I think Groundskeeper Willie would no longer be voiced by Dan Castellaneta

Status
Not open for further replies.

AnthonyNoHomers70100

Stonecutter
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
1,089
Hi everyone!. I think that Groundskeeper Willie in a future Simpsons episode would be voiced by a Scottish-American actor or a Scottish actor who would taking over the role from Dan Castellaneta. Imagine Groundskeeper Willie voiced by Lewis MacLeod instead of Dan Castellaneta. What would be your opinion about it? Draw your conclusions.
 
Come on! Dan C's voice as Groundskeeper Willie is iconic. Carl, Lou, and Dr. Hibbert just don't sound the same anymore because their new voices sound nothing like the old ones. Also, I think people are getting a little crazy like people are like Harry Shearer can't be Waylon because he isn't gay. People are just reaching for stuff to criticize to start debates/outrages.
 
Come on! Dan C's voice as Groundskeeper Willie is iconic. Carl, Lou, and Dr. Hibbert just don't sound the same anymore because their new voices sound nothing like the old ones. Also, I think people are getting a little crazy like people are like Harry Shearer can't be Waylon because he isn't gay. People are just reaching for stuff to criticize to start debates/outrages.
Mostly agreed. I personally wouldn't want to see Willie's voice changed, it's not like that the character is problematic either.
 
Do people really not grasp the concept that stereotypes of white people aren't even comparable to stereotypes of marginalized groups? Scottish people aren't marginalized so the character of Willie isn't doing any significant harm to Scottish people, unlike Apu who is a caricature of a marginalized group.
 
Well, someday Apu might get a new Indian male voice actor, probably somewhere in either Season 33 or Season 34. Since Apu is no longer voiced by Hank Azaria anymore
 
Last edited:
Hi everyone!. I think that Groundskeeper Willie in a future Simpsons episode would be voiced by a Scottish-American actor or a Scottish actor who would taking over the role from Dan Castellaneta.
Won't happen. Groundskeeper Willie not being voiced by someone with Scottish ancestry doesn't smack of blackface the way white actors voice nonwhite characters does. Also, the more regular characters' voices they replace with actors that don't sound the same, the more people will say, "This isn't The Simpsons any more," and stop watching.

As for Apu, the problem wasn't so much that he wasn't voiced by an Indian actor, but that the character is a stereotype.
 
I don't have any problem with actors of one race playing characters of another. Cree Summer is Penny Gadget and Phil LaMarr is Samurai Jack and I wouldn't want to see either of them replaced because they are the "wrong" race. The Simpsons secondary cast is almost nothing but stereotypes. IMO, there's a line between funny stereotypes and maliciousness/racism/sexism/homophobia. I understand that line is different for everyone.


What would the reaction be if Apu was played by an Indian actor but was written the same way Homer is? Would portraying an Indian as fat, angry, and dumb as a rock be ok?

What would the reaction be if Cletus and his inbred family were any race but white...er...yellow? Is Harry Shearer voicing Dr. Hibbert more offensive than the way poor, uneducated white people are written?



Who is it ok to mock? What race? What religion? What sexual orientation? What political persuasion? To me, it's all or nothing. By being selective in who you are willing to joke about you are engaging in discrimination of a sort. Comedy should be fearless.
 
Last edited:
Won't happen. Groundskeeper Willie not being voiced by someone with Scottish ancestry doesn't smack of blackface the way white actors voice nonwhite characters does. Also, the more regular characters' voices they replace with actors that don't sound the same, the more people will say, "This isn't The Simpsons any more," and stop watching.

As for Apu, the problem wasn't so much that he wasn't voiced by an Indian actor, but that the character is a stereotype.

The thread is because Kumiko Albertson (Comic Book Guy's Japanese wife) now is voiced by a Japanese-American voice actress and not by Tress MacNeille
 
People have become so stupid that don't know the meaning of acting anymore.
What is acting supposed to mean if you can't represent anyone who isn't your same race, sexual preference, etc? Have people really become so damn stupid?
The beauty of acting is that you can represent someone who is a complete opposite from you, even someone with a different gender (men dressing like women or women dressing like men and pretending to be so has been a convention in theatre for centuries).
The thing is Even more stupid when we're talking about voice acting. In a few years rich Hollywood actors won't be able to play poor characters because it would be offensive to a marginalized and looked down group and the industry will be fucked (and believe, it will happen if things continúe as they are now).
 
