Simpsons Better to stay or go?

[Natey]

Whats your opion? Would you rather want Simpsons to just never air any more new episodes or would you want the simpsons to keep going?

[King_of_doom]

i like the simpsons but they really have to stop doing new episodes or at least have a special episode to end the show.

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

They should have stopped making new episodes since 2000. I don't think they sucked, but you give me little choice.

Oh, and the only episodes worth watching are reruns of '93 - '99 episodes.

[Superperson]

The show is just a parody of itself nowadays, I wish they just end it and keep what dignity the show has left.

[Natey]

right no for me i dont know why people are like the show sucks, i find better than most cartoons! im watching the daily episodes of the Simpsons on NBC laghing at something I haven't seen every day

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

NBC? When did that happen?

[Matt-a-Tastic]

I actually still quite like the new episodes. There not as well written but there much more random :anime:

Also, imisshostinCCF, I don't suppose you could write in just black or white rather than pink? Pink is... rather painful on the eyes...

[Delthayre]

I would prefer that it be put out to pasture. The poor things's been limping along in an ever more dire state for years. Killing it'd be the merciful thing.


NBC? When did that happen?
The episodes are probably syndicated on a local NBC affiliate.

[Fone Bone]

I refuse to vote in the poll because even though I wish the show would end I don't believe it sucks.

Maybe it's a little bit selfish but I'm not sure how they can expect me to buy more DVD seasons of the show if it never ends. I'd kind of like to have a complete collection but the odds of me buying the later seasons go down with each passing year.

[Frank]

It's time to end the show. It is obviously past its glory days. The show is pretty much now a bad imitation of Family Guy!:mad:

[CyberCartoon]

Yes! I want the Simpsons to air more new episodes to see more new treehouse of horrors.:)

[Wesyeed]

Past it's prime, now it's time, to end this show after I end this rhyme...:shrug:

[LordByronius]

True, it's Halcyon days are over, and seasons 10-14 were a real wash, but the new episodes still elicit a chuckle.

I see no reason for them to stop. The show still gets great ratings, I still laugh, the creators still want to make more. A few vocal internet nay-sayers who've been doing the "SIMPSONS NEEDS TO STOP, THAT WAS THE WORST. EPISODE. EVER." shtick since the eighth season won't convince me otherwise.

[Zero-V]

A few vocal internet nay-sayers.
A FEW?!!

That owuld include several well written critical media outlets and Harry Shearer also.

The series is crap. It's legacy is far from tarnished however, as there have been more than enough seasons of great quality to ensure it's place in history as one of the most consistent series of all time in it's early years, there's more than enough to appreicate, it's sad to see it become a corporate engine...running on tired, stale, undeveloped characters and ripping off other comedy premises.

Simpsons 2002-2005 =WCW 1998-2001, a menegerie of sub-par quality, bad writers, only a few good spots, and a fanbase in clear denial.

[SirLemming]

I too don't want to vote, because I don't think it SUCKS, but I do think it should end. Even though I'm curious to see whether or not they'll improve enough to get back to season 3-7 quality, the show does not need to go on anymore and I'd be perfectly fine with it ending.

The show's crew seems pretty confident that the show can go on virtually forever since there will always be new social issues and stuff, but I disagree. That's more true of South Park and, to a lesser extent, Family Guy. With The Simpsons, though, more often than not their efforts to keep things current are the most irritating bits of the new episodes. Unless the characters change with the times, having them do modern things is out of character.
But I'm not necessarily saying the characters have to change significantly (or age, as is often suggested). That's only if they really do want to throw in a bunch of current events stuff. But the older seasons were only lightly peppered with contemporary cultural references. The plots were pretty universal. Of course, you can only do so many of those...

[TrogdorNyimbhat]

Yes! I want the Simpsons to air more new episodes to see more new treehouse of horrors.:)The earlier "Tree house of horror" eps. killed me. But newer ones are the worst.

"SIMPSONS NEEDS TO STOP, THAT WAS THE WORST. EPISODE. EVER." Worst. Cosmic. Voice. Ever. I will only see it three more times. Today.

[nakak]

From where I live, I can only watch reruns of older episodes, but I did manage to watch several newer episodes, and while not that good, it still makes me laugh. In fact, some newer episodes are so funny, I thought it was an older episode.

Even though I only saw few newer episodes and read many people's thoughts about how lame Simpsons is going, I say to have the show go on. I want to see how long Simpsons will go. However, I think I read somewhere that Matt Groening is thinking of continuning the series until it gets to episode 365, so that they can rerun one episode per day for a year.

P.S., arn't there a Simpsons movie being planned? Any news about it so far? I read that there will be 3 movies based on the show, due to the contract agreement with the voice actors.

[Natey]

NBC? When did that happen?
that just might be a local thing.

[Underdunkt]

It's time to end the show. It is obviously past its glory days. The show is pretty much now a bad imitation of Family Guy!:mad:
Um, I think you've got that backwards to be honest.



A FEW?!!

That owuld include several well written critical media outlets and Harry Shearer also.
Harry Shearer was largely misquoted. Yes, he's said some cynical things about the state of the show, but he's also said in the past that he thought the show was improving again (back before season 14 started airing, he said he thought the S14 scripts were an improvement).

"Well-written critical media outlets" is an overstatement. There was in fact a very good on on slate I believe, called "How did America's best tv show turn into a cartoon?". It was well-reasoned and I totally agreed with it at the time. But it never said that the show should end, just that the last few seasons (at that time) hadn't been up to snuff. It suggested that the show could probably salvage itself after all. There was also "The Simpsons Has Lost its Cool" on MSNBC's site, and whose author betrayed George Meyer and took many of his interview comments out of context (and the same author later did some puff-piece claiming that the show had fixed itself, which was true even if all of his specific points were all wrong in both pieces). Other then that there's been a few honestly really lousy editorials on small bit sites. If I see one more editorial claiming that the loss of Conan O'Brien had anything whatsoever to do with the decline of The Simpsons I'm going to jab a knife in somebody's eye.

And Lordbyrinius was technically correct, though I should point out that there's been vocal naysayers on the internet since season three. And if we're going to talk about media outlets and voice actors complaining, Yeardley Smith hated "Marge vs. the Monorail" and "Bart vs. Australia", and though seasons 5/6 represented a decline. Kavner and Shearer hated "Homer at the Bat". Some guy who later wrote a completely positive puff piece around the putrid season 11 wrote during season 4 or 5 that the show was clearly declining. Entertainment Weekly said during season four that the show was declining, and years later completely backtracked on that. There's been people complaining about the show for a long, long time; its just a natural consequence of the show lasting past three or four seasons, as there is always someone who thinks a show has declined once you get past that point, let alone a show that's been on 16 seasons.




