Why do People hate on The Simpsons so much?

This thread has lots of analogies but I think this one works best even if it does feel like it just has pizza tacked on the end to try and compete with more mouthwatering analogies:

It's like there is this cartoon that used to be one of the smartest and funniest shows on Television. It poked fun at everything and anything and had great characters who were really well developed and the audience connected with them and cared about them. But soon, the show became silly, exaggerated and eventually just boring and average. It became a vehicle for it's network to promote other lacklustre shows. It still had it's moments but it was pretty much over. People still had a connection with the characters though and some desperately tried to cling on to that by continuing to watch. Hoping desperately for a return to part glories. But most just wanted it to die so that their memories of this once great tv show could be preserved. pizza
 
The show used to exist outside the mainstream; now it is the mainstream. Seinfeld fans can hold their heads up high, knowing their show went off before it truly declined. I wish I could say the same.
the rest of your post is spot-on but I gotta quibble with this. the simpsons has been super-mega-mainstream since it premiered, it was never some underground thing only cool people knew about. being mainstream isn't always the opposite of being good
 
People forget that the Tracey Ullman shorts were really, really popular. Bart was tapped as the spokesman for Butterfinger before the show was even picked up by FOX, Groening said that was a major factor in their decision. In fact, I don't think people who weren't at least semi-cognizant at the time realize that the whole Bartmania/Simpsons craze thing took place almost immediately. The Simpsons Sing the Blues went to #3 in the US just 9 months after the show premiered, Bart was added to the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade two months later and just a year after the first episode aired he was called the dominant TV force of 1990 by TV Guide. The Simpsons, like the Beatles, is one of those things that we as a collective society just got right.

As for the topic at hand, it's all been said much more eloquently than I could say it. I don't hate The Simpsons, I love it. And that's why I hate what it's become. But I disagree with your pizza analogy:

The Simpsons is a popular Italian restaurant that was founded 20 years ago and has won numerous awards for it's pizza... but somewhere along the way, a new chef took over and the pizza kinda sucks. But people keep going there because it's familiar and they keep charging $15 for the pizza because they have the name recognition and the clout to get away with it by saying they're an institution.
 
The Simpsons, like the Beatles, is one of those things that we as a collective society just got right.

If they would've quit after 8 or 9 seasons, then I'd be agreeing with you. Instead, they're like the Rolling Stones, not having put out a hit in years. When the Beatles quit, it was one of the best career moves, but when the Simpsons quit, besides D'ohmer, not too many people will be THAT upset over it.
 
All this talk about Pizza makes me want to order a Little Ceasers pizza.

Thank god there's one 2 miles away from me...
 
Expecting something to be well-crafted has nothing to do with having a "chip on your shoulder." It's more like you're frustrated from trying to oversell a show that--more often than not--currently under-delivers.
I'm going by his own words; he specifically said he's judging the show by a different (read: higher) standard because of its past. In fact, his exact words were that he "wouldn't think twice" about the quality of the show if it weren't The Simpsons.



Slow your roll. Assuming others who find fault with current show are harboring ulterior motives is beyond pride, its arrogance.
Honestly not sure what you're saying here, I didn't make any assumption..?
 
I'm going by his own words; he specifically said he's judging the show by a different (read: higher) standard because of its past. In fact, his exact words were that he "wouldn't think twice" about the quality of the show if it weren't The Simpsons.

If you've seen the show since it aired in 1989 and had 8 years of the best of the show as a benchmark of quality to judge the rest of the series by, it's not a chip on your shoulder, it's an expectation of what the show simply is. It's IMPOSSIBLE to divest yourself of all your past viewing experiences (or anything else for that matter) and come to the table with a clean slate, only looking at the new episodes in the most 'objective' way possible. It's not just him, EVERYONE does it. It's human nature.

