Talk:The Simpsons/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"More adult standard"

The Simpsons was also one of the pioneering shows that changed the view of cartoons to a more adult standard.

Since when? Is there a real citation or is this opinion? I can accept a larger age group watch this than most cartoons. But then again these are people who grew up with Hana Barbara and Looney Toons, I don't believe the Simpsons truely changed this, especially when consider the other long running prime time cartoon was the Flintstones.

In addition Cartoons are STILL a non adult standard, anime enjoys a older crowd at best, Family guy is hitting well in the 18-25 demographics, but this is hardly "adult", usually called Young adult, and as well these 25 year olds grew up with a constant barage of cartoons. All in all it's hard to pin any of this change on The Simpsons, rather it's on the fact that people tend to get older.--Kinglink 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think the sentence is flawed, but I don't necessarily agree with you either. Last time I checked you are an adult when you are 18 - especially when compare to the pre-teen kids who usually watches morning cartoons.
The pioneering animated shows that tried to make jokes for adults were The Flintstones and The Jetsons, which both were on prime time television. After they were cancelled nobody considering making a new animated show on prime time TV. In the late 1980s The Simpsons came along and started a second wave of these shows. If it wasn't for The Simpsons then there would have been no Family Guy, South Park or King of the Hill.
So what do we do with the sentence? I wouldn't call it pioneering, because I believe that the honour belongs to The Flintstones and The Jetsons. Here is my suggestion of an improvement.
The Simpsons started a second wave of prime time animated shows, which also targeted adult audiences.
What do you think? --Maitch 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think talking about it as "prime time animated shows" work much better as that makes more sense, where it bridges the gap, kids can watch a cartoon at 8, and the show did have more adult tones to it. I hardly would call that a quanifier of 'adult standard' though, but that's fine as it started to bring more adult themes into the show and it definatly did target more "adults"--Kinglink 19:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

Wikiproject: Simpsons

OK... Anyone interested in helping cleanup the Simpsons information, join the WikiProject... if we can all work together, instead of different editors working on different pages, we can get all the Simpsons information on all of Wikipedia organized... - Adolphus79 04:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived

I've archived this page. (It was over 32KB). Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 15:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Impact on television

I've added this section to the article. It needs expansion though. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Video game section

I removed a line citing Bart's Nightmare as an exception to the dismal track record of Simpsons games... the article for the game states that it was trashed by critics and bombed commercially. (If this is not the case, my apologies; the Nightmare article should be amended. Maybe The Simpsons: Bart vs. the Space Mutants was the game in question?)

One question, however: why is there a picture of the Simpsons Monopoly edition in the video game section? I didn't see a reference to the board game anywhere in the article. - DynSkeet 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Location, location, location...

Will we ever find out where Springfield is? The Simpsons forums on tv.com are swamped with "What state do the Simpsons live in?" questions. If in fact Matt Groening based this on a real city, then I have a few clues from the episode "Poppa's Got a Brand New Badge."

1) - Interstate 95 passes through it.

2) - It has a population of around 39,000-40,000 people (can't exactly remember).

and 3) - The elevation of Springfield is in the 1,000 ft. range (also can't remember).

If anyone has more things to add, don't hesitate... The Runescape Junkie 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

good luck with that, for 17 seasons we've been trying to figure out where it is... there's an article here on Wikipedia Springfield (The Simpsons)... here are a few hints, springfield does not really exist, it's puposely not located so that the characters can go wherever they want... it's within a couple hours of beaches, mountains, glaciers, a volcano, jungles, etc... the state abbreviation is NT (which is not a real state)... one theory claims that Springfield is based on Springfield, Oregon (as most of The Simpsons is based on stuff and people and places in Oregon) due to Matt Groening growing up in Oregon... - Adolphus79 02:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This is pretty comprehensive, and after not long, I'm pretty sure using clues similar to what you've listed they were able to discount every state. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that's the point of Springfield, it is impossible to claim one state or the other... done for ease of storyline, so the family can go anywhere they need to for an episodes plot... - Adolphus79 04:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, on "Poppa's Got a Brand New Badge," on the commercial for SpringShield, the area code is 636, and 636 is in Missouri. I know that Springfield isn't really anywhere, just wanted to see what other people thought about it.The Runescape Junkie 16:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested to know that the most likely candidate is the town of Springfield, Oregon. Although it would be Interstate 5, not 95, in all other respects it is the best match, and also the Springfield nearest and dearest to Groening's heart. --Edwardian Flamebait 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm still confused as to why people try to tie the clearly fictional city that is intentionally located so as it could not possibly fit any real state into a real state. TheHYPO 08:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm trying to keep the section short, because everytime you just mention one state, then some fanboy starts adding another state. --Maitch 09:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear me, you people, honestly! When are you going to realise that Springfield is 'everytown'. The whole point of it is that it *doesn't* have a location, it *could* be just about anywhere. Every state has any number of 'Springfields', just like here in the UK, there are any number of dead beat towns just the same.