Simpsons 2002-2005 =WCW 1998-2001, a menegerie of sub-par quality, bad writers, only a few good spots, and a fanbase in clear denial.
And can someone explain this to me? 2002-2005 are worse then 1997-2001 apparently? I really don't understand it when people name the most recent seasons as the worst, while 10-12 are somehow considered even remotely good.

[Fone Bone]

Um, I think you've got that backwards to be honest.


Harry Shearer was largely misquoted. Yes, he's said some cynical things about the state of the show, but he's also said in the past that he thought the show was improving again (back before season 14 started airing, he said he thought the S14 scripts were an improvement).

"Well-written critical media outlets" is an overstatement. There was in fact a very good on on slate I believe, called "How did America's best tv show turn into a cartoon?". It was well-reasoned and I totally agreed with it at the time. But it never said that the show should end, just that the last few seasons (at that time) hadn't been up to snuff. It suggested that the show could probably salvage itself after all. There was also "The Simpsons Has Lost its Cool" on MSNBC's site, and whose author betrayed George Meyer and took many of his interview comments out of context (and the same author later did some puff-piece claiming that the show had fixed itself, which was true even if all of his specific points were all wrong in both pieces). Other then that there's been a few honestly really lousy editorials on small bit sites. If I see one more editorial claiming that the loss of Conan O'Brien had anything whatsoever to do with the decline of The Simpsons I'm going to jab a knife in somebody's eye.

And Lordbyrinius was technically correct, though I should point out that there's been vocal naysayers on the internet since season three. And if we're going to talk about media outlets and voice actors complaining, Yeardley Smith hated "Marge vs. the Monorail" and "Bart vs. Australia", and though seasons 5/6 represented a decline. Kavner and Shearer hated "Homer at the Bat". Some guy who later wrote a completely positive puff piece around the putrid season 11 wrote during season 4 or 5 that the show was clearly declining. Entertainment Weekly said during season four that the show was declining, and years later completely backtracked on that. There's been people complaining about the show for a long, long time; its just a natural consequence of the show lasting past three or four seasons, as there is always someone who thinks a show has declined once you get past that point, let alone a show that's been on 16 seasons.



And can someone explain this to me? 2002-2005 are worse then 1997-2001 apparently? I really don't understand it when people name the most recent seasons as the worst, while 10-12 are somehow considered even remotely good.Well said. Even though I believe the show should end I think all of the intense hatred is a HUGE overreaction. I'm not sure why Family Guy is always overpraised (I've only seen a handful of really great episodes) while The Simpsons is treated like crap year after year. It's still a good show and even if the glory days are behind it I really can't take ANYONE seriously who posts constantly bashing the show for no reason. The same thing happened back in season three (I'm old enough to remember the *****ing).

[Frank]

Um, I think you've got that backwards to be honestHuh????

[crayon]

you know, in a old computer magazine, i think it was compute, that i found one day.., i'd read somewhere that by now we'd see bart's 'grandkids's on the tube.. and yet homer's kids are still like 10 years old?

[Underdunkt]

What I'm referring to is that Family Guy is, largely, a rip off of The Simpsons (among other things; I'd advise you to do a search on google for "Jimmy Corrigan: Smartest Kid in the Universe". When you see the baby version of him, you'll never think of Stewie as an original creation ever again). The pacing and structure are there, which would be acceptable, but it also blatantly plundered the "cutaway" jokes pioneered by The Simpsons around seasons four and five, and to some degree "The Critic" as well. Peter is, largely, a dumbed down clone of Homer Simpson. In fact, Family Guy has quite a bit in common with seasons 10-12 of The Simpsons: shallow and unlikeablecharacters, overuse of toilet humor, wackiness and not much else. Seasons 13-16 of The Simpsons, on the other hand, are much closer to its original 1-8 reign of awesomeness then it is to 10-12, let alone its the bastard offspring of The Simpsons, Family Guy.

I don't even hate FG to be honest....but in no way is the current Simpsons a rip off of it. Its the other way around, and always has been.

[Zero-V]

And can someone explain this to me? 2002-2005 are worse then 1997-2001 apparently? I really don't understand it when people name the most recent seasons as the worst, while 10-12 are somehow considered even remotely good.
Because I liked the seasons from 1997-2000, it could also be aruged 2001 was like 1998 for WCW...you knew the end was nigh, but there was enough to keep you watching

[Neo Yi]

Since I've been watching Simpsons for some 12 years or so (and every episodes except the Tracey Ullman special) to date, it's really hard to let go. I want them to continue, but I know they need to end sometime soon. I guess what I'm saying is, I want them to end the way the producers want them to instead of being cut short (although I don't see that happening anytime soon).
~Neo

[simpspin]

And Lordbyrinius was technically correct, though I should point out that there's been vocal naysayers on the internet since season three.

Meh, the show was constantly changing the first eight seasons. You can't say the show was exactly the same in season 1 and in season 8. The constant changing of the excutive producers brought in a different style to the show that many fans interpeted as a decline. Thustly:

Seasons:
1 and 2: Sam Simon
3 and 4: Al Jean, Mike Riess
5 and 6: David Mirkin
7 and 8: Oakley and Weinstien
9 to 12: Mike Scully
13 to present: Al Jean

It really wasn't until Mike Scully took over for more than two seasons was there ever a period where a lot of the fans thougth the show 'tanked' (S10-12) and with Al Jean back since S13, there's been a swoth of fans who mistake an 'improvment' to consistancy in style.

In general, I feel the show's early years were marred with naysayers becasue the show was chaning more between seasons than it is today.

[Underdunkt]

Meh, the show was constantly changing the first eight seasons. You can't say the show was exactly the same in season 1 and in season 8. The constant changing of the excutive producers brought in a different style to the show that many fans interpeted as a decline.
True (and I know all that exec. producer stuff by the way; I'm sure you know me at NHC, albeit under a different name, so I know all of that sort of thing), though I think you would know even better then I would that a lot of the original criticisms were baseless, hypocritical, etc. That said, I actually would give some of the critics around seasons 4-6 (not to much 7 and 8) more credit that some of the modern ones. I can understand people who fell in love with the shows first two or three seasons being really taken aback by episodes like "Marge vs. the Monorail", whereas I can't really understand some of the people now who complain about even slightly wacky things and then praise "Monorail" as one of their all time favorites. But while there was certainly some legitimate criticism then (just as there is now), there was plenty of really ridiculous criticism as well (again, just as there is now).

