Unloved by Al its The Simpsons season 15 "And Review Threads Make Three"

[Reply #560 on:]

Well fair enough it just seemed to me you were using Shearers comments to back up your own and provoke us  If thats not the case, then sorry. 
No one is saying you cant have your own opinion, but other people are allowed to debate this with you and criticize your opinion, especially when you've say you haven't actually been regulary watching the show from season 13.

[Reply #561 on:]

True, just as I'm allowed to defend my opinion...

[Reply #562 on:]

I guess I'll apologize then.  It just came off the way I described, but I guess looking at it now I can see that wasn't your intent.  Sorry about all that.

Back on track....a couple more Shearer articles (this may take two posts):

First off, a more complete article about Shearer's comments (it seems he wasn't entirely misquoted, but that certain parts were in fact probably exxagerated a little):

"Harry Shearer was interviewed on UK's Teletex last week:

One of the lead actors on The Simpsons believes the hit TV cartoon is in a
slump.

While the highly acclaimed fourth series is out on DVD here this week,
Harry Shearer, who voices the likes of evil Mr Burns, thinks it has tailed
off since the glory days of the early '90s.

In an exclusive interview with Teletext Total Entertainment he says: "I
rate the last three seasons as among the worst, so Season 4 looks very good
to me now." He admits he rarely watches old episodes as they outshine the
undeveloped recent offerings. He explains: "It makes me sad. They used to
have whole scenes." (EDIT: Again, this indicates a response to a question about his characters)

To compound the problems, all is not well behind the scenes after a pay
dispute earlier this year.

Shearer, who voices several characters including Ned Flanders, says his
continued involvement has been soured by the public fight between bosses
and the performers.

Speaking exclusively from the US about the mood on the show, he says: "I'd
rather not be there right now. Fortunately, I'm doing a lot of other things."

He says reports that the actors went on strike over pay were untrue: "We
were never on strike. The day that story appeared in Variety newspaper, I
was at Fox doing vocal services for that week's show.

And he claims: "That was planted by Fox or a double agent doing Fox's
bidding. From there, things got nastier. What I can say is that it's
possible to make a very nice living and still get totally screwed."

Despite his close involvement with the series, Shearer can shed little
light on two subjects of keen debate among fans at the moment. The makers
have been talking about turning the show into a movie for years but he
says: "It is supposed to happen. I hear writers have been assigned to it. I
know no more."

He also has no clue which character due to take part in a widely debated
forthcoming gay marriage on the cartoon.

Given his discontent with its current state, where does Shearer think The
Simpsons can go next? "Up," he jokes.

Fans cite Season 4 as among the best. Firm favourites include episodes such
as New Orleans satire A Streetcar Named Marge.

Shearer says: "I remember those episodes as among the best of a very good
season, although Streetcar was the first of our 'let's get a city/country
really mad at us for getting everything wrong' series.

"Still, I enjoyed being Ned in that show."

Away from his work on The Simpsons, Shearer hosts weekly US radio broadcast
Le Show. He says America's run-up to the election is ripe for satire.

"To me, the US is so wacky - both culturally and politically - that it's
always a good time to be a satirist here. This, of course, is one of the
best, since the disconnect between reality and political reality is, shall
we say, rather extreme at the moment," he says.

Satire, generally, is considered a British art form and, unlike many of his
fellow countrymen, Shearer's very keen on British comedy: "I'm a huge
Office fan. I was thrilled last November to meet Ricky Gervais while I was
in London doing promotion for A Mighty Wind.

"I'm also a major Alan Partridge fan, and my wife has gotten me into Father
Ted. I've been watching French and Saunders since they were doing fringe
theatre in London and I'm still a big fan of theirs."

Of course Shearer is well known to fans of film This Is Spinal Tap. Having
done send-ups of heavy metal and folk bands, will he and his co-stars
Christopher Guest and Michael McKean next send up rap?

"No, I don't think so," he says, adding the Spinal-esque rider: "We're too
white."

His last directorial outing Teddy Bears' Picnic was slammed by critics but
he's undeterred. "I've licked my wounds sufficiently ('Mmmmm, wounds', as
Homer would say), and I'm trying to get two new projects financed."

The bold part is RMIII's own comment, by the way.

[Reply #563 on:]

(Sorry 'bout the double post...)