Setting aside the entire question of who should voice what character, almost none of the voice actors sound the same. If you support the show lasting forever (and even if you don't, that is clearly the plan), all of these actors are going to age and retire or die and be replaced. The voices will change slightly. It's just what it is.

Show someone who hasn't watched an episode in 10 years a clip of Smithers talking to Carl and I guarantee you they'd think both of them were recast, none of these characters sound the same.
 
Do people really not grasp the concept that stereotypes of white people aren't even comparable to stereotypes of marginalized groups? Scottish people aren't marginalized so the character of Willie isn't doing any significant harm to Scottish people, unlike Apu who is a caricature of a marginalized group.

This.

People don't seem to understand that these stereotypes of non-white people stem from a past of discrimination that most white people simply did not come from (with the exception of the Irish, Southern Europeans, and a few others).
 
You can angry at the representation of white people if you want to, just be aware that other groups have had it way rougher primarily because of context.

And for god's sake stop going 'BuT WhAt AbOUt mE!??!' Whataboutism does nothing to help anyone.
 
I find it ironic that in the season where all the non-white characters have been recast and Apu is virtually gone, we got an episode like Yokel Hero. A non-stop 20 minute barrage of the lowest hanging fruit, laziest white Southern hillbilly stereotype "jokes" with zero substance whatsoever. I personally didn't find the episode offensive or felt that it crossed a line (the episode was terrible for the fact that, like I said, the jokes were lazy and easy), but why is that still acceptable when so much of what made The Simpsons "The Simpsons" has now been purged from the show because (according to almost no one) it "hasn't aged well"? Either it's all fair game, or none of it is. I'd prefer "all".

And the argument that "some groups have been more marginalized throughout history, therefore Indian stereotype jokes are off-limits, but Scottish stereotype jokes are fine", doesn't hold much weight if we're meant to be moving towards a place of absolute equality, meaning we should all be equal targets for non-malicious satire, especially when you consider that Apu has always been portrayed in a more positive light than Willie. The Irish were once horribly discriminated against in America (and by the British), but I bet The Simpsons wouldn't hesitate to do another episode like The Father, the Son and the Holy Guest Star or In the Name of the Grandfather, nor should they, because at the end of the day, the power of a cartoon, even one as popular and mainstream as The Simpsons, to do damage to a "marginalized" group with a few off-key jokes is extremely limited. And freedom of expression in art and in comedy is a hill I'm more than willing to die on.

The argument being put forth is that double standards are okay as long as they swing in the politically correct direction. There's also an insidious infantilization of the audience creeping into our entertainment media (and an even more disturbing infantilization of POC and LGBT groups, women, ect.), mainly being directed by the always-lecturing and egotistical Hollywood elite, that believes we cannot handle the slightest hint of "edgy" or "socially challenging" content in the media we consume, and I for one, find that patronizing.
 
On the Simpsons Italians are nearly always criminals, the Irish are drunks who occasionally dress like leprechauns, Christians are loons and hypocrites, and poor whites are inbred trash...and I have no problem with that. Everyone should be fair game. The problem is that isn't what's happening. You are only allowed to mock one race. Why? How is choosing only one race to target not the very definition of discrimination and racism?
 
Last edited:
The age old stereotype that all Scottish people are groundskeepers
 
Have none of y’all talked to a fuckin Irish person their entire identities are about being proud to be drunkards. Same with every like 35+ Italian man thinking they’re a cast member of the sopranos
 
I find it ironic that in the season where all the non-white characters have been recast and Apu is virtually gone, we got an episode like Yokel Hero. A non-stop 20 minute barrage of the lowest hanging fruit, laziest white Southern hillbilly stereotype "jokes" with zero substance whatsoever. I personally didn't find the episode offensive or felt that it crossed a line (the episode was terrible for the fact that, like I said, the jokes were lazy and easy), but why is that still acceptable when so much of what made The Simpsons "The Simpsons" has now been purged from the show because (according to almost no one) it "hasn't aged well"? Either it's all fair game, or none of it is. I'd prefer "all"

We don't live in a black and white society, certain minorities have had worse experiences than others. You can't say 'it's all or nothing' because that implies everyone is already an equal, which isn't true.

