The fall of The Simpsons - how did it happen? Solid 30 minute video analysis...

[Darren Dirt]

...that does not rely on immature/distracting visual or editing gimmicks. Pretty solid deep thoughts shared, from a guy who clearly LOVES the show ( especially the first 7 seasons (d'oh) )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk

So sad (and accurate) the way the final 8 minutes or so talks about the diluting/removal of all the things that gave pre-zombie Simpsons the EDGE (aka what made each character uniquely THAT CHARACTER).

I guess that's why Futurama had such a huge fan base calling for its resurrection. TWICE. Because they never did that kind of injustice to the characters. Not even for ratings, or for enduring cultural relevance. It's like they respected the legacy of the genius product they gave the world, and did not want to risk insulting those who loved it for what it was. Too bad the same can't be said for whoever steered the ship[wreck] for the Simpsons...

[Darren Dirt]

WOW!

"The shows has NOW lived longer than Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, and Amy Winehouse"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Decline_of_The_Simpsons.jpg

[Melbosa]

So from someone whom still enjoys the Simpsons, one flaw to your comparison of it to Futurama (which I also loved). The Simpsons has survived the trials of time that Futurama could not even with a second chance.

I enjoy the characters today as much as I have throughout the series.  Maybe the ordinator's writing comes at the cost of misunderstanding the content of a show on its 29th season, with over 20 episodes a season, and with characters that never age, never move, never change appearance or likeness.  While the characters defined roles and personalities were easily defined in the first 10 years of the show, take it from someone whom had probably missed very little episodes. Today's characters give me just as much entertainment even though their roles and personalities are more broad, sometimes complex, and sometimes contradictory to that of themselves in those first 10 years.

Also the trials of time and shows to choose from over time may also determine raining declines.  Competing timeslots and shows, content growing of similar offerings on other networks and diversity of audience likes/dislikes can all be related to ratings.  It's still is rating higher than shows that get cancelled around them, so it's still on the air.

So I know everyone has their own opinion, and I give you yours. But I still love the show for what it is to me and recommend everyone make their own opinion based on their own viewing.

[Mr. Analog]

This is excellent.

[Mr. Analog]

The Simpsons has survived the trials of time that Futurama could not even with a second chance.

That's the point though, it didn't survive - it continues to exist. Two very different things.

For contrast Fawlty Towers, widely considered one of the greatest sitcoms of all time, is packed into 12 episodes. TWELVE. Even without many examples like that I don't buy into the "stands the test of time" theory based on longevity or quantity.

Finally, say what you will about Futurama but it did its thing, did it reasonably well in three iterations, and then concluded.

[Melbosa]

Finally, say what you will about Futurama but it did its thing, did it reasonably well in three iterations, and then concluded.

Like I said, I loved Futurama as much as everyone else, so I say what I will in a positive light.

[Darren Dirt]

The graph in the linked 30 minute video is not showing viewership/ratings, it is showing the IMDB user ratings for each season (based on avg of every single episode each season).

I rarely rate an EPISODE of a tv series unless I feel really passionate about it one way or the other, so IMO these IMDB episode user ratings are a pretty fair way to get an accurate reflection of quality coming from likely fans of the show (aka haters/trolls can only do so much to skew these numbers).

I think the 9 seasons of The Office are a good contrast -- although viewership declined over time the user ratings on IMDB did not plummet into avg of 7 something for any season AFAIK. Those that still watched did not identify a huge drop in quality due to becoming a shell of former self (always was about rich characters in crazy yet relateable situations) while Simpsons started as "punk" against The Establishment / Celebrity Nonsense and the last 15 seasons it has openly embraced it. Not saying Simpsons isn't fun or funny just isn't "punk" at all anymore its core has been replaced. Even the "heart" is less frequently present (which was key to its early pioneering contributions to culture as this video mentions).

[Darren Dirt]

Confirmed re. The Office -- even with all the new characters in seasons 8 and 9 the writers still did not reinvent/replace/destroy the signature voice of the show.

Ditto Married With Children -- its IMDB user ratings are a consistent 8+ almost every ep except garbage that deserved a 6 or whatever -- right through their ELEVENTH season. And I didn't even know they had that many seasons. But Simpsons from season 8+ there are a ton of 6 or 7 episodes and a lot of the last 15 seasons has an average of a low 7...

[Melbosa]

Awesome... I'm still a fan myself and will continue to be so as the show gives me enjoyment still.

[Mr. Analog]

@Darren TBH my only nitpick with the video was relying on the imdb ratings, they are ultimately useless (I thought I had talked about it here but it may have been elsewhere online). What I found most useful was the deconstruction of what made it good, the contrast with what makes it bad and the staff changes. I had no idea so many writers had moved on at the end of the classic era, that was a big surprise as I hadn't really been paying attention but it really does highlight what was going on.

The illustrated joke near the end was also a very good example of the style shift and why it doesn't work.

Again great video, the stats source didn't help it though

[Darren Dirt]

@Darren TBH my only nitpick with the video was relying on the imdb ratings, they are ultimately useless (I thought I had talked about it here but it may have been elsewhere online). What I found most useful was the deconstruction of what made it good, the contrast with what makes it bad and the staff changes. I had no idea so many writers had moved on at the end of the classic era, that was a big surprise as I hadn't really been paying attention but it really does highlight what was going on.

The illustrated joke near the end was also a very good example of the style shift and why it doesn't work.

Again great video, the stats source didn't help it though

I see your point, perhaps I have the wrong understanding of those IMDB user ratings, I just speculated based on what I or average/hyperfan viewers might do to end up with that data.

BTW I am really glad I found "SuperEyepatchWolf"'s videos -- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtGoikgbxP4F3rgI9PldI9g/videos

It's like the depth of Film Theory without the "look at me, I am creative/zany!" tone that MattPat too often dives into. While the FT for "One Punch Man" was a good perspective on what the main character feels etc. and motivated me to WATCH it with my anime-loving daughter (we just finished the penultimate episode -- doing the slow non-binge!) this dude's video on OPM really excels at talking about its strengths in connection/contrast to expectations due to OTHER anime and I'm sure Mr. Analog would appreciate it all the more for that reason -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHbVngOR06E

[Mr. Analog]

OPM is such a frustrating thing at times because its starting to become the thing it subverted...

You might enjoy this video about the slide of Game Theory:
https://youtu.be/Whp1zO3Ndjw

...and the follow up response to the response (which is even better IMO):
https://youtu.be/-_-T-3XFpxI

[Darren Dirt]

Will watch later.

I just needed to first comment on how awesome that 2nd url is.

-_-

/-_-\

[Mr. Analog]

LOL