Wed, April 12, 2006
The State of The Simpsons—8:18 AM
So, the Simpsons movie has been announced, and "Entertainment Weekly" says it's being helmed by Mike Scully and the other superstar Simpsons writers from the show's heyday. This might be a great thing – a strong, hilarious movie from the guys who shepherded the series through its best episodes, in the style of those episodes, could reenergize the show and kick of a Renaissance of better episodes that live up to the greatness that once was. They've already hedged their bets by signing Albert Brooks to a guest appearance in the film.
On the other hand, the movie could be a dud. Will these guys feel beholden to the path the show has taken in the last six or seven years, even though it's pretty much universally agreed that that path has been a steep decline?
Worse yet, this could mean that – with all the most talented Simpsons vets across the hall toiling on the big-screen feature – the show is left in the hands of the same amateurs who have been ruining it for the past half-decade. As a certain spike-haired young rapscallion might say, "Ay, caramba!"
If I were convening a panel of five experts to discuss and analyze the history of the Simpsons, only one or two of them would be guys who don't regularly comment on this site – so I open the floor for discussion. What does the Simpsons movie mean, and can The Simpsons be saved?
Brandon — Wed, 4/12/06 1:24pm
Worse yet, this could mean that – with all the most talented Simpsons vets across the hall toiling on the big-screen feature – the show is left in the hands of the same amateurs who have been ruining it for the past half-decade.
Bingo bango, sugar in the gas tank. The movie is going to be a major distraction for all the Simpsons vets. All quality control efforts will be expended there. I can't see how the TV show can avoid suffering even more in that scenario (well, unless we truly have already hit rock bottom... and I'm open to that possibility).
I want to believe that it's going to be great. So, so much, I want to believe. More than I've cared about a movie in a long time. And it's not "Wow, I can't wait to see that movie!" excitement; it's "Please let it be good or the last vestiges of my Simpsons hope will be finally and irrevocably crushed."
I don't think those writers will feel beholden to the current path; I think they'll feel beholden to their own legacy. To me, the only question is, do they still have their "A" game? (Well, that's actually not the only question, there's a follow-up - if they do indeed still have their "A" game, then why the hell have they all been standing on the sidelines while this current batch of bozos has been running the organization into the ground with such stunning consistency that they really should open their own "We'll Run Your Organization Into the Ground" consulting firm?)
As to your last question, can The Simpsons be saved? I just don't see how. To me, it's too far gone, too irretrievably broken.
Joe Mulder — Wed, 4/12/06 1:55pm
[note: D'oh. Between the time I started writing this and now, Brandon already posted his thoughts. Anyway, here are mine]
I'm not sure "The Simpsons" can be saved. Even if it got good again, I don't think I'd notice because I don't watch anymore (although I did watch the Rickey Gervais episode but I didn't think that even that one, which was pretty acclaimed from what I heard, was that great. I mean, they've done the "other people fall in love with Marge/Homer" thing several times before. They've done everything several times before). I just don't think a show like "The Simpsons" was necessarily meant to last 17 seasons or however long it's been.
[and by the way, the difference between me and the people who spend hours on the internet professing to hate "The Simpsons" – and these are people who have been doing it since "Last Exit to Springfield," which most of them probably gave a D+ – is that once I started to not like the show, I STOPPED FUCKING WATCHING IT!!]
I don't know, though; maybe a person can only take so much "Simpsons" in a lifetime. I was looking up "The Bart-Mangled Banner" because that's pretty much the episode that killed "The Simpsons" for me – that was when they went from astute political satire (think "Sideshow Bob Roberts") to predictable, tedious, paint-by-number, in-a-post-9/11-world-America-is-actually-the-problem leftist drivel... which would even have been forgivable had the episode been funny. I remembered hating that episode so much that it actually caused me to stop watching what I considered to be the greatest television show of all time. Still, I looked up the episode to refresh my memory, and I found this line, from when Homer is on the phone with a talk-show host:
Homer:Y'ello? Appear on your TV show? Tell our side of the story? You'll see us there? Goodbye? Dial-tone?
See, that's hilarious. I think what's wrong these days is that they're still capable of delivering lines like that, but they don't write good stories anymore. "The Last Temptation of Homer" or "Marge Be Not Proud" would have been great episodes without any jokes in them at all. And lots of shows can do good silly joke lines; "Family Guy" has almost a line a show that I TiVO back to six or seven times and laugh my ass off. And "Family Guy" is enjoyable and fresh, but it can't hold a candle to the old "Simpsons." I guess in theory the show could be saved, but on paper I think they've pretty much explored all there is to explore with those characters, tweaked every foible of modern life, and they've run their course. But the ratings remain high because they still can execute a silly joke from time to time, and because I think I've come to realize that most people don't quite appreciate the old classic episodes on the same level as we do.
It's hard to be so much more awesome than other people sometimes, isn't it?
As far as the movie goes, I'm optimistic. I'm pretty sure that the only writers in show business who are further up their own asses than "The Simpsons" crew are the folks over at "Saturday Night Live," but if the movie is being written by the old, good "Simpsons" writers, there's probably a chance. Those are guys who, I would imagine, think of writing for "The Simpsons" as a job – a memorable, once-in-a-lifetime job, to be sure, but a job nonetheless – not relatively young folks who grew up worshipping "The Simpsons" and regard writing for "The Simpsons" as "WRITING FOR THE FUCKING SIMPSONS!!!!!!"
So the movie could be good. My idea was always that some catastrophe or another befalls the family and causes Marge to finally reveal that the Simpsons are, in fact, supremely wealthy (based on Homer's success with the Be-Sharps, Bart's time as the "I Didn't Do It" boy, and ten or twelve other things I'm sure you could go back and find, plus some wise investments from Marge) and she's been keeping this from everyone until either some terrible catastrophe befell the family or until Lisa got into Harvard and needed some of the money for that (her reasons for doing so would be twofold: 1) she's really happy with her life and her family and doesn't want to see them changed by the money, and 2) she's pretty sure that Homer would screw everything up and they'd soon be broke for real)
So, Marge is forced to reveal the family's tremendous wealth, and hilarity ensues. That was always my idea.
Finally, I'd just like to add that I totally know Mike Scully.
Bee Boy — Wed, 4/12/06 3:15pm
Good stuff, guys. Exactly what I was hoping for. I think you're right on all counts. I definitely agree that The Simpsons has run its course, and a wiser network – or, frankly, a wiser Groening – would pull the plug. Maybe he was just waiting for the movie before folding up shop.
Andy recently linked to an article about the possible resurrection of Futurama (figuring that Fox's "Fuck! What were we thinking canceling that awesome comedy series before its time?!?" syndrome might come in threes). You'll never find anyone who loved Futurama more than me, but I'm really hoping this doesn't go through. If they'd been able to continue the story they planned on telling from the start, that would have been great. But bringing the show back creates a lot of pressure, and maybe it can't hold up to that. By the time it left, it had settled into some interesting and subtle stuff; you can't just launch back into that in the "re-premiere" of a show.
I think really good shows need a relatively short life. You couldn't have squeezed much more out of Arrested Development, as sad as it was to see it go. (At least, I agree with Mitchell Hurwitz that you couldn't.) Same with Sports Night. The best shows are about something, and you can't really explore that something for too long without recovering existing territory. I believe comedy übergeniuses like Ricky Gervais and John Cleese would agree.
Exactly! So grab his ear and make sure he does this right! Although, theoretically, at this point the writing is over and they're into the animating – if they're truly trying to be done by next summer.