Regretted Episodes Of The Cast & Crew

Al Jean is full of shit for saying that.

Personally, I never believed that MJ molested children, but let's play devil's advocate and say that he did. Why would the show turn a blind eye to it for so many years? The first set of allegations came out in 1993, and the second batch a decade later. If they wanted to ban the episode then, they could have. Especially since MJ was one of the easiest targets in pop culture at that particular time. Instead, when he died in 2009, they went out of their way to air the episode again in his honor. Ten years later, a sensationalist documentary comes out involving people who had previously said Michael never did anything to them, directed by someone who admitted to presenting everything in a one-sided way, and they're quick to push the button on taking the episode out of circulation.

No one gave a fuck about the Simpsons crew and what they would do about the episode. If there was any kind of uproar, I could see why Al and Matt and James would feel the need to do something about it. But more people were upset that the episode got banned at all. They didn't do anything about the Apu controversy when their backs were against the wall, saying they'll get to it when they get to it and not understanding why an actual Indian person would have an issue with that character in our current climate. But since Leaving Neverland is hot news, why not jump on the bandwagon and act like we're taking a stand on something when nobody was asking them about it? Honestly, the whole situation was gross to me and it still is.
I've got to admit that the timeline for "Stark Raving Dad" was kind of wacky, considering that it wasn't pulled out of circulation before when these child abuse allegations were revealed in the first place.

And by the way, Al Jean was full of shit when he said that this episode would've been used to groom out boys. Like, what the fuck was that?! I also honestly don't think I really believe that Michael Jackson really technically sexually molested nor abused children either. I wonder if that came from Jackson being abused by his father, Joe, during rehearsals in his childhood.

Anyways, I think Leaving Neverland was horrible because if you're respecting him or a fan of his, you will have an emotional mood swing with anger and controlling decisions. All because of this documentary, it almost ruined his legacy, and it causes media backlash full of craziness. It's horrible to know that "Stark Raving Dad" was pulled out because it's a classic episode that people, including Simpson fans, can enjoy. Getting this pulled out was kind of a weak straw, as it would still be in Season 3 DVD releases before it was reprinted to not include the episode, yet the original Season 3 DVDs would still be on marketplaces, such as Ebay.

And sorry if it felt warped, I'm getting a little bit tired.
 
Jean definitely only said that to save face, which is why his speculation makes no sense and is completely unsubstantiated. Whether you believe Michael's innocent or not it makes no sense on every single level, and pulling Stark Raving Dad wouldn't do anything to help victims anyway. It's time to end this nonsense. Put the episode back in circulation.

I'm curious what Reiss thought about that statement. Maybe he found it completely baffling as well, but decided not to comment since he doesn't want to get involved.
 
I don't understand why they're still keeping both episodes that Ted Nugent guest starred in when he has recently had child sexual abuse accusations made against him (among them Courtney Love is one accuser) not to mention long before that there was that incident with that 17-year-old native Hawaiian Pele Massa where he sidestepped the law regarding age of marriage/consent by getting her parents to sign documents giving him legal custody of her.
That bothers me as well, considering that Courtney Love performed sex with him when she was 12 (later revealed as 14). I mean, it's that horrible to think about it.

From what I can write, I think it is possibly because it is either that the child abuse allegations are not as big as Michael Jackson's, as he is the King of Pop, or it's that the staff don't seem to care about it unless the media backlash was so huge that they have a force to try to handle things by cancelling it. Besides, the episodes that he guest starred in are all Al Jean era episodes ("I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird Sings?" and "Politically Inept, with Homer Simpson"). It could be both, but chances of getting these episodes banned are pretty low for right now. You may never know what's going to happen.
 
Banning episodes is stupid. Period. There should be freedom in consuming whatever you feel like watching. If you can't watch that episode anymore because of a certain guest star, simply just avoid it?
At least there is freedom on "Stark Raving Dad" by watching it on a pre-2019 Season 3 DVD.
 
Last edited:
I never felt like acknowledging the critisism of Apu had to lead to the show removing him. I'm not going to discount how the person felt about it and that whole discussion has a lot of different aspects to it I'm not too focused on, but one thing I always thought about was that while the discussion about him being a stereotype was going on, his most recent episode was Covercraft which I felt made the idea that his character was focused on just stereotypes less convincing.