The Al Jean response:
 http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/28782.htm

August 10, 2004 -- 'SIMPSONS" voice Harry Shearer says the show's run out of gas.
But the producer of the all-time record-setting comedy says it's Shearer who's full of gas.

Shearer, who voices "Simpsons" characters Mr. Burns, Smithers and Ned Flanders, said this week that he believes the show has run its course and that he'd "rather not be there now.

"It makes me sad," Shearer told the Irish Examiner.

His remarks seem to have set a fire on this side of the Atlantic.

"I don't know why I have to defend the quality of the show to Harry Shearer . . . he's a guy who's been a malcontent, in my view," Al Jean, "The Simpsons" long-time producer, told The Post yesterday.

"For someone earning millions off the show this year . . . I just think it's unfathomable for him to take a shot at us."

Shearer seemed to be most disturbed that his characters no longer have a lot to do on the show. Now they are just walk-on parts.

"They used to have whole scenes," he said. "Season four looks very good to me now. Fortunately, I'm doing a lot of other things."

"I ran season four and he wasn't happy then," Jean fired back. "I just think it's an insult to all of us who work so hard. Harry doesn't put in that much time [working on the show] compared to the writers and producers.

"I think this past season was great, and I'm just so shocked that he would say that."

Jean boasted that Dan Castellaneta, who voices Homer Simpson, won an Emmy yesterday for Outstanding Voiceover Performance for "Today I'm a Clown," the episode in which Krusty the Clown has a Bar Mitzvah (Castellaneta also voices Krusty).

Still, there is a history of bad feeling between the cast and the series producers.

Unlike traditional comedies, where the actors are seen and closely identified with their characters, the actors on "The Simpsons" are the voices — but not the faces — of the characters they play.

The show has reportedly grossed more than $1 billion for its studio, Fox, in advertising and merchandising. And the actors have sometimes felt they were not fully appreciated — or compensated — for their contributions.

For their part, the producers saw the actors as people who work on the show only part time.

In his Irish Examiner interview, Shearer also denied reports that he and his co-stars were threatening to strike if they didn't get pay raises.

"We were never on strike," he said. "The day those stories appeared, I was at Fox doing vocal services for that week's show.

"What I can say is that it's possible to make a very nice living and still get totally screwed."

Shearer and his co-stars reportedly pull down over $250,000 an episode.

"The Simpsons," which debuted in 1989, is the longest-running animated show in TV history and one of the most influential shows in pop-culture history.

Other "Simpons" voices include Julie Kavner (Marge), Yeardley Smith (Lisa), Nancy Cartwright (Bart) and Hank Azaria (Apu, Chief Wiggum and many others).

A "Simpsons" movie is also reportedly in the works.

Fox is a division of News Corp., which also owns The Post.

[Reply #564 on:]

Thanks for the aricles, DtB. Like I said over at the NHC, while this isn't necessarily the beginning of the end, it's still sort of sad to see. Hopefully, this dispute won't affect the quality of Shearer's work (although his voice acting has gotten worse anyway, in my opinion), or the show's remaining lifespan/general quality. I suppose we'll just have to see if anything else comes of it.

[Reply #565 on:]

Sorry if my posting is getting excessive but the story continues to develop.  A couple mods at the NHC have e-mail contact with Mr. Jean, and he had this to say:

"Tino,

I was wondering if you could post the following response on the No Homers site, in my name. I am responding to recent comments by Harry Shearer regarding the current quality of the Simpsons. In the past year and a half, our show has won every award it could possibly have won, including emmys for best animated program and voice-over actor (Hank Azaria), four Annie awards (show, writing, directing and song--a feat the Simpsons had never accomplished in the previous 13 seasons) and a writers guild award, which the show had also won never won before. Yesterday I was informed that Dan Castelleneta had won an emmy for his work in the episode "Today I Am A Clown" and we are nominated for three additional emmys (including best animated program) again this year.

All this is due to the efforts of many people who put in far more time on the show than Mr. Shearer. He complains that his parts have shrunk--the reason for that is, as showrunner, I am never sure if he will show up for the table reads for which he is so handsomely paid. More than once, in the past, I have had a show set for a Thursday read featuring Harry's characters and been told on the Wednesday before that he is not coming. Hence, I have learned not to give him too much to do in any episode. Mr. Shearer also describes how he was happier with season four of the show. Well, I ran seasons three and four (with Mike Reiss) and he didn't seem very happy to me then. I can particularly remember how he repeatedly complained to me and others about how much he disliked the episode "Homer at the Bat", which is now viewed as a classic.

