Do you think The Simpsons is a 90s product?

I've been a fan of the Simpsons since i saw them on Tracy Ullman in 87 and 88 when i was 5/6 and loved those shorts and i taped every episode of the show from 1989 to 2000 and the show should had DIED in 2001! It was a biting satrical show with intelligence, heart, soul, anti-authority social satire and excellence with a proper use of celebrity guest voices. Even quality writing with wit/snark/sarcasm and intelligence. I've been a fan of adult animation for a long time as i did saw some in the 80s like Rock & Rule on HBO which my parents taped for me with Twice Upon a Time when i was 4 in 86 with Starchaser Legend of Orin and Warriors of the Wind aka the butchered Nausicaa then at 5 saw Fire and Ice and Wizards with Lord of the Rings and fantastic planet with my big brothers on video. I even enjoyed Liquid TV with Aeon Flux (the shorts and spin off show), The Maxx, Duckman, Spawn, Heavy Metal, Beavis and Butthead, King of the Hill, Fritz the Cat, Akira with various anime even Cowboy Bebop, Princess Mononoke and others growing up in the 90s as a kid/teenager.

I gave up on this show in 2003 and i moved on to other adult animation as the show was getting soured/stale as i feel anything past season 10 is NOT The Simpsons but Zombie Simpsons! I you feel The Simpsons is a product of the 90s and has no place in today's world when it should had died in 2001 with Futurama as it's replacement.

The show died in 2001 to me as i quit show after 2002 and gave up when we had better replacements like Futurama. Fox aka Fucks ( a formerly great studio ran by people who care before they went for greed/caring about money more than quality just like Sony). I bet TRUE fans of the show who grew up in the late 80s and 90s like me who gave up after 2002 or 2003 or 2004 knew it was an abomination because gone was the intelligent satrical writing/soul/emotion/heart/intelligence is replaced by a living dead corpse of a show puppeted by the greedy Fox who only cares for money than quality as Simpsons is now just another Sitcom than a meaningful intelligent show with emotion/heart/intellgence/soul as The Simpsons feel irrelevant nowadays compared to the 90s Simpsons and of course other adult animation nowadays.

I tried to watch an episode of new Simpsons and man oh man i felt my brain was melting and wanted to punch the TV. Even seeing the Lady Gaga episode in clips nearly gave me cancer.

Yet if the show ends next year, it's better to kill something than let it suffer for it's losing more viewers and merchandise sales are going down the drain. This show has became a wounded fatally dying soldier that was shot a bunch of times in a war field and seeping behind a building with other soldiers and is asking "please kill me! please kill me so i won't suffer anymore" or like a wounded half-dead animal that needs to be put down. The Simpsons had their place in the sun but since 2001 enough is enough, time to give up Fox and end this show next year! time to rest in peace, move on and done more than enough and more than enough episodes and more than enough episodes as it's becoming a joke of itself and Fox is hurting it's legacy and damaging it's legacy and i'm tired of it. I feel like Tom Atkins at the end of Halloween III with "Stop it, stop it, STOP IT!!!!". Plus had a good run in the 90s.

It's not only beating a dead horse, it's also beating a dead chidhood/teenhood friend friend who needs to be buried. It's now a shambling soulless unfunny poorly written husk of a show that is braindead.

SINO (Simpsons in Name Only which is post 2001) is NOT The Simpsons, By almost any measurement, The Simpsons is the most influential television comedy ever created. It has been translated into every major language on Earth and dozens of minor ones; it has spawned entire genres of animation, and had more books written about it than all but a handful of American Presidents. Even its minor characters have become iconic, and the titular family is recognizable in almost every corner of the planet. It is a definitive and truly global cultural phenomenon, perhaps the biggest of the television age.

if you flip on FOX at 8pm on Sundays, you will see a program that bills itself as The Simpsons. It is not The Simpsons. That show, the landmark piece of American culture that debuted on 17 December 1989, went off the air more than a decade ago. The replacement is a hopelessly mediocre imitation that bears only a superficial resemblance to the original. It is the unwanted sequel, the stale spinoff, the creative dry hole that is kept pumping in the endless search for more money. It is Zombie Simpsons.

