of The Simpsons:

https://meblogwritegood.wordpress.com/

The salient paragraph:

'I think this entire controversy is exemplary of a large issue, in that The Simpsons as a show is completely anachronistic in our present day. The show was originally created as a response to bland, limp-wristed sitcoms of the 1980s, featuring a classic Americana 1950s-style nuclear family. Its rude and outlandish characters and biting social satire certainly stood out in a sea of "safe" shows like Full House or Home Improvement. But as time went on, as the show entered the 2000s, then the 2010s (and very soon, the 2020s), the television landscape changed. Culture itself is ever evolving, In addition to this off-kilter show becoming widely respected and accepted (counter-culture becoming culture), it had outlived the very shows it was lampooning in the first place. But rather than grow or change to counter this, or redirect focus and progress, the show retreated backwards, handicapping itself to its pre-established world and Flanderizing everyone in the cast with it. This is a show that hasn't budged an inch in over a decade; while we see characters using smartphones and the occasional storyline about a current issue or trend, the characters, the setting, the comedy rhythms, the types of jokes, all completely stagnant and unwavering. It's a show trapped in time, with no desire to change or attempt to reinvent itself, and you just can't do that when you're pushing your thirtieth season. Just look at the show's complete inaction regarding a post-Mrs. Krabappel Springfield Elementary. Marcia Wallace's final speaking role was in 2014, and Bart still has yet to receive a new fourth grade teacher. This is a bit of an extreme example, but rather than actually create a new character and explore different dynamics within a major setting of the show, the writers decided just not to bother. It's easier just to not show a teacher in Bart's class anymore, or if an adult it needed, throw Skinner and Chalmers in there to do their tired old schtick. Growth is hard, and this is a show that has proven time and time again that it just doesn't want to bother trying new things, let along rethink old ones.'.

Replies From View


Ornlu

Quote from: Blumf on April 11, 2018, 10:28:56 AM
Straight voicing gay?


There could be something to be said for Walliamsesque appropriation of gay/camp culture.

momatt

Quote from: Blumf on April 11, 2018, 10:28:56 AM
How about adults voicing children?
Straight voicing gay?
Skinny people voicing fat?

Is there a line?

The whole point of acting is people pretending to be people they're not.
As long as it's not a full-on offensive caricature, it should be ok.

Taken to the extreme of having everyone playing people the same as themselves - you end up with bollocks like The Only Way is Essex.

Is that what you want?  'Cos that's what you're gonna get.

momatt

Quote from: Replies From View on April 10, 2018, 07:27:30 PM
Or do a reveal episode about his character along the lines of the Principal and the Pauper where it turns out Apu has been white the whole time, so it is okay that the person voicing him is white.

SOUTH PARK DID THIS!

SavageHedgehog

Quote from: Replies From View on April 11, 2018, 10:43:20 AM
THEY FLANDERISED NED FLANDERS???

I've never quite got on board with the "flanderisation" term, as I think making him more cartoonishly religious initially made the character funnier and more defined, but turning him into a mean spirited "ban all gays" Christian zealot in the 00s weakened the character. It turned a ridiculous but affectionate pastiche of a person into an unlikable character standing in direct contrast to the show's own worldview (at least at that time). It like going from The Brady Bunch Movie to the CHIPS movie. Though, to be fair, this might actually be an example of the show changing with the times, with Ned in the 00s reflecting the louder voices of Christianity in the Bush II era.

I've always found it a bit frustrating how Reverand Lovejoy oscillates from zealot to burned-out cynic even in the golden era; I always found the latter funnier, and more original.

Jumblegraws

Quote from: Blumf on April 11, 2018, 10:28:56 AM
How about adults voicing children?
Straight voicing gay?
Skinny people voicing fat?

Is there a line?
A line for what, exactly? Your mode of questioning seems to imply that we need to have a rigid, all-or-nothing rule about voice actor:character identity differences lest we all tie ourselves in knots thinking it over too much or worse, become vulnerable to accusations of double-standards.

Blumf

Quote from: Jumblegraws on April 11, 2018, 12:44:26 PM
A line for what, exactly? Your mode of questioning seems to imply that we need to have a rigid, all-or-nothing rule about voice actor:character identity differences lest we all tie ourselves in knots thinking it over too much or worse, become vulnerable to accusations of double-standards.

Well, the question was in response to you saying you didn't like male voice actors doing female characters (although I don't think you're strongly against it, none of this is all-or-nothing). So it's just an extension of that line of reasoning. 'Line' is perhaps too strong a word, but there does seem to be a range of what might be considered acceptable.

idunnosomename

Quote from: ajsmith2 on April 11, 2018, 10:37:52 AM
The new Me Blog Write Good review of the latest episode is harsh but very on point regarding the implications of this kind of thing for the long term sustainability of The Simpsons:

https://meblogwritegood.wordpress.com/

The salient paragraph:


The rest is excellent too. Spot on.

Also the dubbing of the Malibu Stacy doll is brilliant but also kind of chilling. The way Smith says "what can you do". Sounds so... dead. It really does sound like the actor just doing the voice.

Wonder if in the future there will be a consensus on early/golden/terrible Simpsons. It's all very well saying "you don't need to watch the new ones if you don't want to" but not if they're in random syndication or someone new to the series not knowing where to start. You wouldn't want to start watching Tom and Jerry with the 1960s Chuck Jones ones that used to confuse you when you a kid when they came on TV and Tom looked all wrong.

ajsmith2

This really seems to have sparked a unified wave of calls for the show to end. If this does spell it's final downfall (and I doubt it will, but it's certainly a sizeable dagger in the back of the staggering bleeding giant) it will be predictably depressing/faintly amusing to see the free speech crusaders lamenting it becoming the latest casualty of the PC dystopia we exist in, when they (like everyone else) won't have watched new episodes regularly since the Clinton administration and would have recommended it being euthanized under any other circumstances.