I am personally offended by his comment that he feels "totally screwed" by the show financially. He is set this year to make over 5.5 million dollars for what can generously be described as a few hours work a week. When I consider how much firefighters and teachers in this country earn, Mr. Shearer's remarks make me want to throw up.

Al Jean"

I'm also going to quote a couple NHC posts.  The first is from "Larson Something", who doesn't have any connections as far as I know but nonetheless made an interesting post:

"The quality of the recent shows clearly has nothing to do with Harry going public about this. I just remembered that there were reports following the contract settlement that one unnamed cast member really wanted to continue the holdout but was overpowered by the rest. Well, guess that mystery's solved. And now he's decided to bitch about it openly and mask it a little by throwing in complaints about the show that he somehow didn't feel quite so compelled to make during the Scully doldrums. Regardless of whether one agrees with his assessment of recent seasons or not, it's very hard to side with Harry here. He's accomplishing absolutely nothing constructive with this."

And RMIII (who as established does have eerie connections and probably knows the whole story or most of it) directly responds to it:
"There's a lot more going on here than meets the eye - as Larson has correctly noted.
Fox is learning a lot about requiring the actors to participate in DVD promotion in the new contract, for one thing..."

[Reply #566 on:]

eh, most of us are signed on at the NHC, so there's probably no point discussing it here as well.

[Reply #567 on:]

I think "Manos: the Hands of Fate", "Angels Revenge" and "Space Mutiny" have better plots and characters than "Marge vs. Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens, and Gays", "Bart-Mangled Banner" and "Fraudcast News".

[Reply #568 on:]

Then you should probably stop watching any Simpsons episodes (old or new) ever again.  Not worth your time to watch a show you hate more then some of the worst movies ever, simple as that.

Though quite frankly I think you're just taking a random shot at the show.

[Reply #569 on:]

Take this, Simpsons! Ptueeeew! Ptueeeeew! KA-BLAU! Fssssssshhhhhhh....

<Ahem>

Wow... my brand spanking new Season 1 DVD has scared the life outta me. I haven't seen the first season in nearly a decade, so this was an... interesting experience...

Early crowd scenes are terrifying.   

Very leisurely pace compared to latter stuff... I'm not sure I care for it. Oh well, still awesome.

In any case, does anyone know when S15 comes back on air in Aus? I've got some crazy desire to watch the remaining 6 or so eps (despite the lukewarm regard I hold the season in so far).

[Reply #570 on:]

I'm guessing Channel 10 will probably air it once they've finished repeating Season 14.

[Reply #571 on:]

 

Originally posted by SlackJawedMoron:
 Wow... my brand spanking new Season 1 DVD has scared the life outta me. I haven't seen the first season in nearly a decade, so this was an... interesting experience...

Early crowd scenes are terryfying.   

Very leisurely pace compared to latter stuff... I'm not sure I care for it. Oh well, still awesome.

I think Season 1 has a certain charm. I love how characters aren't drawn properly, the reverse roles (such as Homer and Marge swapping roles at Mr Burns's annual thingy), and the slower pacing has a certain charm to me. I prefer it that way, than clogged up with guest stars, which started happening almost straight after Season One...

And I agree about the terryfying crowd scenes, just check them out in 'The Telltale Head'...

[Reply #572 on:]

 

Originally posted by User_names_suck:
eh, most of us are signed on at the NHC, so there's probably no point discussing it here as well.

False!

I'd say only a few of you read NHC. I'm finding all of this Harry Shearer/Al Jean feuding pretty interesting, so I encourage DoTheBartman to keep posting about it.

[Reply #573 on:]

There's even more horrifying crowd scenes if you check out "Homer's Odyessy."

[Reply #574 on:]

Oh, yes. Conjoined skull people, anyone? Or how about the man whose mouth is bigger then his head...

[Reply #575 on:]

I liked the guy with the buck teeth, Bart haircut, and ultra wide head sitting next to the family at the town meeting in Homer's Odyessy.

[Reply #576 on:]

 

Originally posted by FishyJoe:
 False!

I'd say only a few of you read NHC. I'm finding all of this Harry Shearer/Al Jean feuding pretty interesting, so I encourage DoTheBartman to keep posting about it.

