Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    Unloved by Al its The Simpsons season 15 "And Review Threads Make Three" « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: Unloved by Al its The Simpsons season 15 "And Review Threads Make Three"  (Read 9069 times)
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 ... 20 Print
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #520 on: 08-06-2004 19:56 »
« Last Edit on: 08-06-2004 19:56 »

Not to distrupt the party even further....but here's a very interesting post from the all knowing NHC member Roger Myers III (yes, the one with all the eerie powers that I'm not really at liberty to discuss):


   
Quote
Originally posted by Roger:
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It certainly sounds like some of Harry's sentiments, which he's expressed before, but badly mangled and taken out of context by a terribly unprofessional website's writer, who may have been going from a short, unexpected encounter or phone/email exchange, but calling it an "interview". I can't tell whether the "reporter" did so out of malice, incompetence, or a drive to make it seem more "angry" and/or "controversial" that he actually was, but the last choice is my impression. Such are the 'net games.

Look at the slap-dash editing: "worst", which is turned into the lead & headline of the paragraph as "slammed", comes from a later collection of phrases: ""I rate the last three seasons as among the worst. It makes me sad. They used to have whole scenes." Quite obviously, he was responding to a question about the activities and roles for his main characters, Flanders, Skinner, Lovejoy, Burns & Smithers - rather than a question about the 'entire show'. [And I would sort of agree with him there - all 5 have been given pretty short-shrift these seasons, in favor of the main family and other cast members. I really expected "Fraudcast" to have far more satirical 'bite' than it did, IMO]. "I'd rather not be there right now" probably leaves out a qualifier like "if they're going to underutilize my characters/me". "Fortunately I'm doing a lot of other things" is true - he's still trying to mount his long-developing J. Edgar Hoover musical, and its been even more frustrating because it's - in this age of Bush and the going-forward-very-fast drive to create a new US post of "National Intelligence Director', which is what Hoover essentially was, and why it was originally abolished - still way ahead of the national mood.

And then, look at this: "Shearer has also angrily denied reports the cast threatened to strike over a pay dispute earlier this year. 'We were never on strike. The day those stories appeared, I was at FOX doing vocal services for that week's show. What I can say is that's possible to make a very nice living and still get totally screwed.' " Though I wouldn't begrudge him 'anger at eithert the way he was treated or at being asked about it- again - it doesn't really sound angry.

Furthermore, what he said is absolutely true, and he's said this before - though in better interviews, he's had the time & inclination to explain it better, which again indicates that this came from a very quick exchange, rather than a real 'talk'. (That, and I'm sure he's sick of questions about the whole affair, which was a business matter that never really had to 'go public', until Fox took it there with its descriptions of a "Strike".) To reiterate - they didn't record for any S16 eps after the first 4 or so, because Fox was dragging its heels in contract negotiations, so they were working - already - without a contract. That's not a "strike", and its barely a "work-stoppage". Their attorneys & managers told them that enough was enough - wisely, IMO - until they finished off the new contract. That is certainly a situation that a wit like Harry could rightfully describe as "mak[ing] a very nice living and still get totally screwed," which could have just as easily described getting screwed by the publicity and press, rather than 'financially'.

IMO, he's now "getting screwed" again by the publicity and press - but this time, by someone that's twisting his words to sensationalize a quick 30-second exchange. Its 'reports' like this that keep talented people clammed-up around events and fans. But if I can learn anything else legit about it, I'll add it here.

EDIT: Jon Hiller, I don't think I saw the earlier interview of yours that you mentioned. Can you provide a link?

Like I said - I'd love for us to 'track' how this 'story' bubbles up in diffferent sites, w/ links, etc., if only to see how the 'telephone' game embellishes it as it goes along, and to see if it gets any sort of response from Harry or the show.

EDIT: I missed Adam's link to "Chortle", earlier in the thread, which itself links back to "Teletext", a UK infotainment site. True enough, they had apparently done a short back-and-forth with Harry as part of the promotion the S4 DVD release in the UK, which explains the comparison he made with S4 - during which it's inarguable that his characters had far bigger roles. The "Contact" site did indeed pull out the 'juiciest' bits of this and spun them in its 'report'. But I can't find the original, "full" Teletext original story on its site, its own "search" pulls nothing up.