As for the actual quality of the show itself, frankly, it doesn't matter anymore. Hollywood is in bed with the show and the public buys the merchandise because of the show's popular name (not because last Sunday's episode was good or bad) and the Simpsons has become an institution like Christmas. No one in the media dares say anything bad about it because talking smack about the Simpsons is akin to badmouthing your grandma. It's sad how Al Jean and the staff like to view the CBG's of the world as sad shut-ins living off of nostalgia for the 'good old days' of the Simpsons when it's the same nostalgia that makes people buy the merchandise.
 
I think this thread would be better used to discuss the quality of pizza.

5f7ac2bd-de83-4669-8066-7bc76882a7b4.jpg
 
If you've seen the show since it aired in 1989 and had 8 years of the best of the show as a benchmark of quality to judge the rest of the series by, it's not a chip on your shoulder, it's an expectation of what the show simply is. It's IMPOSSIBLE to divest yourself of all your past viewing experiences (or anything else for that matter) and come to the table with a clean slate, only looking at the new episodes in the most 'objective' way possible. It's not just him, EVERYONE does it. It's human nature.
"Divest" myself of past experience sounds like I'd have to brainwash myself or forget things, but that's not the case. I can watch old episodes and love them and then watch newer episodes and enjoy some of them or parts of them. Sure, sometimes I compare the two as an academic thing and am conscious that older = better, but it doesn't make me angry or bitter, which is kind of what I was talking about. He used the example of a quarterback in football getting old and sloppy, which is an appropriate metaphor because I wouldn't see any reason to be angry or bitter about that either. It's just something that happens as time goes by.
 
It kinda makes me sad to see many people bash the show. I don't mind constructive criticism, but I just don't like it when people just bash something becuase usually, people do it for a stupid reason like, The Simpsons for example, when people who have never seen the show before bash it just because they're yellow. Come on, think of something a bit better than that!! I have always loved the show since I saw it as a kid and don't ever see myself disliking the show.
 
It kinda makes me sad to see many people bash the show. I don't mind constructive criticism, but I just don't like it when people just bash something becuase usually, people do it for a stupid reason like, The Simpsons for example, when people who have never seen the show before bash it just because they're yellow. Come on, think of something a bit better than that!! I have always loved the show since I saw it as a kid and don't ever see myself disliking the show.

I agree completely
 
If we're going with pizza analogies, then mine would be like this: 21 years ago, a supreme, deep dish pizza was made. As time passed, people(aka the producers and writers), devoured almost all of it, thus decreasing the quality. Now, there is only one thin slice left, and the only thing keeping it from landing in the dumpster is a piece of pepperoni. But eventually, this pepperoni will turn rancid, causing the slice to expire. And when it does, so will this show.
 
If they would've quit after 8 or 9 seasons, then I'd be agreeing with you. Instead, they're like the Rolling Stones, not having put out a hit in years. When the Beatles quit, it was one of the best career moves, but when the Simpsons quit, besides D'ohmer, not too many people will be THAT upset over it.

That's not really fair, though. You said yourself that they haven't put out a hit in some time...in other words, no one actually gives a shit about The Rolling Stones' new material in the first place. They put up with it to an extent because it's the price to pay for hearing them perform "Satisfaction" again too. And Brodie's point wasn't supposed to be a direct analogy in terms of later quality but in terms of the initial "boom" in popularity.

And hell, the ratings for The Simpsons have been dropping for quite some time.
 
Another Pizza analogy:

The show is like a pizza, but what made it interesting was the toppings. Over the years, the toppings have been slowly stripped away and replaced by inferior ingredients and the chefs making the pizza are still winning awards because the design on the pizza box hasn't changed. Even worse, the chefs at Simpsons' Pizza are telling their customers: "What are you complaining about? It's still a PIZZA, right!?".
 
That's not really fair, though. You said yourself that they haven't put out a hit in some time...in other words, no one actually gives a shit about The Rolling Stones' new material in the first place.

