WORST DEFENSE EVER!

[Patches O'houlihan]

This "defense" of the modern Simpsons really gets my goat:

This is episode 498, not 62. I'm not watching it and expecting Homer the Heretic's quality or originality. At this point in the series, if it makes me laugh or at least give me a smile, that means it's still working.

For me, I shouldn't have to tolerate something that's terrible because it's "old". I still hate Homer's Odyessy, When Flanders Failed, and Two bad Neighbors because, IMO, they were awful. Yeah, there's episodes that I "smiled at" and giggled at, too, and I gave them a 1/5 and they sure as hell weren't working.

So, do you think using the "it's old, what do you expect?" defense works, or do you think crap is crap regardless of the Season?

 

[friz]

CAPITAL LETTERS.

You know, there are people who still enjoy the show. They don't see the decline in quality. Who are you to try and force them to see it's declined? Let them live life in denial, and in peace. You know, like Christians.

 

[The Spruce Moose]

I was with you until you hated on When Flanders Failed and Two Bad Neighbours.

 

[jal90]

Yeah, it's a bad defense, but I've seen worse, like "WHY DO YOU STILL WATCH THE SHOW IF YOU HATE IT!!!??!" or "the animation is so bright and intensely-coloured, old seasons look so dull".

 

[uruguayo]

I do not share this defense, but I enjoy some new episodes of the series.

 

[jordanwj]

Crap is crap no matter what the season, Two Bad neighbors is a fine example; a majority of the first season I could live without, with the exception of Some Enchanted Evening, and No Disgrace Like Home. (You claim to be a Lisa fan jordanwj, Y U NO LIKE Moaning Lisa? Plot was bland and boring imho)

But yeah the whole "I don't care if it sucks as long as 0.2 milliseconds out of 21 minutes makes me smile; which may very well have NOTHING to do with the plot itself, then I'm contempt with a beyond declining show continuing to beat itself to death"

No excuse for this excuse.

 

[Jims]

Well, yeah, that's a pretty bad defense in general. The only poor-quality argument I can really buy in relations to The Simpsons is some of the weirdness in Season 1, but there you can at least give them a break for being such a new series. To give them the same break in quality for being too old and experienced is pretty silly. A more reasonable defense would be that being Episode 498, what one would want out of the show should be different than watching their 60th episode.

Yeah, it's a bad defense, but I've seen worse, like "WHY DO YOU STILL WATCH THE SHOW IF YOU HATE IT!!!??!"

I dunno, I find this question to at least be a logical one to ask someone. Unless the person hates themselves or enjoys being miserable, most people only continue to watch things they enjoy.

 

[jal90]

I dunno, I find this question to at least be a logical one to ask someone. Unless the person hates themselves or enjoys being miserable, most people only continue to watch things they enjoy.

The problem comes when this question is mistaken for an argument to decrease the validity of the reasons one has to hate on an episode. And that sadly happens quite often, if not here, in many boards.

 

[CollectorCharlie]

Well if people give a pass to some season 1 eps that are pretty uninteresting I think the same allowance should be given to someone who likes a newer episode. Ive seen people completely in love with some Season 1 eps that I just cant understand. The ep isnt very funny or creative. Its leniency "because its the first season" motivates them often to hold it of high esteem. Theres a few eps from season 1 that I dont love, but I respect its right to be okay without being a grand slam. Theres a few new eps that are this way also. Then theres a few new eps I just think are simply good.

The old humor imo is more like Conan O'Briens wit. The new is dryer and more David Letterman esque. Personally i dont find the man as funny. I prefer if they step up their comedy game more, but I do appreciate when an ep is good in the new seasons. Theres a few in 18 and then the chain broke with one im indifferent on.

 

[Bleedin' Gums Murphy]

I was with you until you hated on When Flanders Failed and Two Bad Neighbours.

Hi I'm Bleedin' Gums Murphy and I approve this message.

 

[Samuel L Bronkowitz]

crap is crap, regardless of season. but the show has existed SO much longer than 99% of what's out there, it's actually eclipsed many longtime viewers' most impressionable years in life....as a result, later episodes probably get much more scutinized than they might deserve. it's not unlike musical or movie tastes, where longtime fans of a band or director are more critical of a new release, but the newer initiates tend to be more forgiving....