Yeah, I'll keep doing that.  Not sure if anything else (public) is going to come of it, but if anything does I'll post it here.  Again I'd say this isn't likely going to kill the show, although its always possible Al Jean may finally give up on running the show (from being sick of these sort of headaches) and hand it over to someone else, and focus on the movie.  At least RMIII suggested that as a possibility.

As for season one, there's some wierd looking characters, but I think the animation itself is actually very good (outside of a couple episodes).  The characters could "act" and express emotion, which was pretty new for television animation at the time.  There was great direction, and truthfully most of the episodes do look solid.  Its just a couple more embarrassing looking episodes (namely "Homer's Odyssey" ) that make the season look iffy.  I'd take season one animation over season ten animation.

[Reply #577 on:]

I think the thing which most clearly seperates a S1 scene from a S2 or 3 scene is the backgrounds (i.e. walls, skies, etc). That "graded" look just seems out of place when compared with the rest of the animation, if you know what I mean.

Interesting that they've never redone the introduction animation since S2, though (not that I'm saying they should).

By the way, DtB, is there a "complete" list of current Simpsons writers anywhere, since each staff writer doesn't necessarily get a "Written By" credit for each season?

[Reply #578 on:]

Well, each writer (as far as I know) does get a written-by credit each production season.  Its the nature of holdovers that sometimes makes things confusing.  I think there's also writers that stick around for a while just pitching jokes and helping out before actually writing their first script, but they still eventually get a written-by credit.

I think the closest to what you're talking about is here:
 http://snpp.com/guides/epsbywriter.html

Other then that, the best one can do is just look at the current production season (airing wise still FABF, which obviously will change in January) and sort out all the writers from the episode lists.

[Reply #579 on:]

Speaking of inconsistencies in season one...

[Reply #580 on:]

Didn't Millhouse have black hair in one ep too?...

[Reply #581 on:]

I think all of them, yes.  Maybe it switched to blue later, but I think it was always black.

Barney had yellow (blond) hair up to "Homer's night Out" I think, when it switched.

But people make too big a deal out of inconsistancies.  None of them effect the writing (which is the important thing) in the slightest.

[Reply #582 on:]

They don't, but if you're used to the Simpsons standard models, it comes as quite a shock. 

Also, Wiggum's hair colour was still changing from blue to black up until at least the fourth season...

[Reply #583 on:]

I remember the briefest moment in 'Bart's Comet' when Apu had yellow skin, but brown Smithers really looks strange. Truthfully though, I've only ever seen the Season 1 episodes once each so I can't really remember the inconsistencies.

[Reply #584 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
I think all of them, yes.  Maybe it switched to blue later, but I think it was always black.

If they run low on ideas for new eps, maybe they should make an ep explaining how Millhouse consistantly manages to steal some of Marge's blue hair dye for the past decade+   

[Reply #585 on:]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I personally think that they're starting to drag the show out, and should soon end it's run (Season 15 would have been and ideal place to stop as it would have ended on a high note), but I'm not here to argue that point. I was thinking about some things I think they should do with the show if it must continue. I'm using examples from season 15 and I haven't seen some of these episodes since their orginal airdates, so correct me if I'm forgetting any details.

1)Don't try to help bad storytelling with forced emotion

I know that some emotion creeping it's way into a show about a family is inevitable, hell it makes for good television, but am I the only one who's noticed since the Jean era has begun, many episodes seemed somewhat forced in this department? Almost as if the just stuck it into the episode to try and fill out, or save the episode? Case and point, "My Big Fat Geek Wedding". This was a fun episode, it was bellow average by Simpson standards, but still worth watching a couple of times for a few laughs. As I said, been awhile since I've seen it, but I just remember the whole thing about Homer and Marge's marriage reflecting What Miss Krabappel imagined her and Skinner's becoming in the future seeming like a forced attempt to add some more emotion to the episode, (because to be honest, the whole thing with Edna and Skinner in this episode, was not all that emotional) and I think the episode suffers because of it. Emotion should come naturally because of chemestry between the characters, not to help support a flimsy plot. They have been improving this, but the two or three instances of it in season 15 is two or three too many.

2)Take the series in some good orginal directions.

