Simpsons Renewed For Two More Years

bhartman36 said:
I think that part of the problem with the show, though, is that there are too few places for them to go after 20+ years, if everything stays the same. The changes I've talked about are things I think could give the writers new material.

It's like with "Married With Children": After 10 or so years, the show became less funny because there were fewer new places for the comedy to come from. You kept getting the same jokes about Kelly being a slut, Bud being a perv, Peggy being a useless housewife, etc. They looked like they were going to make a big change with Bud going to Trumaine University, but that wasn't pursued.
Click to expand...

Well if they want to age the simpsons theyd still have to keep the simpsons we know & love. I could see a handful of eps a season though fast forwarding 5 years or so. Or maybe even going back to Homer's hair days for a while lols. Its very possible, but Id discourage them from permanently doing that. Could sink the show.
 
Collector Charlie said:
Well if they want to age the simpsons theyd still have to keep the simpsons we know & love. I could see a handful of eps a season though fast forwarding 5 years or so. Or maybe even going back to Homer's hair days for a while lols. Its very possible, but Id discourage them from permanently doing that. Could sink the show.
Click to expand...

I don't think the characters have to physically age, but I think some movement after 20+ years would be appropriate. Nothing as radical as Homer getting a new job (permanently), but just enough to open up more storylines. You can't have so many "...and everything goes back to the way it was" episodes without things getting stale after a while.
 
True, character evolution was never simpsons strongest suit. Its always defaulted the next episode or season etc. I could see the kids moving up a grade, or past events having a snowball effect on what happens each week. Like if Mr Burns had an illness one week, hes gonna be out for a few eps while Lenny is Boss of the plant. Soon the townspeople are gonna try to kick the simpsons outta town so thats a positive lmao. You have a very good point about continuity.


As a side note, I also wonder if theyre ever gonna address Wiggums black hair/blue hair fiasco. Perhaps he dyes it or something lmao.
 
Also just thought of another good thing that came out of this, all these new members. Hope y'all stick around, it's been fun to see new opinions around.
 
Collector Charlie said:
True, character evolution was never simpsons strongest suit. Its always defaulted the next episode or season etc. I could see the kids moving up a grade, or past events having a snowball effect on what happens each week. Like if Mr Burns had an illness one week, hes gonna be out for a few eps while Lenny is Boss of the plant. Soon the townspeople are gonna try to kick the simpsons outta town so thats a positive lmao. You have a very good point about continuity.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Something to shake up the continuity.

As my own side note, I was disappointed that they didn't do more to keep the movie story arc into the series. Homer, in particular, had some real growth in the movie, and we saw the bond between him and Marge grow deeper-- and stronger. We actually saw him become a stand-up, responsible kind of guy, and they just kind of forgot about that growth when the series started up again in the fall. The most we've seen of the movie are some cameo appearances of Spider-Pig/Harry Plopper, and a mention of the dome in a recent episode. That was disappointing.

Collector Charlie said:
As a side note, I also wonder if theyre ever gonna address Wiggums black hair/blue hair fiasco. Perhaps he dyes it or something lmao.
Click to expand...

I think the hair thing is one of those historical curiosities, along with how the shading of the characters has changed. If you look at the older episodes, it's most apparent (to me, at least) in Waylon Smithers. There are one or two episodes I can remember where he almost appears to have been drawn as a black man, he's so dark. (Maybe that was just a quirk of the video quality, though.)
 
I agree with what you said about letting the show move forward. That was an issue I've had with the series for years. If you keep everything the same for so long, it's going to hurt your series in the long run. I just recently rewatched Hurricane Neddy, which establishes Flanders to be in his late 30's to early 40's, but if I recall from the later seasons, he's supposed to be in his 60's. Drastic character revelations like that don't make sense shouldn't be where the series heads. If it wants to shake things up, it needs to flow with itself instead of be ignorant of its history. But it's probably too late for that.

That's probably the one reason I voted "Pro-Nedna" this summer. It would have been a situation to let the characters evolve as the series went on. It's probably not much of one, but the results probanly did show the showrunners that diverting from the status quo may not neccessarily be a bad thing.
 
Open Faced Club Sandwich said:
I agree with what you said about letting the show move forward. That was an issue I've had with the series for years. If you keep everything the same for so long, it's going to hurt your series in the long run. I just recently rewatched Hurricane Neddy, which establishes Flanders to be in his late 30's to early 40's, but if I recall from the later seasons, he's supposed to be in his 60's. Drastic character revelations like that don't make sense shouldn't be where the series heads. If it wants to shake things up, it needs to flow with itself instead of be ignorant of its history. But it's probably too late for that.
Click to expand...

