Rate & Review: "Not It" (UABF17)

How would you rate this episode?


  • Total voters
    62
Honestly delayed talking about this because I wasnt sure how to feel (though I did enjoy it).

I think you’ve touched on my biggest issue with the episode, John. Quite unlike A Serious Flanders or Pixelated and Afraid, Not It has much clunkier dialogue that draws far too much attention to itself. The characters talk in ways that aren’t naturalistic and it pulls me out of the story. Mike Amato astutely describes it as the characters ‘play-acting’ which undermines the reality and gravity of the story. It’s surprising if only because the show has been veering away from this kind of dialogue writing in the last few years (to its immense benefit).
Moe interrupting the cutaway definitely took me out of it, and while I did find a lot of the other obvious stuff like pause for tention and "I like this for some reason" less annoying but still noticable, I get the feeling that the writers probably thought that since it was a less serious story than Pixelated and Afraid or Serious Flanders, they were more willing to lean on genre conventions and be a bit less rigid in how grounded it should be. I wouldnt necessarily call it a bad thing, though it is a choice that I'd say I understand people thinking hurt the episode, like giving Boyz in the Highlandz a B-plot. It's easier to add self aware comedy to a horror story and make it work but there arent many places to add that to prestige TV.

I didnt really mind the self aware dialogue in the episode, but I was really thrown off by the fact that the episode was more interested in telling an emotional story about a love triangle than actually being scary, and that different expectation made watching it weird, even if what they did was fine, and it was nice to see the alternate future.

Its a weird conclusion to make, but I almost feel like this is a really good episode if you really just look at the It parody as just the backdrop for this AU story and not something to really focus on, but that sounds like a failure of a ToH if you're supposed to look at it that way. Taking everything into account you end up focusing on the fact that it's not an execution you'd expect. That being said Im still giving it a 4/5 because I really cant call this episode bad, just not what I'd have wanted.
 
Yeah, Moe interrupting the cut is part of the problem with the episode: For a Halloween episode, the episode doesn't do enough to engage with the parody angle, and thus the episode never does enough for take it seriously and care about the characters. Things like self-aware dialogue counteract a lot of the moments that are supposed to be seen as something serious or something for the characters to worry about.

Also apart from the fact that they made not the bad but questionable decision to also adapt the second part of 'It' which makes the story paralyzed by and the episode suffers from a much more frenetic pace and sometimes the flow feels quite clunky and random. There is also the fact that the episode diverts all its attention on the love triangle which would not be a bad idea if it were not because it neglects the losers club which is the main core of the story that they are adapting and therefore makes you never worry about Carl and Moe at all because they're just there to fill in the gap, heck, even the alternate versions of Bart and Lisa had a better role in this story than the other two.
I think you’ve touched on my biggest issue with the episode, John. Quite unlike A Serious Flanders or Pixelated and Afraid, Not It has much clunkier dialogue that draws far too much attention to itself. The characters talk in ways that aren’t naturalistic and it pulls me out of the story. Mike Amato astutely describes it as the characters ‘play-acting’ which undermines the reality and gravity of the story. It’s surprising if only because the show has been veering away from this kind of dialogue writing in the last few years (to its immense benefit).
The scene of Kang and Kodos at the end is an excellent example of the self-awareness that this episode had, in the end the effort and the threat are neutralized by an even greater one and in the end it ends up wasting its non-canonical scenario. We knew Homer and Marge would end up together in the end, we knew Comic Book Guy would end up sacrificing himself, there was never enough time to worry about Moe and Carl and Bart and Lisa come out of the whole situation unscathed and just end up being the damsels in distress. Unlike 'A Serious Flanders' there is nothing that sets it apart from a normal episode (apart from the Krusto element) and thus makes the whole thing sound flat and unambition.
 
Last edited:
Actually I will say all the explicit Stephen King references felt a little overdone, even as someone who has only watched maybe one King movie. As far as I'm aware his movies do reference his other work so its expected but this episode was already short on time and already battling with other jokes that are distracting, so that was a bit much on top of it.
 