And the argument that "some groups have been more marginalized throughout history, therefore Indian stereotype jokes are off-limits, but Scottish stereotype jokes are fine", doesn't hold much weight if we're meant to be moving towards a place of absolute equality, meaning we should all be equal targets for non-malicious satire, especially when you consider that Apu has always been portrayed in a more positive light than Willie.

A positive stereotype still isn't good, because it implies that you, as a member of that group, have certain characteristics that you may not have.
The Indian stereotype that they all own Milk Bars is bad because it implies that every Indian knows how to run a business. Some don't and it would be harmful to assume that they do.


The Irish were once horribly discriminated against in America (and by the British), but I bet The Simpsons wouldn't hesitate to do another episode like The Father, the Son and the Holy Guest Star or In the Name of the Grandfather, nor should they, because at the end of the day, the power of a cartoon, even one as popular and mainstream as The Simpsons, to do damage to a "marginalized" group with a few off-key jokes is extremely limited. And freedom of expression in art and in comedy is a hill I'm more than willing to die on.

That's cool and all but you'd be surprised how much damage stereotypes, again, because it implies traits that not everyone has. You can support freedom of expression, I do too, but I also understand that freedom of expression should not mean freedom of consequences.

The argument being put forth is that double standards are okay as long as they swing in the politically correct direction. There's also an insidious infantilization of the audience creeping into our entertainment media (and an even more disturbing infantilization of POC and LGBT groups, women, ect.), mainly being directed by the always-lecturing and egotistical Hollywood elite, that believes we cannot handle the slightest hint of "edgy" or "socially challenging" content in the media we consume, and I for one, find that patronizing.

Now this is just stupid. You act like the implementation of diverse groups of people is not "socially challenging", when it totally is. People still scream and shout about someone coming out as LGBT, saying they'll stop viewing/listening to their content.

And this 'infantalization' you speak of doesn't exist, you are shitting your pants over the fact that minorities aren't just shoehorned into a stereotypical role.

Put all my arguments in the quote
 
On the Simpsons Italians are nearly always criminals, the Irish are drunks who occasionally dress like leprechauns,
...and I said those were problematic because of the history of oppression that these groups have experienced (Greeks also belong here).
I like how you say I'm a racist (I read your quote before you deleted it) and then lump all white people, ignoring historical context that I pointed out in my post!

Christians are loons and hypocrites, and poor whites are inbred trash...and I have no problem with that. Everyone should be fair game. The problem is that isn't what's happening. You are only allowed to mock one race. Why? How is choosing only one race to target not the very definition of discrimination and racism?
Again, because of historical context.
a
 
We don't live in a black and white society, certain minorities have had worse experiences than others. You can't say 'it's all or nothing' because that implies everyone is already an equal, which isn't true.

I know everyone is not yet on an equal playing field, but that is what we're striving towards/advocating for, and you can't create an equal society by producing media which is unequal in its satirizing of specific groups in an ill-mannered attempt to balance out historical examples of inequality and discrimination. And The Simpsons generally avoided punching down at minorities which had worse historical experiences, barring the lightest of jabs, and then went whole hog with the stereotyping of characters like Willie, Cletus and Fat Tony. They'd already subscribed to this exact mentality, but it still wasn't enough.

A positive stereotype still isn't good, because it implies that you, as a member of that group, have certain characteristics that you may not have. The Indian stereotype that they all own Milk Bars is bad because it implies that every Indian knows how to run a business. Some don't and it would be harmful to assume that they do.

No stereotyping is good, if applied to the real world, but The Simpsons is an adult animated show (at least it was, sometimes HD Simpsons feels like it's made for babies). It is meant to trust that the viewer is mature and educated enough to recognize that the show is not condoning, or advocating for, the stereotyping of any group, and if certain viewers are ignorant enough to make assumptions about any specific group based on something they saw on a satirical adult comedy, then they're the problem. It is not the social responsibility of adult entertainment to placate the sensibilities and/or ignorance of a tiny percentage of their viewership.