It's better to kill this undead zombie of a show and move on! this isn't the 90s anymore as we moved on and glad the ratings are down. I hear Matt wants to pull the plug next year. Sometimes dead is better like Jud Crandal in Pet sematary said.

it's no longer a relevant show anymore. Now Regular Show, Rick and Morty, Bojack Horseman, Castlevania, Bob's Burgers, Archer or any anime for more relevant adult animation than Zombie Simpsons. Now for example, Bojack Horseman has the same heart/soul/intelligence/spirit and wit of The Simpsons (aka the REAL Simpsons), not like Zombie Simpsons.

I also feel with Conan and some of the other writers left even Phil Hartman's death, the show went downhill. The first 10 seasons had life and since 2000 it's been on life support.

But you know what as i'm a futurama and King of the Hill fan, i'm very happy and glad they ended on good notes and didn't become shambling zombie corpses as it's better to let them rest in peace and move on to make new fresh adult animation.

Now the show is a vegetable these days and unwatchable as i'm glad i stopped watching the show in 2003 and moved on to other adult animation. I even saw the awful Simpsons movie in theaters which i had been waiting years to see after hearing in magazines since 1991 about it and it should had been made in the 90s and released around there or in 2000, now that would had been one hell of a thing instead of waiting too long as it's just Zombie Simpsons The Movie.

In 2003 i finally did said "so long childhood partner, i will miss you" as i knew the show is dead and i moved on to cherish this show on DVD on Simpsons 1 to 10.

someone once said that being a Simpsons fan is like having a beloved relative or childhood/teenhood friend who's been on life support for years and you've accepted they're gone so you're just waiting for someone to realize they need to pull the plug on them

The short answer is: Yes.

The longer answer is: yes, but it didn't have to be. It could have stayed fresh if it had managed to evolve but it failed to do so and arguably never even tried to. Even in the 90s it wasn't exactly the edgiest thing to be on mainstream television, Married With Children had always been meaner and raunchier, but what it did was to succesfully satirize the all American town and it's people but the thing about satire is, when the thing you're satirizing changes, you need to change, otherwise you're eventually gonna run dry.

There's a lot you can say against South Park, mostly that it's not very funny, but despite the actual humor not being all that sharp it has kept itself afloat better than the Simpsons because it adapts to the cultural Zeitgeist.

They could have let the Simpsons do that. Let Bart and Lisa grow up, let Mr. Burns become a politician, let Marge and Homer divorce, let Moe's bar be bought out and turned into a chain restaurant... just try to reflect actual culture and then make fun of it. It didn't have to sacrifice it's tone or its characters, it just needed to adapt them.

By now it's spent almost 20 years in that shallow 90s limbo where Springfield doesn't change apart from the celebrities that show up. And don't get me started on that sliding timeline shit where Homer was now a young adult in the 90s. At some point they have to acknowledge that these characters don'the work if you keep pretending that they're still as old as they were back during the shows golden age.

The first 4 to 5 seasons were the sweet spot, when it wasn't just funny and off beat, but also had genuine moments of heart. After that characters became rooted in their own quirks; Homer went from being a naive everyman, to a complete moron making prat falls. And Ned Flanders went from being a sincere and kind neighbor with Christian values, to a religious zealot.

PsychedelicDiamond:
The short answer is: Yes.

The longer answer is: yes, but it didn't have to be. It could have stayed fresh if it had managed to evolve but it failed to do so and arguably never even tried to. Even in the 90s it wasn't exactly the edgiest thing to be on mainstream television, Married With Children had always been meaner and raunchier, but what it did was to succesfully satirize the all American town and it's people but the thing about satire is, when the thing you're satirizing changes, you need to change, otherwise you're eventually gonna run dry.

There's a lot you can say against South Park, mostly that it's not very funny, but despite the actual humor not being all that sharp it has kept itself afloat better than the Simpsons because it adapts to the cultural Zeitgeist.

They could have let the Simpsons do that. Let Bart and Lisa grow up, let Mr. Burns become a politician, let Marge and Homer divorce, let Moe's bar be bought out and turned into a chain restaurant... just try to reflect actual culture and then make fun of it. It didn't have to sacrifice it's tone or its characters, it just needed to adapt them.