Can anyone in the UK help out with the original version?

And yes, Shearer was the one who criticized "Pauper", although that episode now seems to be pretty unpopular with everyone, including Al Jean and Matt Groening.  He's also made some pretty critical assessments of the show's later years before (there's even one on his site), though in the last one (aside from this latest article that now appears to be questionable to say the least) he noted that he thought the writing for season 14 was an improvement (keep in mind this was before 14 started airing).
leelaholic

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #521 on: 08-07-2004 01:08 »

Glad that's cleared up.

Anyway, Houston Voice did an article about the upcoming outing in The Simpsons. Click
evan

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #522 on: 08-07-2004 01:58 »

Personally, I think it'd be funny/sad if Shearer somehow got out of his contract.  Half of Springfiled would disappear or suddenly be unable to talk.  tongue
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #523 on: 08-07-2004 05:14 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by CrazyDoc:
 He didn't say he thought they were bad. He merely said they were 'among the worst'.

Almost the same thing again. "Worst" is basically "bad in comparison to the best"...

User_names_suck
Professor
*
« Reply #524 on: 08-07-2004 06:19 »

Look Otis we don't really care, I know your so excited by this opporunity to mock us Simpsons fans by saying that even one of the actors think its sucks but we just dont care ok.
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #525 on: 08-07-2004 06:27 »

If you didn't care then you wouldn't have just posted that...
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #526 on: 08-07-2004 07:05 »

I read about 3 Simpsons movies the otherday, I prey that is not true.
Mouse On Venus

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #527 on: 08-07-2004 09:00 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Otis P Jivefunk:
If you didn't care then you wouldn't have just posted that...

Why wouldn't he?
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #528 on: 08-07-2004 14:04 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Nurdbot:
I read about 3 Simpsons movies the otherday, I prey that is not true.

Its true, but probably taken out of context.  Its true that they are working on one movie now (though still with no idea about when it will come out), I think mainly in very early scripting stages.  For the other two movies, that stems from the contract the voice actors have currently (or at least the last one, I don't know how this latest one has been updated).  Basically it just means that if they decide to do a second or third movie, the voice actors will be contracted to do them (it was also technically an "if" on the first movie, though obviously it was inevitable anyway).  That doesn't neccasarily mean that there will be a second or third movie; just that if they do decide to do them, the voice actors will be obligated to contribute.  Even Harry Shearer has expressed interest in doing a movie I believe.
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #529 on: 08-07-2004 16:16 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Mouse On Venus:
 Why wouldn't he?

Because he wouldn't care... Saying that you don't care is basically just telling everyone the exact opposite, because it proves you care enough to say that you don't...

DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #530 on: 08-07-2004 17:41 »

That doesn't neccasarily mean he's more then mildly annoyed though.

And anyway, even if this was the "first" time Shearer spoke out (which it isn't, I think he may have been complaining along with Yeardley actually, and we know he hated "Homer at the Bat" ), that doesn't mean much.  Especcially in the early days the voice actors were rarely interviewed or got to speak out.  Only in the most recent years are the voice actors interviewed in on a regular basis, and even then there seem to be a somewhat low number of Shearer interviews, most of which involve him discussing his other works far more then The Simpsons.
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #531 on: 08-07-2004 18:03 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by DotheBartman:
That doesn't neccasarily mean he's more then mildly annoyed though.

Being even mildly annoyed proves it, because if you didn't care, you wouldn't get mildly annoyed... 
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #532 on: 08-07-2004 18:43 »

But even then, he'd only be mildly annoyed because you're just poking and prodding at him, instead of offering real arguments.
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #533 on: 08-08-2004 05:05 »

I can only prod at what is there...
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #534 on: 08-08-2004 07:04 »

Not neccasarily.  Its also possible to make silly accusations about things that don't really exist with arguments that make no sense and provide no backup.

For instance, I could do this to Futurama:

Complete rip off of The Simpsons.  Remember when Bender drank beer that one time?  Total rip off of Homer drinking that one other time.  Total rip off of The Jetsons too.  They both take place in the future; do the math people.  Plus Matt Groening said Fox didn't like it; if the network doesn't like it, it MUST suck.
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #535 on: 08-08-2004 13:40 »

I was talking in first person when I said that, not third, so those other possibilities aren't relevant, as they don't apply to what I'm saying...

Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #536 on: 08-08-2004 15:06 »
« Last Edit on: 08-08-2004 15:06 »

^^^I'm not even gonna bother...

   
Quote
Originally posted by leelaholic:
Glad that's cleared up.

Anyway, Houston Voice did an article about the upcoming outing in The Simpsons. Click

I think that this is actually sad, the media using this as an easy story. For one thing, those of us in the Simpsons internet community already know (or at least think we know) that Patty is the focus of the episode. Really, the media is making too big a deal out of this. Sure, specualting is fun, and it's great to see the show get even more exposure than usual, but I've read about 10 similar articles this past week alone. Still, thanks for the article, leelaholic.
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #537 on: 08-08-2004 17:28 »

To be fair though, that article is actually pretty cleverly written.  But yeah, the media is making too big a deal out of it.  I mostly just think its amusing though (if slightly annoying since every recent Simpsons article is about it), since we as Simpsons nerds knew about it months before the story "broke" on these media outlets (I think I even saw it on the CNN news scroll recently, btw) and even know who it is.  Its just funny to think that if these media outlets just ventured over to the Simpsons archive for a few moments they could already report the character in question, but of course they won't do that.

But yeah, another overblown story in Simpsons land.  But at least these stories don't all start with "Cowabunga!".
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #538 on: 08-08-2004 21:42 »

While I'm still getting tired of all the hype (albeit, slightly amused), I must agree that that article is probably the best I've read so far--it was at least cleverly done. As for the news scroll thing, I believe you're right (can't recall for sure, though). Like I said, I think that the media is making much too big a deal out of this. TV characters have come out of the closet before--of course, never on an animated series--and there have been much more groundbreaking episodes of other hit shows ("All in the Family"'s rape episode comes to mind).

Good call on the "Cowabunga!" thing as well.  wink
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #539 on: 08-08-2004 23:33 »

Actually I think the Mr. Garrison character did "come out" on "South Park", so The Simpsons isn't quite the first with animated shows either.  But I guess its considered a big deal since The Simpsons is so long running and officially one of the biggest shows ever.  The hype is more about the fact that this is a cast of characters that people have come to really love, and people naturally want to know which character is being "outed" after so many years.  But again, its funny that we as Simpsons nerds more then the media apparently do.
Ranadok

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #540 on: 08-09-2004 02:51 »
« Last Edit on: 08-09-2004 02:51 »

The funny thing about that story is, of all the newsreports that I've seen and read (far too many and far too high-profile, considering), that one is the first one that mentioned Patty (one actually said "fans speculate" that it would be Selma, because she had been married so often  roll eyes ) as a candidate for being gay.  Most just say that it's likely to be Smithers and leave it at that.   
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #541 on: 08-09-2004 03:37 »

I've seen a few that mention Patty...but yeah, most don't seem to.  And the "fans speculate" stuff is even funnier, since the core group already knows who it is basically.

Simpsons articles are annoying like %90 of the time though.  Again, like half of them at least start with "Cowabunga" (or some similar Bart "catch phrase" ) or put some horrible pun on "D'oh" (do they really think they're being clever writing "Simpsons voices hold out for more 'D'oh'"?).  I especcially loved the one that cited the "Comic Book Guy-like fans that think its declined", then goes on to talk about how great the show is for being totally random and free of characters.  roll eyes I think a lot of the authors haven't even seen the show.

About the "fans speculate" nonsense...I can actually only think of a few articles ever where internet fans are specifically quoted.  Both an article called "Worst Episode Ever" and "The Simpsons Has Lost its Cool" (both from many years ago) actually quote some alt.tv.simpsons posters from back in the day and even use their names.  I don't think any of those people still post incidentally.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #542 on: 08-09-2004 04:10 »

'...Homer becomes a Minister'

Ugh, when will they END the beating of that dying horse?
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #543 on: 08-09-2004 04:33 »

Its a pretty beaten horse corpse I'll admit...but I think this sounds like one of the more decent ones.  It actually could be amusing and at least ties into the plot (unlike the Homer ambulance thing from last season, which was a truly lousy subplot).  And anyway, I'm at least fairly certain that its just a subplot here or something fairly incidental to the plot.  The main story is about Patty.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #544 on: 08-09-2004 04:48 »

But he's been a Minister already...
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #545 on: 08-09-2004 05:14 »

Maybe its just because its late, but I don't remember that.  Explain.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #546 on: 08-09-2004 05:38 »

The episode where he sued the Church and incited the wraith of God?