[One Radical Dude]

I won't give a yes or no answer. Honestly, it's been a while since I've watched the series. I still watch from time to time. I will say if people still love this series, then it should stick around if Matt Groening is interested. If people really think it's going downhill, then it should end pretty soon. Where is the "no opinion" option? :p

[Jave]

What I'm referring to is that Family Guy is, largely, a rip off of The Simpsons (among other things; I'd advise you to do a search on google for "Jimmy Corrigan: Smartest Kid in the Universe". When you see the baby version of him, you'll never think of Stewie as an original creation ever again). The pacing and structure are there, which would be acceptable, but it also blatantly plundered the "cutaway" jokes pioneered by The Simpsons around seasons four and five, and to some degree "The Critic" as well. Peter is, largely, a dumbed down clone of Homer Simpson. In fact, Family Guy has quite a bit in common with seasons 10-12 of The Simpsons: shallow and unlikeablecharacters, overuse of toilet humor, wackiness and not much else. Seasons 13-16 of The Simpsons, on the other hand, are much closer to its original 1-8 reign of awesomeness then it is to 10-12, let alone its the bastard offspring of The Simpsons, Family Guy.Family Guy is not a Simpsons rip-off. Neither is newer Simpsons a rip-off of Family Guy. Both shows have taken a few setups and gags from each other. That doesn't make them ripoffs. If you're saying that Peter is a dumbed-down Homer, I could counter back by saying that Homer is a stupider Fred Flintstone. Both series originated from the same raw material, so none of them has an original premise.


I can understand people who fell in love with the shows first two or three seasons being really taken aback by episodes like "Marge vs. the Monorail", whereas I can't really understand some of the people now who complain about even slightly wacky things and then praise "Monorail" as one of their all time favorites. But while there was certainly some legitimate criticism then (just as there is now), there was plenty of really ridiculous criticism as well (again, just as there is now).Because back then the series was at its peak, so there was nothing BETTER to compare the episodes to, meaning people had higher standards. Now, however, the series has gotten so bad that viewers seem to be satisfied with two or three laughs per episode. Of course any episode of seasons 2-7 would look like gold by comparison, even if, on their own, you thought they sucked. I remember that, up until season 9, "Lisa the Ichonoclast" was my worst episode ever, until "Homer Simpson in: Kidney Trouble" showed up. I wanted to pass out.

And "Marge vs. the Monorail" IS a good episode. It was good when it first aired and it still is good today because the execution of the wacky gags worked and they were FUNNY. Today, 90% of the wacky humor is executed in a way it's NOT FUNNY.


And can someone explain this to me? 2002-2005 are worse then 1997-2001 apparently? I really don't understand it when people name the most recent seasons as the worst, while 10-12 are somehow considered even remotely good.Uh, the 2002-2005 IS a worse period than 1997-2001 because most people WANT to hate Mike Scully since it was during his helm that the show started to go downhill (although that's just popular belief, as the series really went downhill during season 8, which was Oakley-Weinstein). But what people fail to realize is that when Al Jean took over, the series went downhill even more. "Unfunny Jerkass Homer" hasn't changed, Bart has gotten a lot less brattier, Lisa is more annoying than ever, and Marge's personality has gotten so silly it doesn't even feel it's the same character anymore.

And that's my 3,600th post. Thanks for listening. ;)

[Classic Speedy]

I remember that, up until season 9, "Lisa the Ichonoclast" was my worst episode ever, until "Homer Simpson in: Kidney Trouble" showed up. I wanted to pass out. ....What was wrong with Lisa the Iconoclast?

[LordByronius]

....What was wrong with Lisa the Iconoclast?
Technically nothing, but people 'round this here internet like to get their panties in a wad when the writers of a show take someone's favorite characters and make drastic changes to their personality.

[Spongebrain2.0]

What I'm referring to is that Family Guy is, largely, a rip off of The Simpsons (among other things; I'd advise you to do a search on google for "Jimmy Corrigan: Smartest Kid in the Universe". When you see the baby version of him, you'll never think of Stewie as an original creation ever again). The pacing and structure are there, which would be acceptable, but it also blatantly plundered the "cutaway" jokes pioneered by The Simpsons around seasons four and five, and to some degree "The Critic" as well. Peter is, largely, a dumbed down clone of Homer Simpson. In fact, Family Guy has quite a bit in common with seasons 10-12 of The Simpsons: shallow and unlikeablecharacters, overuse of toilet humor, wackiness and not much else. Seasons 13-16 of The Simpsons, on the other hand, are much closer to its original 1-8 reign of awesomeness then it is to 10-12, let alone its the bastard offspring of The Simpsons, Family Guy.

I don't even hate FG to be honest....but in no way is the current Simpsons a rip off of it. Its the other way around, and always has been.

Jimmy Corrigan, nobody knows who the hell that is, & they obviously don't care. Ever heard of "an ironic coincidence". I doubt Seth Macfarlane is sitting on his computer & looking up characters & copying them. I also doubt he sits there & watches the "New Simpsons" saying "Hmmm, that's a great joke, I think I'll steal it". "Simpsons 2" is trying to hard to appeal to fans of FG's wacky sense of humor, which is why it looks like the new TS is a ripoff of FG. If TS writers were any bit original, they'd at least try to find thier own mold of humor, & not resort to bizarre, wacky random moments that FG has mastered so perfectly

[Classic Speedy]

Technically nothing, but people 'round this here internet like to get their panties in a wad when the writers of a show take someone's favorite characters and make drastic changes to their personality. I didn't see anyone acting out of character in that episode. Lisa's quest for the truth was very much something she would do (and really, who would just let true history slide if they found out about it?), but she wasn't obnoxious and arrogant about it like in "Lisa the Vegetarian". Homer was rightfully excited to be proclaimed town crier because he loves attention. Bart, as little screen time as he got, had a true-to-character line "'I want to help you George Washington?' Pfft- even your DREAMS are square!" Ned wasn't a "Everyone is going to Hell except me, Rod, and Todd" overly exaggerated Christian stereotype like he is in many newer episodes. He took part in the world and was just being a good guy.

