The Simpsons

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Simpsons

#876 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:06 pm


User avatar
soundchaser
Leave Her to Beaver
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: The Simpsons

#877 Post by soundchaser » Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:14 pm

Image

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: The Simpsons

#878 Post by aox » Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:22 pm

It’s still better than anything post-season 9.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Simpsons

#879 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:10 pm


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Simpsons

#880 Post by domino harvey » Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:29 pm


User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Simpsons

#881 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:57 pm

Its a good job that nobody yet knows that Tress MacNeille voiced Manjula and Cookie Kwan.

I do have some sympathy for Shearer's point in that actors should conceivably be able to play anything they want, and particularly voice actors have been exempt or under the radar from such stringent racial casting before now (see the English language dubs of all the Studio Ghibli films, say). I also do not think that there was any conscious discriminatory intention behind having actors of a different race voice certain characters because listening to a lot of those Simpson commentaries they hired a core stable of actors and just threw as many different characters to voice at them as possible. That probably made sense to the production from the perspective of utilising the talent they hired to the fullest extent (especially once they became essential to the series), let the cast stretch themselves or feel like they were not restricted by only voicing a single character in the show whilst under contract, and economically probably saved a lot of cash in keeping only a small core of essential voice actors under full contract, all the better to have cash to bring in those highly sought after celebrity names for their single episode cameos to appeal to the kids, such as Tony Blair or Keith Richards. And wasn't that bundling of roles together without proper remuneration the source of a lot of the tensions regarding salary disputes for the cast too?

There is also probably the issue of single gag characters 'unintentionally' turning into series regulars, which might actually be a positive rather than a negative thing that the show regularly does that. Presumably whenever a new character appeared it was immediately thrown out to the core group of actors to see if they had a funny voice to do for them, and then if successful they ended up getting added to the roster list and kept coming back for cameos over and over again. Cookie Kwan is a case in point, but you can see this happening from the very first season too where the commentaries are pretty upfront about Chief Wiggum being 'just' an Edward G. Robinson parody for a number of seasons until he ended up becoming a more important supporting character just by dint of having been around for so long. Or the Crazy Cat Lady, or perhaps most notoriously that run of Gil being a single joke riff on the Jack Lemmon character from Glengarry Glenn Ross that then went on for about fifteen excruciating more seasons (pretty much replacing Hans Moleman's downtrodden role in the show). I'm pretty sure that the character of Apu started much the same way, especially as he turns up earliest in the Sideshow Bob framing Krusty show, so he's only really there to act as just any convenience store clerk figure. So what was perhaps a funny, though racially dodgy and arguably insensitive, role for Harry Shearer to do a few times ends up getting entire shows anchored around their character that were probably never planned to have taken place until they naturally evolved in the course of things to try and flesh Apu out a bit more beyond his stereotypical role in the show. And at that point it is a bit late to recast, both because that would destroy the character and you are taking the role away from the actor who in many ways helped to develop their unique (albeit rooted in stereotypical, caricature) qualities.

That's actually another 'issue' with comedy in general, and animation in particular - a lot of it is based on "look at that weirdo!" humour of difference (very like the news in that respect), perhaps because it is the surest approach to getting a reaction out of as many people as possible. Bonding an audience together by emphasising how different the group outside of this room, or who don't get the joke, are from those who are 'in the know'. But if approached a bit more charitably its also about taking baseline stereotypes and caricature character qualities as your universal starting point and through exploration or narrative twists revealing more facets of them over time. The sheer longevity of shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy is probably the factor more than anything that has forced them to actually try and deal with their characters more than just on the superficial level, even if they cannot ever escape the 'back to normal' reset at the end of every episode, where no change ever sticks. But that's getting into a whole different argument about the nature of episodic television!

It all gets more complicated when characters that are being voiced start taking on lives of their own, and actually do start to stand as identification figures for say 10 year old boys everywhere or the nuclear family as a whole (much as Bush decried it at the time!)... or as one of the few prominent Indian characters in town. Then questions are asked about why it was not sensitively cast in the first place, but I do think there are many other interesting factors going into this simple cut and dried seeming issue that complicate matters.

But if I find out that Groundskeeper Willie is not voiced by a real Scotsman and Uter by a real German, there will be no end of griping!

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: An Internet Thread About the Internet

#882 Post by Orlac » Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:01 pm

Lemmy Caution wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:27 am
Some on the Right have praised the Simpsons over the years. Especially the portrayal of Flanders who while somewhat dorky is genuinely a good, kind, helpful god-fearing Christian. Even the Simpsons (and much of the town, go to church.