Last edited:
Hoping to see some GIFs eventually, such as for his slapstick/pratfall routine in the climax of the first half: I loved that bit when he's beating himself up and there's some real wacky Tex Avery-esque stuff going on. That was a lot of fun.
Ask and you shall receive...

kR5ITDr.gif
 
Mazariegos revealed on Twitter that initially, the ending didn't involve Kang and Kodos but directly the menaces from other King books appearing in Kingfield after the characters think they're safe now. Like, we would've seen a mist slowly covering Kingfield, Carrie coming out of a school, Christine on the street, etc. (They didn't do it because they thought of the pain in the butt it would've been for the animators.) Somehow, I'm glad we got Kang and Kodos instead. But again, it shows that they had trouble to make up their mind regarding the tone (although the idea of the actual ending amuses me... Just thinking of Kang and Kodos randomly picking a King book to chose what they're gonna destroy humanity with is good for a chuckle, aha. Plus I believe Pennywise does come from outer space in the book.)
 
Eh, "A Serious Flanders" part one is still the king of annoying self-referential dialogue that breaks the story. Maybe the ones in Not It slipped my notice (other than near the start) because they were little lines here and there and not a several minute scene of Comic Book Guy pointing out how boring and cliche two of the three major characters are...

I mean with Not It I could still actually get into the story even if it wasn't that great, the CBG scene in ASF just reminded me that I'm watching an edgy fanfic that has a budget. And this was a case of a one-timer taking up most of the real estate that I was actually okay with. Krusto really stole the show and was a thousand times more engaging and interesting than Kostas with a fraction of the runtime. It's just a shame he was the only particularly interesting part of it.

... okay yeah I did say the original (mainly, the miniseries) is funnier but also if I'm being fair, how can anyone compete with Tim Curry?
 
i was surprisingly pretty entertained with the first act with them as kids, then it got pretty boring on part 2 and just reminded me of that THOH with marge marrying artie ziff, the characters like jimbo dying made me laugh pretty hard. 3/5
 
The scene of Kang and Kodos at the end is an excellent example of the self-awareness that this episode had, in the end the effort and the threat are neutralized by an even greater one and in the end it ends up wasting its non-canonical scenario.

I have all the more been thinking on the rather obvious metafictional aspect of the episode, with the fairly blatant way they were leaning on the fourth wall, often winking at the audience and in regards to the self-aware stuff such as the dialogue going a bit too far making us aware they're really not taking it too seriously, & as a result we got that whole ending with Kang & Kodos that did feel like were really making it obvious that "This was totally an extended Treehouse' segment! Therefore lets have good ol' Kang & Kodos making an appearance & break the fourth wall with their Stephen King book collection!". I wouldn't say I hated it or anything, but it felt like they should've been less meta.

That alternate ending you just posted about @Wile E. the Brain (that with 'Not It' turning out being part of a shared Stephen King universe, sort of) sounds like it could've been neat & taking more of a wildly goofy & creative direction than settling for Kang & Kodos (whom all in all felt like the much safer, less risky bet). It sure does reveal more of the crew's unsurety, but I still won't lie and say the ending with Kang & Kodos browsing their collection wasn't something I found a little amusing so no harm done.
 
Last edited:
This is a trap the show's modern writers tend to fall into quite a bit. The Del Toro THOH opening was great... but that was largely due to the animation quality, the genuine creepiness of it all and the atmosphere. It wasn't because "they referenced all of the Del Toro shit" and, even then, at least they had the director's involvement in it to properly treat it with care.

When they did the Clockwork Orange segment, they had to reference all the Kubrick things.
Now when they parody Stephen King's It, they have to reference all of the King things.