To top it off, Donald Sutherland's guest voice was great, and he did a good job making the character both pleasant and antagonistic whenever anyone crossed Jebediah and his life's work. And the humor was well-done, like the badly-done Jebediah film, the use of "cromulent" and "embiggens", the Barney exit line, "OK, 100 yellow", the sniper joke, and many others.

And the ending worked well, since it showed that Lisa has some restraint, despite things still being left unsaid. Sorry about the rant. ;)

[auto]

If they cancelled the Simpsons now, I'd actually be pretty happy. The show had a much better run than many other shows on TV but naturally, as time goes on, writers run out of ideas. Sadly, the time when writers run out of ideas has hit the Simpsons at least 5 years ago. They should cancel it so it can reach classic status.

[simpspin]

Because back then the series was at its peak, so there was nothing BETTER to compare the episodes to, meaning people had higher standards. Now, however, the series has gotten so bad that viewers seem to be satisfied with two or three laughs per episode. Of course any episode of seasons 2-7 would look like gold by comparison, even if, on their own, you thought they sucked. I remember that, up until season 9, "Lisa the Ichonoclast" was my worst episode ever, until "Homer Simpson in: Kidney Trouble" showed up. I wanted to pass out.


I'd say "Two Bad Neighbors" was the crap episode of the first seven seasons, it's even worse than "Kidney Trouble".


And "Marge vs. the Monorail" IS a good episode. It was good when it first aired and it still is good today because the execution of the wacky gags worked and they were FUNNY. Today, 90% of the wacky humor is executed in a way it's NOT FUNNY.
Agreed, but I think the surreal humor was worse when Scully was in charge. The stuff in "When you Dish Upon a Star", "Kill the Alligator and Run" and "A Tale of Two Springfields" almost made me stop watching. Unfortunetly, the show today isn't memorable, but the Scully era was memorable for all the wrong reasons.

[John Pannozzi]

The Simpsons have been going downhill for years, and after they made me hate Lisa in "On a Clear Day I Can't See My Sister" I can't stand anymore seasons.

Death to Homer! Long live Fry!

Death to Bart! Long live Bender!

Death to Lisa! Long live Leela!

Futurama must come back. The Simpsons outliving Futurama is like the Famicom/NES outliving the Super Famicom/Super NES (IMHO).

The episodes where Matt Groening, Sam Simon and Jim Brooks show-runned and Klasky-Csupo animated were the best by far IMHO. I agree with a lot of bigshot, Matt Wilson and Nick's opinions on the show's downfall. The early eps. mixed character development, interesting storylines, beautiful art, and side-splitting humor perfectlly. Season 4 wasn't total crap, but the show was starting to get dark (Quimby saying he had his enemies murdered) and surreal. David Samuel "X." Cohen, Ken Keeler made the show a bit better, and I'll even cut Mike Scully some slack (Mike Scully wrote "Lisa on Ice", which had an ending that I found heart-warming even as a kid), but the newer writers (starting with Ian Maxtone-Graham) are pretty bad. They can write episodes that are interesting, attempt character development and have the characters in character; but aren't funny usually. The episodes they write that ARE funny are often plauged by surreal and unrealistic gags and JerkAss Homer. Some episodes are classics ("Diabrete of a Mad Housewife" and "The Way we Weren't"), but most are bad. Season 16 was mostly weak and anemic, I only thought most of the eps. were solid because they kept the characters in character, not because they had any humor.

[Aztec]

I think it's pretty universally agreed that the Simpsons haven't been good since 1997. Seasons 2-9 represent the height of the series.

Even the Halloween episodes (the only episodes I've watched since '98 or so) have been awful as of late.

Sunday's episode: Bart becomes a hip hop star...:sad:

Someone please put a dagger in this show before it ruins its own legacy.

[Underdunkt]

Family Guy is not a Simpsons rip-off. Neither is newer Simpsons a rip-off of Family Guy. Both shows have taken a few setups and gags from each other. That doesn't make them ripoffs. If you're saying that Peter is a dumbed-down Homer, I could counter back by saying that Homer is a stupider Fred Flintstone. Both series originated from the same raw material, so none of them has an original premise. That wouldn't be true though. Homer isn't really all that close to Fred in general characterization. Peter, however, is very close to Homer in the way he's characterized. Dumber, meaner, but still very similar. Just think of it this way...take seasons 10-12 Homer, put him in to some random situation, think of how he'd react, and then think about how Peter would actually act differently.

I will grant that its a little subjective though, especcially since Homer probably wasn't the only inspiration for Peter (I think McFarlane even admitted Jackie Gleason?). But I think the way the character is portrayed is just a little too close to Homer for him to not, at the very least, be heavily inspired by him.



Because back then the series was at its peak, so there was nothing BETTER to compare the episodes to, meaning people had higher standards. Now, however, the series has gotten so bad that viewers seem to be satisfied with two or three laughs per episode. Of course any episode of seasons 2-7 would look like gold by comparison, even if, on their own, you thought they sucked. I remember that, up until season 9, "Lisa the Ichonoclast" was my worst episode ever, until "Homer Simpson in: Kidney Trouble" showed up. I wanted to pass out. That had nothing to do with the hyprocritical, overly nitpicky reviews of the old days. If it was really the greatest thing out there at the time to them (and I do personally think it was, but that's not the point), they would have said so. But a lot of them felt the show was degenerating into pure crap by season five. These weren't just people saying that the show was declining from what it already was, this was people saying that the show had gone to hell. And my other point was that I can actually understand that to an extent, among people who loved the first three seasons' realism, whereas its actually harder to understand people who complain about things in modern episodes that were hardly uncommon in classic seasons that they always praise.

And, by and large, people's standards haven't lowered. Either they enjoy the show or they don't. Those that don't have mostly stopped watching, those that do likely get a lot more then two or three laughs an episode. Yes, there's probably some element of lowering standards, in that because the show isn't at, say, season two level anymore a lot of people don't expect every episode to be quite as good as season two. But either they enjoy the show or they don't. If all they get is two or three laughs and they cringe through the rest, they're not going to say that they like it. Most people will just switch it off.



