Topic: What would you do with the Simpsons?

[UncleBob]

Curious.

[TJ Spyke]

Keep it as it is, most of the episodes are pretty good. In the 24 seasons, there have only been 1 or 2 episodes I would consider bad (one of them being the one written by and guest starring Ricky Gervais, nothing he has ever done has been funny). I have thought for years they should do a spin-off though that focuses on the other residents. The episode "22 Short Stories About Springfield" was pretty funny, and Pokémon Chronicles cemented the idea.

[TrueNerd]

I voted to end the Simpsons, but on second thought I might just leave it as is. I come at this from a legacy perspective. Seasons 2-8 were as good as TV gets, then it declined into being unwatchable in its teen seasons, then it rebounded to being okay where it currently is. If it had ended after season 8, The Simpsons would have been regarded as one of the best shows ever. Now, with sixteen additional seasons that vary from bad to okay/good, it's not thought of in those terms. And that's too bad, it deserves to be thought of the same way Seinfeld is. But, seeing as they kept going with it and it's okay, might as well keep it going. I'd rather watch The Simpsons at its worst than any of Chuck Lorre's painfully broad, obvious, unclever shows.

[Shaymin]

[lolmonade]

If I were thinking solely about what I liked about the show, I'd say they should call it a day and respectfully discontinue the show.  I actually think the Simpsons Movie would have been a perfect stopping point for me. 

With that said, for your poll, I picked the "Keep it how it is!  Don't change a thing!", because while I no longer watch the show, there is obviously still a following of loyal fans who still appreciate it for what it's become, and I have no problem with people enjoying it for different reasons than why I used to love it.

I see the Simpsons in the same light I see The Office (US).  My reason for watching it ended at around Season 5/6, but I take no offense for other people continuing to enjoy it.

[broodwars]

Kill it. No show deserves to be on the air for 24+ years.

[TJ Spyke]

No show deserves to be on the air for 24+ years.

Hallmark Hall of Fame: 61 years
Guiding Light: 57 years
As the World Turns: 54 years
The Wondeful World of Disney: 52 years
Coronation Street: 52 years
60 Minutes: 43 years
Monday Night Football: 42 years
Saturday Night Live: 37 years
Inside the NFL: 35 years
Top Gear (UK version): 34 years
SportsCenter: 33 years
Doctor Who: 33 years

I could go on.  If a show is good (and Simpsons still is), there is no reason it can't keep going on as long as it wants to.

[ShyGuy]

I think the common factor in all those long running shows is there is a lot of turn over and they don't focus on the same things every episode. Even fiction like that Guiding light soap opera has new characters, with actors leaving and joining.

[UncleBob]

I find it funny how the two polar opposite choices have the most votes.

Anyway, I pick the last two.  I say, take a season off from "The Simpsons" and do a "Springfield" season.  Then, pick back up with everyone aged twenty years, but don't do stuff like teleporters and flying cars.  Tell stories about the extended Simpsons family.

[ShyGuy]

Hasn't almost every character in Springfield had an episode or at least a storyline?

[nickmitch]

I say take a hiatus for a year. Just walk away and pick it up again from where they left off.

[Adrock]

I would end it. Not with fire, but it has run it's course. I haven't watched a whole season since the 13th though if I remember correctly, I stopped watching TV altogether shortly after Fox cancelled Wonderfalls (then Futurama a few months later) which would have been around the 13th or 14th season of The Simpsons. I prefer watching shows in bulk on Netflix.

Anyway, I don't think there's anywhere to take these characters anymore. When the writers are forced to contradict previously established character traits just to make a joke work, it's time to hang it up. The Simpsons has been doing that for ages and it becomes more noticeable as the number of episodes racked up. Yes, I realize that it's a cartoon and a comedy at that, but still. A writer has a responsibility to maintain some semblance of continuity with the characters. When they start acting contrary to how they've been developed, it's more distracting than anything else.

[NWR_insanolord]

I want it to stick around a couple years to break the record for longest-running scripted prime time show, and then go away. It's probably still my all time favorite show, but it hasn't been at that level of quality for almost 15 years now and I think it's time to let it go.

[TJ Spyke]

Most episodes are still really good. Not 100% consistent, but overall it is still really good and better than the other Fox animated shows.

Adrock, what contradictions are you talking about? Besides, every show does what you claim.