 

[CollectorCharlie]

Theres still moments in newer seasons where the joke just falls completely flat... "i dont get it". Happens more often cuz whoever writes the newer eps seems to be a bit more offbeat than the early years. If the plot is interesting enough/ other comedy works far better i forget all about that error. Then theres others that just cant seem to get any momentum comedy or otherwise & end up in the mediocre if not bad pile.

 

[jbauer]

So, argument quality-aside, do I get residual payment for usage of my previous post without my authorization or my being consulted?

 

[Jims]

Yes. Jake owes you a dollar now. :gatorwoot:

 

[The Truth In Yellow]

If anything..

It's not nearly an extensive enough defense for a show that has evolved over so many years it has so much history! And it isn't just a some cartoon show, It's THE only cartoon/show to transcend its medium and become something totally different, in the best way. Just like us, people change.

 

[Sam]

YELLING!? CAN I JOIN!?

 

[YellowFever]

I've said it before somewhere here about the time friend of mine deemed that the show was "better than ever" because it's in HD and the first few seasons look "ugly" and are henceforth rubbish, good job I wasn't holding some sort of sharp object otherwise he'd be lacking a face as of this moment. Never judge a book by it's cover...... Unless it's Stephenie Meyer...

 

[joe007ofrockk]

The animation to the early season of The Simpsons gives the seasons a more classic feel, kind of line the black and white to Casablanca. The HD doesn't change anything, just makes the picture clearer. Also, crap is crap no matter how old it is. For instance, almost EVERY episode of the first season. Plus there are a few good new episodes like the previous christmas episode.

 

[Sam]

Crap? -_-

 

[Irvine]

I don't really mind the first season that much. It's a mixed bag season, much like season nine, but I think people give the former the benifit of the doubt more since they were just starting out.

As for your question, I agree that crap is crap no matter how old it is. I don't really "hate" any episodes from the first 8 seasons, but there are a handful that I would pass up if given the opportunity to watch. But I will also say this - the Scully episodes could be considered "old episodes" in a chronological sense, but I still detest them. If I watch them while comparing them to seasons 17+, they seem a lot less unbearable, but as you said - a well-aged turd is still a turd.

By the way, why do you hate When Flanders Failed? Is it because of Homer's portrayl?

 

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

The animation to the early season of The Simpsons gives the seasons a more classic feel, kind of line the black and white to Casablanca. The HD doesn't change anything, just makes the picture clearer. Also, crap is crap no matter how old it is. For instance, almost EVERY episode of the first season. Plus there are a few good new episodes like the previous christmas episode.

 

[Dark Homer]

I think a lot of people here (including you, jake) have mentioned that they have different standards for rating "classic" versus "not classic" episodes. what's wrong with that? obviously if you're still watching the show you're not expecting the next "lisa's substitute" or whatever to pop up anytime soon. even if the writers wanted to do the next lisa's substitute, they couldn't because there's 20-odd years of baggage weighing it down. maybe that shouldn't be held against them? ok sure, maybe by holding lowered standards you're being dishonest with yourself, but as long you're deriving some sort of entertainment value out of episode 468, what's the big deal? it's pretty callous to tell someone they're wrong for enjoying something

that said, "it's old, give it a break" is more of a reason to end the show than continue it

 

[TriforceBun]

For me, I shouldn't have to tolerate something that's terrible because it's "old". I still hate Homer's Odyessy, When Flanders Failed, and Two bad Neighbors because, IMO, they were awful. Yeah, there's episodes that I "smiled at" and giggled at, too, and I gave them a 1/5 and they sure as hell weren't working.

So, do you think using the "it's old, what do you expect?" defense works, or do you think crap is crap regardless of the Season?

I don't get that meaning from that post. It sounds more to me like he's saying, "The show probably isn't going to make something phenomenal again, but if the episode is funny and entertaining enough to make me laugh/smile a few times, I'm happy." It's less about lowering standards and more about curbing expectations. He happened to not hate the episode in question; enough jokes/scenes worked for him to enjoy it.

I do agree that the "It's old, so it can get away with whatever" defense is poor, but I don't think that's what this poster is saying at all.

EDIT: Oh, looks like Dark Homer beat me to it!

Let them live life in denial, and in peace. You know, like Christians.

Classy.

 

[Patches O'houlihan]

that said, "it's old, give it a break" is more of a reason to end the show than continue it

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. The people who use the above excuse KNOW the show's declined, but don't care. They think the Simpson is a "friend" and not a TV show not created by some faceless corporation. IMO, the Simpsons is a consumer good. It's supposed to deliver a quality "product" and whether it's 3 years old or 30 years old, I shouldn't have to make excuses for it being sub-par.