Simpsons is in a position few shows find themselves in, where since its 33 years old the times change and it affects the show, the most obvious I think is I have to assume Homer choking Bart being slowly phased out was deliberate. A lot of things will end up being re-examined, though I feel like they basically just removed him to avoid further controversy, which felt uneccesary (and I also assumed he was coming back). Also reminds me of how Star Trek just pretends Pike wasnt surprised to see a woman on the bridge since by now that line makes no sense.
 
Homer's Enemy is a masterpiece tbh, if I were to describe the current era of the show one, way I'd do so is to say it's like the people who made Homer's Enemy and Behind the Laughter got to take over the show. I guess in that sense I can understand why some people really dont like the current version of the show.

I think that if any show had the type of episodes like 'Behind The Laughter' and 'Homer's Enemy' it'd have a lot of critics who couldn't stand it in the end. A show can only have so many experimental episodes before it gets too much.

'Enemy' is indeed an experimental episode and they way they did it with the "Ordinary go-getter guy, seemingly coming from the real world, inserted into Springfield" approach with a lot of dry observational & also dark humor worked in it's favor. It was not a sign of what to come on the Scully era nor was it a "dead on arrival" premise, but an example of the show doing something different, deconstructing the show and showing how absurd and unrealistic it is & the titular enemy being sort of a POV character (which I think makes a case for some characters, such as Homer, being exaggerated). I understand why some don't respond kindly to such a dark and mean episode, but let's not kid ourself that it's one of the very worst the show has to offer, especially not now when wer're 30+ seasons in with a ton of awful soulless HD episodes.

This does make me wonder about something I read about on TVtropes (of all places): Is the episode really only accessible to long-time viewers or is it a hit with newcomers too? I'd like to think the latter, but with how a lot of younger viewers often react negatively to mean-spirited episodes in general (which I can sympathize with) I'm thinking that it and it's popularity will be lost on many.
 
Last edited:
Catching up with the thread and I have a lot I want to say regarding mainly Jackson & Apu, but also regarding Homer's Enemy too.

First, Homer's Enemy:

but with how a lot of younger viewers often react negatively to mean-spirited episodes in general (which I can sympathize with) I'm thinking that it and it's popularity will be lost on many.
That is something I have noticed a lot lately myself, I remember having a conversation with someone regarding "Homer the Great" and the person was saying they hated the episode due to personal reasons, which I honestly understood. The Simpsons does have a lot of these Mean-Spirited episodes, and there are those that are hated (examples been "At Long Last Leave" & "Boys of the Bummer"), but there are ones that people consider to be masterpieces such as "Homer the Great" & "Homer's Enemy" and its something I do agree with too.

Mike Reiss said Homers Enemy was sort of “done in bad taste.”
I honestly don't see how it was done in bad taste honestly. While the episode is a 9/10 from me, I still agree that its a masterpiece of an episode and does deserve all the praise it gets.

Secondly, Apu::

Honestly, the Apu Situation has gotten out of hand, and personally, Hari Kondabolu kind of comes off as a bit egotistical, espicially after reading @The Element Of SurPrice's post. The fact that he blindsided his own parents is rather stupid, and shows that he's clearly not looking at the big picture. I have a feeling if Apu was really controversial of a character, The Simpsons would of probably been banned in India already, or at least the Apu episodes. I don't think Apu should of been retired at all, and the crew should of ignored it.

The fact that one of the ones interviewed in that documentary had previously guest starred in a recent Simpsons episode makes the guest star in question look bad as well. I'm also pretty sure the only ones complaining about Apu been a stereotype are the ones in that documentary, and maybe Raj in The Big Bang Theory (although I think that was just a joke).

And Thirdly, Michael Jackson:

While I have already touched on Jackson earlier...after reading more posts, I feel like sharing my thoughts and why I'm so confused about it. Although I will admit, I am scared to talk about it as I don't generally feel comfortable talking about situations like this. I also don't want to come off as supporting Jackson either in case if the allegations are in fact 100% true.