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/tv-radio/2018/04/simpsons-handling-controversy-over-apu-reminds-us-why-show-must-go

idunnosomename

Surely the whole reason it goes on and on is essentially because of Murdoch? I mean well, it's one of Fox's headline shows, for heaven's sake Bart almost single-handedly marketed Sky in the UK during the '90s (and The Simpsons are still fairly prominent in their brand - e.g. the engineer vans). It's too profitable to just end. It must keep going on. For the sake of the market.

Straight Faced Customer

What really gets my goat is that chap on a far, far younger show, The Big Bang Theory, who's still asked to talk in a stereotypical Indian accent in 2018.

momatt


Straight Faced Customer

Oh my gosh, reading about it now and it is.

*exits thread*

momatt

Sometimes accents sound weird depending on what they're surrounded by.  So his Indian accent might sound odd as it's surrounded by yank accents.

I always thought the Northern lady in Frasier was putting on as hit English accent.  Until I realised it was real.
Same with Daisy Ridley in Star Wars VII.  Her accent sounded really fake and wrong to me.

colacentral

It's because every British person who becomes a big actor now is an impossibly posh twat from a wealthy background.

paruses

#2026
Quote from: momatt on April 11, 2018, 04:46:50 PM

I always thought the Northern lady in Frasier was putting on as (s)hit English accent. 

She is, isn't she but she also happens to be English?

Jumblegraws

Quote from: momatt on April 11, 2018, 04:46:50 PM
Sometimes accents sound weird depending on what they're surrounded by.  So his Indian accent might sound odd as it's surrounded by yank accents.

I always thought the Northern lady in Frasier was putting on as hit English accent.  Until I realised it was real.
It isn't real. She's from Essex. If you initially thought her Manc accent sounded a bit off, you thought right.
Also I could've sworn Raj off TBBT's real accent was borderline RP but I might be misremembering. EDIT: yes, I was misremembering.

Jumblegraws

Quote from: ajsmith2 on April 11, 2018, 10:37:52 AM
The new Me Blog Write Good review of the latest episode is harsh but very on point regarding the implications of this kind of thing for the long term sustainability of The Simpsons:

https://meblogwritegood.wordpress.com/


Excellent article. This point in particular bears repeating over and over:
Quote...[the writers' handling of the Apu problem] is basically the show saying we never personally found Apu offensive, so that means he isn't. That the outrage about this character is a brand new invention, rather than only coming about due to underrepresented voices finally having a small portion of the media spotlight to talk about their long-held feelings.

This is something that a lot of otherwise right-minded can't or won't understand and why issues like this are constantly couched as the virtue-signalling, SJW juggernaut trying to spoil nice things.

Twed


Small Man Big Horse


Ferris


momatt

Quote from: colacentral on April 11, 2018, 04:59:58 PM
It's because every British person who becomes a big actor now is an impossibly posh twat from a wealthy background.

Though that is very true, I still notice this effect with non-posh actors.
Might just be me though.

Quote from: Jumblegraws on April 11, 2018, 05:16:42 PM
It isn't real. She's from Essex. If you initially thought her Manc accent sounded a bit off, you thought right.
Also I could've sworn Raj off TBBT's real accent was borderline RP but I might be misremembering. EDIT: yes, I was misremembering.

Ah fuck, that's a bad example then.  But I still think that her (bad) Northern accent sounds a bit weirder because of the surroundings.

What's RP?  Received Pronunciation?

ajsmith2

Interesting TV Tropes article that someone (who apparently wrote most of it) linked to the comments for the Me Blog Write Good piece, about the myriad ways in which the Simpsons set up is dated, in defiance of the 'it's a cartoon so it's timeless' take:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TheArtifact/TheSimpsons

Jumblegraws

#2034
Quote from: momatt on April 12, 2018, 09:38:39 AM
Though that is very true, I still notice this effect with non-posh actors.
Might just be me though.

Ah fuck, that's a bad example then.  But I still think that her (bad) Northern accent sounds a bit weirder because of the surroundings.

What's RP?  Received Pronunciation?

Yeah, Received Pronunciation. I would say though that Raj's accent sounds more clownish to me than Kunal Nayyar's real life accent, which possibly lends support to your "out-group accent coming across as exaggerated" theory.



momatt

Quote from: ajsmith2 on April 11, 2018, 10:37:52 AM
Marcia Wallace's final speaking role was in 2014, and Bart still has yet to receive a new fourth grade teacher. This is a bit of an extreme example, but rather than actually create a new character and explore different dynamics within a major setting of the show, the writers decided just not to bother.

I've just noticed this.  Absolutely mental.  So now they just avoid any scenes in Bart's classroom?  Some of his best scenes are there, what an odd decision.

ajsmith2

Quote from: momatt on June 06, 2018, 01:43:38 PM
I've just noticed this.  Absolutely mental.  So now they just avoid any scenes in Bart's classroom?  Some of his best scenes are there, what an odd decision.

They actually did resolve this issue this season, and Bart's new teacher is now..........



... NED FLANDERS!

This happened a month back in this episode. Haven't seen it, but by all accounts it was pulled off about as badly as you'd imagine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind_(The_Simpsons)


momatt

For fuck sake.
Haven't they already had Flanders as a teacher once, possible in 'The PTA Disbands'?
Can't they think up good one-off characters anymore?

Also in that episode:
QuoteMeanwhile, Marge Simpson feels that her marriage has lost its spark.
Which they've already done at least 300 times.