CyberKnight

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #547 on: 08-09-2004 05:49 »

But he wasn't necessarily a minister, was he? He just lived in the building which used to be the church.
David A

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #548 on: 08-09-2004 05:59 »

And then there was that other episode, where he stayed home from church and invented his own religion...
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #549 on: 08-09-2004 06:43 »

Neither of those count though.  Completely different things.

Normally it wouldn't have even been in my nature, but when I saw that Homer was going to be a minister in that episode, I got a chuckle out of it.  I normally hate the Homer jobs and think they should drop them entirely, but I think this has some hope of being legitimately funny.  But we'll see.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #550 on: 08-09-2004 10:55 »

I also have to admit that the whole Homer being a minister concept amuses me--it seems like it could be entertaining enough. Of course, I could be wrong (which is the case 99.9% of the time), but hopefully the writers can pull it off so that it's not entirely another "Homer gets another job" plot (or sub-plot, I'm not sure which).

As for it being a "beating the dead horse" sort of thing, I don't really think it can be catergorized as that. Sure, there have been episodes where Homer has invented his own religion and sued the Church ("Homer the Heretic" and "Pray Anything" respectively), but they were two instances of Homer being the focus of a religion-themed episode (if "Pray Anything" can be called that). This episode deals more with the subject of gay marriage than it does with religion (of course, some consider it "unholy", but I doubt that that will be a major player in the episode). Also, the two afore-mentioned instances weren't even really "Homer getting a job" stories, so I can't say that something quite like this has been done, or that it's a "jump the shark"/"beating the dead horse" moment. 
User_names_suck
Professor
*
« Reply #551 on: 08-09-2004 14:49 »

Otis when I say we don't care I simply mean most fans aren't particulary botherd about Harry's comments.
(which seem to be taken out of context anyway) And no one in this thread is convinced by your arguing and reinforcing of what harry's said.
Its merley getting tiresome that you still seem to be on this crusade to convice a few people here that the simpsons suck now. Although if you carry on much longer it'll just be amusing.

The Homer minister thing should work, its a sane enough job for him to get and logically doesn't have to conflict with his work schedule. It also should have relevance in the context of the episode.
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #552 on: 08-09-2004 15:17 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by User_names_suck:
 Otis when I say we don't care I simply mean most fans aren't particulary botherd about Harry's comments.

That's why people talked about it...

 
Quote
Originally posted by User_names_suck:
 And no one in this thread is convinced by your arguing and reinforcing of what harry's said.

I'm not trying to convince anybody. I just expressed glee and relief at what he said, and defended it...

 
Quote
Originally posted by User_names_suck:
 Its merley getting tiresome that you still seem to be on this crusade to convice a few people here that the simpsons suck now.

If that's what you think I'm doing, then you're being way too over-defensive...

 
Quote
Originally posted by User_names_suck:
 Although if you carry on much longer it'll just be amusing.

Your posts have already gone past amusment...
 
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #553 on: 08-09-2004 16:10 »

What happened to you Otis?, you used to be so friendly.
CrazyDoc

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #554 on: 08-09-2004 16:16 »

I'm sue Otis is a reasonable, intelligent, friendly guy when he's discussing Futurama. It may be just when he starts talking about the Simpsons that he turns into a pompous windbag. Jekyll and Hyde, anyone?

DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #555 on: 08-09-2004 16:47 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Otis P Jivefunk:
That's why people talked about it...


We discussed it because we found it interesting.  Just as we would find it interesting if Matt Groening came out and said that season four sucked.  It wouldn't and doesn't affect our own perceptions and opinions about any seasons of the show because we're able to form our own opinions, as opposed to needing "reinforcement" from someone who's worked on the show to know our opinions are "correct".  And now there's this matter of of Shearer being misquoted anyway, so who the $%&* cares?
 

Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #556 on: 08-09-2004 16:53 »

I donít see how this post is unfriendly or pompous...

 
Quote
Originally posted by Otis P Jivefunk:
If true, and Harry Shearer; a major voice actor for the actual show himself thinks the last three seasons are the worst ever, then I'm glad I gave up...

Yet just the expression of this two sentence opinion caused the subsequent arguing. Defending an opinion in this thread is like throwing a rock into a bee hive. Even the most friendly people can find it hard when constantly provoked and accused about such tiny insignificant things. I havenít insulted anyone here, so I havenít been unfriendly. Yet I have just been insulted myself being called a pompous windbag. Says a lot about the acceptance of some of the people here...

 
Quote
Originally posted by DotheBartman:
 We discussed it because we found it interesting.  Just as we would find it interesting if Matt Groening came out and said that season four sucked.  It wouldn't and doesn't affect our own perceptions and opinions about any seasons of the show because we're able to form our own opinions, as opposed to needing "reinforcement" from someone who's worked on the show to know our opinions are "correct".  And now there's this matter of of Shearer being misquoted anyway, so who the $%&* cares?

When did I say it affected anyones perceptions and opinions about any of the seasons of the show? All I said is that people are talking about it, so they care...
 
leelaholic

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #557 on: 08-09-2004 20:43 »

If I may interject...

This week's episode rerun will be "My Mother the Carjacker". I forgot to tape it the first run, but now I can!  big grin
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #558 on: 08-09-2004 21:56 »

Otis, primarily you kept suggesting that Shearer's comments proved your own opinion was "right" and then prodded at us trying to suggest that we must somehow be worried about his comments or questioning our own fandom as a result of them.  Whether you intended to be pompous or not (and that original post isn't, but what come later is questionable...) it came off that way.

 
Quote
When did I say it affected anyones perceptions and opinions about any of the seasons of the show? All I said is that people are talking about it, so they care...

Again, it came off that way, but I was also in fact suggesting that you were using Shearer's opinion (which, again, seems to have been completely misquoted) to form your own, instead of watching and forming opinions on your own.  But if I misread all your posts to begin with, I'll drop it.
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #559 on: 08-10-2004 07:19 »
« Last Edit on: 08-10-2004 07:19 »

I wasn't proving my opinions right with Shearer's comments, because opinions have no right or wrong. Like I said before...

   
Quote
Originally posted by Otis P Jivefunk:
 I'm not trying to convince anybody. I just expressed glee and relief at what he said, and defended it...

Just because I express an opinion thatís different from the majority in this thread, doesnít mean to say Iím forcing it upon anybody. At no point did I say that my opinion is a fact. The problem occurs when people canít accept it as an opinion, because it differs from theirs. This suggests they see it as an attack, which is being way too over-defensive. So instead, they try to prove it wrong as if Iím trying to pass it off as a fact. And they argue against it when it has no right or wrong. Obviously these arguments will all be flawed because theyíre trying to do the impossible, prove something wrong that has no right or wrong...

My later posts are all sparked off by this over-defensive nature in this thread, when people canít express an opinion which differs, without a whole backlash of arguments against it, when itís simply just an opinion (something everybody is entitled to). Iím not the one being pompous here, quite the contrary. Itís when people fail to see this and miss-interpret it as an attack on there own opinions. Canít you people see, every one of my posts afterwards is a result of constant scrutinizing over valid opinions which are failed to be accepted as they are. Accepting an opinion doesnít mean to say youíre agreeing with it. Accepting it can just be leaving it alone, leaving it be. But in this case, I couldnít even have a voice without constant backlash against a free expression. If you canít accept it, youíre the ones being pompous...

If I came off that way, youíre miss-interpreting me. I stress this again, at no point did I say that my opinion is a correct fact. And I wasnít using Shearerís opinion to form my own, Iím quite capable of forming my own opinions, which I already had way before his comment. That opinion being the just reason for not watching now, and my original post expressing my relief of this through Shearís comments...
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 ... 20 Print 
 Topic locked! 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.151 seconds with 17 queries.