I think, for me, one of the most serious breaches of continuity happened in "That '90's Show". The original Simpsons chronology, as I understand it, had Homer and Marge getting hitched right after high school, in the '70's, because Homer knocked Marge up with Bart. In "That '90's Show", a) Marge went to college (for some reason), and Bart wasn't even born yet in the '90's. Nostalgia is all well and good, but it's kind of hard to make that big of a change and not have fans notice (and scream about it). Now, personally, if you put the chronology thing aside, I thought the episode was a good parody of the '90's, but from a coherent perspective, it was a mess.

That's probably the one reason I voted "Pro-Nedna" this summer. It would have been a situation to let the characters evolve as the series went on. It's probably not much of one, but the results probanly did show the showrunners that diverting from the status quo may not neccessarily be a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
 
Im also Pro Nedna. Whatever makes the writers try new character dynamics im all for. I think rewriting the history is gonna keep happening as long as age stands still on the simpsons. New fans are wondering why the kids are 8 and 10 and yet the only story of their birth is in the 80s, so even though it contradicts some really good eps, its another way to write some new material I guess.
 
That 90's Show was a brainchurner for me as well, and worst of all it wasn't even a good episode. Usually I can forgive contintuity slips if I'm enjoying myself (X-Men: First Class for example), but that one was very hard to get around.

In fact, I think That 90's Show was probably the point I started slipping out of the Simpsons loop. It might have been the point where I finally said "OK, this show has gone on long enough." Before then I never missed an episode, now...while episodes are on my DVR, I either watch them or I don't.
 
Open Faced Club Sandwich said:
That 90's Show was a brainchurner for me as well, and worst of all it wasn't even a good episode. Usually I can forgive contintuity slips if I'm enjoying myself (X-Men: First Class for example), but that one was very hard to get around.

In fact, I think That 90's Show was probably the point I started slipping out of the Simpsons loop. It might have been the point where I finally said "OK, this show has gone on long enough." Before then I never missed an episode, now...while episodes are on my DVR, I either watch them or I don't.
Click to expand...

Isn't this true for everyone though?
 
I think the moment I realized new simpsons were reaching for new plots was Tennis The Menace back in the day. Always thought that was the blandest concept.
 
The adrenaline rush of new seasons being confirmed have sent a few people crazy. Why all of sudden do you want the characters to age/change jobs/die? The whole point of The Simpsons is that it's frozen in time and although there have been minor changes (Most have changed back such as the Kirk/Luanne, Krabappel/Skinner, Barney/Duff Beer etc.) it would reek of desperation for the show to suddenly change it's rules and foundations for the last couple of series. It would just be a lazy route for the writers to take and considering how writers come and go from the show, The Simpsons could be a mess in a few years if it went down that route.

It's not that I'm against the idea of changes that impact serial animations, just not for The Simpsons. There's still decent, good ideas to be had with the show as it is. Plenty of them.
 
the age thing cannot be permanent. It wouldnt work. If they did a cluster of eps about the future it would be much like the eps theyve done like that for years. Say theres a 4 part episode or something in the future or the past. That kind of thing. Thats all.

And the death for a character is if simpsons is positively about to end. Otherwise they couldnt do anything like that, as I stated before.
 
Now that we know The Simpsons have been renewed through season 25, they really need to put this message at the end of the 500th episode:

"We finally made it to 500 episodes. Please watch all the upcoming episodes no matter how crappy they are so we can celebrate the 550th episode."
 
We're not saying the show needs to go down that route, or at least I'm not. The point being made is that the show is afraid of evolution and in its old age has "evolved" into a weak imitation of what it used to be. I remember when the first season came out on DVD, and what struck me was Groening explaining that despite the show being animated, they wanted the series to be as down to Earth as possible, in other words NOT a cartoon. That's the problem with the route the Simpsons did take, it had nowhere to go but crazier and crazier until it finally became a cartoon. To an extent it's a betrayal of the original conception.

Do things need to change? Not drastically. Characters don't need to age for this to happen. But the show needs to be more concious of what works and what's digging its own grave.

I recall Matt Groening stating that his idea for a finale is Bart turning 11, which I think would be terrific.
 
I also feel that the show shouldn't change too much for it's final episode or season. The one thing I'd like to see, which has been mentioned is subtle story-arcs, and more emotional storylines. I know it's a re-tread, but perhaps an episode where Homer has a health scare of some sort could give the show some of the emotion it needs, and then follow that with a few episodes of his recuperation. Character development is a big thing for almost all shows but with The Simpsons always leads nowhere (except for a few deaths/divorces etc) and like what has been said, messing around with the history is just a plain bad idea.

What I'm trying to say is, let's have some more Bart/Moe prank calls. Let's see Skinner and Agnes. Let's have the kids watching Itchy & Scratchy again. Let's have some of the stuff that made the early years great. IMO, The Simpsons is still a good show, and has become a little better over the past few years compared to some of it's rough teen years, but it needs to recapture the magic of it's golden era. It'll be hard, no doubt, but it would be such a shame to let it end in a few years with a whimper, where people don't really care that it's over. If they can fix it, and make people wanting more when it does eventually end, then it'll be remembered with much higher regard.