And if you think about it, Homer is essentially a Trump voter -- often complaining about the gov't and liberal media, susceptible to simplistic ideas and slogans, etc. The adult females tend to be housewives and mothers without careers. Even the way Apu is portrayed is almost some gentle rightwing fantasy, wherein he's tolerated/accepted into the community but always portrayed as an other, and knows his place.

So like the article says the Simpsons originated in the late 80's and some of their ideas and caricatures have become anachronistic. As far as the military vets, I could see the writers switching wars, with Grandpa fighting in Vietnam and Skinner in Iraq. In the case of Grandpa I could see him mentioning being in the Vietnam War, being corrected that he was in WWII, with Grandpa testily replying that he knows where he fought, then continuing his story but now about fighting in Korea. Typical Grandpa confusion. The Simpsons haven't done much with the Iraq War unless I'm mistaken and just haven't seen later episodes.
It felt very out-of-character (albiet in a Treehouse of Horror) when Homer was revealed to be an Obama voter!

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Simpsons

#883 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:26 pm

colinr0380 wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:57 pm
That's actually another 'issue' with comedy in general, and animation in particular - a lot of it is based on "look at that weirdo!" humour of difference (very like the news in that respect), perhaps because it is the surest approach to getting a reaction out of as many people as possible. Bonding an audience together by emphasising how different the group outside of this room, or who don't get the joke, are from those who are 'in the know'. But if approached a bit more charitably its also about taking baseline stereotypes and caricature character qualities as your universal starting point and through exploration or narrative twists revealing more facets of them over time.
I never got into the show, but I was with a friend last night having this discussion and he mentioned that in The Boondocks, Samuel L. Jackson and Charlie Murphy both voiced white animated characters, and part of the fun was sourced in the hilarity of this contrast. I'm not trying to make the argument that it should and does always work both ways, there is equality, etc., but I thought that was a notable example of how the reverse approach has been successful for some folks with what I think you're getting at here.

User avatar
mizo
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:22 pm
Location: Heard about Pittsburgh PA?

Re: The Simpsons

#884 Post by mizo » Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:23 pm


flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: The Simpsons

#885 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:49 am

A Twitter Simpsons account I follow posted this from the first episode, and it really speaks to why I love the first two seasons. It wasn't afraid to be quiet, and let things lay, sometimes not even for humor. It didn't suffer later on for going for a more broad humor, but it also meant moments like that became fewer and far between.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: The Simpsons

#886 Post by aox » Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:49 am

The first two seasons are great because the show still openly embraced the traditional sitcom and completely subverted it (for comparison of anything that matched at the time, I would say Roseanne also tackled the same working class issues in the sitcom format). Which is exactly what made it so dangerous to the status quo that even the POTUS had to comment on it. It's incredible to think (or for younger people to imagine) what a phenomenon The Simpsons was when it exploded onto the scene. With globalisation and the internet, I am not sure these heights can be reached today with such a wide field of options and voices democratising the landscape.

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: The Simpsons

#887 Post by Orlac » Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:55 am

I remember The Simpsons having a slightly forbidden, underground feel to it in the early 90s.

User avatar
soundchaser
Leave Her to Beaver
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: The Simpsons

#888 Post by soundchaser » Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:43 pm

I make no bones about loving the “You Are Lisa Simpson” note, and it does feel like something the show couldn’t have pulled off even in its golden age a few seasons later.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: The Simpsons

#889 Post by hearthesilence » Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:44 pm

aox wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:49 am
The first two seasons are great because the show still openly embraced the traditional sitcom and completely subverted it (for comparison of anything that matched at the time, I would say Roseanne also tackled the same working class issues in the sitcom format). Which is exactly what made it so dangerous to the status quo that even the POTUS had to comment on it.
Spot-on. I never bought into the criticism that the first two seasons, especially the first, were vastly inferior because far more than the other seasons, they were firmly rooted in working class issues and knew how to effectively tap into that. As good as the later episodes were, they didn't have that kind of weight, and whenever they tried telling a story with the same dynamic (anything with money issues, etc.), they had to forfeit any believability because it had become impossible due to the wildly fluctuating reality that became normal for the show. (That inconsistency actually feels kind of sloppy or even lazy whenever I revisit the show now.)

