Talk:The Simpsons/Archive5

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

character listing

My mistake about the Bartholomew thing - I reverted a vandalism edit but it apparently put that back in because of the version I chose to revert to (as well as the line about the opening sequence). Regardless, I agree that both things should not be there. --GeneralDuke 19:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem - I kinda figured that's what happened - I also assume that the recurring 'cash register' that seems to be infuriating Mr. Maitch is a similar reversion result TheHYPO 00:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Broadcasting

I was going to go ahead and reword some awkward phrasing in the Broadcasting section, but as I worked, I decided that it kinda needs a complete rewrite.

I wiped the 'afterwards' because the episodes are not necessarily broadcast later than the Fox broadcast in other countries. Global in Canada simulcasts with Fox, and sometimes when your lovely president has a speach or football or baseball is on, Global actually ends up preceeding Fox. I'm guessing there are other nations which would contradict the 'afterwards' statement too.

The entire "Episodes are sometimes altered to fit broadcasters' needs." statement seems poorly written. First of all, this seems to have little to do with broadcasting; though there doesn't currently seem to be a better section for it; perhaps it would be a better fit for 'trivia', but there doesn't seem to be trivia on this article (perhaps because it would quickly fill up with crap). IMO, it's not major enough to bother including in the main article - that's why there's a subarticle. And though it's sometimes for broadcasters needs, sometimes it's not - like with the hostages example, and with the dead actor's oscar award. Those aren't for broadcaster's needs as much as sensibile... sense? You get the idea though.

"In foreign countries it might be necessary to adjust the material to suit a foreign country’s culture or humor" - This is similarly not that important, but it's probably more relevant that the former example. If so, probably should be reworded to 'it is sometimes necessary' - it's not a future thing - it's already happened (I assume?).

"The animation in The Simpsons makes the show more frequently dubbed in foreign countries rather than subtitled." Perhaps should be reworded as 'Because it is animated, the show is more frequently...' TheHYPO 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead with the changes, but remember that the section should be a summary of the article. I personally don't find it trivial to mention broadcast ambiguities and it is kept really short. Moving it to a trivia section would be the "worst idea ever".
"Episodes are sometimes altered to fit broadcasters' needs." could become "Episodes are sometimes altered for various reasons". --Maitch 07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Main family

I brought this up privately to another user, but I would like to reduce the Character section with the understanding that each of the characters themselves has a sizable page, many with various subsections of their own. With this in mind, I think that the character section in this article is getting bloated with minor facts. (The problem, I would say, stems from the combination of the show's long-running history, the characters' cartoon nature, and the fact that the writers (especially lately) have little regard for changing the characters' personal traits (both gradually and swiftly) - for example - Homer's anger at the world has grown, as has Lisa's activism and (unrealistic) adultness. The entire show has become far more cartoony really in that the characters are really no longer portrayals (in my opinion) of a 'realistic' family. (this is understandable, seeing as how the family has been the same age for some 17 years - you can't play Lisa as a realistic 8-year old for 17 years - she has to grow beyond that age or the show will seem awfully static. Similar with Bart. I mean, if this were any other traditional sitcom, Bay would be 27, Lisa would be 25, and they would likely be the heads of their own families by now!

On to the examples - just the title family for now:

The main characters were originally created by Matt Groening as part of a series of original animated segments for The Tracey Ullman Show...

This is already outlined in the origin section - The listing of the title family and their relation to Matt's real family could either be moved to the origin, or replaced in the origin section by the addition of 'immediate' to the phrase 'after his own family'. I don't think the specific list is important, as it is somewhat self-evident. The note about 'Brat' would have to be moved up there too.

The 'themes from his Life In Hell comic strip' doesn't so much have to do with characters as plot or writing.

He has an outright love for Marge and for doughnuts and is often seen drinking Duff brand beer.

While true, I don't think that it's unusual for a character to love his wife, and I don't think the donughts or Duff are common enough plot elements for this to be mentionable in the primary Simpsons article. Also, I think the 'Jay' in Homer Simpson is unnecessary in this article, as 'Homer Simpson' is the primary way the character is refered to.

Nor do I think Marge's maiden name is particularly needed here any more than characters' middle names. I've never heard this 'French origin' business before, except that her maiden name happens to be French (did I miss an episode that establishes her origin?). The 'once intellegent and sophisticated seems a bit exaggerated to me.

The Bart item is exactly what all of the outlines should be. One sentence that clearly defines his major traits which are commonly observed in most episodes; Lisa is overwraught with her activism while it could be resolved to something like "She is an activist in many fields", if it is needed at all. The entire thing could probably be resolved to simply "the 8 year old, is the most intelligent member of the family, and is prone to activism in various fields."