My wishlist for a final season is: A past episode, a future episode, a Sideshow Bob episode (with a concrete character resolution), and Ms Botz should appear, as well has Herb, Homer's half-brother.

I also think perhaps a good idea for the final episode is Grampa's death, something touching. But I don't want to see one of the core family get killed/leave/divorced etc, maybe it should just end with Homer and Marge kissing everyone goodnight and going to bed, snuggling close and shutting off the light to play out the episode. It would be reminiscent of 'Good Night', the first Tracey Ullman short and would be relatively low-key, but would definitely bring a tear to the eye.
 
They really could have some fun with the past/future eps. What if they went to a fortune teller & imagine future times for an ep, and while there theyre told of all sorts of stuff from the past about Homers teenage years etc from Grandpa on his deathbed or something. Something like that could be a back to the future esque type of 3 parter or so. And the best part, no aging at all. Same simpsons.
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper said:
The adrenaline rush of new seasons being confirmed have sent a few people crazy. Why all of sudden do you want the characters to age/change jobs/die? The whole point of The Simpsons is that it's frozen in time and although there have been minor changes (Most have changed back such as the Kirk/Luanne, Krabappel/Skinner, Barney/Duff Beer etc.) it would reek of desperation for the show to suddenly change it's rules and foundations for the last couple of series. It would just be a lazy route for the writers to take and considering how writers come and go from the show, The Simpsons could be a mess in a few years if it went down that route.
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily that I need something drastic to happen to still be interested in the show. It's just that a lot of people here seem to think the show has gone stale. The way to fix that is for something new to happen. Look at all the episodes that sprang from Maude Flanders dying. Look at how Kirk and Milhouse Van Houten changed once Kirk divorced from Luann. Fertile ground opened up for character development. That's why I have such a problem with the way they transitioned from the movie into the next season: Very little of that character development (or even the characters) made it into the next season. IIRC, they even brought Nick Riviera back, even though he died at the end of the movie.


Rowdy Roddy Peeper said:
It's not that I'm against the idea of changes that impact serial animations, just not for The Simpsons. There's still decent, good ideas to be had with the show as it is. Plenty of them.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't think they should go with change for the sake of change (e.g., adding characters, "The Simpsons Go To Mars", that kind of thing...). But if we want the series to continue (which I would certainly like) then they need to get the ratings up. It's easier to put an interesting plotline in a promo than it is to put, "Now with 50% better writing!" :)
 
Last edited:
I think the point is that theres still a lot of stuff to do with the series imo. Nothing drastic, just a little different. People that want this show cancelled probably should be asking for writers to think outside the box more imo. Theres still a ton of stuff.
 
Last edited:
bhartman36 said:
I certainly don't think they should go with change for the sake of change (e.g., adding characters, "The Simpsons Go To Mars", that kind of thing...). But if we want the series to continue (which I would certainly like) then they need to get the ratings up. It's easier to put an interesting plotline in a promo than it is to put, "Now with 50% better writing!" :)
Click to expand...

Well we've had interesting plotlines before but what we need to watch is interesting/relatable/funny content, not a cartoon I can go to for a cheap laugh.
 
All right lolcats, if you hate the show so much and can't take it anymore, DON'T WATCH THE SHOW and/or GET OFF THE SITE. You sound perfectly capable of doing either of those things. There are people here that don't like the show, but they say more than "I HATE THE SIMPSONS WAH WAH WAH!" You appear to be here only to whine. So quit whining, or fuck off.
 
I'm recommending you both take one of these and see me back in the morning.

chillp10.jpg
 
Zombies Rise from the Sea said:
Well we've had interesting plotlines before but what we need to watch is interesting/relatable/funny content, not a cartoon I can go to for a cheap laugh.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree. All I'm saying is that from a ratings perspective, they have to have something attention-getting to put in the promos. Ideally, it should have both but the continuation of the show depends more on bringing in the viewers. Good writing will certainly keep the viewers, but the show has to get them back in the first place.
 
Le Jake said:
The current staff wouldn't want to upstaged.
Click to expand...

Assuming for a minute that you were serious, I don't think the current staff could be upstaged, as long as they all had writing credits. Hell, I doubt even now that most people know Conan used to write for The Simpsons.
 
You know what I find comical? Everybody who thinks that making a change (Bart & Lisa going up a grade, somebody dying, etc) will improve the show. Lol, it's still going to be horrible. Maybe if the show was still season 7 quality, just in a repetitive slump, then yeah I'd agree. But... have you seen the show lately?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top