By now it's spent almost 20 years in that shallow 90s limbo where Springfield doesn't change apart from the celebrities that show up. And don't get me started on that sliding timeline shit where Homer was now a young adult in the 90s. At some point they have to acknowledge that these characters don'the work if you keep pretending that they're still as old as they were back during the shows golden age.

To be fair to South Park, they're 9 day production cycle really helps. They can make episodes about what happened last week to mock and laugh at, whereas shows like Family Guy and Simpsons have to risk that everyone will still be talking about Oceans 8 six months after it was released.

And who agrees Bojack Horseman to Bob's Burgers are the closet things to being like The Simpsons (the 90s edition)?

Judt to be clear, I stop watching The Simspon around 2005 (went to uni meaning I no longer had Sky to watched the latest episodes) but I have seen some of the irrelevent things they try to stayed trendy like the Harlen Shake and one episode the kids were using their mobile in school.

Went TL:DR but in my opinion, yes especially when the recent controvisal with Apu. I dissagree with that guy but it does make me realise how sterotypes the characters are.

Silentpony:

PsychedelicDiamond:
The short answer is: Yes.

The longer answer is: yes, but it didn't have to be. It could have stayed fresh if it had managed to evolve but it failed to do so and arguably never even tried to. Even in the 90s it wasn't exactly the edgiest thing to be on mainstream television, Married With Children had always been meaner and raunchier, but what it did was to succesfully satirize the all American town and it's people but the thing about satire is, when the thing you're satirizing changes, you need to change, otherwise you're eventually gonna run dry.

There's a lot you can say against South Park, mostly that it's not very funny, but despite the actual humor not being all that sharp it has kept itself afloat better than the Simpsons because it adapts to the cultural Zeitgeist.

They could have let the Simpsons do that. Let Bart and Lisa grow up, let Mr. Burns become a politician, let Marge and Homer divorce, let Moe's bar be bought out and turned into a chain restaurant... just try to reflect actual culture and then make fun of it. It didn't have to sacrifice it's tone or its characters, it just needed to adapt them.

By now it's spent almost 20 years in that shallow 90s limbo where Springfield doesn't change apart from the celebrities that show up. And don't get me started on that sliding timeline shit where Homer was now a young adult in the 90s. At some point they have to acknowledge that these characters don'the work if you keep pretending that they're still as old as they were back during the shows golden age.

To be fair to South Park, they're 9 day production cycle really helps. They can make episodes about what happened last week to mock and laugh at, whereas shows like Family Guy and Simpsons have to risk that everyone will still be talking about Oceans 8 six months after it was released.

Not mention, Matt and Trey at least try. There ideas don't always work, but they can make me still laugh. The Simpsons rely on nothing but trends, pop-culture, or celebrity cameos. Also, all of the original writers are gone; either retired or went to work on other shows. Family Guy is nothing, but one interchangeable random joke after another, and Seth and his writers clearly have bugs up their pompous asses. One of the writers leaving to work for Disney, really damaged them.

The Simpsons I stopped caring about around 2006 or so. Even then, I would barely keep up with episodes. I tell people to either stop at Season 6 or stop at the movie.

CoCage:
SNIP

I still watch Simpsons, 'cause I have been my whole life. The show is older than I am and I'm nearly 30.
Any maybe this is controversial, but while I'll admit the writing has become stale, I'm not convinced its any less funny. And what I mean is that watching early Simpsons, they're not that super hugely funny. Some moments/episodes are great, but there's a lot of dead air. And especially early episodes are just downright sad with Homer just being a bad father and husband, and everyone knows it, the end.

I remember reading an interview of Matt and Trey after the 2016 election and they said they had no idea how to go forward because life was more absurdist than their TV show now. If nothing else those are writers who are paying attention.

I'd say the 90's is The Simpsons' product.

Silentpony:

CoCage:
SNIP

I still watch Simpsons, 'cause I have been my whole life. The show is older than I am and I'm nearly 30.
Any maybe this is controversial, but while I'll admit the writing has become stale, I'm not convinced its any less funny. And what I mean is that watching early Simpsons, they're not that super hugely funny. Some moments/episodes are great, but there's a lot of dead air. And especially early episodes are just downright sad with Homer just being a bad father and husband, and everyone knows it, the end.

