There is no way of making sense of the simpsons timeline
 

Ok I’m confused

I watched the new Artie Ziff episode "the Ziff who came to dinner" and it said artie lost his money in the 90's but it was only 2 or so years ago that we saw him last rich post 2000.

So I’ve been thinking that those people who say stuff like, Bart should be 20 odd, I say "what are you talking about!"

Originally homer and Marge met in the 70's, and then Bart and Lisa was bourn in the 80's. Then it changed when Bart was 5 in 1995 and Lisa was 2. That just proved that comment wrong.

Homer has been a bunch of different ages throw out the series, from something like 30-39 and back again. Who knows how old Marge is?

Bart has had the one 10th birthday on the show (if you don't count THOH3 which doesn't count cause its a what if episode), Lisa has had two 8th Birthdays, and you'd think Maggie would of said at least a second word by now.

We've seen the family skip forward 6 months, have about 5-7 Christmases, 2 different futures, celebrated New years (including 2000), and witness the end of the world altogether.

So even the most smartest of people couldn't make sense of the Simpsons crazy timeline. God bless The Simpsons may they never make sense.

Any thoughts?

Stop watching the show. You don't get it.

I wouldn't suggest never watching the show again. However, stop thinking about all the stuff in your post except this:

Just do what they say.

I agree with the OP here. Indeed, if there are eventually more than 365 episodes with Bart ten years old in all of them, there'd be problems indeed.

No, there won't be. Why is this "they don't age" thing so hard for people to accept?

Because Bart was born in 1980 and my friend was born the year after he was, now he is 23 but Bart is still ten WTF?! If they wanted the charcters to stay the same age they should not have told us the years in which they were born.

As said in a DVD commentary:
"If they age, they'll just lose some of their magic."

There is also a simple, three word anwser:
It's a cartoon.

No they wouldnt, if anything they would GAIN more magic. Think about it, Bart as a twenty year old he would have a job wouldnt he? Think of all the jokes that could be made about it. Also the stories would be more bileveable I mean, an EIGHT year old girl coverting to Buddisim?! Now if she were eighteen.... Maggie could be fleshed out more as a person rather than a comedy prop. Sure it would be risky, sure they would lose SOME magic but they would still be Bart and Lisa, Homer would still be an idiot if he were 40 of 50. Marge would be even more naggy if she had two grown up childeren to worry about. Bart would still pull pranks, Lisa would still be smart. The characters would be diffrent but that happens with age. With age, comes wisdom and understanding.

The beauty of a cartoon is that the characters don't have to age. You discuss the potential of more story lines, but think of all the classic episodes that would not have been able to exist if Bart had been, say, 18 at the time.

Well, the reason they chose to set the story of the first flashback episode ("The Way We Was") in the 1970s was because it provided the writers with the ability to satirize high school life from that era. It gave the episode a level of substance and believability that otherwise would've been lacking if they were more ambiguous with the story's timeframe. Also at that time, the producers had no idea the show would last as long as it has, and therefore were far less mindful of the repercussions of cementing the characters' past in a specific era. "I Married Marge" and all following flashback episodes have merely followed the continuity rules established by "The Way We Was".

The Simpsons were there when Michael Jackson was black to modern stuff like Paris Hilton etc. That's a span of over ten years, and they haven't aged a bit. It's something I find interesting but I accept the whole "they don't age" thing quickly.

True, but there are a great deal of things that Bart has done that no real ten year old would do. Bisides, I was referring to the characters aging in a spin off [Dodges tomatoes] dispite what you may think, a Simpsons spin off would not suck because it would still have the writers from the origenal sieris. And if it was not too gimiky and dealt with the change well then there is no reason to dislike the idea. It could run concurrent to the Simpsons so other fans wont complain. So people like you who do not want the Simpsons to age can need never wach it.

Believe me, those aren't tomatoes and are in fact time bombs, set to blow you up before you say one more thing about how you want the show to "make more sense".

I find how the Simpsons don't age to be the key to it living for so long. I mean, people wouldn't want to watch a show about a 18-year-old smart woman, a 20-year-old punk, a 12-yeard-old girl, a 46-year-old house-wife and a 50-year-old man who gets fired every week and embarks on painfilled adventures.

Its funny I bet if they did age the characters Dantheman would be first to say, the show should be stopped because their running out of ideas.

Yeah I guess when you're 10 for that long you would start doing non kid things. I like the way the writers have made the kids more like kids this season, Bart and Lisa being scared of a horror movie instead of just being fine with it, was good. In the Bart wants what it wants episode I thought it was weird that a 10 year old was talking about love, but then again I guess kids seem to imitated things they see on TV with out knowing what they mean.

Season 14's timeline was messed up. Here's the time period a few episodes took place during:

-DABF20: September
-EABF01: During Mardi Gras
-EABF07: August or Septmember
-EABF08: They mention that it's May
-EABF09: January? (I think this is when senators are sworn in)
-EABF13: Christmas

In short, cartoons don't have to make sense.

http://www.actionfig.com/simpsons/im...g/ozmodiar.jpg

of course, Gazoo can give us some laughs, but the two Homers joke is superior.

If you age the characters they will lose charm, you have to write some wacky plots so the kids (now 21 year olds) can stay in the house (Bud and Kelly in Married with Children).

IT'S A CARTOON.

They don't have to age. The show doesn't have to work chronologically. Just stop thinking about it. Oh, and dantheman, stop posting.

This is possibly a logical answere, I give you props for that.

Now that there's a classic quote.

And changing characters' ages just so they can have new plots is a cheap and unoriginal way of trying to continue the show (Rugrats All Growed Up anyone?).

I give you credit for quoting that comment/post. Good job :thumbsup

I agree that they should not have done that with the Rugrats, the whole point of that show was that the babys could talk. Take that away and you are left with a stupid teen show. The Simpsons, however are nothing like the Rugrats as anyone who has seen it would testify, ergo a spin off with the characters older would still have the spirit of the original show. The reason AGU failed was because it undermined the whole point of the original, talking babies, but a Simpsons spin off would not undermine the original. It would still be about a family, it would have the same people just differnt ages.

Oh well... But I'm still for my post up there...

The entire point of Maggie's character would be undermined. The only reason Bart can get away with some of his more malicious pranks without us hating him, his childlike innocence, would be gone. And I dunno about you, but a lot of the reason that I like Lisa is for the same reason, her childlike innocence. That's 3/5 main characters altered in some major fashion. It's not just a change in age.

Also, characters like Abe and Burns would be dead.

I think that dantheman has a point here. In some of the Scully/Jean era episodes, Lisa is characterized as an eighteen-year-old anyway, so what point is there in keeping her eight?

Back during the April strike some NHC members proposed that the Simpsons as we know it end immediately and a spin-off with the family older. In fact, some people have written fanscripts (Maggie and Eric, anyone?) about this.

Now that the strike is over this probably isn't a good idea right now.

Can you honestly say that characterization is more compelling and appealing than her normal one though? And besides, you can't justify aging the entire cast based on one character.

It's a cartoon It dosen't have to make sense. The Characters don't age, what's so hard about understanding that! I mean think about it the character features an entire world of yellow freaks with 4 fingers does that make sense. NO! It dosen't have to because it's a cartoon. It's the absurdity of the show that makes the show great!

Why do people always target the Simpsons on this not-aging thing? There's plenty of other cartoons where the characters never age.