Perhaps it's my aversion to list jokes creeping back up on me, but I'd rather these homages be self-contained or at least not knowingly latch on to a "quantity vs. quality" mindset when it comes to all of these references. A number of the Disney and Star Wars D+ shorts fall into the same trap. It's all about how many references they can cram in instead of making them impactful or clever.

I'm not going to hold modern Simpsons up to a Classic era standard, but the one thing the Classic era did that was so artful is how many different things they found to reference in an episode from a VARIETY of sources that either complimented one another or worked effectively within the story. Last Exit to Springfield, Itchy & Scratchy Land... even Deep Space Homer, which kept things under a loose "sci-fi" umbrella... being three such examples of this.
 
Honestly the ending scene with Kang & Kodos wasn't really all that funny (more eye roll worthy really), but it's the lesser of two evils compared to what could've been.
 
In all fairness about the Clockwork segment, at least they kept all their Kubrick references for the end in one big crazy sequence combining all of them to the extreme, each scene referencing a different movie from the previous one, and also involving Comic Book Guy evoking that... And then Kubrick himself, just deciding to go back to square one with that shit. I thought it was a fun case because of how unapologetically over the top it was. However, I do agree that this "list jokes" tendancy kinda needs to die... It often happens even in the best modern Halloween segments (Dial M...). I don't mind when it's for subtle easter eggs, but it needs to be handle more organically... and yeah, with more versatility.
 
However, I do agree that this "list jokes" tendancy kinda needs to die... It often happens even in the best modern Halloween segments (Dial M...). I don't mind when it's for subtle easter eggs, but it needs to be handle more organically... and yeah, with more versatility.

I generally pretty much despise list jokes (The way Jean tends to do them is one of my biggest grievances with modern Simpsons; they go on forever and fill up time) and modern 'Treehouse's are guilty of them for sure (I agree about several parody segments shoving in as many related references to the subject matter and/or its originator possible: It just becomes too much), but sometimes I think they're done OK, such as Kang & Kodos in this episode with them going through the King bookshelf (I think that one could've been a lot worse) but yeah, it would probably be for the best if they retired the list joke as it rarely, if ever, truly works.
 
Last edited:
This kept reminding me of another King adaptation....THE BLUNDER YEARS. Only it wasn't the least bit funny. King sucks btw. I'd have liked a really mean takedown of IT if we absolutely had to have a fucking episode based on those stupid Krusty tattoos, but of course the show is just fanservice now. And look, the work of uncompensated fan artists at the end! Eat my shorts, Matt Selman.

Thank god this wasn't a boring 2 parter. Classic Simps nailed The Shining in like 6 minutes, why would they need 40 minutes to do a decent parody of something? Do we want Family Guy-type cosplay specials?

0/5
 
Last edited:
Do we want Family Guy-type cosplay specials?
Actually Family Guy did do a three segment episode on King stories which was actually good. There version of The Body (Stand By Me) was done good. Except Peter makes a comment about the thugs getting even. In the book they did. They beat the shit out of them. However, I can see your point about turning into Family Guy episodes.
 
Okay looking back, saw a minor thing which I guess I'm taking as a gag. When Marge says she's so proud of one of things her kids did, Lissie (Lizzie? Fuck it, it's Lisa) does a little not-quite thumbs-up as if she though Marge was talking about her even though Marge is looking at Bart. It's a neat little thing I missed the first time around and I wouldn't complain if there were more bits like that going forward. Y'know, get some characterization through without even needing dialogue n' all.
Vsnp-2022-10-27-10h17m39s791.jpg
 
Well, better late than never. I'm probably gonna repeat some things I've already said, but anyhow, here's my take on the episode...