Maggie's 'best-knowingness' is a) a somewhat random example - she's probably best known for sucking on a pacifier - as opposed to one act. Either way, it's technically a spoiler, even though, I'm sure most of the world knows it by now, it really isn't needed here. I'd run with "is the non-speaking baby who is usually found sucking on a pacifier.


I usually try to check with the talk page before I make major deletions to content. Thoughts? TheHYPO 08:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you are saying, but I would just mention the characters stay the same age. In the family lifestyle section I would replace the "upper lower middle class" quote with something more useful. Someone added to the to-do list that we should mention the family's religion. --Maitch 13:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I dispute this; the characters do not stay the same age. Lisa was 7 and Bart was 9 when the show began. Lisa's 8th birthday is in the Michael Jackson episode, Bart's 10th is in the one where he gets the label maker. Marge had a birthday in the first season (the bowling ball), but, honestly, I don't know if they said exactly how old she was. Now, since then, references have been made to birthdays which do not appear to have aged the kids (Lisa's had two, Maggie's had one, and Bart had one in a Halloween episode which probably wouldn't count), and Homer's birthday has been referred to at least twice without apparently aging him ... but to say the characters "stay the same age" does not seem true.


First of all, please show me any quote in an episode that says either of them was 7 and 9. Secondly, even if that is true, those were both first season episodes. Before the show was truely settled. Homer's age has changed, by reading licences and forms, but that doesn't mean he's aged, it just means the writers changed their minds as to what his age is. Even if you claim that they went from 7 and 9 to 8 and 10, their physical ages have not changed. They are exactly as big as they were in the first episode. But the long and short of this is, does it really need to be mentioned here? I think it would belong in the family article if anywhere. But my view is - show me a cartoon where the characters DO age, and I'd say that's an important note in THOSE cartoons. Characters rarely age in cartoons. In neither hanna barbera predecessor (Filtstones, Jetsons) did the kids ever grow (outside episodes where the kids were grown up, which the simpsons too have had), nor on Scooby Doo has anyone ever aged. I'm trying to think of any cartoon in which the characters HAVE aged... Reboot? And that cartoon isn't even in a real-time frame (at least not human time) TheHYPO 18:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Archived

I archived this page. I usually leave out the last two subsections of talk pages when I archive. Just in case. Anonymous__Anonymous 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

TIME citation

The following senctence lacks a citation:

In that same issue, Bart Simpson was named to the Time 100, the publication's list of the century's 100 most influential people

I need someone to verify this fact. If you go to this page you will need to be a subscriber to TIME magazine to watch the entire article. Can anybody verify that Bart Simpson is on that list? --Maitch 12:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Go here: [1]. Bart's on the list. Ultrabasurero 02:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --Maitch 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

Good article, but i think it needs to be copy edited. Leave a note on my talk page once it has been done. False Prophet 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Lisa is 9

she startrs off 7(bart 9) then b day is jacko episode

recently enough she turns nine turbo diary private investigator episode.... Owwmykneecap 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

She is frequently denoted to be Eight years old. Birthdays are notwithstanding. You might see her as becoming nine in those episodes, but until she is declared nine in a subsequent episode, the frozen timeline of the simpsons stands with her as 8... TheHYPO 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ratings?