I know alot of people over at NHC roll their eyes when I mention this, but the writers really need to stop reusing so many plot devices. Let's not kid ourselves, how many episodes this season have delt with problems in Homer and Marges relationship? The answer is 5 (My Big Fat Geek Wedding, The Way We Weren't,  Catch'em if You Can, Co-Dependence Day,  Diatribe of a Mad Housewife). While I'm willing to make an exception for "The Way We Weren't", as it did explore some new ideas about Homer and Marge's relationship, there have been enough episodes dealing with the subject matter already. There really isn't much else to explore there, and at the most there should be one or two of these plots (talking both a & b plots) a season at this point. I must also reiterate that this is no fault of the writers themselves, it's just what happens to staples of a show once it's entering it's later seasons. Now when I say orginal directions I'm talking stuff we've seen this season like "Simple Simpson", and "The President Wore Pearls", these episodes where unlike anything that had happened on the series before at the point they were broadcast (There was a musical episode before, but it was a parody of a different stlye musical), and more importantly, the episodes were also good. In my opinion, the number of episodes that stand out in the orginality department, (and aren't poorly written *koff*   Marge vs. Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens, and Gays *koff*) needs to at least triple in season 17 (keeping in mind that 16 is already written at this point).

3)Stop forcing musical numbers.

Self explainatory. Started to get under control, but then a few offenders hit near the end of this season. Thankfully, season 15 wasn't nearly as bad as 14 was for this.


These are the steps I think they should take in Season 17 to improve the show. As I said, the show is far from bad at this point, I just personally feel that it's getting very stale. I can think of more, but I think these are the big things for now, and I'd like to know others' opinion on the matter.

[Reply #586 on:]

I more or less agree with most of those things (where I'd flat out disagree is the last point about musical numbers as I didn't see the problem with it in season 15 at all, although I'll admit the season 14 ones could've been better, particularly the one in "Large Marge" which to me is the first and only musical number with zero laughs).  However I think it just comes down more to execution.  All the Homer and Marge stories are a problem to me mainly just because the execution is often iffy ("Catch 'Em" and "Weren't" are good, those others not as much).  Someone at NHC pointed out that too many of the modern Homer/Marge feuding plots are basically written like:

Marge: (some angry comment at Homer)
Homer: (completely misses the point and says something stupid)
Marge: You just don't get it!

I think its not so much a problem with rehashing, just that they need to execute these stories better.  They'd feel less repetitive on their own if they were better (although I'd also agree that 5 was more then enough; maybe trim it down to one or two serious "Homer and Marge feud" episodes and make room for some other stories).

For forced emotion I'd basically say the same thing (and also point out that forced emotion happened before the Scully era as well, but still).  Its just a matter of execution, and I certainly criticized the execution when I felt it faltered (like the Homer/Marge subplot in "Geek Wedding" ).  To be fair its probably just a problem any show would run into as emotion is difficult to do effectively, which isn't to say that the failed "emotional" scenes shouldn't be criticized.

[Reply #587 on:]

I don't know. The musical numbers in "Bart Mangled Banner" and "Margical History Tour" (King Henery The 8th, though it wasn't full blown, was still pretty forced) were pretty bad....

You may be right, about the Marge/Homer thing, if it were written better it probably wouldn't feel so "been there done that", but as it is now I still think it's a huge problem. Hopfully "All's Fair In Oven War" will change the trend.

And yeah, they had forced emotion before the Scully era, quite a bit too, but I think for the most part they didn't use it to tray and save weak episodes in the classic era. I can probably count all the times they tried to use forced emotion to save an otherwise weak episode in the classic era on one finger (Don't hold me to that    ).

After reading your post, I thought of another thing that could make a big difference, though I'm sure Fox would never, ever consider this. Maybe they shold trim the seasons down a bit? Nothing big, just trim it by say, four or five episodes. That way they can concentrate on turing what would otherwise be pretty good episodes into near classic quality ones, and episodes which have to potential to turn into the next "Marge vs. a Whole Bunch Of People", "Margical History Tour", or "Bart Mangled Banner", could be dropped off the season altogether. Just a little thought I had, though I'm sure Fox wouldn't give up the money which is probably made from those few extra episodes, for the sake of improving the overall quality of the series.

Also I'd like to add to the record, if next season doesn't contain any uneeded spoilers for past episodes, and the writing is an improvement over season 15, I may change my mind over wanting the series cancelled. But only if there is an reasonable improvement. Season 15 was an improvement over season 14, but I personality felt that season 14 as a whole was worse than 13. So I hope season 16 doesn't turn out to be another "two steps forward, one back" season.
15>13>14
I was kind of on the fence for most of season 15, but the "Lisa's Substitute" reference in "Smart and Smarter", really turned me against that episode, and dispite the fact that many others disagree, I think that seeing "Smart and Smarter" first would take away from "Lisa's Substitute" for younger generations. 

