Very unpopular opinions.

I think season 1 is wonderful. Actually, I think it's a masterpiece. I don't get how can it be that so many fans of the show belittle it. I think it's just an internet fad.
 
I think season 1 is wonderful. Actually, I think it's a masterpiece. I don't get how can it be that so many fans of the show belittle it. I think it's just an internet fad.

Well whatever about it's quality, you gotta admit Season 1 is a lot more boring than at least a dozen other seasons in terms of simplistic plots and less character development (than most other seasons)

Not that it deserves criticism for that, that just happens a lot than a show's first season can be a lot more boring than future seasons
 
Slowpaced yes, boring no. It doesn't make for the most gag-based show, but it creates a pleasant, relaxing feeling. Like you're just observing these characters going about their lives like a fly on the wall. I prefer it to the sometimes downright hectic pace in later Jean seasons.

Not sure what you mean by less character development. If anything, almost every single episode of the season went to developing a character in some way, with the exception of the rare wackier entries like The Call Of The Simpsons and The Crepes Of Wrath.
 
Last edited:
What I like about season 1 is probably what others see as a problem - it's simple. Yes, but it's unique at the same time. It's about this weird family, almost like Bill Cosby show, just more wacky and animated...
 
Slowpaced yes, boring no. It doesn't make for the most gag-based show, but it creates a pleasant, relaxing feeling. Like you're just observing these characters going about their lives like a fly on the wall. I prefer it to the sometimes downright hectic pace in later Jean seasons.

Not sure what you mean by less character development. If anything, almost every single episode of the season went to developing a character in some way, with the exception of the rare wackier entries like The Call Of The Simpsons and The Crepes Of Wrath.

I guess the first season or two being boring is a subjective opinion, and I'm fine with others not finding them boring.

By less character development, I meant that what development there was pretty basic and introductory, compared to more radical development in say, Lisa The Vegetarian.

But again you can't really blame a show for being quite basic and safe with it's character development in it's first season, especially as it would have been risky to develop the characters too much before people were barely used to the original personalities
 
I'll also vouch for season 1. There's definitely something that feels more personal(?) about it compared to a lot of later ones. Like Oldschooler said, it's got a real "fly on the wall" feeling to it. Wheras a lot of later-classic episodes fall under "stuff happens to (x)" 1 and 2 feel a little like character studies. I would say 2 does it better but that doesn't automatically mean 1 is terrible or anything and I feel like they should both be used as a reference for character writing. At least for the earlier cast members. In some cases character decay/flanderisation was going on as early as... about 4/5? Which isn't always a bad thing on its own but there are a few that lost something that would have been more entertaining had their season 1/2 behaviour been retained.
 
Bleeding Gums Murphy died too soon. I would've liked more episodes to deepen his connection with Lisa. But then again I'd like more screentime for the black characters on the show, maybe an episode about Dr. Hibbert? I think the only time he really starred was in a THoH segment.
 
I still enjoy season 9-12 and most of 13-15 while I agree that season 4-8 are top tier television and nothing can touch them 9-15 are still pretty enjoyable
Mr Plow is a okay episode
The President Who Wore Pearls is a amazing episode a personal top 5 for me of all time
Lots of episodes were better than Marge Vs The Monorail in season 4
Modern Simpsons is pretty decent with some meh episodes and some good episodes

those are some of my unpopular opinions do you agree or not?
 
[MENTION=86220]Sandurt[/MENTION] Some of those opinions may be deemed controversial. But The President Wore Pearls being amazing is not one of them.
It remains the best musical episode we've seen out of this series in its 31 seasons... and Groundskeeper Willie steals just about every scene he's in.
 
Im just gonna say it: I think season 3 might be my least favorite from the classic era. Most storylines from that season neither has the emotional core of season 2 nor the more outlandish (in a good way) and therefore more memorable stories of the later golden age seasons.

I totally agree. I've always felt this way. Not as emotionally cathartic as Season 1&2, nor as absurdist or hilarious as Seasons 4 through 6. It's the bland middle child of the classic era imo. It also has the most inconsistent hit rate.
 
I totally agree. I've always felt this way. Not as emotionally cathartic as Season 1&2, nor as absurdist or hilarious as Seasons 4 through 6. It's the bland middle child of the classic era imo. It also has the most inconsistent hit rate.

Season's 3 good episodes are better than season's 2 but the season is also much more inconsistent. Some episodes like Lisa's Pony, Flaming Moe's, Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk or Homer at the Bat are some of my favourites. But there are many other episodes that I don't care too much about. Although of course they are funny and good and miles ahead of almost any post classic episode.
On the other hand the only two weak episodes in season 2 are Dancin Homer and Bart's dog gets an F. And they're still far from bad.
All the other episodes in the season are pure gold.
On the other hand, I feel Al Jean and Mike Reiss were only beginning to find their voice by season 3. When they succeed they were great but other times they fell flat.
They would perfect their style by season 4 which is indeed pure gold.

