Do you think continuity matters?

[HowdyNeighbor]

I have watched many episodes of the SD & HD Jean era and so far one thing of the episodes in this era that bothers me the most; would have to be the continuity issues. However, when I looked at the reviews, many fans were conflicted as to whether continuity matters in the Modern Simpsons episodes. In fact, some wonder whether the continuity in this show matters in the classic era too. After all it is just a cartoon, right?

So do you think continuity matters?

 

[Financial Panther]

No, it’s not something I put much stock in. It can be annoying at times to see things be retconned, but I don’t pick and choose which things are “real” and which aren’t. I just take a metaphorical step back and look at it as “It’s a cartoon; things don’t have to make sense.”

 

[HowdyNeighbor]

No, it’s not something I put much stock in. It can be annoying at times to see things be retconned, but I don’t pick and choose which things are “real” and which aren’t. I just take a metaphorical step back and look at it as “It’s a cartoon; things don’t have to make sense.”

Thoughtful post.
Though in this case, what are your thoughts on the Principal and the Pauper?

 

[CousinMerl]

I most often don't mind the continuity inconsistencies and whatnot. At this point when the show has been going on for so long and there being a floating timeline with loose continuity, I understand that once in a while there will be some retconning and some liberties will be taken, though in some cases they might go a little bit too far (such as with the recent 'Mothers And Other Strangers' conflicting directly with the classic 'Mother Simpson', which I understand is offputting to some) so yeah, I'd say that on a few occasions continuity does matter and should be mostly respected, but usually I don't really care.

 

[Wang Computers]

Continuity doesn’t matter when it’s a one-off joke. Like in Homer the Great when Homer parks and ends up right next to his house. We all know the Simpsons don’t live next to a parking lot but the joke is still funny so who cares.

When it’s something more major that conflicts with what we know about a character it’s a bit more annoying, like when Ned is actually 60 years old or Skinner is revealed to be an impostor. But I still think those two episodes are good, so it’s not like a continuity break ruins the episode it’s in.

 

[That Don Guy]

Well, there can't be 100% continuity, as Bart and Lisa would be in their 40s by now. Probably the main reason animated shows last much longer than live-action shows is, the reasons for the people watching the live-action shows, especially with children, don't exist after a few years. Nobody cared about Leave It to Beaver when Beaver was about to start high school. The Brady Bunch tried to fix this with "cousin Oliver," but that backfired on them; the same with Eight is Enough and Jeremy (Ralph Macchio's first major role in anything), and Diff'rent Strokes and Sam. On the other hand, the Simpsons, the Griffins (to a point), the Belchers, and the Smiths don't get any older.

That being said, what I don't like is "selective continuity" - for example, while Bart, Lisa, and Maggie don't get older, some of the people around them (Sanjay's son Jamshed and Selma's daughter Ling come to mind) do. Marge didn't go to college - oh, wait, yes she did, for four years. That's not the "real" Seymour Skinner - oh, wait, yes it is - but is Seymour his first name, or his middle name (the diplomas on his wall in "Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part 2" say "W. Seymour Skinner," as part of the whole WS/MS angle)? How old was Grampa when Homer was born - even if he was 16 on V-J Day (and even that contradicts his being in the Flying Hellfish), that makes him born in 1929, so he would be in his 90s, which means he was in his 50s when Homer was born.

 

[HowdyNeighbor]

Well, there can't be 100% continuity, as Bart and Lisa would be in their 40s by now. Probably the main reason animated shows last much longer than live-action shows is, the reasons for the people watching the live-action shows, especially with children, don't exist after a few years. Nobody cared about Leave It to Beaver when Beaver was about to start high school. The Brady Bunch tried to fix this with "cousin Oliver," but that backfired on them; the same with Eight is Enough and Jeremy (Ralph Macchio's first major role in anything), and Diff'rent Strokes and Sam. On the other hand, the Simpsons, the Griffins (to a point), the Belchers, and the Smiths don't get any older.

That being said, what I don't like is "selective continuity" - for example, while Bart, Lisa, and Maggie don't get older, some of the people around them (Sanjay's son Jamshed and Selma's daughter Ling come to mind) do. Marge didn't go to college - oh, wait, yes she did, for four years. That's not the "real" Seymour Skinner - oh, wait, yes it is - but is Seymour his first name, or his middle name (the diplomas on his wall in "Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part 2" say "W. Seymour Skinner," as part of the whole WS/MS angle)? How old was Grampa when Homer was born - even if he was 16 on V-J Day (and even that contradicts his being in the Flying Hellfish), that makes him born in 1929, so he would be in his 90s, which means he was in his 50s when Homer was born.

This is the best response so far. I really like continuity in the Simpsons but there are a lot of problems when it comes to reinforcing them no matter the great role they have in making the Simpsons world feel far more real.

 

[toushin]

How do i put this. the importance lies less in continuity itself and more how the writers utilize it. there is a real big connection between continuity and show don't tell in this show. because the writers arbitrarily decide what is canon and what isn't between episodes most of the time what we see is different from what the the episode says happened.