Is there any source of the original nielson ratings of all the episodes? I have a hard time believing that the first season was the highest rated season of the show after all the press it got in the second and third seasons, as well as how popular it developed well after that first season... Just wondering of there's a source on season 1 being the best rated season. TheHYPO 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at [2] from '89 to '99 then you will see that the only season to appear in the top 30 was the first. Remember that this is the season average and that the highest rated episode is a completely different thing. It should probably be noted, but I don't know how to do for multiple pages. --Maitch 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the site, though I have to say that I'm extremely surprised since the first season was so (relatively) unfunny, and the big media hype, it's pseudo killing of the Cosby Show and it's carrying of Fox Sunday nights (and becoming huge in pop culture) all occurred through the second-fifth seasons or later. I know that that's season average, but still. That's almost MORE surprising, that the first season was the most consistant one... I'd love to see the actual episode by episode numbers, and I wonder if that count is including weeks with rerun episodes, and whether that's a fair count - since I'm guessing the first season of the simpsons didn't have many rerun episodes since it was a first run half-season. I was also surprised that it was so hard to find ratings for such a popular show. Snpp doesn't seem to have ratings. One article quotes entertainment weekly listing the simpsons as having a 30+ ratings points in one season. Not sure how that fits into this... I'd love to investigate ratings more thoroughly. TheHYPO 07:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I was also surprised. I think The Simpsons is one of those shows that occasionally does very well, but is not all that impressive on average. Even in the 17th season there was an episode with over 20 million viewers.
The problem is that the company that makes the ratings is very protective about their ratings, so every websites that offers comprehensive listings of ratings gets shut down. I remember www.thefutoncritic.com had an excellent ratings section, but it got closed because of a lawsuit threat. If you look at [3] you can see the ratings for some single episodes. On that webpage you can also see that The Simpsons was the number one show on certain weeks. --Maitch 07:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Newer shows, like Lost have their weekly ratings catalogued on places like TV.com, but since there was nothing like that in 1992, noone likely made records. I would still like to know what 'season average represents'. Because it most likely includes rerun weeks which would do really bad ratingswise (especially once the show went syndicated and especially now with ther internet). The first season, I suspect, would have lacked these rerun weeks. Either way, as mentioned, surprising that the Cosby show is number one in 1989 (and many years before it), and though it loses #1, it remains in the top30 in 90, and 91 until it was cancelled - supposedly by the competition of The Simpsons, which didn't get back into the top30 according to that site. Why would they cancel a top30 show just because it's no longer #1 on the season? this site supposedly has ratings but only from seasons 7 and on; not the seasons I'm interested in reading about! ;) TheHYPO 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know the season average is without reruns. I've checked the website against another list of the number one shows and it was the same result.
I can offer a possible explanation for the cancellation of the Cosby Show. A live-action show becomes more and more expensive for each season. During the last season of Friends the actors were paid 6 million in total per episode and then you have to add production costs. If you compare that to the fact that an episode of The Simpsons cost 1 to 1.5 million per episode in total, then you have a larger profit margin. You should also add the fact that they probably earn billions on merchandising. The Simpsons was the highest rated show on Fox at the time. The next hit was the X-files. NBC had bigger competition and needs to have the number one show. --Maitch 09:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I just did some more research and it seems that the first season is definitely not the most viewed season. During the 2002-03 season it had an average of 14.31 million viewers and finished in 19th place (see [4]). I will try and do some more research before I change the article. --Maitch 14:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
For now, you can just drop the 'most viewed' part - just having a comparisson between season 1 and a recent season... to demonstrate the non-dropoff that is the point of that statement... TheHYPO 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I really find this fascinating. On one hand we have many people criticising the show for declining quality and on the other it shows that the highest rated season is after season 10. I tried to dig up some more material using the wayback machine, but the results were limited. The numbers I mentioned before were not for the final season, but I have found the correct numbers. I publish my findings below in hope of there would be another kind editor that would update it with more numbers and sources. --Maitch 08:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Season Years Viewers Place Notes
1 1989 - 1990 13,354,500 28. [5]
2 1990 - 1991 < 13,220,200 < 30. [6]
3 1991 - 1992 < 12,065,100 < 30. [7]
4 1992 - 1993 < 12,103,000 < 30. [8]
5 1993 - 1994 < 11,869,200 < 30. [9]
6 1994 - 1995 < 11,161,800 < 30. [10]
7 1995 - 1996 < 10,740,800 < 30. [11]
8 1996 - 1997 < 10,185,000 < 30. [12]
9 1997 - 1998 < 9,016,000 < 30. [13]
10 1998 - 1999 < 8,946,000 < 30. [14]
11 1999 - 2000  ? 41. [15]
12 2000 - 2001 14,620,000 22. [16]
13 2001 - 2002 12,480,000  ? [17]
14 2002 - 2003 13,450,000 21. [18]
15 2003 - 2004  ?  ?
16 2004 - 2005 9,684,210  ? [19] (added 5% to season 17 result)
17 2005 - 2006 9,200,000 56. [20]


It may not equate, but when a popular show loses a lot of it's viewership (or retains it) it can be seen as an indication of the quality of the show (relative to itself, in the eyes of the viewers). Note that noone is comparing the quality of Simpsons to other tv shows based on ratings. simply to itself. If a show is improving in quality, yet its fans stop watching, that would be counterintuitive, would it not? TheHYPO 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't claim that the popularity equates quality, but it does put the criticism in perspective. If you go by the fans of the earlier seasons then The Simpsons is the worst show on television. Yet it doesn't seem that the show has lost an audience. This clearly must mean that somebody actually still likes it. I believe that The Simpsons has been successful in building a new audience, which also would be necessary for a show that has lasted 17 seasons. --Maitch 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Declining quality