I remember reading an interview of Matt and Trey after the 2016 election and they said they had no idea how to go forward because life was more absurdist than their TV show now. If nothing else those are writers who are paying attention.

More power to you if the show can make you still laugh. I know the early seasons ain't perfect either, but that was due to the shows creators finding their footing and obviously new at the job. The later seasons have less excuses as you had writers dropping out starting at Season 7, and getting writers who missed the entire point certain characters or flanderizes them for the sake of a joke or one-off gag. The celebrity cameos became writers literally sucking their dicks, instead lampooning or slightly mocking or exaggerating them.

I am nearing 30 too, and you're spot on about Matt and Trey. Those guy rarely skimp on the details.

Silentpony:

PsychedelicDiamond:
The short answer is: Yes.

The longer answer is: yes, but it didn't have to be. It could have stayed fresh if it had managed to evolve but it failed to do so and arguably never even tried to. Even in the 90s it wasn't exactly the edgiest thing to be on mainstream television, Married With Children had always been meaner and raunchier, but what it did was to succesfully satirize the all American town and it's people but the thing about satire is, when the thing you're satirizing changes, you need to change, otherwise you're eventually gonna run dry.

There's a lot you can say against South Park, mostly that it's not very funny, but despite the actual humor not being all that sharp it has kept itself afloat better than the Simpsons because it adapts to the cultural Zeitgeist.

They could have let the Simpsons do that. Let Bart and Lisa grow up, let Mr. Burns become a politician, let Marge and Homer divorce, let Moe's bar be bought out and turned into a chain restaurant... just try to reflect actual culture and then make fun of it. It didn't have to sacrifice it's tone or its characters, it just needed to adapt them.

By now it's spent almost 20 years in that shallow 90s limbo where Springfield doesn't change apart from the celebrities that show up. And don't get me started on that sliding timeline shit where Homer was now a young adult in the 90s. At some point they have to acknowledge that these characters don'the work if you keep pretending that they're still as old as they were back during the shows golden age.

To be fair to South Park, they're 9 day production cycle really helps. They can make episodes about what happened last week to mock and laugh at, whereas shows like Family Guy and Simpsons have to risk that everyone will still be talking about Oceans 8 six months after it was released.

This might be a bit of a pretentious thing to say but there's a difference between being relevant and just being topical. The Simpsons can reference current technology, current celebrities and current politics all they want but that alone doesn't mean it has adapted to the times. And as long as they are unwilling to actually change the status quo of both the characters and the setting it wont be able to. The fact that people are actually saying "hold on, that Apu guy is actually a really blunt stereotype" now is a pretty good sign for how much it's failed to justify its own continued existence. There are so many ways you could have developed Apu to make him more than just an indian stereotype. They've gotten all the mileage out of that character they're ever gonna get more than a decade ago. They could have done something with him. But they didn't. Because at the core of the Simpson's as they currently are is the idea that everything is fine the way it is and any substantial development is unnecessary. And you can't pull something like that for thirty years without running out of ideas and overstaying your welcome.

Harrycanyon1982:
And who agrees Bojack Horseman to Bob's Burgers are the closet things to being like The Simpsons (the 90s edition)?

Bob's Burgers, I might agree, but not Bojack. Bojack is much more deeply involved in character study, and is more willing to sacrifice humour for pathos. It's too different in tone.

Bob's Burgers might be the replacement Simpsons, though. It has a similar heart.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Silentpony:

PsychedelicDiamond:
The short answer is: Yes.

The longer answer is: yes, but it didn't have to be. It could have stayed fresh if it had managed to evolve but it failed to do so and arguably never even tried to. Even in the 90s it wasn't exactly the edgiest thing to be on mainstream television, Married With Children had always been meaner and raunchier, but what it did was to succesfully satirize the all American town and it's people but the thing about satire is, when the thing you're satirizing changes, you need to change, otherwise you're eventually gonna run dry.

There's a lot you can say against South Park, mostly that it's not very funny, but despite the actual humor not being all that sharp it has kept itself afloat better than the Simpsons because it adapts to the cultural Zeitgeist.

They could have let the Simpsons do that. Let Bart and Lisa grow up, let Mr. Burns become a politician, let Marge and Homer divorce, let Moe's bar be bought out and turned into a chain restaurant... just try to reflect actual culture and then make fun of it. It didn't have to sacrifice it's tone or its characters, it just needed to adapt them.