I feel like during the first 8 seasons each showrunner perfected their style during their second season. Except for Oakley and Weinstein whose strongest season is season 7.
All the other ones, Groening, Simon and Brooks, Al Jeans and Mike Reiss, and David Mirkin all had their best season during their second run. With seasons 1, 3 and 5 respectively struggling to find a unique identity and seasons 2, 4 and 6 finding each showrunners original voice and style.
This was not true as I said for Oakley and Weinstein though. They really burnt out after their first season. They themselves admitted it. Though season 8 is still strong.
 
I do not consider season 9-10 to be a part of the post-classic era, as they were pretty consistent and I found them really amusing to watch.

I also do not think "The Principal And The Pauper" is such a bad episode, but quite the opposite actually.

The episode is very interesting, quite funny and opens new opportunities for Seymour Skinner's character. I never really thought it destroyed his character and I actually found it heartwarming that Skinner chose to live in a "lie", in order to not have to tell a mother that her son, her own child, is dead. So, what if he was portrayed in his younger days as a rebellious orphan from Capital City? People change when they mature and Skinner's experiences in the Vietnam War were eye-opening for him, especially with the help of sergeant Skinner.

I don't know why everyone thinks of it as such a big deal, when Skinner changed from an opinionated, strong Principal to a mama's boy, years before this episode was even conceived. This Skinner was admittedly more fun to watch, but I am still surprised that this wasn't a bigger deal in this board or on alt.tv.simpsons or elsewhere.

I just don't understand how people still view "The Principal and The Pauper" as one of the worst episodes of the series, when there are clearly worst episodes that came after it.
 
Indeed, "The Principal and The Pauper" might still be a shocking episode, but certainly not deserving of all the hatred. Undeservedly hated, this episode has its good qualities if you watch it a little closer! It's a bit of a convoluted story but I love the message and I just take and enjoy it as a strange character experiment that for me at least worked to good effect, and really the "Armin Tamzarian" nonsense means nothing in the long run of the show...
 
I think whenever someone says Principal and the Pauper is one of the worst episodes of all time, then you have to assume that they either stopped watching the show entirely shortly afterwards, or that they have only seen less than 100 episodes that aired post-Pauper
 
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I also haven’t seen this kind of vitriol against Pauper in years, so I don’t know where this new hate is coming from.
 
You know, 'Pauper' is a good episode when you think about the rubbish we get in the modern era, and it's by no means the worst of the season (All Singing, All Dancing is the worst).
 
Some more unpopular opinions:

The Great Simpsina is not a good episode
LETS is not the best episode of the show, by a long way
Lisa's Rival is one of the best Season 6 Episodes
Bart vs Itchy and Scratchy is an OK episode with a good start
Season 16 is as bad as Season 11
The President Wore Pearls is the best musical
Season 3 is as good as Season 6
Dead Putting Society has some Jerkass Homer
The Wandering Juvie is at the top of Season 15 with I, D'ohbot
Allison is very underrated and is way better than Lisa
Treehouse of Horror XXIX is as bad as THOH XXII

Sorry for the triple post.
 
Last edited:
1: Allison doesn't brag about the environment to the point that it gets annoying
2: Is smarter than Lisa (''She's Smarter, Younger and a Better Sax Player than me!'' - Lisa)
3: Has way more trophies than Lisa
4: Can deal with skipping a grade (whereas Lisa struggled in 'Bart vs Lisa vs The 3rd Grade)
5: Doesn't get angry as much as Lisa
6: (biased choice) I like Allison more
7: and lastly, Is more friendly (I mean, she still wanted to be friends with Lisa even though Lisa wanted to be rivals)
 
I agree that Allison is more intelligent than Lisa. Mostly she has more emotional intelligence. Whereas Lisa feels challenged whenever someone more intelligent shows up on the other hand Allison doesn't feel it like a threat.
And Lisa has a lot of problems to make friends since her intelligence makes her feels estranged from the other kids.
On the other hand Allison is equally intelligent but doesn't have problems to make friends and find a bond with other kids.

There's one aspect in which probabaly Lisa is ahead though and that is that she's more active. She will campaign and go on a crusade to change something. And while this makes her annoying it's also the way you acomplish things.
I don't see Allison being so active in that respect. I see her as more passive, being very intelligent but not wanting to use her energy in things like that even if she agrees with them.
 
Lisa also doesn’t change her stances on things to fit in. If you consider Allison in later episodes to be the same character, she’s just another one of the girls. So she clearly hid her true personality to be a part of the group.
 
A bit harsh to compare a character who has had made several hundred fewer appearances favorably to a character who appears in every episode IMO

Obviously in this instance more negative traits of Lisa will start to appear whereas Allison has not had the pressure of avoiding criticism for over 500 episodes! (although direct comparisons from "Lisa's Rival", where they both got approximately equal screen time is fair)
 
You know, I just imagined if Allison had appeared in more episodes (AS A SPEAKING ROLE), she might've saved Lisa from becoming friendless, hence ending the 'Lisa Is Depressed' trouble which fans have been complaining for years now. She may have only talked in three episodes (Rival, Lard and Bart Star) but if things have been different, Lisa wouldn't be ruined.
(If you would like me to continue this in a new thread please say)
 
Back
Top