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: The Simpsons

#890 Post by Monterey Jack » Mon Dec 07, 2020 1:22 am

Orlac wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:55 am
I remember The Simpsons having a slightly forbidden, underground feel to it in the early 90s.
Which is odd, because watching those early episodes three decades later, in the wake of far coarser, uglier, mean-spirited animated family sitcoms like Family Guy and its various spawn, The Simpsons' first two or three seasons seem about as benign and toothless as reruns of Leave It To Beaver must have seemed to the kids and teens of the early-90's. It's hard to believe that a kid wearing a Bart Simpson T-shirt with the phrase, "Underachiever, and proud of it, man!" used to be the height of animated cartoon controversy. Hell, just three or four years later, it seemed tame compared to the howling parental outrage that greeted Beavis & Butthead.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Simpsons

#891 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:23 am

The Simpsons was big in the UK from the start but confined to the Sky subscription satellite channel until the BBC belatedly picked it up in late 1996 (and since then it has never been off the main channels, just with a switch to Channel 4), but even in the days when it was not available directly to me I was still exposed to it through the zeitgeist. Mostly through the Do The Bartman song at the time of the Batman film, as well as by my primary school for some reason in 1990-91 or so showing a few episodes to keep the kids quiet backstage during the Christmas play! So whatever horrible corrupting influence it was meant to have been having on the kids, at least I know my primary school was not too concerned about it (maybe the teachers were already aware of the kids chatting excitedly together about Batman, Predator and RoboCop in the classroom and had just thrown the towel in already by that stage!)

I do remember that in 2000 before Channel 4 picked up the Simpsons from the BBC they tried to air the first season of Family Guy in similar 6 p.m. slots and, yeah, that was just not going to fit in that timeslot in the same way (It has found its proper niche now on ITV2 at 9 p.m., which seems more suited. Currently ITV2 is trying to branch out a little from the Family Guy stable with Crossing Swords (NSFW)). Although it still had enough of an impact even in its edited form that I was one of those people who imported the first couple of seasons of that show on DVD from the US after it was cancelled the first time. I think at the time I enjoyed the novelty of being able to get an entire 'complete' run of a show, not realising that it would soon be back and turn into a Simpsons-sized behemoth itself!
Last edited by colinr0380 on Mon Dec 07, 2020 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: The Simpsons

#892 Post by Orlac » Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:27 am

Channel 4 buried Futurama in weird slots as well.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Simpsons

#893 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:41 am

Yes they never knew what to do with that when the 6 p.m. slot did not work for it either and then I think quietly dropped it after the fourth season (i.e. at the point of the first of many cancellations that show had before it was reborn with the four 'movies' and the later seasons). But then even if it was in the late night slot I think it probably would not have lasted much longer anyway as, like most American shows animated or not, it was a victim of Channel 4's low attention span towards its series, especially in the face of the subscription satellite channels being more than prepared to hoover such shows up - South Park never got beyond season four I think, the same with King of the Hill - and it was also the period where the newest series of such shows, if not dropped, were being transferred across to the fledgling E4 digital channel years before the digital switchover made the channel accessible for the majority of the country to make such an action less damaging.

Its enough to make anyone shout "For Heaven's Gate, Professor!" in frustration.

But at least I suppose they showed enough of things like Futurama to at least give some indication of them for a causal viewer to then possibly be interested in picking up the DVD releases. I wouldn't even know where to go to find out about accessing Disenchantment right now, though I presume some streaming service will have it somewhere, for a subscription fee. (EDIT: Just checked and its a Netflix production, so that answers that question)

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Efficient Road Trip Through Every Springfield In The Country

#894 Post by Lemmy Caution » Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:44 pm

How to visit the Simpsons hometown:

Image

User avatar
jindianajonz
Jindiana Jonz Abrams
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: The Simpsons

#895 Post by jindianajonz » Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:11 pm

How many Springfields does Wisconsin need??

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

I think you're right, WI seems to be the champ

#896 Post by Lemmy Caution » Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:32 am

As wiki explains:
Springfield is the name of some places in the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Simpsons

#897 Post by domino harvey » Sun Dec 27, 2020 12:26 am

What do these compilations of official Simpsons commercials from France, Australia, and Japan have in common? They're all NSFW due to hardcore nudity!

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: The Simpsons

#898 Post by Orlac » Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:03 am

I love that the Japanese voice of Homer is the actor who also voiced the George Reeves Superman, Darth Vader and Fred Flintstone!

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Re: The Simpsons

#899 Post by Lemmy Caution » Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:59 am

“That a show which was originally about a dysfunctional mess of a family barely clinging to middle class life in the aftermath of the Reagan administration has now become aspirational is frankly the most on the nose manifestation of capitalist American decline I can think of.”

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: The Simpsons

#900 Post by Orlac » Thu Dec 31, 2020 10:56 am

I'm rather alarmed that Homer and the writer earn more than twice my salary!

Post Reply