The guy who drew Calvin and Hobbes is a better example. He knew when to quit and it Calvin and Hobbes is fondly remembered and he even went on to say if he would've dragged it on another decade, the fans who missed him would've wanted is strip destroyed and he be far less liked. Hell, he even turned down merchandising offers to slap his characters all over everything...Now imagine an alternate reality where the Simpsons stopped after 9 seasons and Groening turning down far more merchanidising deals. :)
 
Exactly, it wasn't a direct comparison... I was just noting that both were amongst the best in the fields while also being amongst the most popular. The Simpsons popularity has declined relative to it's quality, whereas the Rolling Stones music is unpopular because it's no longer relevant to most people listening to music.

There is no comparing going on here... just a statement about the popularity of both.
 
If one absolutely MUST discuss The Rolling Stones in this thread though:

Most people don't give a shit about their new stuff anymore. Except for a small band of loyalists who buy every single album, without fail, despite hating each and every one of them. And they all go on the internet to talk about how the Stones have sold out, and gone too mainstream, and should have stopped ages ago, and how every single album is a personal slap in their face as a fan and a waste of their time and money. But their loyalty keeps the Stones making just enough money on each album to keep producing them, one after another, for those loyalists to continue consuming without fail. All while the rest of the public has long since stopped caring anyway and just wants to hear "Satisfaction" again.

Come to think of it, something about this is sounding awfully familiar, but I just can't put my finger on it...
 
I've been watching the show since I was 6 years old. I'm 25 now. The first episode I ever watched in full and appreciated was Bart Gets Hit By a Car (its original airing). Since that period of time I taped the show on VHS. Today I record it onto DVDs. I'm sticking with the show until the day it dies. That being said, if you truly think this is the same show as season 2, you are delusional. And believe me, I've defended The Simpsons to more people than you can imagine over the past decade. By now I am finished defending it. This season has had no more than three episodes so far that come anywhere near the quality of the "golden era". Even when an episode has quality humor peppered in, like "How Munched is that Birdie...", they'll fall insanely short of classic standards in terms of storytelling. That episode, for example, has a resolving logic that boggles my mind. Bart is angry with SLH for killing a beloved pet friend of his, and somehow the resolution ends up being about the morality of killing birds specifically, which is both not the point and presented in a totally awkward way (comparing a pigeon to a full-blown larger than life violent ostrich). No matter how you slice it, that makes no sense, and even though this is just one example, and you can say "it's okay, it's just a cartoon", there is absolutely NO WAY the show would have done this in their heyday. Honestly, the jokes themselves is the least of my issues. I just find the characters and stories aren't treated with the same respect, dignity and seriousness as before. Back in the day, they could tell a great story, and deepen the characters while still telling jokes. Now it's just all about cheap laughs, which makes it no better than any other cartoon. In fact, it's worse than other cartoons because other cartoons (FG, American Dad, South Park) have younger staffs and a better understanding of pop culture and today's youth, and therefore the jokes are better. Simpsons is falling short of the competition in the humor department, while sacrificing the true essence of what made the show so brilliant, smart and respectful to begin with.

I believe the show can get away with lame excuses for resolutions like this now only because of their legacy, and I'd bet that there are even instances where the staff recognizes these shortcomings and simply lets it slide saying "eh, it's okay just this once". There are numerous Harvard grads and brilliantly smart people on staff to this day. They are simply valuing cheap humor over substance because it's easier. For example, when they do purposefully bad jokes or puns, and call attention to them, they think that's okay since they're recognizing it. I disagree. There is a total loss of self-respect going on. The show has basically admitted it has nothing left to say by resorting to cheap, self-referential humor, resting on their laurels. I would love to see the show go for something bold. Even if it's something as stereotypical as introducing new characters and developing them from scratch. Whatever brings new life to this tired franchise would be great now.

And when was the last time a character was treated with true story-driven respect? For example, when was the last time you truly felt like you were cheering on a character like when Lisa gave her anti-politician speech in "Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington"? No character would EVER be given that kind of breathing room and dignity these days. Any noble endeavor they took on, like Lisa's, would likely be polluted by cheap (probably super-liberal heavy handed) jokes that would take the viewer out of the character's situation and direct our attention to the writers' message over what's happening in the episode. And that would probably be a good episode by today's standards even, since most new episodes don't even try to say anything at all about anything. That's one thing that pisses me off about the show these days especially - the writers purposely plant their own beliefs and messages into the characters mouths and stories to the point where you end up feeling like the characters' dialog belongs to a writer and not to the character. The characters become hollow vessels for delivering jokes and writers' messages, and lose their own personalities and involvement in the stories.