The first reactions I heard about the documentary were from 2 older women who clearly believed the allegations towards Michael Jackson, and therefore I believed it aswell and still sort of do to this day (which is probably something I shouldn't of done looking back, as the 2 women in question wouldn't of done any further research on it).

However, after reading the Wikipedia article, and seeing so many people angry at the fact that "Stark Raving Dad" was pulled, I'm been rather confused about it. When it comes to the Wikipedia article, the main thing that had me questioning the documentary (which I had not seen) was in regards to the train station.

Other confusing stuff include the fact that the two accusers in the documentary had previously supported Jackson in a previous scandal (even thou one of them, that been Wade was 10).

The other thing that is confusing is in regards to "Stark Raving Dad", especially with the fact that the "Happy Birthday Lisa" song is available now on Spotify. Also, back in '05 when the original set of allegations towards Jackson happened, the episode was never pulled (unless it was, so do correct me if I'm wrong there), so why pull it after this documentary airs? Of course, the climate has changed especially with how much the internet has grown since then, but still. A lot of people probably don't even realize Jackson is in that episode like myself when I watched the episode originally.

Like I said, the whole Jackson situation is confusing, and with the fact that the singer himself passed away, it will always be a confusing situation. In situations like these, I do try to look at both sides of the argument but I'm going to end the conversation there, don't really know what else to say.
 
I think that if any show had the type of episodes like 'Behind The Laughter' and 'Homer's Enemy' it'd have a lot of critics who couldn't stand it in the end. A show can only have so many experimental episodes before it gets too much.
You say that, but shows like Community are regarded by some as one of the best sitcoms of all time, and that basically is Dan Harmon using a community college setting to do a bunch of weird shit every season. Rick and Morty also thrives on doing that (some would say a lot less successfully but still). In fact multiple times while watching this season of The Simpsons Ive been wondering if we might live in a world where Simpsons fans come out of a new season more satisfied with their experimental episodes than Rick and Morty fans, which is an insane thing to think just 5 years ago.

but with how a lot of younger viewers often react negatively to mean-spirited episodes in general (which I can sympathize with) I'm thinking that it and it's popularity will be lost on many.
Im still a very new fan (I can still remember that the first episode I watched on my own was The Squirt and the Whale), and was even a newer fan when I first watced Enemy years ago. It may have been one of the first early episodes I watched. Which is to say, it still works with just the HD era as your understanding of how the show works. Also as SurPrice said cynicism is all the rage in TV now, I feel making an earnest, not depressing show might have actually become the subversive thing now, as we're in an era of your Bojack Horsemans, Its Always Sunnys and Rick and Mortys.
 
You say that, but shows like Community are regarded by some as one of the best sitcoms of all time, and that basically is Dan Harmon using a community college setting to do a bunch of weird shit every season. Rick and Morty also thrives on doing that (some would say a lot less successfully but still). In fact multiple times while watching this season of The Simpsons Ive been wondering if we might live in a world where Simpsons fans come out of a new season more satisfied with their experimental episodes than Rick and Morty fans, which is an insane thing to think just 5 years ago.

First off, I was speaking of shows in general (mainly more realistic-based ones that are more or less down to earth with not a heavy air of absurdity and really over the top stuff) and second, while I didn't mention it, there are certainly examples of shows that do dabble with a lot of experimental, format bending and really weird oddball episodes (like the ones you mentioned, such as 'Rick And Morty' which more or less lives and breathes wacky sci-fi shenanigans) but these are more or less exceptions.

While it is true that we seem to live in a time where a lot of fans come out satisfied from seasons due to the more experimental episodes, I definitely think there are still a lot of those who don't like them doing these rather experimental episodes with more or less heavy instances of a metafictional and/or fourth-wall breaking approach and feel more at home with the more, well, plausible and down to earth episodes (that no doubt often get really weird and absurd, but not to the same degree as the really experimental ones, such as 'Lisa The Boy Scout' which really is a bit of an outlier among the more recent modern episodes).