[lolmonade]

I can't speak for how many times they've contradicted older episodes, but I do know off the top of my head that I watched a newer episode where the Simpsons were exiled from Springfield for one reason or another, and joined a group of vagabonds.

I'm pretty sure that and ones where they're kicked out of Springfield and are forced to move to another town are horses that have been beaten beyond death, and now are a pulpy puddle of horse remains.

Again, I have no problem with the show continuing because the new seasons don't sour my memories of the seasons I enjoyed, but let's not imply that the show is fresh or treading ground they haven't already.  These episodes are re-treading themes they've done (arguably more effectively) in the past.

[TJ Spyke]

Um, those don't contradict earlier episodes. I was hoping you would give actual contradictions.

[ShyGuy]

Is Matt Groening the next George Lucas? Talk amongst yourselves.

[lolmonade]

Um, those don't contradict earlier episodes. I was hoping you would give actual contradictions.

I started my post with "I can't speak for how many times they've contradicted older episodes".  I was actually speaking to how they've re-tread their story lines so many times that it's almost laughable. 

Take a look at this article.  While I don't find all of them offensive (and not all contradictions), I think it points out several ways the show has "jumped the shark".

[NWR_insanolord]

Is Matt Groening the next George Lucas? Talk amongst yourselves.

Matt Groening was never that hands-on with The Simpsons, though. He's not the problem with the show.

[TJ Spyke]

To address the points in that article one by one:

1)The Tik Tok opening was funny and creative, and has nothing to do with the quality of the episodes
2)The writer missed the joke (I blame the writer, not the show). The POINT was that CBG has a ordinary name
3)Nothing wrong with clips shows, and 5 in 13 years is not bad. Not the best one, and it does annoy me that Kang and Kodos appeared in a non-TOH episode.
4)This was not a copy of a previous episode. The plot of the episode was the fame got to Lisa and she tried to takeover Krusty's job.
5)OK, I agree on this one being bad. The writer of the episode destroyed 9 years worth of character building for Skinner. It's funny listening to the audio commentary and hearing the writer almost angrily defending the decision.
6)This is just him not liking the plot. It has nothing to do with the show itself or its quality.
7)His complaint is that someone the episode referenced isn't in it. The episode name is usually picked because it sounds funny, that is it. And the guest stars fit in based on the plot.
8)Again, nothing to do with the quality of the show, just the writer not liking the plot.
9)Swatzwelder stopped making good episodes after season 8, so this is to blame on the writer. Though again it is just him not liking the episode.
10)The ONLY contradiction in the list. I hate how they seemed  to retcon things by changing the timeline. It makes sense though because you can't have the show set in 2012 and have the parents meeting in 1976 (it would make Homer and Marge in their 50s) and Matt Groening said on the audio commentary for "The Way We Was" that he didn't want them saying the year Homer and Marge met because of this exact problem.

[Plugabugz]

The basic problem with the show is, as usual, the american TV system.

20+ episodes for a series running more than 20 years means its running on steam. It should be limited to 10 eps a season.

[TJ Spyke]

LOL, no. That is a joke. TV shows show be 16 episodes a season MINIMUM. British TV is also a joke, where you can have 3 episodes in a year, then 2 years before new episodes. The only time a season should ever be short is the first season, and even that should be at least 13 episodes.

[NWR_insanolord]

It depends on the show. Something like The Wire averaged about 11 episodes a season, which was just about perfect, but for a non-serialized comedy it's fine to go 20+ episodes in a season.

[oohhboy]

If the BBC's Sherlock wasn't a 3 episode a season show, what you would get is a by the numbers criminal procedural show that plague TV like reality shows. IE, Elementary. Sherlock is awesome because it has such a short run. British TV shows tend to be Quality over Quantity.

I rather they Burned down the Simpsons years ago especially in the years when it was the Homer Simpson Show. But I would be open to a Springfield show. I have lost count the number of episodes that have failed to get me to laugh even once. Even the most horrible, most horrific, disconnected Family Guy episode get at least one laugh.

I can't believe you are defending the Simpsons TJ.

[TJ Spyke]

Because it is still a good show, which is obvious if you watch it.

And you defend Family Guy? I like it, but the show is crap more often than not, the last few years have especially been bad. Simpsons, on the other hand, are always funny and 99% of the episodes are at least good. If you can't laugh at at least something in every Simpsons episode, you have no soul.