I'd consider this special 'Treehouse of Horror' a neat effort. Dedicating a full episode's length to what is essentially a 'Treehouse' segment parody on Stephen King's 'It' was interesting and I think the build-up and hype it got paid off nicely. It did well styling the characters & Springfield to mirror the original King story (which pits a group of outsiders, here Homer & Co, against an evil clown with magical powers, here Krusto, who kidnaps and eats children), focused on story over jokes (sure, there were jokes, but I liked they didn't come at the expense of the plot) & was neatly visual with a lot of great animation work (Krusto might just be one of the most well-animated individual characters I've seen recently), plus combining both style and substance with a genuine creep factor. It is not an excellent episode as I felt it had some issues (such as the directing being a little flat and straightforward sans Krusto) & some of the dialogue and pacing felt a bit wonky (but not enough to bring it all down), but it still was quite the enjoyable & entertaining Halloween story.

First off, as this is a direct parody, there's not an original story to go through bit by bit, but I will say they already had it open with a really nicely directed hook of Barney (as a child) getting attacked by Krusto through the drain, combining the expressive animation with some light jokes & dark overtones. It got into the story pretty well afterwards, setting up young Homer as the lead, the multiple missing children, Krusto appearing before Homer & the bullies ("Super intense kid Chalmers" was a lame joke but made me laugh, as did the bit where they all bounce down the hill after Homer) that lead to Homer meeting the rest of the Loser's Club (Marge, Moe, Carl & Comic Book Guy). From a story perspective it made sense having Homer, Marge, etc. as leads, considering the story skip nearly 30 years into the future halfway into the plot (Adult Bart, Lisa & the rest of Springfield Elementary as adults would've been neat instead, but I still liked what we got. Felt like the other way around would've been a little easier) and i already felt the animation & music added to the atmosphere.

The story moved fairly briskly with its parody plot (but almost a little too briskly as it came off as a little surface-level and rhapsodic at times): The bit with group telling about their sightings of Krusto was enjoyable (the stories were amusing without losing that dark edge), I liked the library scene (that set up the love subplot) but a missed opportunity to have Krusto appear (not even a cameo like in the 2017 It movie) the garage scene with the discovery of Krusto's origin (a failed unfunn TV comedian) was a good one (combining the fun with the scary, with Krusto coming out of the TV). The showdown with Krusto at the abandoned TV studio was neat (due to the excellent animation of Krusto's pratfalls leading to his defeat). The love triangle with Homer & Marge & CBG I could take or leave (it's there in the original story, but I guess it's my general dislike of love triangles that gets in the way), but I still find it was done well (and I liked it established some sort of connection between Homer & Marge, but CBG being a jelaous douche causing drama was a little too much for me, lol).

The second half I was a little worried about (as I remembered that when I saw the original 1990 miniseries, I felt the adults' segment was inferior to the kids' segment) but I think they handled it well all things considered: More good jokes & references here and there, some neat horror moments (and it's been a while since we got anything as graphic as Jimbo's death, I'm sure) & I liked the role reversals such as Homer being the bartender of the Tavern & Bart and Lisa (still Marge's children but with CBG) were extreme opposites (Bart the well-behaved nerd who does great in school & Lisa a punk delinquent skater, but they were very flat & stereotypical parodies, to beh onest. I blame the 22 min runtime) & I liked Moe being a famous rocker-slash-ventriloquist (ironic as Krusto had appeared before him as a ventriloquist dummy, that has to be intentional I'm guessing); I expected some joke at how all of them sav one got extremely successful (always struck me as unconvincing in the source), but I still liked it (and I suspect Carl being an astronaut was a subtle jab at that aspect).

Their reunion was done well, I enjoyed their interactions & I liked the final showdown with the group and Krusto in his cave (and the rescue of Bart & Lisa), which more of that good horror atmosphere and expressive animation (and CBG sacrificed himself for his friends & admitted passing off Homer's love letter as his own to win Marge, so the love triangle paid off in spite of it making me roll my eyes. I did find the last part of it funny, with how he really had expected some 30 years of keeping her in the dark to be forgiven due to his sacrifice but nope, she would'nt have it; he got what he deserved). Nice ending too with the bicycling scene (with Homer finally being with Marge), plus the extended end with Kang & Kodos observing from their flying saucer (gotta have them) & planning which Stephen King adaption to do next was surprisingly amusing (them saying 'Tommyknockers' over and over an OK overly long gag). Still, I'm a little disappointed it felt rather straightforward, being a beat for beat parody with no real surprises other than Krusto and his animation: Felt like he was treated as the most important thing & the rest felt, well, kinda standard, straightforward 'It' parodying. I think they could've done more