I get what you mean with that 'The Simpsons' fans often seem more satisfied with the experimental episodes than 'Rick And Morty' fans do with that show's experimental ones, which I agree with (though then again, there seem to be a lot of 'R&M' fans who still love almost much all the new episodes, with even the weaker or bad ones tending to get a fair bit of popularity. Just look at many IMDB reviews of new episodes, while the reviews for the new 'The Simpsons episodes usually aren't as overtly optimistic. Then again, IMDB isn't the most reliable source & 'R&M' fans come off as a bit nutty at times (lol), so I would take what I see there with a grain of salt).


(I might as well add that I wouldn't take a comparison between 'The Simpsons' & 'Rick And Morty' (fanbases included) further as the two have a very different approach to style and humor & the fanbases are different (not to mention R&M essentially do a lot of these experimental and out thre episodes a lot, almost on a regular basis as it is after all a wacky sci-fi comedy with a cynical & nihilistic slant, which 'The Simpsons' really isn't and is way more bright and optimistic by far).

Im still a very new fan (I can still remember that the first episode I watched on my own was The Squirt and the Whale), and was even a newer fan when I first watced Enemy years ago. It may have been one of the first early episodes I watched. Which is to say, it still works with just the HD era as your understanding of how the show works. Also as SurPrice said cynicism is all the rage in TV now, I feel making an earnest, not depressing show might have actually become the subversive thing now, as we're in an era of your Bojack Horsemans, Its Always Sunnys and Rick and Mortys.

Yeah, I definitely think that what I read on TVtropes is bullplop. There is no way an episode like 'Homer's Enemy' only reach out to long tim fans. There is indeed a lot of popularity toward meaner & more cynical shows that tend to go for darker & more subversive directions (such as 'Rick And Morty' has proven with its dedicated fanbase) so of course 'Enemy' is still popular, but I still understand that there is an amount of fans who don't like the darker & meaner& more subversive stuff (and don't like to see such on 'The Simpsons' as it is going too, with a few such fans being present on this very forum), so it is not an unanimously beloved episode.
 
I'm curious what Reiss thought about that statement. Maybe he found it completely baffling as well, but decided not to comment since he doesn't want to get involved.
Reiss said he hated Hari's documentary, so I would imagine that he thought the pulling of Stark raving dad was ridiculous.
 
I remember he said Simpsons Safari was awful in a speech he did for a university. He's not wrong there.

I can definitely understand his regret of that episode. I don't hate it myself, but I see why he'd (Mike Reiss) see it as a failure.

It is a good example of what I meant with the thread. Seems this thread has mostly become an "regretted episode due to a guest star now being seen as problematic" thing, which while understandable and not bad, I think is a bit of a "cheap or "easy" reason to regret an episode (as celebrities being accused of misconduct and being "cancelled" tend to be common nowadays) so for variation's sake I hope there'll be more examples of regrets due to a poor scripts or handling of a premise, bad humor, lackluster characterizations, etc.
 
Last edited:
I understand how a celebrity guest heavy or cross-over episode may not be the cast's favorite. If I were in this position I would certainly feel that the network didn't believe in our ability to attract an audience, that "we" needed celebrities. It also takes focus away from the Simpsons themselves. It probably wasn't a very pleasant environment to work in with that many guests, I can imagine a lot of them expect preferential treatment. I remember reading a story about Kirk Douglas starring in "The Day The Violence Died". It clearly wasn't because he was a fan of the show, it's easy to think that the celebrity guests are excited to be part of the show, while true for some of them I would think a lot of them see it as just another gig to promote their brand. It doesn't surprised me that a publicity averse person such as Julie Kavner wouldn't want to work in this type of environment, there was something so counter-culture about the Simpsons cast & crew at the time, dare I say Punk even.

I don't hate those celebrity guest heavy episodes, "Homer at the bat" is a great classic episode with heavy hitters, pun intended, but I don't expect most of them to be Hollywood type divas, listening to the dvd commentary it sounded like the people involved with the episode enjoyed working with the guests.


"The problem with Apu" is such a can of worm, I understand some of the criticism of everything surrounding a character like Apu. I'm not entirely behind Hari's arguments comparing it to a minstrel show but I understand that everyone wants representation. What bothers me about the reaction the Simpsons producers had was to basically be pro-active about every "non-white passing" ethnic character. Did they get any flak for Bumblebee man? I've also grown tired of seeing people framing the narrative as Hank Azaria, a man of Jewish descent, as a white man performing an Asian minstrel show. I hope we can come out of this and implement a measured approach that respects both the talent of a voice actor and offers representation.
 