And "Marge vs. the Monorail" IS a good episode. It was good when it first aired and it still is good today because the execution of the wacky gags worked and they were FUNNY. Today, 90% of the wacky humor is executed in a way it's NOT FUNNY. I agree that Monorail is a good episode (if overrated), but that's not my point. I wasn't even talking about people who are okay with wackiness in and of itself, but just don't care for the specific jokes therin in modern episodes, which is actually understandable. If they just don't find it funny anymore, I can see that. What I'm talking about is people who complain when wacky things happen in modern episodes because they supposedly don't like wackiness itself, yet they hypocritically turn around and praise episodes like Monorail or "Homer the Great" or whatever as all time classics. If people find the wackiness in Monorail funnier then modern wackiness, then yeah, I can see that. I prefer Monorail too. Its the people who complain just because its wacky, regardless of whether its funny or not, that I'm talking about.



Uh, the 2002-2005 IS a worse period than 1997-2001 because most people WANT to hate Mike Scully since it was during his helm that the show started to go downhill (although that's just popular belief, as the series really went downhill during season 8, which was Oakley-Weinstein). But what people fail to realize is that when Al Jean took over, the series went downhill even more. "Unfunny Jerkass Homer" hasn't changed, Bart has gotten a lot less brattier, Lisa is more annoying than ever, and Marge's personality has gotten so silly it doesn't even feel it's the same character anymore.
The season eight point I can see, as it is in fact lower then season 7 on the rung (I think its better then 5 though). But come on, if anything Jean's biggest strength has probably been treatment of the characters. Yes, occasionally you get an episode with awful or just a little iffy characterization. Even in the old days that would happen occasionally, like with "Homer Goes to College". But overall, the characters are treated much, much better now then under Scully. Bart, yes, occasionally he's a little bland, but he has far more character now then when he was always either in the background or just relegated to Homer's straightman in seasons 10-12. Marge, yes, occasionally she's a little silly (a problem the last couple seasons have mostly fixed anyway), but hardly more so then when she was just going insane in every episode and trying to kill people. That point about Lisa isn't even a point (at least with anything to go off of), but if you're talking about "PC Thug Lisa", that's a Scully trait that has hardly surfaced at all in the Jean years. And Jerkass Homer.....please. If anything Homer was the first character Jean fixed (the others, Marge in particular, took a season or two to get completely or mostly completely back in to place). The occasionally iffy episode aside (and again its nothing new, as during seasons 5-8 there was always at least one or two episodes each season with rather iffy or bad Homer characterization), he's hardly been a "Jerkass". I wonder if some people even know what the term refers to at this point.


Jimmy Corrigan, nobody knows who the hell that is, & they obviously don't care. Ever heard of "an ironic coincidence". I doubt Seth Macfarlane is sitting on his computer & looking up characters & copying them. I also doubt he sits there & watches the "New Simpsons" saying "Hmmm, that's a great joke, I think I'll steal it". "Simpsons 2" is trying to hard to appeal to fans of FG's wacky sense of humor, which is why it looks like the new TS is a ripoff of FG. If TS writers were any bit original, they'd at least try to find thier own mold of humor, & not resort to bizarre, wacky random moments that FG has mastered so perfectly Only a few specific Simpsons jokes (off the top of my head) were specifically stolen by Family Guy, but that's not the point. The point is more about the general style. The Simpsons is not "stealing" its wackiness from Family Guy....Family Guy got it from The Simpsons to begin with. Come on, look at episodes like "Whacking Day", and "$pringfield" (both examples of episodes with lots of cutaways and very random pop-culture references) and tell me Family Guy wasn't at least heavily inspired by episodes like that.

The Simpsons writers have no interest in capturing Family Guy fans. It either has them already, or doesn't need them. The ratings for The Simpsons have never substantially lowered, at least enough for there to be any kind of concern, so they've pretty much being going about their business. In fact, they've even said that one reason they don't do the cutaways very often now is that shows like Family Guy started using them, and thus they felt those jokes had become stale/overused.

Now I will say that Scully seemed to be trying to pander more to younger viewers with his incessant overuse of Homer adventures and potty humor (no relation to Family Guy, as he started doing this before FG started airing, and was still doing it after FG was cancelled for its first of two times), but Jean hasn't done this at all. At this point the show is pretty much doing wackiness the way it always has. The older episodes were generally better at it, no one's really refuting that, but the style itself is very much in the style of The Simpsons. Family Guy's similarity to it is a reflection it being inspired by The Simpsons, not the other way around.

And for the Corrigan thing, I'll grant there's the possibility of coincidence, but it seems unlikely to me from what I've seen. The exact design and the personality are just too close. And yeah, a limited amount of people have actually heard of that character, but don't you think that might just make it seem suspicious to fewer people?


(Oh, and sorry about this getting really long, but one more quote to respond to:


Originally posted by John Pannozzi:

Futurama must come back. The Simpsons outliving Futurama is like the Super Famicom/Super NES outliving the Famicom/NES (IMHO).

Um, what? That analogy doesn't even make sense. SNES was the natural progression from NES. Why would you want NES to outlive it? If anything, The Simpsons outliving Futurama would be more like NES outliving SNES and SNES dying first. But even that doesn't make sense, because they're individual tv shows with individual styles (simalar in some ways of course, but largely different) and characters, while the SNES was a technological update over the NES. We might as well start saying that record players should have outlived CD players if we're going to be using game machines here.

And you still haven't actually explained how The Simpsons is a "poor substitute" for Futurama. I like Futurama more then modern Simpsons too, but The Simpsons came first. You might as well say that South Park or Will and Grace or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are poor substitutes for Futurama. Differences in quality aside, it would be the same principle.

[Spongebrain2.0]

And for the Corrigan thing, I'll grant there's the possibility of coincidence, but it seems unlikely to me from what I've seen. The exact design and the personality are just too close. And yeah, a limited amount of people have actually heard of that character, but don't you think that might just make it seem suspicious to fewer people?

Uh...no. Jimmy Corrigan apparently is a small web comic strip. It hasn't even been in animated form. Stewie is evil...is Corrigan? Stewie talks with a British accent...Does Corrigan(No we haven't even heard him). Stewie has a very feminie/in the closet homosexuality, Corrigan doesn't. I guess if you're going to say Stewie is a ripoff of Corrigan, we might as well say Brian Griffin is a ripoff of Snoopy. I mean come on, they're both dogs, they're both white with black noses & incredibly smart...OMG, it's a CONSPIRACY. I can't believe FG is ripping off "Peanuts", Mr. Macfarlane is a terrible man with no creative genes in his body!!:p

[Underdunkt]

Its not, to my knowledge, a web comic. Its a published thing. And the similarity is in the way the character speaks and acts (sans the world-domination stuff, but its easy to say that that was probably inspired by Brain from Pinky and the Brain), and of course the character design itself. And the fact that it isn't animated has nothing to do with it....if someone rips off a character or design, they're ripping off a character or design, regardless of if whether or not they're both in the same medium.