All in all, if you're totally OKAY with taking The Simpsons as a familiar enjoyable sitcom these days, you'll get what you came for. But there's a reason this show has been known as one of the best TV shows of all-time, and the current state of the show has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's clear as day. What's even worse is that if they were to use the excuse of "well, the episodes need to be shorter now" for why they can't do deeper stories, you need not look further than the hour-long Family Guys in the past year. When they wanna do a more serious and cinematic episode, they just fucking do it. They don't make excuses and dance around it. They do it. They take chances, and they try new things. The Simpsons hasn't even tried anything new or exciting, unless you wanna talk about the gimmicky Muppets xmas thing they did or whatever. Things for laughs. Gimmicks. Not deeper storytelling or a more serious purpose. Family Guy wanted to do a character-driven full hour on Brian and Stewie. They did. They wanted to do a big "whodunnit" episode. They did it (without making a huge damn deal out of it like Who Shot Mr. Burns). The Simpsons' showrunners and writers just need to start saying "fuck it", come up with some bold ideas, and just DO IT ALREADY. If you wanna fit in with season 2, then concentrate on serious character-driven stories and try to genuinely act like the old days. If you don't, then try something new for god's sake. Just stop trying to pretend like you haven't changed if you're gonna go for gimmicks or sacrifice character and story for jokes in regular format episodes.

Also, the "its still better than most of TV" argument is such a lame excuse for laziness, aside from the fact that it's completely untrue in so many ways.
 
Last edited:
I haven't really seen an episode in a while, but is it safe to assume that they still generally use up the entire first act on something entirely pointless?

Even in the better later episodes, this never made sense to me, especially with the staff whining about having less episode time (a valid complaint, don't get me wrong). I mean, no one else really does this that I know of. Even their sister show Futurama, in its weakest episode, will almost always establish the main themes and central conflict or issue of the story within about the first minute of airtime, and yet The Simpsons would always refuse to do this. It's Always Sunny, which is just about the most insane sitcom on the air, makes it an actual tradition to do this and yet The Simpsons refuses to. Even amongst the classics (which did it less), honestly, I found it was generally problematic, like that episode about Krusty going broke, faking his suicide, etc that nonetheless does not even show Krusty for most of the first act. Honestly, I think it's one of the biggest reasons I quit watching. It was impossible to become invested in stories that only really lasted about seven minutes total by the time I stopped.
 
I don't mind it if done properly... I watched The President Wore Pearls earlier and while it's admittedly a silver era episode, I found the transition from the unrelated casino night stuff to the main plot pretty natural and enjoyable. But yeah, when an episode starts out with the Simpsons at the fair and then ends up with Bart raising llamas, I get seriously pissed off.
 
I don't...entirely mind it other than it be sort of a waste of airtime a lot of the time, but I find it to be problematic if not at least done properly. One reason I brought up that Krusty episode (Bart the Fink, I believe) is that it's an example of even an older episode that kind of drops the ball and doesn't even show it's main character (or one of two mains with Bart I guess) for quite a bit of the episode. This became more common with, for instance, lots of episodes where, say, the first several minutes of a Lisa story is Homer doing something unrelated without her appearing, and then finally appearing like 8 minutes in so she can react to what Homer's doing and move from there. It's sort of obnoxious and it feels like the episode doesn't really cohere very well.

I recall Al Jean pointing out that older episodes would have those unrelated first acts on, I think, the commentary for "Radio Bart," and that's all well and good, but my response would be that A) it was done a lot less and B) it was sort of a problem even then anyway, so there. And hey, even in that episode, Bart's self-absorption and tendency to trick people, as well as his general focus in the story, is actually established quite early on, and the ham radio is (if I recall correctly) literally introduced in like the first scene. It wasn't just totally wasted space where the Simpsons go to the zoo and make dumb observations for five minutes, and then because Lisa sees a candy wrapper on the ground with a space theme she decides to be an astronaut. Or something.