Last edited:
let's not kid ourself that it's one of the very worst the show has to offer, especially not now when wer're 30+ seasons in with a ton of awful soulless HD episodes
Well, at least when it comes to the classic era it's definitely one of the worst, and within the same season as My Sister, My Sitter.

Also, "Is the episode really only accessible to long-time viewers or is it a hit with newcomers too?" feels more like a YMMV thing as I didn't watch the episode for the first time until 2008 (nearly 11 years after it first aired) and didn't care for it much back then. And as time has gone on it's gotten to the point where I couldn't even finish it while I was rewatching Season 8 a few months back because by the time the subplot was over I was already burnt out by how alienating both Grimes & Homer were as both are greatly exaggerated in order to make this premise "Work".

To contrast, also on TVTropes I saw someone who caught the episode when it originally aired and had this to say about why the episode fails and ultimately lead to them even quitting the show:
For those who know, no explanation is necessary, for those who don't, none will suffice. However, since that doesn't qualify as a DMOS explanation, I will provide one. A hard working man named Frank Grimes moves to Springfield, is immediately shat on by the system, being passed over for an animal, despite having enough knowledge to be plant foreman or something similar. He is partnered with Homer Simpson, who is in fine form as a Karma Houdini in this episode. After a series of mishaps by Simpson, for which Grimes is blamed, Grimes goes crazy, accidentally kills himself. Everyone in Springfield laughs at Homer at Grimes's funeral. Most Simpsons episodes up to this point derived their humor from, among other things, lambasting problems caused by human arrogance and negligence - sins that we're all guilty of. They would take assumptions that we would make in real life, and then extend them out to ridiculous, but logical conclusions, to show the absurdity, and in some cases horror, of the things that we considered logical in real life (One example of this being Fat Tony's speech about bread and cigarettes in Bart the Murderer). This, combined with such things as contrasting what people in various positions thought in public vs what they thought in private, and showcasing the surprising amounts of ignorant faith we put in people of power, who may have been less competent than we ourselves, made the show a relevant, relatable parody and commentary on our own lives, and a classic for 7 years running. It's not a coincidence that the combined DMOS count for seasons 1-8 is less than almost every given season afterwards. This episode though... it wasn't clever, thoughtful, relatable, or anything. It was basically a Family Guy episode, powered by the main cast doing increasingly stupid and criminally malfeasant things, until someone is killed or injured, after which everyone has a laugh. Unlike other episodes such as "Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish", "Homer the Vigilante", and "Bart's Girlfriend", I couldn't relate to anyone in that episode. I didn't know anyone like anyone in that episode. I think that there's a lot to be said for how horrible society is deep down, but this episode didn't do a good job of describing that at all. Instead of pointing out society's actual faults, like earlier episodes, it basically stuck a Marty Stu into a Springfield that had been replaced with the cast of Idiocracy, and had horrible things happen to him until he died from them. Basically, as described before, a Family Guy episode. I don't know what the point of this episode was, but it surely wasn't to get laughs. Pretty much the last Simpsons episode I watched regularly - occasional viewings of later episodes confirm that I haven't missed much in the following 19 years.
 
@John95, The belief of the episode only being accessible to longtime viewers is certainly an YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary) situation, as I saw that comment in that section of the episode's article.

Also, rhat quoted review is an oddly bitter one and incorrect about several things. He describes Frank Grimes as a Gary Stu. What the hell? He's a flawed, down-on-his-luck regular guy, not some perfect, ideal character who's great at everything and everybody likes him. And how can Homer being a Karma Houdini when he wasn't the villain nor did anything to deserve a comeuppance? There are also other questionable statements. Also, I dunno what to say about someone near quitting the show altogether due to this one episode (but as said, in spite of dark, cynical & subversive stories being popular there are a lot of those who are really hostile to episodes like that so I really shouldn't be surprised at all). Still, the reviewer's bitterness caused some flawed interpretations (in spite of my understanding why some are put off by the episode). Sometimes, it feels like the episode is taken too seriously (or rather at face value).