And Brian is indeed a somewhat rather unoriginal character, but just because a talking dog is a common cartoon stereotype (and Brian himself isn't particularly distinct as a character on his own), as opposed to it being a rip off of something else.

[Eddie G.]

Jimmy Corrigan and Stewie don't look that much alike. Honestly both are babies who are supposed to be smart, so yeah they are sort of similar because babies are all sort of similar. Design wise though, there are just too many differences to call Stewie a rip-off.

[ToOn~g@l]

I don't mind if the Simpsons continue for about one or two more years before they should end it all. They have been around long enough now and they are getting a little stale. And I hope that the last few episodes should go out in style too, making it a memorable end to the show.

[Spongebrain2.0]

Its not, to my knowledge, a web comic. Its a published thing. And the similarity is in the way the character speaks and acts (sans the world-domination stuff, but its easy to say that that was probably inspired by Brain from Pinky and the Brain), and of course the character design itself. And the fact that it isn't animated has nothing to do with it....if someone rips off a character or design, they're ripping off a character or design, regardless of if whether or not they're both in the same medium.

And Brian is indeed a somewhat rather unoriginal character, but just because a talking dog is a common cartoon stereotype (and Brian himself isn't particularly distinct as a character on his own), as opposed to it being a rip off of something else.
Yes, and I guess that makes the Brain a ripoff of every James Bond villain in the world. Hell, I guess Cleveland is a Bill Cosby ripoff, They're both black guys who talk funny!:rolleyes:

[Underdunkt]

Well I just said people could theoretically say that, mainly through the whole idea of them being a small character that can't actually accomplish their plans due to their size. I'm not neccasarily convinced of it actually, but I have seen some people suggest it.

This is getting off track though, and probably better for a different thread...my main point was just that its rather ridiculous for people to claim that modern Simpsons are somehow copying Family Guy.

And to actually answer the thread's question finally, I would say yes with reservations. I do think the creators should think about wrapping it up soon, as I don't want to see the show slip into 10-12 doldrums (or somehow become a show that just goes on forever like SNL). But based on the show's current quality (not as good as 1-8, but a quality show and one of the best on the air) I don't see any real reason for it to quit.

[Frank]

Well I just said people could theoretically say that, mainly through the whole idea of them being a small character that can't actually accomplish their plans due to their size. I'm not neccasarily convinced of it actually, but I have seen some people suggest it.

This is getting off track though, and probably better for a different thread...my main point was just that its rather ridiculous for people to claim that modern Simpsons are somehow copying Family Guy.

And to actually answer the thread's question finally, I would say yes with reservations. I do think the creators should think about wrapping it up soon, as I don't want to see the show slip into 10-12 doldrums (or somehow become a show that just goes on forever like SNL). But based on the show's current quality (not as good as 1-8, but a quality show and one of the best on the air) I don't see any real reason for it to quit.
There are some similarities between FG and the TS. Storywise they do copy off Family Guy sometimes. While it's not a ripoff of Family Guy (most of the time), alot of the episode have a slight FG touch to it. IMHO the Simpsons should be wrapped up as soon as possible for the sake of its dignity.:)

[Zorak Masaki]

The thing about the simpsons and FG though, is that with a few exceptions, family guy's jokes parody things that havent been parodied before or as much (you cant do that on television, kool aid man), while simpsons parodies CURRENT pop culture that everyone else is parodying as well (even back in season 4 they did parodies of the crying game and murphy brown for example). It doesnt hold up that well in retrospect to be honest.

[SirLemming]

Family Guy was inspired by The Simpsons and other stuff, just like The Simpsons was inspired by a bunch of stuff. But the comedy style is extremely different, even though the shows are in the same basic category. The characters aren't rip-offs, either, unless you think "stupid father" and "typical housewife" are Matt Groening inventions. And even when there's some plot overlap (which is an understandable coincidence), the execution remains very different. Even FG's too-similar Indian casino storyline had plenty of its own merits.

And I don't care if The Simpsons' writers have said that FG is a ripoff, because they're humans too, and they're wrong. Doesn't prove anything.


I hope nobody else has anything to say on the matter, but I suppose my argument isn't as air-tight as I'd like to think it is. I would clamor for us to get back on topic, but if we don't, I guess it's not tragic, there's not too much to say anyway.

[Jolly Bengali]

Uh, the 2002-2005 IS a worse period than 1997-2001 because most people WANT to hate Mike Scully since it was during his helm that the show started to go downhill (although that's just popular belief, as the series really went downhill during season 8, which was Oakley-Weinstein). But what people fail to realize is that when Al Jean took over, the series went downhill even more. "Unfunny Jerkass Homer" hasn't changed, Bart has gotten a lot less brattier, Lisa is more annoying than ever, and Marge's personality has gotten so silly it doesn't even feel it's the same character anymore.

I think it's a bit insulting for you to think you know what drives other people's opinions. Especially when you have no backup whatsoever for your claims, and simply make wild completely inaccurate blanket statements ("Jerkass Homer hasn't changed", "Lisa is more annoying han ever"). Maybe, just maybe, people actually do see some improvement, and you're the one too blind to see them in your haste to bash anything new regarding the show.

To answer the question, no, I don't think the show should stop. What would be the point? To preserve the legacy? It's too late for that; The Simpsons haven't been great since 1997. There are already 8 seasons of subpar-for-The-Simpsons quality. What difference would another few seasons make, especially if some people can still enjoy the show for what it is.

[Jave]

I think it's a bit insulting for you to think you know what drives other people's opinions.I don't have to make stuff up, because I've seen clear manifestations of people at alt.tv.simpsons and simpson-specific forums that hate seasons 9-12 simply and only because Scully was in charge. They do not even bother doing analysis or reviews, they simply make remarks like: "Meh, that's a Scully episode, it sucks and doesn't compare to this newer one by Jean". THEY are the ones making blanket statements about the show, not me.