[Reply #588 on:]

To be honest I don't remember the "Margical" musical number.  I thought the "Mangled" one was funny, although I happen to think that episode was underrated.

Trimming down the season wouldn't be a bad suggestion (as long as Fox still aired episodes regularly enough, unlike a certain other Groening show....) but Fox definetely wouldn't take to it.  Plus the production staff might not either since it would mean trimming down the staff as well.  Not sure if that itself would be good or bad.

I don't see "spoiler" jokes as being a big deal.  I didn't like the "Smart and Smarter" gag but I think it wouldn't really spoil anything since younger fans wouldn't know the context (and would likely forget about it anyway).  The only major spoilers that actually detract from the originals would probably be the recurring callbacks to "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" (done both in the classic era and occasionally now) since that's a case where the audience presumably actually does wonder what the outcome will be.  Sadly I believe it was spoiled for me (although by websites, not syndication in this case).

[Reply #589 on:]

Backing up a bit on the subject of season 1 animation, people should rember there's a difference between the animation and the characters looking off model, There 2 different things.

I think as much as it saddens me to think it, one of the problems with pulling off emotinal stories now is that, if wheir to belive in the continuity of the Simpsons lives than its difficult to belive in the families conflicts over some pretty trivial disputes when you consider past episodes.

The Dad who knew too little is a big example for me its hard to belive the conflict would arise between Lisa and Homer when you consider all thats happend before.

[Reply #590 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
To be honest I don't remember the "Margical" musical number.

Mobart's fart opera.

[Reply #591 on:]

Ah, right right.  Thought that was okay actually, in its context.  Much like "New Justice Team" it wasn't really supposed to be a good musical number.

[Reply #592 on:]

Thought I post this Dan Castellaneta interview
there's some particular comments on the Harry Issue which I'll put in bold.


LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Ask Dan Castellaneta to describe how he sounds off-screen and this is what he offers: sort of deadpan, shy of nasal, with a standard Midwestern tilt.

But like a plain brown bag filled with surprises, here's what he's pulled out of that voice in his years with "The Simpsons": Homer Simpson, Krusty the Clown, Grampa Simpson, Barney Gumble, groundskeeper Willy and more.

Castellaneta's delivery of the grand Homeric syllable of exasperation -- "D'oh!" -- was enough to land it in the dictionary. He's also gotten more traditional honors, including an Emmy last week.

It's his third trophy for the animated series but still welcome, especially since it's been 10 years since the last one. His award for outstanding voiceover performance was in a category announced before the September 19 Emmy ceremony.

Given that Castellaneta routinely creates vocal magic, bringing alive lovable lug Homer, befuddled Grampa and hellish clown Krusty, what did it take for TV academy voters to listen up again and take notice?

He speculates it was particularly sparkling writing on the episode for which he won -- which repeats 8 p.m. EDT Sunday -- and maybe the fact that two of the characters he voices, Homer and Krusty, were featured.

In one story line, Herschel Krustofsky, aka Krusty, is stunned to learn he's ineligible for the Springfield Jewish community's walk of fame because he's never had a bar mitzvah.

Castellaneta happily re-creates Krusty's raspy lament: "All this time I thought I was a self-hating Jew, and now I'm just an anti-Semite!"

'I think it organically changes'
That's the wicked wit routinely found on "The Simpsons," even deep into the life of the series. Cast member Harry Shearer, another multivoiced wonder (including imperial Mr. Burns), may be a bit less enthralled: He recently said he was unhappy with the show's quality compared to years past.


"In a nutshell, I don't agree," Castellaneta said. But he acknowledges the series based on executive producer Matt Groening's characters has changed over the years. It begins its 16th season November 14.

There's slightly less running time (standard for TV shows as commercials and promotions have increased) and more characters to accommodate, Castellaneta said.

"Instead of just being in the Simpson's world, it's expanded out to Springfield," he said, and the reality envelope, such as it is with a family that's bright yellow, has been pushed a bit more.