That's cool and all but you'd be surprised how much damage stereotypes, again, because it implies traits that not everyone has. You can support freedom of expression, I do too, but I also understand that freedom of expression should not mean freedom of consequences.

I think my last point about trusting in and respecting the intelligence of your audience applies here as well. I'm not saying a show like the Simpsons doesn't have the power to influence on a subconscious level, but they've rarely (if ever) stereotyped anyone in a malicious context (with, arguably, the exception of Brazil). We often ignore context, because it's socially and politically advantageous to do so, but it is relevant, and to pretend it's not is disingenuous.

And I agree that freedom of expression should not mean freedom from consequences, but my idea of consequences in regards to media people consider unacceptable, offensive, problematic, ect., is more along the lines of: freedom to criticize, decline in ratings or bombing at the box off, lost of audience respect, ect. Not outright censorship (Stark Raving Dad comes to mind). I know the producers have taken it upon themselves to implement all of these reason changes and censorship, and it is their right to do so. Some fans are also expressing their right to criticize those decisions as asinine.

Now this is just stupid. You act like the implementation of diverse groups of people is not "socially challenging", when it totally is. People still scream and shout about someone coming out as LGBT, saying they'll stop viewing/listening to their content. And this 'infantalization' you speak of doesn't exist, you are shitting your pants over the fact that minorities aren't just shoehorned into a stereotypical role.

Wow lol. First off I'd like to say that me "shitting my pants" over minorities not being shoehorned into stereotypical roles is a completely baseless, unfair and untrue accusation. Really reaching there. And I don't see why I, or anyone else, would, or should, shit our pants over an increase in shows with diverse casts filling diverse roles. A significant amount of the media I consume does exactly that. Maybe you think people are finding that socially challenging, to me that's just natural progression. I can't say I've seen much pushback against diversity and representation, when it's done right (other than from loud far-right people on 4chan and bitchute, whose opinions basically count for nothing). For example, there's a big difference between the execution of positive representation and inclusivity in critically lauded shows like Community or Steven Universe, and critically panned shows which attempt to earn "woke-points", like (insert any CW show from the last 10 years) or, to use a Simpsons example, Bart vs. Itchy & Scratchy, whose messages have the subtly of a sledge hammer and still completely miss their mark.

Infantalization can be observed across media in many different forms. For example, how modern Simpsons and Family Guy will over-explain their jokes, or how Marvel movies will use appropriate music cues to let you know how you're supposed to be feeling rather than interpreting it for yourself. I used "socially challenging" and "infantalization" mainly in reference to the adult comedy genre. It is my interpretation that there is oftentimes an assumption that the world has become unable to handle offensive humour (in some cases, this is sadly true). This can mean jokes which could be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, violent, vulgar, ect., but ultimately the intent behind them is just to get a laugh, usually a shock laugh, and sometimes, if the joke is smart, they're satirizing the ludicrously of racism itself. Yes, their intent is to offend, but never to insight hatred, and no one's forcing you to watch. You're not meant to take it seriously, that's almost the very definition of what a "joke" is, and comedy is an excellent vehicle for us to deal with and explore difficult and controversial topics in a less serious and more accessible way.

There are some jokes which South Park, Always Sunny and Family Guy made in their heyday which they probably couldn't do anymore. You probably couldn't make a cartoon as offensive as Drawn Together anymore. But many people love those shows, and they love a good offensive joke. There are people across all groups who love a good offensive joke, even if it's at their expense. Sometimes the stereotypes, particularly in adult animation, are taken to such an overly-caricatured and exaggerated extreme that they enter an absurdist realm of humour, because the average intelligent viewer knows that no one like Lu Kim in South Park or Consuela in Family Guy could possibly exist in real life. It's adult comedy. Be adults when you watch it. Be adults in how you react to it. Because honestly, getting offended over edgy humour is the epitome of First World problems.
 