Especially when you have no backup whatsoever for your claims, and simply make wild completely inaccurate blanket statements ("Jerkass Homer hasn't changed", "Lisa is more annoying han ever").Homer hasn't changed. At least I don't see how. You could put a random episode from seasons 10-12 and a random one from seasons 13+ and I wouldn't probably notice any difference in Homer at all. There are a little exceptions, sure, but even the most serious episodes seem to be ruined by a "Unfunny Jerkass Homer" gag, like at the end "My Mother, the Carjacker", where he fills his mother's coffin with garbage.

And BTW, Homer has been a jerkass from day one (Or at least season 2 since season 1 was very experimental). It's just that in the early days his stupidity was shadowed by hilarious gags or fantasticly-written scripts. I don't think I've a true funny Homer gag since... "Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment". Homer hiring a detective to follow Lisa around is no different Homer than the one that didn't care for Lisa's feeling for Mr. Bergstrom, except "Lisa's Substitute" was a marvelous episode due to its wonderful writing.

The only Scully episode in which Lisa was annoying was "Lisa the Skeptic" (and maybe "Lisa the Treehugger", but I actually thought that episode was funny), and the only one that had her OOC was "Girly Edition"

I can't sit through most Lisa plots lately. The Al Jean years started on the wrong foot with "She of Little Faith", Lord, I hated Lisa so much in that episode I wanted to turn the TV off, it's one of those episodes I don't really care for in reruns. While I liked a few of the episodes that revolved around her ("Little Girl on the Big Ten" and "Smart and Smarter"), most of them were real dissapointments. "I'm Spelling as Fast as I can", "Scuse Me While I Miss the Skies", "The President Wore Pearls" and the ultimate low for OOC Lisa: "On a Clear Day I Can't See my Sister".


Maybe, just maybe, people actually do see some improvement, and you're the one too blind to see them in your haste to bash anything new regarding the show.If people want to see improvement on the show, that's their call. But since the Al Jean years were the ones that gave me junk like "The Latest Gun in the West", "Gump Roast", "Large Marge", "Helter Shelter", "Strong Arms of the Ma", "Three Gays of the Condo", "Dude, Where's my Ranch", "The Regina Monologues", "Marge vs. Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens, and Gays", "Milhouse Doesn't Live Here Anymore" and "Bart Mangled Banner" (among the other episodes I previously mentioned), I certainly can't see any sign of the show getting better.

And for the record, I have never bashed The Simpsons as a whole, and I never will, since I can't speak bad of a show that has given me so many hours of entertainment. But if a bad episode shows up, or a season that's bad in average, I will say it as I think it is.

I didn't call anyone blind either, so if you're going to take my statements to a personal level by calling me blind, I have no business talking to you, since I do not consider that kind of remarks to be real discussion.

[Eddie G.]

And BTW, Homer has been a jerkass from day one (Or at least season 2 since season 1 was very experimental). It's just that in the early days his stupidity was shadowed by hilarious gags or fantasticly-written scripts.I sort of disagree. I think Homer started out as an abstract of your everyday Joe, all of us are a little selfish, dumb, jealous, lazy, and immoral. Homer was that taken to an extreme however the show always seemed to have a golden rule that in the end he never went too far into his impulses and that he did what was right. The problem with the new Homer is that he's an abstract of the abstract, he no longer is your average American taken to an extreme but is the original character taken to the extreme.

[SirLemming]

I don't have to make stuff up, because I've seen clear manifestations of people at alt.tv.simpsons and simpson-specific forums that hate seasons 9-12 simply and only because Scully was in charge. They do not even bother doing analysis or reviews, they simply make remarks like: "Meh, that's a Scully episode, it sucks and doesn't compare to this newer one by Jean". THEY are the ones making blanket statements about the show, not me.The key word is "they".

I personally never saw "Jerkass Homer" until I read about it on the forums, but I'm pretty sure most people use the term to denote something different from "Stupid Homer", which of course is what he's always been. He's always been stupid, ignorant, lazy, oblivious, and insensitive, but in the Scully era he became a bit more rude and obnoxious. It never bothered me a whole lot, but I do prefer the more laid-back stupid Homer, and they have been moving more towards that in seasons 14-16. I'd love to sit down and go through every episode and analyze his behavior-- oh wait, I wouldn't. So you'll just have to take my word for it or disagree with it, whatever. I'm sure he's had his "Jerkass" moments in these seasons, but they seem to be fewer.

And I know this doesn't count for much in practice, but in theory, it seems that the writers are telling us that the era of "Jerkass Homer" has ended. They made at least two references to it in this past season: one in the best episode of the season, "Mommie Beerest" (when Homer was pretending to be extra-stupid so Marge wouldn't make him take care of the house, and he said "Look, I'm Jerkass Homer!"), and one in one of the worst episodes of the season, "Homer and Ned's Hail-Mary Pass" (a news reporter referred to Homer as a "Professional Jerkass").

[Agent S7]

Well said. Even though I believe the show should end I think all of the intense hatred is a HUGE overreaction. I'm not sure why Family Guy is always overpraised (I've only seen a handful of really great episodes) while The Simpsons is treated like crap year after year. It's still a good show and even if the glory days are behind it I really can't take ANYONE seriously who posts constantly bashing the show for no reason. The same thing happened back in season three (I'm old enough to remember the *****ing).
I agree with what you said in every way possible, except for the idea that it should end. I'm pretty much neutral on that territory. Still, I think that if we give the Simpsons a chance, and just let the writers listen to us, we can change things. And not necessarily for the better. If most of us want it cancelled without a single chance, then so be it. If we can persuade them to hire new writers, then sweetness. My point is here: I like the Simpsons. I don't care if this season was horrible, I don't care if some nit-picky purists are angry, I DON'T CARE. Just DON'T GET THE SHOW CANCELLED, PEOPLE.
(Leaves the building, returning to the non-flame war/purist fight section known as "World's Finest Writer's Corner".)

And I don't take a word of that back.
~s7

[Aztec]

The show is over. It's been over for 8 years. It needs to be put out of its misery. The glory days are well over. This is Rickey Henderson territory at this point.

[Classic Speedy]

I said this in the Adult Swim predictions thread, and I'll say it again. We really have no power to get The Simpsons cancelled unless we're the president of Fox. Even to stop watching the show wouldn't put a negative enough of a dent in the ratings it gets to justify cancellation. So I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't really accomplish anything to say whether The Simpsons should be cancelled or not because we really have no control over it. All it does is cause fights among people who still like the show and those who think it's gone down the toilet (which is a lot of people on the internet in general).

As long as it gets good ratings and as long as the staff keeps going and as long as Fox decides to keep it, the show will continue. Or if Matt Groening decides to end it, which seems to change every so often.

