Live data from Hacker News

Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?

nathancunn.com

91–100 of 147 posts

Re: Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?

#91
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Simpsons were pushing the envelope when the show came out, doing things that were considered almost radical at the time. But they are just stuck in time, following their formula while subsequent animated shows (e.g. South Park) have gone much farther than the Simpsons ever did. The show often also feels like the writers are just rehashing old ideas, and there seem to be a few archetypes of stories that just keep…

That's true of a lot of long-running shows. Even if they don't become worse in the sense that individual episodes are worse taken in isolation, they're often just repetitious and, as you say, stuck in time. You see this elsewhere too. In comic strips, for example, Dilbert is mostly stuck in some 90s version of cubicle life at a big company like Pac Bell. Don't really reaad it any longer but even when nothing is wrong…

Dilbert is mostly stuck in some 90s version of cubicle life at a big company like Pac Bell

And Garfield. The cat hates Mondays and loves lasagna, we get it...

Re: Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?

#92
Nobody here seems to be mentioning the death of Phil Hartman[1] in 1998. The article, as well, staggeringly, doesn't mention his name.

There's a video[2], 'The Fall of the Simpsons', which is one of my favourite videos on the internet. It explains and describes with utmost clarity the issues that led to the series 'demise', which, ultimately, boils down to 'bad writing'.

However, in interviews, and comments from the showrunners and staff, it seems like Phil Hartman's death, who voiced the characters of Troy McCleur, and Lionel Hutz, as well as the voice of Lyle Lanley, from the fantastic classic episode 'Marge vs. the Monorail'.

When Hartman died, they retired Troy's character. His absence alone is strongly felt when viewing the first several seasons against the others. His voice is certainly missed. Said Groening of Hartman: "[I] took [Hartman] for granted because he nailed the joke every time," and that his voice acting could produce "the maximum amount of humor" with any line he was given.

I mean, this was 1998. Most folks consider season 8-9 to have some of the last 'great' episodes of the series, or at least the last 'great' seasons. There's absolutely no way this is a coincidence, and the affect of his death on the series has been verified by countless staff.

I often think of Hartman's death as equivalent to Brian Epstein's death in '67. Similar to the Simpsons, there are a million reasons why the Beatles went to shit (even if their output for three years after that was still phenomenal), but if you have to look at the thing that really 'started' it, Epstein's or Hartman's deaths are good places to start looking, and it's easy to see how things went downhill from there in both cases.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hartman [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk

Re: Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?

#93
A built a framework called Lean Media for producing entertainment and informational media works (linked in my sig, for those who are interested) and did quite a bit of research on The Simpson's early years as well as other creative groups and solo creators.

While I didn't look into these media team's later development, I think the catalysts which helped them get early success may point the way to why their later output is not so consistently impressive.

The three early catalysts are:

1. Early audience feedback loops to help guide and validate media prototypes

2. Minimal business interference

3. Really strong creative core

In the case of The Simpsons, it wasn't Matt Groening (who had previously been a cartoonist, not an animator) who single-handedly made the show. Director James L. Brooks and showrunner Sam Simon built out the team of animators and writers. They had early audience feedback from the early animated shorts that appeared in the middle of the Tracey Ullman Show from 1987-1989. These shorts were bundled into 20-minute reels that were shown to Ullman's live studio audiences while there were set changes, and they laughter and cheering helped validate the idea of doing the Simpsons as a standalone half-hour show. Importantly, once The Simpsons was launched in 1989, Brooks protected the writing crew from Fox TV executives' attempt at interference.

Similarly, for the band Led Zeppelin, the same three catalysts were in place from the start. Early creative feedback came during their first Scandinavian tour in September 1968, which directly shaped the arrangements and songs that made it onto Led Zeppelin I. They didn't even have a record company when they recorded the album with Glyn Johns that October, so the leader -- Jimmy Page -- could really follow his own production instincts.

Later on, what happened with these two teams? Certainly, they continued to make great media, but things weren't quite the same. The Simpsons team broke up -- there was a lot of tension between Simon and Groening, and Simon left after three or four seasons. Other writers went on to different shows. Fox also started to exercise more control over the production, which became more corporate.