I'd like to add the view to this section that the main reason for the dramatic decline in the quality of the show since around the Series 10 mark is that the show has ceased to be 'character driven' and has become 'plot driven'. The first nine or so series shows plots developed out of the characters behaving in unforced ways which were believable within their established charateristics. Since then the characters have been forced into behaving in a way that fits a pre-perceived plot, or joke (often of very poor quality). This has given the show rings of untruth, and been chiefly responsible for its serious decline in quality in the second half of its life. Martyn Smith 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is already mentioned. --Maitch 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

If there's further vandalism, semiprotection should be requested. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It already has been, and denied. They require a significant amount of vandalism before protecting, and that amount is somewhere like at least a dozen times a day. If it becomes more frequent, it can reapply, but right now, it's up to maintainers to keep an eye on it. TheHYPO 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that about half of the vandalism is in reality good faith attempts to improve the article. The problem is that people don't consider the flow of the article or that they insert some random trivia. I have started to write notes to the editors within the article; so that the common reverts can be avoided. Feel free to add more of those. --Maitch 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I cited only actual vandalism (not changing things that shouldn't be changed) when applying. IE: deleting half the article, writing people's name into the article, adding swear words, writing 'is gay', etc. TheHYPO 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I've trimmed the religion section down to the vital information for the main article, but do we really need it here? I would argue the stuff here under both lifestyle and religion should be moved over to the Simpson Family article (which, if I remember correctly, is in good need of some organization), with maybe a passing mention in this article. If people want to know what the family's religion is or that their car is from the 80's, they can look up the family; it's not a crucial fact for people reading about the show itself. TheHYPO 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I mentioned the episode when Bart and Homer turned Catholic. Anonymous__Anonymous 08:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jumping the Shark

"A large majority has voted on The Simpsons page that the show never jumped the shark"

Doing a quick spreadsheet-aided check of the page, the results come out as..

Never Jumped - 1592 (59.89), Jumped - 1066 (40.11)

Not to quibble over semantics, but "large majority" could be slightly decieving. Although the "Never Jumped" vote over the last few years has a 3/5ths advantage over the "Jumped" votes.

Then again, the JTS method isn't actually the most accurate method (especially since a lot of "Never Jumped" votes have been cast before the most recent seasons). I'm slightly biased since I think the Simpsons should have been put out of it's misery years ago, but I would imagine that a majority would say that the Simpsons have 'jumped the shark'

If you want to get supertechnical, the "Jumped"/"Never Jumped" vote isn't large enough to make it past cloture. Ha.