I swear, this type of thread comes up after every new season of the show, and very little new gets said; everyone keeps reiterating the same comments like "Homer is so out of character!" and "The show's been bad ever since Mike Scully!". I'm not saying it should be banned from discussion, but like I said earlier, we can say "The Simpsons sucked since Season whatever, and it needs to be cancelled NOW!" all we want, but it doesn't really accomplish anything.

So I guess in conclusion, discussion of the quality of a season is fine, but the discussion of whether it should be cancelled is a bit unrealistic.

[Tzomisx]

I used to watch the show religiously every week, now I dont even bother watching it on Sundays.

It was amazing in its prime, but it just stopped being funny.

[simpspin]

I don't care if this season was horrible, I don't care if some nit-picky purists are angry, I DON'T CARE. Just DON'T GET THE SHOW CANCELLED, PEOPLE.That's the attitude that causes shows to become bad in the first place. If you and the rest of the fans, watch the show 'no matter what', what motivation do the writers have to turn out a good program?

EDIT: Matt Groening doesn't have the power to end the show himself.

[Jolly Bengali]

I don't have to make stuff up, because I've seen clear manifestations of people at alt.tv.simpsons and simpson-specific forums that hate seasons 9-12 simply and only because Scully was in charge. They do not even bother doing analysis or reviews, they simply make remarks like: "Meh, that's a Scully episode, it sucks and doesn't compare to this newer one by Jean". THEY are the ones making blanket statements about the show, not me.
Well, sure. There are people like that on all sides of the argument. How often do people come to the Simpsons talkback threads every week with the same tired "new episodes suck!!" one-liners? So what?

Oh, and yes, a.t.s. does suck now.

My point is, it's absurd to say that people prefer the Jean seasons simply because of his name. I've read enough in-depth analysis and reviews on Simpsons-specific forums like the NHC, and I've met several people who had rejuvenated interest in The Simpsons around season 14 before they ever came online and became aware of who the executive producer was, to believe people have valid reasons to watch and enjoy new episodes.


Homer hasn't changed. At least I don't see how. You could put a random episode from seasons 10-12 and a random one from seasons 13+ and I wouldn't probably notice any difference in Homer at all. There are a little exceptions, sure, but even the most serious episodes seem to be ruined by a "Unfunny Jerkass Homer" gag, like at the end "My Mother, the Carjacker", where he fills his mother's coffin with garbage.

And BTW, Homer has been a jerkass from day one (Or at least season 2 since season 1 was very experimental). It's just that in the early days his stupidity was shadowed by hilarious gags or fantasticly-written scripts. I don't think I've a true funny Homer gag since... "Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment". Homer hiring a detective to follow Lisa around is no different Homer than the one that didn't care for Lisa's feeling for Mr. Bergstrom, except "Lisa's Substitute" was a marvelous episode due to its wonderful writing.
Not really. Homer being angry, prone to being selfish, and insensitive is a normal part of his character; it's based in reality; his actions are understandable and funny. Jerkass Homer, present in many Scully episodes, is angry, loud, obnoxious, and in-your-face for no apparent reason. He's a raving lunatic, played for laughs. You're right that there's not much difference in characterization between Homer in Lisa's Substitute and Homer in The Dad Who Knew Too Little, though there's a pretty big difference between that Homer and the loudmouthed lunatic from Trash of the Titans and A Tale of Two Springfields.

Sure, you can find the occassional Jerkass Homer gag now and then, like the gag you mentioned where he filled his mother's grave with coffin; you could probably find some out-of-line gags from the classic era as well. However, despicable Jerkass Homer simply isn't there anymore. The only episodes I can think of are Pray Anything and A Star is Torn. As opposed to a long line of annoying Homer episodes from the Scully era.


The only Scully episode in which Lisa was annoying was "Lisa the Skeptic" (and maybe "Lisa the Treehugger", but I actually thought that episode was funny), and the only one that had her OOC was "Girly Edition"
There's also Make Room For Lisa, They Saved Lisa's Brain, Little Big Mom, and Lard of the Dance, and many episodes where her only role is to be a mini-adult.


I can't sit through most Lisa plots lately. The Al Jean years started on the wrong foot with "She of Little Faith", Lord, I hated Lisa so much in that episode I wanted to turn the TV off, it's one of those episodes I don't really care for in reruns. While I liked a few of the episodes that revolved around her ("Little Girl on the Big Ten" and "Smart and Smarter"), most of them were real dissapointments. "I'm Spelling as Fast as I can", "Scuse Me While I Miss the Skies", "The President Wore Pearls" and the ultimate low for OOC Lisa: "On a Clear Day I Can't See my Sister".
How was Lisa OOC or annoying in I'm Spelling As Fast As I Can and The President Wore Pearls? Actually, I'd say that Smart and Smarter is one of the episodes where Lisa actually is out-of-character (becoming a goth, running away from home for a fairly insipid reason, basin her identity on her IQ), and Dude Where's My Ranch was horrid as well.

What do you consider good Lisa characterization then? I think Lisa in Little Girl in the Big Ten, I'm Spelling As Fast As I Can, The President Wore Pearls, Fraudcast News, Sleeping With the Enemy, and A Star Is Torn were perfectly fine in balancing her sensitivity and naivete with her activism and her tendency to stand up for her beliefs. Few Scully episodes ever made her likable or remotely interesting.


If people want to see improvement on the show, that's their call. But since the Al Jean years were the ones that gave me junk like "The Latest Gun in the West", "Gump Roast", "Large Marge", "Helter Shelter", "Strong Arms of the Ma", "Three Gays of the Condo", "Dude, Where's my Ranch", "The Regina Monologues", "Marge vs. Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens, and Gays", "Milhouse Doesn't Live Here Anymore" and "Bart Mangled Banner" (among the other episodes I previously mentioned), I certainly can't see any sign of the show getting better.
I'm not denying there are still bad episodes, so I agree that most of the episodes you listed are junk (except Three Gays, which is average, and Milhouse Doesn't Live Here, which is quite good). However, there are also plenty of good episodes as well, while I'm straining to think of a decent episode from seasons 11-12.


I didn't call anyone blind either, so if you're going to take my statements to a personal level by calling me blind, I have no business talking to you, since I do not consider that kind of remarks to be real discussion.
Saying that people only like the Jean years because they WANT to hate Mike Scully, isn't calling them blind?