By now it's spent almost 20 years in that shallow 90s limbo where Springfield doesn't change apart from the celebrities that show up. And don't get me started on that sliding timeline shit where Homer was now a young adult in the 90s. At some point they have to acknowledge that these characters don'the work if you keep pretending that they're still as old as they were back during the shows golden age.

To be fair to South Park, they're 9 day production cycle really helps. They can make episodes about what happened last week to mock and laugh at, whereas shows like Family Guy and Simpsons have to risk that everyone will still be talking about Oceans 8 six months after it was released.

This might be a bit of a pretentious thing to say but there's a difference between being relevant and just being topical. The Simpsons can reference current technology, current celebrities and current politics all they want but that alone doesn't mean it has adapted to the times. And as long as they are unwilling to actually change the status quo of both the characters and the setting it wont be able to. The fact that people are actually saying "hold on, that Apu guy is actually a really blunt stereotype" now is a pretty good sign for how much it's failed to justify its own continued existence. There are so many ways you could have developed Apu to make him more than just an indian stereotype. They've gotten all the mileage out of that character they're ever gonna get more than a decade ago. They could have done something with him. But they didn't. Because at the core of the Simpson's as they currently are is the idea that everything is fine the way it is and any substantial development is unnecessary. And you can't pull something like that for thirty years without running out of ideas and overstaying your welcome.

But wasn't the whole thing with Apu that it was a very positive stereotype at the time? That was nearly 30 years ago sure, but no one is saying Homer Simpson is fat shaming or Krusty is antisemitic

Yes, in as much that it's when the show was first made, and if you look at the early seasons, it shows in regards to the cultural context. For instance, in early seasons, it was common for Bart to go to the arcade. Nowadays, who actually does that? Kids his age would be on their mobiles.

That said, there isn't some definitive season or year where I lost interest in the series. It just faded from my realm of interest over time.

Harrycanyon1982:
And who agrees Bojack Horseman to Bob's Burgers are the closet things to being like The Simpsons (the 90s edition)?

Haven't seen Bojack. As for Bob's Burgers, possibly - haven't seen enough of it. But of what I have seen, it does have a lot of heart. It's content with its humour coming from the family dynamic and relatable issues rather than being "zanny" or "crazy."

Scarim Coral:

Went TL:DR but in my opinion, yes especially when the recent controvisal with Apu. I dissagree with that guy but it does make me realise how sterotypes the characters are.

Ah yes. Apu.

...okay, I haven't seen 'The Problem with Apu', and in theory, I can sympathize with Indians being put off by him - when I was a kid, I was put off by the 'Bart vs. Australia' (to put it mildly, though I actually view it with some fondness now). However, I disagree with the notion of removing him from the show, or even "fixing" Apu - while he's a stereotype, lots of characters in the show are also stereotypes (Willie, Luigi, Bumblebee Man, etc.), and as far as stereotypes go, he's actually one of the better examples. We know a lot about his backstory, and he actually gets some character development via his marriage to Manjula. If we're talking about representation for Indians/Indian-Americans, might have been better to create a new character or I guess have Apu leave the Kwik-e-Mart. He's already got a degree in computer science IIRC, and while that could lead from one stereotype to another, it would still be a step up careers wise.

Silentpony:
That was nearly 30 years ago sure, but no one is saying Homer Simpson is fat shaming or Krusty is antisemitic

Not even sure how anyone could say Krusty is antisemitic. Krusty is kind of an arse, sure, but his assholery has nothing to do with his Jewish heritage. If anything, he has not interest in it.

Silentpony:
But wasn't the whole thing with Apu that it was a very positive stereotype at the time? That was nearly 30 years ago sure, but no one is saying Homer Simpson is fat shaming or Krusty is antisemitic

I don't think Apu was ever meant to be offensive. There are a lot of Simpsons characters that are technically stereotypes of some kind or another, Chief Wiggum of small town cops, Cletus of poor, rural americans, Comic Book Guy of middle aged nerds... it's just when it's specifically ethnic stereotypes where it gets questionable. On one hand, I don't think there's anything inherently in bad taste about Apu either but then, I'm not indian. I'm german. And I could never bring myself to disliker Uter because of it. Either way, I kinda get why indian americans would get annoyed about pretty much the most recognizable representation of theirs in all of american media being a brown skinned man with a funny accent and a large family who operates a cash register.