Overall, despite issues I found it entertaining. The first half was stronger, but I also liked the second half. It told the story well, there were good jokes (even Homer commenting how he essentially lives on Reddit made me chuckle), it kept that dark tone & horror style throughout (even having some gruesome kills) and there wasn't anything I actively disliked. That said, it did have issues: Several missed opportunities, the humor felt a bit sparse and unimaginiative (even kinda samey and overexplained at times), the pacing felt wonky, the love triangle & angst drama was overdone & got too much attention (I honestly barely cared about that; shows how hard it is to do love triangles in media, especially keeping them from overtaking the main conflict) & that direction and script felt a little bit flat-ish aside from Krusto was involved (Dean Moore did well, but I feel he could've done more and been more creative: Why not add more effect & details like lighting, shadows, special angles, fog/mist effects, etc? And have more flexible animation besides Krusto? Lots of pretty static scenes, even in the action felt kinda flat (sans Krusto, again). It should've been more creatie, lively and vibrant, something I felt was missing.

4/5 (rounded up from 3.5/5), I give this. A reasonably well made episode with a good 'Treehouse of Horror' style, tone & atmosphere all the way through, a well told parody with great voiceacting and nice characterizations, good creepy stuff (also hthe cavalcade of creepy Krusty fan art during the credits) & a bunch of good jokes plus that amazing animation for Krusto, but yeah, it was a little underwhelming: The direction the writingcould've been a lot better better and smoothed out (I expected a leaner, more eyecatching and interesting episode aside from our villain, whom is among the better 'Treehouse' antagonists; the way they handled him and his animation was splendid) and bits & pieces felt a little stilted (and I'd have liked less metafictional mooments). It really felt they held back at times (and 'It' was probably a bit hefty for adapting into just a 22 minute episode). Despite the problems I had with it, it was still enjoyable & I wouldn't mind if they did another extended Stephen King parody story in the future. I just hope for someyhing more consistent.
 
Last edited:
When I was 12, two of my favorite things were The Simpsons and It, and a mash-up would've been the most exciting thing in the world. Unfortunately, instead of doing it back then when The Simpsons was in their youthful prime, they waited almost 27 years when the show might be too old to pull it off... But since it did finally happen, I'll jot down some thoughts.

I kinda like that the episode is not that true to the source material. It mostly resembles the Muschietti films, but even then most of the time just vaguely and visually (with exception of the opening paper boat scene, which is a literal reskin). Other than that they take a few story points, themes, visual cues and set pieces as inspiration, but turn it into their own thing with its own lore. I commend them for that. It makes the story fresher. If the whole episode had been like the opening, only copying shots from the movie and adding some weird self-aware dialogue (which still plagues the episode throughout), it would've been insufferable. It is when they occasionally do feel the need for the parody to somewhat resemble It in places, that things actually get confusing. They drag in stuff like Krusto taking the shapes of the characters' fears that doesn’t really match with their original ideas like Krusto feeding on laughter. It muddles the mythology. Why are some of the attacks clown jokes gone wrong, in line with Krusto trying to gather an audience to feed on laughter, but then others are spooky monster attacks? Keep it consistent. They do make some smart streamlining cuts, like reducing the amount of characters to 5, but they could've narrowed things down more.