Peopl take this aspect (and many other aspects) of the show far too literally. Springfield is, like so many facets of The Simpsons, a metaphor, an allegory, not a literal place. If you can't see that, you're missing one of the major points of the programme. Martyn Smith 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the name of the episode where homer works with the evil guy

I mean the one where homer gets a new job? Jamhaw 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

the one when he works for Scorpio? he's worked for a lot of evil people in his lifetime... which evil guy? - Adolphus79 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Scorpio I want to see what my favriout episodes article is like Jamhaw 16:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
It's called You Only Move Twice. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Themes

The Simpsons have insulted the Republiscans on many occasion but they insulted the democrats when they were in power even more most notably Clintons "while i'm not a very good president" also the reverse steryotype is wrong the Simpsons have few blacks on the show and they have just as many problems as characters with simialer air times Hibbert apparenty does not have good relations with his wife and uses Morhine all the time an interesting thing is that asians are white and Europeans-americans are yellow. Jamhaw 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

  • Oh yeah Fox iis NOT conservitve in the least it is I wont use the word but you know what I mean.
ugh... more unsigned gibberish... seriously, if you are going to make a statement like that, at least sign your post... The Simpsons is an equal opportunity show, they make fun of everyone... - Adolphus79 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That is my point Jamhaw 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
  • Oh yeah about the mainstream channels is wrong CBC has had it for years and it is as mainstream as it gets in Canada.
I've deleted the text about race relations. It seemed like original research to me. I've added some lines which explains that any politician are made fun of. --Maitch 16:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Popularity

The Popularity section is very poor and needs major work to avoid deletion. Is the section about popularity, as in number of viewers or quality? It seems to move from one to the other without distinction. It also has no cites and employs many WP:Weasel words 'many people' etc. Determining the quality of a show is almost very difficult to verify. Ashmoo 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The only time I myself have seen the things mentioned in the Popularity section is on internet message boards and the like. Perhaps it should just be deleted, because of course people on internet message boards make up a fairly small percentage of the amount of people who watch The Simpsons, and therefore there may be a huge population of people who believe that the Scully era was the best part of the show. Maybe a mention of Nielsen ratings should be made? I'm pretty sure they have declined, but I'm not sure where the old Simpsons Nielsen ratings can be found.Bluemoose444 04:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fan Sites Section

Does anyone else feel that the fan sites section has become a place for people to essentially advertise their Simpsons fansites? I definitely think that major ones like The Simpsons Archive and NoHomers.net should be there (If they're good enough to have their own article, then they're good enough to be listed here), but most of them seem to be rather obscure sites that I have a feeling were added by the webmasters themselves. 69.105.121.201 05:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it's been deleted. Never mind then. 69.105.121.201 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lisa's saxophone

There seems to be an on-going edit war over whether Lisa's saxophone is baritone or tenor. Can anybody tell me which is correct? --Maitch 10:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

At least some of the time it's a bari, but I can't vouch for the fact that it always is. I know other people have different opinions, some people think she's had both, some say it looks like a tenor but plays like a bari, etc. But I know the sound that came out of her sax when she played the intro to Baker Street was bari.--Anchoress 13:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should leave the information out then. --Maitch 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I went thru the article and looked at all the instances of sax; the only one in question mentions a bari sax; what were you thinking of leaving out? Just the 'bari'? Cuz I think that would be fine. Or is there more info that has been in and out?--Anchoress 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just write that she plays the saxophone. --Maitch 15:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea.--Anchoress 15:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: Checked SNPP FAQ, found the following (about 1/3 of the way down):
What type of saxophone does Lisa play? The accepted answer is a baritone saxophone, though sometimes the way it is drawn more closely resembles an alto or tenor. The sound of the sax is definitely a baritone, though. The saxophone given to her by Bleeding Gums Murphy is most likely an alto, based on a higher-pitched sound and a simpler mouthpiece.
--Anchoress 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I put the baritone back in the article. This time I've added a ref. --Maitch 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Overdubbing? Seperate recording

Do you think there's any value in adding a note on how the practice of overdubbing lines has significantly rising in later seasons where it's very obvious that a line has been changed from the original line by looking at a character's lips? It seems so obvious in many modern episodes.