The Simpsons was a satire on the kind of very generic family-oriented American sitcoms which were produced throughout the 80s and early 90s. These sitcoms often recycled the same character archetypes and relied on very simple jokes with clear setups and punchlines (signalled by the use of a laugh track), but they were very cheap to make so there were a lot of them, which gave the Simpsons a lot of material to work with.

I think what people forget about the Simpsons is that it wasn't just funny because it was satire, it was funny because it had well written jokes. If you look at early Simpsons scenes, they're often multi-part jokes or absurd sight gags with no clear punchline and no point at which you could put a laugh track. A lot of time was put into writing and pacing those jokes, and it was clearly a huge labour of love from the writers.

Around season 5 is when the Simpsons lost most of the original writing staff (and most of the other big names had emotionally checked out) and it's also coincidentally the time at which the Simpsons being a satire stopped really working. American TV had moved on, and in addition the massive pop-culture success of the Simpsons had unintentionally attracted a very young audience who genuinely never saw it as a satire because they hadn't been watching the sitcoms on which it was based. While that needn't have been a bad thing, and the Simpsons was still definitely watchable for a time, it lead to a pattern of increasing laziness, particularly when it came to the jokes. Modern simpsons rarely bothers with constructed jokes at all, it's mostly just stream of consciousness references, but when it does they're strictly the kind of punchline jokes which classic simpsons was trying to get away from.

I think it's kind of sad that what people took away from the Simpsons was that it was edgy, or that it had subversive humour. It's why the world is full of edgy animated comedy shows now which primarily sell themselves as such. But generally, while they may be enjoyable sometimes, those shows could learn a lot from the clever writing of early Simpsons.

evilthecat:
The Simpsons was a satire on the kind of very generic family-oriented American sitcoms which were produced throughout the 80s and early 90s. These sitcoms often recycled the same character archetypes and relied on very simple jokes with clear setups and punchlines (signalled by the use of a laugh track), but they were very cheap to make so there were a lot of them, which gave the Simpsons a lot of material to work with.

I think what people forget about the Simpsons is that it wasn't just funny because it was satire, it was funny because it had well written jokes. If you look at early Simpsons scenes, they're often multi-part jokes or absurd sight gags with no clear punchline and no point at which you could put a laugh track. A lot of time was put into writing and pacing those jokes, and it was clearly a huge labour of love from the writers.

Around season 5 is when the Simpsons lost most of the original writing staff (and most of the other big names had emotionally checked out) and it's also coincidentally the time at which the Simpsons being a satire stopped really working. American TV had moved on, and in addition the massive pop-culture success of the Simpsons had unintentionally attracted a very young audience who genuinely never saw it as a satire because they hadn't been watching the sitcoms on which it was based. While that needn't have been a bad thing, and the Simpsons was still definitely watchable for a time, it lead to a pattern of increasing laziness, particularly when it came to the jokes. Modern simpsons rarely bothers with constructed jokes at all, it's mostly just stream of consciousness references, but when it does they're strictly the kind of punchline jokes which classic simpsons was trying to get away from.

I think it's kind of sad that what people took away from the Simpsons was that it was edgy, or that it had subversive humour. It's why the world is full of edgy animated comedy shows now which primarily sell themselves as such. But generally, while they may be enjoyable sometimes, those shows could learn a lot from the clever writing of early Simpsons.

Married with Children was before Simpsons and had anti-authority satire that showed a more realistic family than a perfect one you know! Simpsons seasons 1 to 10 had emotion, heart, soul, brilliant writing and anti-authority satire but anything after season 10 is NOT The Simpsons but Zombie Simpsons.

Well like i said Bobs Burgers and Bojack Horseman are similar to The Simpsons (the real one from the 90s) and more better than Zombie Simpsons.

Do you like my analogy of comparing this show to a beloved childhood/teenhood friend who's been on life support and all?

Since I'm lazy, this video sums it all up pretty well IMO. Not much that hasn't been said already and maybe missing the odd minor point but whatevs.