Instead, they add even more of their own ideas to the mix. Some of which contradicting the source material. Like the Losers having kids. And the love triangle drama. That rivalry between the boys doesn't exist in the book, and Bev knows Ben wrote the poem. In the end King even leaves it ambiguous whether they actually fall for each other and end up together as adults. I understand the need to add some human element. But this just adds more (cliché) conflict and themes where there already is plenty. By just focusing on the characters’ fears, there’s enough there to explore as a character study and give the story an emotional core. Who knows, we might actually feel a bond between these kids, and some urgency to have to fight Krusto and return as adults. It might even let the horror - and comedy - breathe. This is THOH after all, we mainly came here for scares ‘n giggles.

Structurally, the book isn't split into two parts. King interweaves the past and the present, and the climaxes happen simultaneously. The adaptations, and thus this episode, make the mistake of separating the kids' and adults' parts into two halves. You're just watching the same story twice without them adding to each other. The first climax comes halfway through and then the same climax happens again at the end, automatically rendering the second part a pointless sequel. It undermines the unraveling of the mystery of the entity, but also the themes of remembering childhood (trauma). I wish they had taken the opportunity to interweave the past and present instead. It creates a much more fun and engaging way of storytelling (think the Futurama flashback episodes) and exploring the duality of childhood and adulthood, which in itself already packs more than enough emotion if exploited well.

Serving the parody of a popular work while trying to do your own spin on the material; horror and comedy AND drama; having 1100 pages worth of ideas and themes to choose from - this was a tough 20 minute act to balance from the start. As a complete package I don't think they pull it off. It feels rushed, overstuffed and confused. But… understandably so. You can take an It parody in many direction. I think they needed to make more clear choices: stick to closely parodying the source material or go all the way and make it even more ’Not It’. Try to do both and then some, and you’re cramming in way too much story.

I did enjoy some individual aspects. The moments where they go all out on capturing King’s visually gnarly horrors, or the atmosphere of his New England towns. The direction successfully creates an unsettling mood at times. Some great and interesting animation in many places, though sloppy in others. I think @Ryan mentioned on Discord that Simpsons' current animation is strangely uneven. This episode showcases that perfectly. And although there’s an overabundance of self-aware meta humor I’m tired of, it does actually pack a decent amount of laughs, like the death of children being part of the town’s every day routines and conversation. I even enjoyed Kang & Kodos committing to the word ‘Tommyknockers’ like that.

I don't know, I'd probably give it a 2.5/5. I'll float it up to a 3/5 instead of sinking it into the sewers.
 
Last edited:
@Matty So what you're saying is that the whole romance love triangle which I couldn't give two shits about, takes up a good part of the second half and is largely why I just lost interest during the latter half wasn't even part of the original book (and I'm assuming not in either the miniseries or duology)? Well, talk about a case of them taking creative liberties and it not working.
 
@John95 It's present in the sense that Ben has a crush on Bev, and Bev has a crush on Bill. It just never creates conflict, because their tight friendship overrides it; creates understanding rather than friction (which is of importance in the source material).

There's no conflict in the mini-series either. The group has a falling out in the 2017 movie, but it's over Bill's obsession putting them in danger and rather pointless because it's resolved immediately after.
 
I didn't remember it too well, but watching the love triangle melodrama of the episode did feel a little weird as if it was not true to the source material and @Matty (who seem like a knowledgeable superfan of 'It') really spelled it out in his review that it's a construct of the episode (which I knew took some creative liberties).

Anyhow, The fact that the original book nor TV/Film adaptions had that love triangle drama bullcrap makes the fact they chose to pursue that in this direction (and base much of the main conflict around it, treading into making the Krusto conflict play second fiddle to it) seem even more odd and a little time-wasting.

I didn't remember it from the miniseries or the 2017 film and liked that in those (haven't read the book, btw) they didn't create a conflict centered around any love drama, but yet in this episode, they built up so much about it (to really play out in the second half of the episode) and it just never truly worked for me. I wished they'd have some other conflict in the group and resolved it early on instead of dedicating much time to this triangle drama.