Among Castellaneta's other characters are Grampa Simpson, groundskeeper Willy and Krusty the Clown (above). 
"I think Harry's issue is that the show isn't as grounded as it was in the first three or four seasons, that it's gotten crazy or a little more madcap. I think it organically changes to stay fresh," the 45-year-old Castellaneta said.

"The Simpsons" remains funny and surprising, he said, adding: "I believe the show still breaks the mold in terms of storytelling."

No one could have predicted the ride would be so long or so spectacular.

Debuting in December 1989, the series helped fledgling Fox establish itself as a bold alternative to the big three networks and has become the longest-running sitcom ever (eclipsing the 14 years of "The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet" ). It's seen in Europe and Africa.

'Boy, I'm glad they replaced the guy'
Castellaneta was there before the start. He was part of Fox's "The Tracey Ullman Show" (1987-90) when Groening whipped up brief animation fillers that introduced the Simpson family to television.

Since Castellaneta and Julie Kavner, another cast member, were on hand, they were asked to provide the voices of Homer and wife Marge.

"Matt Groening was there with a drawing of this family and said, 'Can you give me a voice for this guy?' " Castellaneta recalled.

He employed a growly "kind of Walter Matthau" approach, he said. But he found it couldn't encompass the tone changes of Homer's runaway emotions and was fatiguing for extended recording sessions.

"I was trying to find something I was more comfortable with that had more power to it," he said. "So I had to" -- he lowers his tone into now familiar Homer-speak -- "drop the voice down."

The change in Homer's diction created a minor media myth.

"People will say to me, 'Boy, I'm glad they replaced the guy that was there that first season.' That was me!" Castellaneta said.

The Chicago native, who grew up with a knack for mimicry and was part of the famed Second City comedy troupe, has been heard in a variety of other TV shows and in movies and has made on-camera appearances in "That '70s Show" and elsewhere.

He'd enjoy more screen time but is aware that few projects are as remarkable as "The Simpsons."

"I came to realize it's very rare for an actor to be part of anything that's incredibly successful. There are actors who have very big careers but have never been associated with a hit of this magnitude."

[Reply #593 on:]

enjoyed reading that...thanks.

IMO, for awhile, some of the newer writers of the Simpsons seemed like they were deliberately trying to distance themselves from the past, instead of embracing it. Season 15 seemed to come to that realization moreso than recent seasons, and not so coincidentally most of us thought the show improved...     

[Reply #594 on:]

Krusty hellish? I'd describe him Sleazy.

[Reply #595 on:]

I just read over at NHC that 50cent is gonna guest star in an ep where Bart goes to a rap concert. The part about Bart faking his own kidnapping sounds promising, but why 50cent, why!?...

[Reply #596 on:]

Isn't there going to be an episode where someone's going to have a gay marriage?

I stop watching The Simpsons that much the last few years do to not careing. I think I only saw like 4 episodes last season.

[Reply #597 on:]

Otis:  Agreed that its a pretty bad idea for a guest, but eh, think of it like "Homerpalooza".  Those were all bad guests too.  The appearance will probably suck, but the episode itself is very promising.

Homerjay: You're way late to the party.  But yes, an upcoming episode involves Patty intending to have a wedding with a female golf pro (but apparently there's a "Crying Game"-like twist).  Fox will overhype it but I think its another good episode idea really.

[Reply #598 on:]

You know, "Three Gays of The Condo" was on today and upon a second watching, I actually think it was Emmy worthy. Not so much because it was well written (not that it wasn't), but because near the end, when that gay guy kissed Homer, it actually portrayed a homosexual as having emotions. While there where many stereotypical jokes in the episode, this particular homosexual man was portrayed as a human, with real human emotions, for that scene rather than the raging sex crazed stereo types you usually see on TV (Will and Grace, Queer Eye, and even John who was on the Simpsons years eariler). I hope the Patty episode breaks similar ground for an entire episode as opposed to just one scene.

[Reply #599 on:]

I think it can.  The writers are obviously setting it up as an emotional story and a way of showing that, yes, homosexuals love too.  We'll see how it turns out, but I think it sounds great.

In other news, Mike Reiss has now contacted the No Homers Club as well (its good this time, don't worry).  Evidentally John Swartzwelder has written a novel, called "The Time Machine Did It", that's apparently "about the world's stupidest detective, who gets hold of a time machine and manages to get shot at and beaten up by people throughout history".  Reiss basically contacted a moderator to say that he thinks the book is great, and to sort of plug it.