Led Zeppelin's team remained intact, but over time productions became more bloated (LZ1 recorded in 10 days, Physical Grafitti in 18 months) and I think like many 70s hard rock groups they lost touch with their audiences. After 1977 they did not tour much, and albums like In Through The Out Door and Presence are more musically experimental and influenced by the Plant and Jones than Page and Bonham.

Re: Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?

#94
post #8

Whenever we talk about Simpsons decline it always occurs to me that even in decline... the Simpsons is still pretty good. Perhaps that says more about its high points than the "decline".

I think the decline is largely bullshit nostalgia. I still watch Simpsons and I still think it's great.

Keep in mind the decline started over 20 years ago. It probably stopped declining a long time ago (around 15 years?), and reached what people consider its current quality level.

Re: Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?

#95
post #61

Nothing lasts forever. Plain and simple. I really dislike TV/Anime that never ends, seems to be the modus operandi for pretty much every mainstream show despite how bad the quality gets after 2-3 seasons. Simpsons is a great showcase of the homogenization that every sitcom will go through given enough time. It starts out as a comedy with some wholesome family moments to bring it together but eventually every characte…

but eventually every character is distilled to their most basic formula

So-called Flanderization

Re: Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?

#96
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Simpsons were pushing the envelope when the show came out, doing things that were considered almost radical at the time. But they are just stuck in time, following their formula while subsequent animated shows (e.g. South Park) have gone much farther than the Simpsons ever did. The show often also feels like the writers are just rehashing old ideas, and there seem to be a few archetypes of stories that just keep…

That's true of a lot of long-running shows. Even if they don't become worse in the sense that individual episodes are worse taken in isolation, they're often just repetitious and, as you say, stuck in time. You see this elsewhere too. In comic strips, for example, Dilbert is mostly stuck in some 90s version of cubicle life at a big company like Pac Bell. Don't really reaad it any longer but even when nothing is wrong…

Strong disagree. The farther I get into my career the more Dilbert feels like exactly my current experience.

Re: Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?

#97
post #61

Nothing lasts forever. Plain and simple. I really dislike TV/Anime that never ends, seems to be the modus operandi for pretty much every mainstream show despite how bad the quality gets after 2-3 seasons. Simpsons is a great showcase of the homogenization that every sitcom will go through given enough time. It starts out as a comedy with some wholesome family moments to bring it together but eventually every characte…

> I really dislike TV/Anime that never ends, seems to be the modus operandi for pretty much every mainstream show despite how bad the quality gets after 2-3 seasons.

Isn't this an American thing where TV/movie things are primarily for money making?

I mean the British Office had 2 seasons and 12 episodes. The US version had 9 seasons and 200 episodes.

I didn't watch The Office, so I don't know if the US version got worse towards the end, but in general in the US they keep making episodes while the series is profitable, regardless of quality and in the end they usually drive it to the ground.

They just can't stop until there is no money in it. Most of the time they can't end a TV series on a high note.

Re: Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Futurama got cancelled and they made 3 straight to DVD movies which was supposed to be 26 episodes worth of content, and IIRC you could see it, each "movie" had 4 stories. The bad thing was, the humor got so so bad, with predictable lame one liners (Big Bang Theory-level lame). I wonder what sort of groupthink thought those jokes were funny, and what sort of dynamics the early Simpsons/Futurama writers group had to b…

I wonder how much of that was a format issue, though? The Futurama movies were definitely weaker than the episodes, but I remember the Comedy Central revival being better than most or all of the movies. Maybe not up to their Season Four heights, but definitely enough better to make me think the movie style was causing them problems in either writing or editing.

I have the opposite experience. I find the Comedy Central reboot episodes, for the most part, to feel strange and 'off'. I can't even put my finger on it. Even the animation seems wonky to me.

Eh, to be honest, the movies weren't great, either. Seasons 1-4 really were kind of 'Futurama's run, I guess.

Re: Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end?

#100
post #79
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the later writers just got worse reviews because they were in the later seasons? In other words, something else caused the decline so the later writers got worse ratings.

Your wording here suggests that the later episodes were simply rated lower because they were later. However, I think your point is that the later episodes got worse ratings for something beyond the writers. Certainly possible. Even if nothing else changed, it must be much more difficult to write a fresh, funny episode when 200+ episodes have already been done. There were also external factors which might have driven…

I mean, you could just have producers forcing you to do something that's not good, like celebrity cameos and other stupid things.
Post reply on HN