Honestly, I don't know how they could have kept it up. I'm sure a lot of people with a lot more talent than me have put a lot more thought into it and still failed.
I remember seeing the episode where Lisa stays at home playing Crash Dingo on the Playstation and it hit me that it didn't feel right. The Simpsons were from the in the early 90's in my head, playing NES type games and the update was jarring. Maybe if it had all been planned from the start, if they had all got older as time went on. But then Bart would be a year younger than me, and that would be really depressing.

I'm also not the stoner I used to be back then. Maybe If I was I'd still be watching the likes of Bojack Horseman etc on an old sofa, laughing away like Beavis and Butthead.

Zykon TheLich:
Since I'm lazy, this video sums it all up pretty well IMO. Not much that hasn't been said already and maybe missing the odd minor point but whatevs.

Honestly, I don't know how they could have kept it up. I'm sure a lot of people with a lot more talent than me have put a lot more thought into it and still failed.
I remember seeing the episode where Lisa stays at home playing Crash Dingo on the Playstation and it hit me that it didn't feel right. The Simpsons were from the in the early 90's in my head, playing NES type games and the update was jarring. Maybe if it had all been planned from the start, if they had all got older as time went on. But then Bart would be a year younger than me, and that would be really depressing.

I'm also not the stoner I used to be back then. Maybe If I was I'd still be watching the likes of Bojack Horseman etc on an old sofa, laughing away like Beavis and Butthead.

Well it's ok to be a stoner nowadays since it's legal in some states and that show has more soul/heart/intelligence and anti-hollywood satire than Zombie Simpsons ever will be.

And who likes my analogies of comparing this show to a dying old man?

Harrycanyon1982:
Well it's ok to be a stoner nowadays since it's legal in some states and that show has more soul/heart/intelligence and anti-hollywood satire than Zombie Simpsons ever will be.

And who likes my analogies of comparing this show to a dying old man?

The legality or relative okayness was never an issue for me.

Which show is this?

PsychedelicDiamond:

Silentpony:
But wasn't the whole thing with Apu that it was a very positive stereotype at the time? That was nearly 30 years ago sure, but no one is saying Homer Simpson is fat shaming or Krusty is antisemitic

I don't think Apu was ever meant to be offensive. There are a lot of Simpsons characters that are technically stereotypes of some kind or another, Chief Wiggum of small town cops, Cletus of poor, rural americans, Comic Book Guy of middle aged nerds... it's just when it's specifically ethnic stereotypes where it gets questionable. On one hand, I don't think there's anything inherently in bad taste about Apu either but then, I'm not indian. I'm german. And I could never bring myself to disliker Uter because of it. Either way, I kinda get why indian americans would get annoyed about pretty much the most recognizable representation of theirs in all of american media being a brown skinned man with a funny accent and a large family who operates a cash register.

Whether or not Apu is or was offensive really is besides a simpler point, the joke isn't even relevant anymore. Back in the 90's I could chuckle at it because I regularly visited convenience stores and gas stations operated by Indian-Americans. But Millennials just getting into the Simpsons won't even understand the reference. Because right now (at least where I live) the reference wouldn't even make sense. Those Indians working those jobs in the 90's were putting themselves or their kids through college. These days (again, at least here where I am) someone named Nahasapeemapetilon is way more likely to be your Doctor, or Chiropractor, or Dentist, or accountant, or IT guy... In the 90's the most expensive and fancy upscale restaurants in my city were steakhouses or Italian joints. Now because of the shift into A: what is popular and B: who has the professional level salaries, these days the most expensive and fancy are Mediterranean and Indian. Apu isn't just potentially offensive, to a growing part of the audience its a stereotype or reference that doesn't even make sense anymore.

When the Simpsons was first created, it was ahead of the times.
Then, everything caught up.
And now, it's fallen well behind the times.

Or, Abe's prophecy goes; It happened to them.

Zykon TheLich:

Harrycanyon1982:
Well it's ok to be a stoner nowadays since it's legal in some states and that show has more soul/heart/intelligence and anti-hollywood satire than Zombie Simpsons ever will be.

And who likes my analogies of comparing this show to a dying old man?

The legality or relative okayness was never an issue for me.

Which show is this?

Bojack and Bobs Burgers of course

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here