An example of a later episode I can think of where they got it at least half-right was when Moe started spending time with Maggie. It opened with that dumb flower thing at the beginning, but throughout the first act they would at least cut to Moe and establish his loneliness and general focus in the storyline. He didn't just finally appear about five minutes in which is frankly how most episodes then would have handled it. And with only 22 minutes, that's a problem, not to mention it's just generally bad storytelling technique regardless of total length. But that episode at least established the main themes and focus of the episode fairly quickly despite wasting some time on other stuff.

But the "pointless first act" is something that honestly has grated on me even with the classics, which I think is part of my reduced interest even in those, unfortunately. Not the only factor but one of many.
 
Last edited:
there's nothing wrong with plots taking their time and progressing naturally. I rather like the way bart the fink goes from the wacky cliche haunted house trope to hilarious "bart gets a checking account" jokes to krusty's situation; it never feels like they're just filling up time, at least to me

it's only bad when it's that formulaic, clock-eating "simpsons visit a convention/museum/parade/festival" crap, or when they pull the ol' switcheroo on you and mike scully appears in the corner of the screen to point and laugh at you ("HAHA YOU THOUGHT THIS EPISODE WAS GOING TO BE ABOUT COFFINS, WELL GUESS WHAT IT'S ABOUT TENNIS")
 
The lack of risk taking in the show is one of the most depressing things, it kind of doesn't matter any more because there's other shows out there willing to do it, but they have such creative freedom that nobody else (except Family Guy I guess) on Network Televison has. Mitch Hurwitz has talked about how difficult it's made working on Running Wilde. So many writers would kill for the creative freedom they have, but do they take advantage of it? Regardless of how successful they are at it, Family Guy has shown a much more creative attitude in recent years, trying much more experiments, they don't even do many cutaways any more. When Family Guy can do a story with a better structure than you, then there's something wrong.
 
Last edited:
The Simpson's has been my favourite show for my entire life, but I have never had the priveledge of watching the golden era episodes new. I remember starting to watch new episodes around season 13 and ever since have tuned in every Sunday. However I've always known the vast difference between older and newer episodes (although it's kind of pathetic when I consider an episode from, say 7 years ago, "new" just because of it's quality.)

It's annoying to consistantly get dissapointed week after week, and then it's even worse to watch Family Guy do do a poignant, hilarious or creative episode that throws the Simpson's episode out of the water. I still enjoy the newer episodes though. Of course I would much rather watch any golden era Simpson's over Family Guy, but nowadays, if I want a good laugh, it'll be with Family Guy, or even American Dad.

I suppose the main reason I keep watching is just so I can say that I've seen all 450 plus episodes. Occasionally there's the odd funny joke or idea, and I've noticed that
they've been getting more up to date with their references. But the characters and the storytelling are very awkward now. I cringe at the one dimensional exaggerations of the character's former selves, and the stories just don't seem to flow as naturally as they used to. The worst is the gimmicks and guest stars. It seems all they do for an episode now is get someone who's currently famous and write a lame story around them or, as mentioned, try to promote some FOX show. My question is why these guest stars even want to be on the show? I mean is it still a big deal even with the terrible quality and low viewership?

I really think it might be time for the end. :( As much as it would pain me to see them go, it's really better to just put them out of their misery, whether Matt Groening wants to acknowledge it or not.
 
the simpsons sucks, family guy is where it's at
 
I think "it's the cool thing to do" does play a part in this as well. I mean, I can understand if you don't like the show, but to actively thumbs-down anyone who posts a positive review of an episode is just immature. It's like "how DARE they enjoy this crap!"

People still enjoy the show; get over it. If you don't like it, fine, but hate on the show, don't hate on the people who still find it funny (myself included).
 
I used to think the new simpson episodes were shit compaired to old ones.
Now they are shit compaired to most shows on tv
But I wouldn't say I hate it
 
Back
Top