Also, any thoughts on mentioning how (from what I understand), the cast no longer records together in one room (not even sure how table reads go anymore) due to conflicting schedules. As a result, they usually come in one at a time and read all their lines. It prevents interaction between the cast, ad libbed banter and probably has contributed to the decline of the comedy of the show (though that is an opinion) TheHYPO 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. It depends on how it is written. It might be valuable information, but if it turns into POV criticising the show, then you better have a reference. --Maitch 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Another thing is that is fairly normal for voice actors to do seperate recordings on animated TV shows/films. --Maitch 11:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This is true, but the fact is that the Simpsons used to do it in groups of at least several actors - such that two could ad lib off each other, and the timing of their lines and responses 'fit'. If you watch some episodes now, you can almost tell that a response has been pieced into a dialogue because it just doesn't 'sound' like someone responding naturally. I'd have to dig up some examples, and that part of it is subjective, but I think it's definately affected the show that they no longer record in groups
Well, you should dig up some references instead of examples. Otherwise it will be considered original research and deleted fast. --Maitch 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
definately! I'd love to see any more information that we could get on the cast... we have tons of information about all the different characters... - Adolphus79 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure it's been mentioned a few times on the DVD commentaries how the cast 'rarely ever records together due to their schedules' (to paraphrase). I think they've also mentioned in context with that how the ad libs are lost due to that. But I really don't have time to go listen to 7 seasons of commentaries to find it, unfortunately. TheHYPO 04:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

To many POV statements without Citations. I've put a citation needed on a lot of them, but there probably still are more out there. Fix it, renominate it, and Ill grant it GA status. False Prophet 20:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is POV about "It is the longest-running American sitcom and longest-running American animated program of all time, having aired 378 episodes in 17 seasons since it debuted on December 17, 1989 on Fox and it is still running." --Maitch 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that every 'citation needed' is a POV; I think that particular 'fact' is the person implying that they would like a reference that it is indeed the longest running show in the categories listed; But don't ask me - I'm a bad citer.
I'm also curious - what qualifies as a fact that needs citation? technically 90% of the article is uncited fact. Why does one need to cite that merch was banned from schools, but not cite that the ratings weren't hurt. Why does one have to cite that the show was the first Fox show to appear in the top 20, but not cite that it is a fox cartoon that started on the tracey ulman show? etc. I don't know what qualifies as 'so obvious to everyone as to not need a cite, vs. needing citation. Frankly, I think that someone goes through the article, and every fact that they've personally never heard before, they mark as citation so that someone can prove it to them. TheHYPO 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, those should all be cited. Some, apparently, are more in need of citation in the opinion of editors than others. But for a featured article, I'd suggest all those facts be cited. -- Viewdrix 23:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a virtual impossibility. Common sense suggests there have to be facts that are, what is known as common knowledge. Example; Mickey Mouse is a famous Disney Character. This is a fact. I really don't think it needs a citation indicating that he is a) a disney character, or b) famous. It is common knowledge. Similarly, I don't think it needs to be fact checked that there are six main cast members on the Simpsons, that Dan C plays Homer, Abe, and others, That Yardly is the only cast member who regularly plays one character etc.
The main reason, in my opinion, that I don't need to cite anything in that case (would it be appropriate to cite the credits of the TV show in an article about the show itself? and if so, what episode?) is because I can watch the TV show and gain the fact from having watched the show itself. It's like saying 'Moby Dick is a book written by Herman Melville. It was first published in 1851 (p1, Moby Dick, Melville).' There has to be some acceptable common knowledge and/or acceptable use of information as it comes from the primary source, the show. 'Matt Groening, James L. Brooks, and Sam Simon have been executive producers during the entire run' would need to be cited as every episode of the show, or one would have to go find a reliable source website that happens to say the same thing and cite that. I know I'm being exaggerative, but sometimes people take citing a bit too far. TheHYPO 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say everything had to be cited, I said the specific facts suggested there should be cited. Maybe not "the first episode aired on the Tracey Ullman Show", but if you're making a good article, it should probably be accompanied by a date, and that would need citing. Furthermore, things obvious from watching the show (many of your examples, or "Bart's shorts are blue", for example) usually don't need citing. But again, the fact that the merchandise was banned, leading to a decline in ratings, could I know that from watching the show itself? No. I recommend you see Red vs Blue for what's a good example of what should be cited. -- Viewdrix 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Just fyi, it is accompanied by a date in the origin section, when it is repeated in more depth. I am not implying that nothing needs citing, but as for the person who listed that the entire cast section needs citing, I felt that that was (for most of the statements in that section) unnecessary. Similarly, I didn't think that anything in the 'longest show' sentance really needed to be cited. TheHYPO 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


I believe the rule is that inline citations should only be used when appropriate and not for every single sentence. The article does also cite books. I've seen featured articles with fewer citations, but I will try and work with your suggestions. --Maitch 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeh I think the citations should be used for specific or controversial facts that cannot easily be verified quickly. eg it's pretty much common knowledge it started on the Tracy Ulman show, or the main characters are Homer, Bart, etc and you could probably find that within 20 seconds anywhere on the 'net, but the fact that the ratings "weren't hurt" after some incident should be backed up with an article or ratings figures... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)