Would like to hear more thoughts on that review to be honest.
 
Last edited:
I can't disagree with everything he said in that "review". I remember watching the episode as it aired and what always stayed with me was the B plot with Bart buying a factory and Milhouse's involvement. I enjoyed Frank Grimes' story but I think it was mostly because of homer acting stupid. I don't understand why this person couldn't find humor in the episode, there's tons of it.

Thinking about Frank Grimes makes me think of"Hurricane Neddy" and how Flanders' breakdown in response to everyone's incompetence is so much more cathartic. It's hard to introduce a character in an episode and go through all the story arcs available, from birth to death. It doesn't help to make the character fit in the Simpsons universe.

Overall I enjoyed the episode and have great memories of it. I can see how someone doesn't care for Frank Grimes. I can understand why the reviewer called him a Gary Stu but it makes absolutely no sense to use that word in the episode's context. It's obviously Homer at his dumbest, it can feel a little gimmicky and Frank Grimes isn't the most interesting character. I think the genesis of this episode was to catapult a real person into the simpsons universe. I know that we've talked about this episode before and touched on the writer's political leanings and how this episode could be interpreted as an exposé on meritocracy or lack of.
 
The problem with that though is that in actuality Frank Grimes is about as "Realistic" as someone within the show's universe so even that claim of putting someone from the real world into Springfield doesn't really work.
 
I thought that the creators mentioned that this was their intention when writing this episode.. maybe it was Hank Azaria in an interview who mentioned that was the direction he received.
 
It was definitely intentional on Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein's part. Frank Grimes was meant to represent the average person and show what it would be like for them to work with Homer. Frank is about as realistic as you can get. He constantly questions why Homer hasn't been fired yet and why everyone turns a blind eye to his stupidity. He believes people like Homer don't deserve anything because they never had to work for what they have. Frank is that person in real life who hates athletes for making millions of dollars while he works 60 hours a week for bread crumbs.

What makes the episode brilliant is that while Frank actually has valid points, we don't root for him. He's someone that doesn't belong in Springfield because he reacts the way that someone in real life would. And even though Homer is exaggerated in this episode, he's never vicious to Frank or goes out of his way to ruin his life. Homer genuinely wants to be friends with Frank and cares about his opinion. In Frank's mind, Homer invited him to dinner so he could rub his success in his face. In Homer's mind, he's trying to show Frank that he has it all together to impress him and win him over. It's a way more likable version of Homer than we would get in the later seasons.
 
I was one of the people who accused Michael Jackson of rape back in 1993. Michael Jackson performed oral sex on me when I was under the age of consent. I wasn't in favor of the episode Stark Raving Dad being pulled. I wonder what his other victims thought...
 
My bad, maybe I should've quoted someone. I saw a couple different people expressing incredulity that mj was a rapist so as one of his victims I decided to chime in.
 
I have family members who work in the entertainment industry so I grew up seeing celebs quite often. Michael jackson was my babysitter.
 
I can't disagree with everything he said in that "review".

Neither can I (obviously) as some reasons why he think it's bad can indeed be seen as valid points, but it still doesn't change the fact that the reviewer has misinterpreted and/or misunderstood key aspects of the episode itself.

I think @Dr. Nihilistic's explanation of why he thinks the episode works so well (to most) is pretty much on point (and I would say tells why it feels incorrect to call Grimes a Marty Stu & wrong to villainize Homer. Some of the criticism the reviewer laid out feels rather flawed and more like a wrongful interpretation due to hatred of the episode).
 
Last edited:
I don't consider Homer a villain in Homer's Enemy either (some people accuse him of being Jerkass Homer here which I disagree with), but at the same time his intentionally dumbed down state makes it as impossible to sympathize with him as Frank Grimes.
 
My bad, maybe I should've quoted someone. I saw a couple different people expressing incredulity that mj was a rapist so as one of his victims I decided to chime in.
If you were molested by Michael Jackson, then I'm surprised you would only bring it up now, in this specific thread.
 
Like I said I brought it up back in 1993. I'm just sick of keeping my mouth shut every time I see his fans defend him
 
Back
Top