 

[HowdyNeighbor]

I most often don't mind the continuity inconsistencies and whatnot. At this point when the show has been going on for so long and there being a floating timeline with loose continuity, I understand that once in a while there will be some retconning and some liberties will be taken, though in some cases they might go a little bit too far (such as with the recent 'Mothers And Other Strangers' conflicting directly with the classic 'Mother Simpson', which I understand is offputting to some) so yeah, I'd say that on a few occasions continuity does matter and should be mostly respected, but usually I don't really care.

Let me tell my take on why I believe continuity matters: When I was watching 'Homer's Enemy', I remember hearing Frank Grimes say that he used to live in a bowling alley, in which Homer Simpson is impressed by that. Without context, the line makes no sense! But if you remember the episode 'Maggie Makes Three', you know that he wanted to work in a bowling alley, but could not because the salary wasn't enough for his 3rd child. In a way, continuity added meaning to that line.
I think the cartoon excuse is useless, as The Don Guy said:

Probably the main reason animated shows last much longer than live-action shows is, the reasons for the people watching the live-action shows, especially with children, don't exist after a few years. Nobody cared about Leave It to Beaver when Beaver was about to start high school. The Brady Bunch tried to fix this with "cousin Oliver," but that backfired on them; the same with Eight is Enough and Jeremy (Ralph Macchio's first major role in anything), and Diff'rent Strokes and Sam. On the other hand, the Simpsons, the Griffins (to a point), the Belchers, and the Smiths don't get any older.

In cartoons you can do so much more than in live-action shows, but that's besides the point. The point is how the Simpsons isn't like Looney Tunes, there is a story arc in the show because it concentrates more on the characters. Take Skinner for example, remember 'The Principal and The Pauper'? It's widely hated because it got rid of what gave Skinner meaning. He was once a Vietnam vet, but according to this episode he was simply an imposter of a real Vietnam vet. The Simpsons isn't just a cartoon, it's a cartoon about OFF struggling with the world the writers have created from our world. I personally like continuity, because it allows for me to care more for what happens to the characters than just "Eh". And about 'Mother Simpson', an episode you just mentioned. Wouldn't it be awkward for the mother of Homer Simpson to never appear again after 'My Mother the Carjacker'? Wouldn't it? I will always love the original continuity in the Simpsons no matter what writers do to this show.

 

[TheDuffBlimp]

There's more than one Simpsons timeline, so continuity matters in the eyes of the fans, but it does not really need to have any place in the show itself.

 

[toushin]

There is a trope Fourth Wall Myopia that I feel answers this question perfectly. The Simpsons is a decidedly grey universe however the writers keep trying to force issues into being solely black and white, i.e forcing a square peg into a round hole. While usually this is done using a combination of sympathetic pov and double standards. For the most part it is by arbitrarily deciding what is and isn’t canon, and since the writers keep reusing old ideas most of the time what we see is different from what we are told happened. So while overall canon isn’t really that important past episode still inform what is going on so can’t just be ignored.

 

[TheDuffBlimp]

I like the idea that, based on the shows ambiguity, each new episode could theoretically take place in a different state.

 

[SlashNBurn]

IDK. It is a little jarring on the mind, but at the end of the day, I'm not clinging to any sense of continuity, and certainly won't lose a minute of sleep over it.

The writers have contradicted themselves 1000 times already, so much so they probably do it consciously now.

It doesn't matter what, say Mr Burns age is, or whether Homer was in Sadgasm or the BeSharps; the show's history is whatever is most convenient for the writers for that specific episode. Bear in mind, a lot of info re history in the show is supplied by Abe, and he's pretty senile so this is worth taking with a grain of salt.

I mean, could they have been more consistent with the show's backstory, absolutely. But what's done is done now, tweaking the history here there and everywhere isn't the end of the world, plus it hardly devalues the show in terms of entertainment value, does it?

If you can't put up with the lack of continuity, then don't watch the show.

The only time a lack of continuity really pissed me off was an episode of the UK sitcom The Royle Family. The main old couple, Jim and Barbara, in the series had been married 28 years when the show started in 1998, but then in 2009 this was all of a sudden bumped up to 50 years. 28 + 11 gives you 39, not 50, no matter what mental gymnastics you do. Funny thing is, if they'd said 40 in 2009, it wouldn't have been that bad. Plus, Barbara was about 50 (going through the menopause) in 1998, meaning she'd have been married at 11 if the '50 years' thing was true, which is plain wrong

 

[D'ohnut King]

Yes, continuity matters to some degree. I get pissed off when there are any blatant continuity errors. But at the same time, by its very nature The Simpsons exists on a "floating timeline", where the series is always set in the present day, yet the characters never age. As such, they sometimes have no choice but to make errors in continuity like showing events in the past taking place at a later date than they did in earlier flashbacks. So while a nice continuity nod here and there is welcome, the very episodic show doesn't depend on continuity the way other shows do (though animated shows in general are usually pretty episodic).