Last edited:
So if having white actors voice non white characters is the equivalent of blackface, how do you guys justify watching the show for the last 30 years? Did you just now figure out that it was racist? If not, why did you watch a racist show for three decades? And if you did just come to the realization that the show is racist, do you still watch and enjoy the old racist seasons? Do you get some sort of special pass to enjoy past racist material if you are woke now?
 
Look I know a lotta babies here are upset that their bottles are being taken away but don’t worry you will grow up one day

Part of critical analysis is to deal with things that haven’t aged well socially or humour wise. It’s not to scream that everything you liked when your mommy was giving you your baba was the best that ever existed and can’t be criticized while coating your golliwog in drool
 
Last edited:
Look I know a lotta babies here are upset that their bottles are being taken away but don’t worry you will grow up one day

Part of critical analysis is to deal with things that haven’t aged well socially or humour wise. It’s not to scream that everything you liked when your mommy was giving you your baba was the best that ever existed and can’t be criticized while coating your golliwog in drool



Ad Hominem:

" This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument."
 
Owned:

“Person who needs to go to dictionary dot com and pull definitions up and thinks that wins them a debate. See NHC user Wonderful Duff as an example. In rare cases some have turned into corn cobs”
 
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to learn how to debate and discuss things like an adult without resorting to childish insults.
 
So if having white actors voice non white characters is the equivalent of blackface, how do you guys justify watching the show for the last 30 years? Did you just now figure out that it was racist? If not, why did you watch a racist show for three decades? And if you did just come to the realization that the show is racist, do you still watch and enjoy the old racist seasons? Do you get some sort of special pass to enjoy past racist material if you are woke now?

not everyone here watched the show since 1989, so you can't really make a point saying "WOW YOU GUYS WATCHED THE SHOW FOR 30 YEARS AND ARE NOW JUST POINTING IT OUT" not all of us are 50 y/o. also ppl who still watch the classic seasons aren't like "WOW YES EVEN IF THIS IS VERY RACIST ITS COMEDY GOLD" loads of people still watch problematic stuff (looney tunes for example) and enjoy it for different other reasons other than it's problematic past like the humor in it. it's baffling to think that if we have a problem with a cartoon character's characteristics we hate the show all together, and get a "special pass" to enjoy older seasons. your pretending that apu was in every single ep in the classic era which is funny. not gonna make an essay about this, and i doubt it'll get through your guys thick skull, but o well
 
Last edited:
Well, if anyone catches me watching a classic era episode with Apu in it, I just flash my Woke Card and I'm forgiven. "I'm watching it ironically, guys..."

But yeah, I agree that criticizing characters like Apu or calling for more non-white voice actors does not mean that you now hate the show and can't watch or enjoy the classic era. I'm not personally passionate about getting non-white characters voiced by non-white actors, but I don't oppose it. No one's asking older episodes to be redubbed. Frankly I'm far more critical of the writers' response to the criticism of Apu, by directly addressing it in an episode, basically telling critics they would do nothing about it then caving and completely phasing Apu out of the show. Such a feckless response.
 
not everyone here watched the show since 1989, so you can't really make a point saying "WOW YOU GUYS WATCHED THE SHOW FOR 30 YEARS AND ARE NOW JUST POINTING IT OUT" not all of us are 50 y/o. also ppl who still watch the classic seasons aren't like "WOW YES EVEN IF THIS IS VERY RACIST ITS COMEDY GOLD" loads of people still watch problematic stuff (looney tunes for example) and enjoy it for different other reasons other than it's problematic past like the humor in it. it's baffling to think that if we have a problem with a cartoon character's characteristics we hate the show all together, and get a "special pass" to enjoy older seasons. your pretending that apu was in every single ep in the classic era which is funny. not gonna make an essay about this, and i doubt it'll get through your guys thick skull, but o well



Wasn't Harry Shearer voicing Dr. Hibbert this year? I mean, if you just started watching the how last week you might have a valid point.

So it's ok to watch things that you consider racist if there are other redeeming qualities? Does that apply to new episodes as well? Is it ok to buy a ticket to see a standup comedian whose every other joke is racist if you only laugh at the non racist ones?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top