Structurally, the book isn't split into two parts. King interweaves the past and the present, and the climaxes happen simultaneously. The adaptations, and thus this episode, make the mistake of separating the kids' and adults' parts into two halves. You're just watching the same story twice without them adding to each other. The first climax comes halfway through and then the same climax happens again at the end, automatically rendering the second part a pointless sequel. It undermines the unraveling of the mystery of the entity, but also the themes of remembering childhood (trauma). I wish they had taken the opportunity to interweave the past and present instead. It creates a much more fun and engaging way of storytelling (think the Futurama flashback episodes) and exploring the duality of childhood and adulthood, which in itself already packs more than enough emotion if exploited well.

I'm not against the approach of splitting the story into two parts for an audiovisual adaption.

Sometimes interweaving/intercutting the past and present in a story can work well (and even increase the enjoyment of the story, maybe making it more intriguing), but sometimes it might not work out (sometimes it can get a little messy and confusing, with some adaptions coming off as convoluted). It really depends on the source material and what might be the best for the general audience & as far as 'It' adaptions goes, I think making it into two parts isn't a bad idea, maybe especially as a lengthy story could be a little much for most to view as one really long story bouncing between two different timeframes.

I think sort of an inverse of Stephen King's 'It' book is the second part of the 'Lord Of The Rings' trilogy, 'The Two Towers', where JRR Tolkiens book originally had the story split into two halves (the first part of the book following Aragorn, Legolas & Gimli while the second half goes back and tells about the journey of Frodo, Sam & Gollum). For Peter Jackson's film adaption, they chose to have them intervowen by cutting between them (a natural change for film audiences), but I dunno, 'It' is a 1000+ page complete one-piece story and not a trilogy so I feel splitting it into two parts for their adaption is understandable & easier, but I digress.

Although, there seem to be some problems getting 'It' right. Seems like with both the miniseries & the two films, the second part fall short (the adult half always seem to be the hardest to get right) and with 'Not It', the second half also has similar problems, though here they are mostly due to the established made up love melodrama but even more so due to the overall length of the episode: Had they dedicated 22 minutes to each part of the story, they could have made it work.

Maybe I'm just writing a lot of nonsense, but there you go...
 
Last edited:
This episode clearly has some issues, I could adjust my rating for the poll but I think on the night I watched it I was expecting something much worse. I expected them to fall into the common traps of modern Simpsons. There's obvious fan service in a thematic episode such as this one but it still retained the Simpsons essence IMO. I would rate it down but where the episode succeeds is more important to me than where it fails.

@Brad Lascelle brought up the umbrella sci-fi parodies such as Itchy and Scratchy Land , There's myriad influences in that episode, Disney, obviously, a little bit of Jurassic park and skull island, culminating in a westworld parody. I think Westworld and Futureworld were as far removed from this episode as this episode is from the Westworld reboot, I can imagine a modern simpsons take on this episode doing the Westworld parody by the numbers and they'd probably turn it into a precocious Bart romance episode.

I think one of the qualities I miss from the 90s writer is their Pop Culture obsession, timely or not. Sometimes all you need is a wink. I think part of why I enjoyed Lisa's Belly so much is because of the outsiders references and the hair musical number.
 
Last edited:
When they did the Clockwork Orange segment, they had to reference all the Kubrick things.
Now when they parody Stephen King's It, they have to reference all of the King things.

Perhaps it's my aversion to list jokes creeping back up on me, but I'd rather these homages be self-contained or at least not knowingly latch on to a "quantity vs. quality" mindset when it comes to all of these references. A number of the Disney and Star Wars D+ shorts fall into the same trap. It's all about how many references they can cram in instead of making them impactful or clever.
I also think they should not overuse the reference quantity. I don't mind the ending, but it's not too bad either. The alternative ending with all the other things coming to Kingfield would not have fit fine with the rest of the episode. It would have been similiar to one of the THOH openings with all kind of horror movie monsters & characters in Springfield.