--RobbieFal 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


As has been mentioned, an anonymous website that is voluntary to goto is not the most scientific measure of opinion. But the important observation isn't the advantage 'never jumped' has over 'jumped'; IMO, it's the fact that around 40% of the people visiting the site think the show HAS jumped. That's a significant number of people. Either way though, not scientific... TheHYPO 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
not very significant, but in my opinion, by jesus has it jumped Owwmykneecap 03:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's do this the Wiki way... Jumped or Not Jumped... vote here... - Adolphus79 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the word "large" from the text. The fact that 2658 people has voted makes it more reliable than most statistics. Usually the only require a thousand people to represent a country. The article doesn't say that this is the truth, it just says the answer could be found there. I will not take part in the newly constructed poll, since we can't use it for the article, because that would be original research. --Maitch 06:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add that of all the shows you can vote for on the website, The Simpsons is featured as one of them with the largest majority for "never jumped" (see [21]). --Maitch 06:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I point out that a good deal of fans who DO think the show lost it's humour, decided this a long time ago... maybe 6-9 years ago for many people (a lot in the Mike Scully era). As such, it would be unlikely (or less likely) for them to actively seek out a poll on whether a show they have not liked for 8 years has jumped the shark. It is far more likely for current fans to support a show they like by actively visiting the page and voting. The only true poll that would be objective would be a random sampling of people. who have ever watched the show... which is not particularly feasable. TheHYPO 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: I would like to add that you may think 40% of the people thinking the show has jumped isn't that big a number, but when you factor in that the people voting are most likely people who at one time or another watched the show as fans, not people who never really watched the show, it's pretty significant that nearly half of those votes say the show has jumped. When you also factor in that the show is SEVENTEEN seasons old, and that there are most likely people out there watching the show now who weren't even BORN when the show premiered (and lots of others who were too young to watch tv then, and only started watching the show in the 8th, 9th, 10th season or beyond, their opinion of it never jumping does not necessarily indicate a preception that the quality hasn't dropped. They simply don't have a frame of reference to the quality it once was.... TheHYPO 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they jumped... and if your talking about quality the show is better now than it's ever been... the humor may have gone down some in the last 10 years, but look at how uptight and PC America has gotten in the last 10 years... you can't make fun of stuff the way you used to anymore... you'll get sued... I love the simpsons as a whole, the characters, their interactions, etc... so what if a couple recent episode's plots sucked, or they didn't make as big a joke of something as they could have... - Adolphus79 23:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a whole reply going and then the power died in the neighbourhood. Boo. Anyhoo; let's try again. I don't think PC uptight America has ANYTHING to do with the Simpsons, nor do legal issues. Look at Family Guy. Fox has good lawyers. I've met Family Guy's. Simpsons never really have relied upon parody or mockery of people or products or other shows or anything (and if they do now, they never used to). I don't think the Simpsons is 'tamer' now than before either, Re: PC America. They used to be prevented from using the word Ass and had to negotiate to use it way back when. I think there are a number of factors for the (percieved, or actual) decline of quality, which may not be 'quality' as much as it is 'abandoning it's original principles' in the comedy and storytelling and character areas.
  • The so-called plot-drift in the article, in which the episode's plot has nothing to do with the entire first act. The example I always use is the Babysitter Sexual Harrassment episode. This was one of the first episodes to use the 'random' first act piece where characters go somewhere or do something that has nothing to do with the actual plot. In that episode the goto the Candy Convention (a rather surreal piece in itself). The difference between 10 years ago and today is that, before they goto the convention, they introduce the convention idea while at home, introduce the babysitter (and her feminism), and then the gummy Venus from the convention becomes a main factor in the plot. If this was an episode today, they would start the show at the convention, introduce the babysitter after that, and he'd 'grab her ass' becase there was a dollar on it or something totally unrelated to the convention. The plot would be built completely at the end of the first act.
  • The so-called non-aging which really isn't. The characters never physically age, this is true. But you can't have 17 years worth of adventures and realistically not age mentally. imagine Bart going to grandpa for help with a bully today after 17 years. It would make him seem so naive and stupid... (because in our eyes, though he's 10, he's also had a 27-year old's worth of life experience). This is especially true of the kids. It was almost comedic in the episode where Marge doesn't want Lisa to take the bus. If you think of her as 8 years old, this is true, but she's virtually grown into a 15 year old teen at least in perception and maturity by that time (and even moreso now) and it seems almost beyond realism to treat her as 8.
  • Homer has somewhat lost his boyish innocence. Now he's just wild and loud, and abnoxious, and angry kinda like Peter Griffin. Marge has lost her quiet 'rock of the family'ness, and while she used to get realistic housewife-y plots (have an affair, get a job because she's bored), now she has off the wall plots (accidently gets breast implants?). Not necessarily a faultable one - there are only so many things to do. Can you think of 300 interesting different things that have happened to your family?
  • Actors are running out of voices. You used to have more players doing voices for the simpsons - Hartman would show up, Doris Grau, Lovitz, and others would show up. Now virtually every male is Hank, Harry or Dan C, and it's noticable that they are running out of unique voices.
  • Actors no longer (or rarely) record together and therefore you lose a) spontinaity and b) realistic reaction. The actors used to ad lib all the time (like they do on Family Guy now); I once saw Harry and Dan on Conan a few years ago and Conan asked them to ad lib a scene and it was pretty funny.

I could go on, but I think those are the main points. I'm still not exactly sure what 'jumping the shark' indicates. Does it indicate that the show is out of ideas? that it is desperate for ratings? That it's not worth watching anymore? I think it depends on what you think the phrase means. As for Decline of quality. I think that people use that phrase to define 'I am no longer entertained by watching this show as I used to be'. Sorry this got long. I had two hours of blackout to think ;) TheHYPO 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. Jumptheshark is NOT a scientific site, it's a "bitch" site. It does have some good data on old shows, but they have entries on shows like buffy that refer to 2000. And those votes are still counted today. What this means is that if in 1999 you thought the show was hilarious still and voted as such and did the same once a year for the next three years, then in 2003 you hate the show it jumped the shark in your book. The site does not remove the previous votes. And since it's anonymous it's heavily biased. The general feeling in the community is it's jumped the shark (which means the show has started to go down hill. Not necessarily unwatchable but far past it's glory days.) I'd say leave the jumped the shark line in there, and ignore jumptheshark site as it really has no actual data collection criteria, time period, or way to recind votes it's completely incorrect to even consider it as viable data. Kinglink 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)