"If you don't like, then don't watch it!" -- True, if i had to pay to watch the show, I would've bailed years ago. Seriously, 30 min. of my time isn't THAT big of a deal.

 

[Patches O'houlihan]

I don't get that meaning from that post. It sounds more to me like he's saying, "The show probably isn't going to make something phenomenal again, but if the episode is funny and entertaining enough to make me laugh/smile a few times, I'm happy." It's less about lowering standards and more about curbing expectations. He happened to not hate the episode in question; enough jokes/scenes worked for him to enjoy it.

There's no way in hell I expect S4 quality (that's why I grade on a curve) and I do give respect to episodes that I think are phenomenal like "Holidays," but giving episodes a free-pass because the show is "old" kind of makes reviewing episodes pointless.

 

[jordanwj]

Capitalism

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. The people who use the above excuse KNOW the show's declined, but don't care. They think the Simpson is a "friend" and not a TV show not created by some faceless corporation. IMO, the Simpsons is a consumer good. It's supposed to deliver a quality "product" and whether it's 3 years old or 30 years old, I shouldn't have to make excuses for it being sub-par.

"If you don't like, then don't watch it!" -- True, if i had to pay to watch the show, I would've bailed years ago. Seriously, 30 min. of my time isn't THAT big of a deal.

21 minutes when you cut the commercials, and then about 3-5 minutes for the intro.

All aside, you make a great point; ir is a TV show, it's goal is to entertain people enough to buy the VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, Digital video. If these new episodes suck, which 98% of them do, then people will not purchise the DVDs and most detached viewers (those who are too young or too late to have a fond memory of the show's quallity phase (S3-S14 in MY OPINION) will use torrents, newsgroups, file storage sites, to get their fix for that "one episode" out of hundreds they liked.

I buy the shows I like on DVD. South Park? Got it, The Simpsons? Only have season 1 and the movie atm but that will soon expand to 14 seasons. I buy it not because I want to encourage the voice actors to take home their unjustifiable salaries, not because I want the Propaganda Network FOX to have some more cash to prop their "news" program, not so Rupert Sleezebag Murdoch can keep living his sick twisted corporate fascist dream,,

Because I enjoy the show. The animators, writers, and others while they don't get paid much, it puts a little extra in their pocket or helps it stay consistent. And for providing WHAT I PERCEIVE to be a quality consumer good, I will pay for it. Is it a bit expensive? Yes, (hello eBay) but it's worth it.

I really doubt I'll be picking up any DVDs after season 15, there are far too few episodes worthwhile after that, IN MY OPINION to .justify paying $29.99 for a DVD

 

[Diversity Pumpkin]

I hate when people say the show is better than ever, because it's kind of an insult to the original staff. Like, the original writers worked so hard, staying up nights, rewriting, fighting with executives, trying to make a perfect show - only for their work to be compared as equal to the crap that's airing now. Kind of reminds of Duffless, when Lisa's science project is disregarded in favor of Bart's hamster in a plane.

 

[Diversity Pumpkin]

There's no way in hell I expect S4 quality (that's why I grade on a curve) and I do give respect to episodes that I think are phenomenal like "Holidays," but giving episodes a free-pass because the show is "old" kind of makes reviewing episodes pointless.

So was Holidays of Christmas Passed really that good? I may have to check it out... I remember Dead Homers being slightly favorable, and their criticisms against it didn't really sway me as much compared to their other posts.

 

[jordanwj]

So was Holidays of Christmas Passed really that good? I may have to check it out... I remember Dead Homers being slightly favorable, and their criticisms against it didn't really sway me as much compared to their other posts.

It was alright...I haven't seen it since it aired so I'll have to revisit it seeing as how it seems to be the new standard, I don't remember thinking too much of it to be honest.

 

[Patches O'houlihan]

21 minutes when you cut the commercials, and then about 3-5 minutes for the intro.

All aside, you make a great point; ir is a TV show, it's goal is to entertain people enough to buy the VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, Digital video.

Yeah, the "It's earned the right to suck!" and the "It's been on for umpteen years! What do you EXPECT!?" crowd have their heads up their keisters. Maybe if I'm at the same job for 20 years I can go to my boss (if I have one) and ask, 'Gee, I've been here for 20 years, can I do a sub par job but still expect to be treated like I was doing an outstanding job?".