I think the Clockwork Orange segment used it's references pretty well to be honest. When they get to the Eyes wide shut part, the rest blend fine enough. I also don't think they will ever make a THOH segment from rest of the Kubrick movies, so there was their chance.
 
I'm not against the approach of splitting the story into two parts for an audiovisual adaption.

Sometimes interweaving/intercutting the past and present in a story can work well (and even increase the enjoyment of the story, maybe making it more intriguing), but sometimes it might not work out (sometimes it can get a little messy and confusing, with some adaptions coming off as convoluted). It really depends on the source material and what might be the best for the general audience & as far as 'It' adaptions goes, I think making it into two parts isn't a bad idea, maybe especially as a lengthy story could be a little much for most to view as one really long story bouncing between two different timeframes.

I think sort of an inverse of Stephen King's 'It' book is the second part of the 'Lord Of The Rings' trilogy, 'The Two Towers', where JRR Tolkiens book originally had the story split into two halves (the first part of the book following Aragorn, Legolas & Gimli while the second half goes back and tells about the journey of Frodo, Sam & Gollum). For Peter Jackson's film adaption, they chose to have them intervowen by cutting between them (a natural change for film audiences), but I dunno, 'It' is a 1000+ page complete one-piece story and not a trilogy so I feel splitting it into two parts for their adaption is understandable & easier, but I digress.

Although, there seem to be some problems getting 'It' right. Seems like with both the miniseries & the two films, the second part fall short (the adult half always seem to be the hardest to get right) and with 'Not It', the second half also has similar problems, though here they are mostly due to the established made up love melodrama but even more so due to the overall length of the episode: Had they dedicated 22 minutes to each part of the story, they could have made it work.

Sure it can work. But I think in the case of It is is precisely why the second part falls short. By splitting up the two timelines, you are removing the themes of connection between childhood and adulthood, and remembering childhood (trauma). There's no longer a point to having the adult part of the story, it just becomes "we have to beat the Eldritch clown again".

I don't know if I'm in favor of them doing more non-canon two parters. Feels like at that point they should just create a new show if they want to put more effort into those than canon Simpsons.
 
I actually sent away for the list of winners' names...and it arrived today.

As I expected, it's the same "first name, last initial, city and state" list that somebody from the show put on Twitter.
 
Liked the first half, second seemed to be a bit too preoccupied with the alternate continuity stuff. B-
 
It's interesting that after all these years they finally made 22-minute Treehouse segment... But that's about it. I'm not familiar with It so I guess most of the jokes flew over my head, but the story itself was alright, I just think that it would work better as a standard segment than as a whole episode. I've seen much worse episodes this season but it's still pretty dissapointoing when you compare this one to the last Mazariegos episode .
3/5
 
The episode plot is divided to 2 components: the patody-style writing and "forget it came from THOH" storyline. The writing was, honestly, weak. The smiles-caused lines are too forced - "accordings to the genre" and parody on it (not It, but just it word). There weren't felt any lightless and relax in writing - surely the staff worked hard on this detail parody, but I saw just that "making for making".

Now to the second thing - "forget it came from THOH" storyline. Complexly, the story about true and false love (also with parody lines, but let's leave thay), with time jump, alternative future (if that episode is whole non canon, so alternative to WHAT?🤔) etc. It was nice. Really nice story with emotional, at least, ending.

With weak plot, but some of jokes, parodying they or no, worked. Yeah, sure there are moments worked😏. The biggest laugh I had over: a) Lenny and Moleman while Carl the astronaut, but "oath is overall"😄 and b) Kang and Kodos and more Steven King.

Animation wasn't very special as well, but Krusto had interesing movements to animate.

The art of people in closing credits is forever in the Simpsons history :thumbsup:

plot 15/25
absurdity level (the possibility of what is happening and whether I liked it) 21/25
comedy 13/25
originality (level of references and whether I liked them) 22/25

TOTAL 71/100 (strong 3/5, or C+). STRONG!
 
Back
Top