salsagirl40
New member
Yeah, that's the one. 
Characters Never Aging
- Thread starter Sorix
- Start date
rere_ladi18
New member
I really liked how Dragonball and Dragonball Z aged the characters and had a real progression of time. I wish more action/drama shows would do this.
Writers shouldn't be afraid to cover a large portion of a person's life, timespan-wise.
Writers shouldn't be afraid to cover a large portion of a person's life, timespan-wise.
rutoughenough2002
New member
I have an example, Spongebob Squarepants. He is an adult. Nevermind that but if he grows then that will kill the purpose of the show. I mean it's a kids' show.
It was funnier when the characters behaved more realistically, but that's another topic. Season 9 wasn't the first season, BTW.
Bart is the product of what the writers make him out to be. Your hate of change notwithstanding, Bart can either be a well-developed character at age 22, or a poorly developed stereotype at age 10. As I said, it's all a matter of if you can tolerate change, or just whine: "It's new, it's differernt, I HATE IT!!!!"
BTW, I wrote this in 2003 when this was a then current topic:
"What's more important to the Simpsons, or any show--live or animated than how a character looks? It's called "Empathy", meaning how you relate and care about a characters foibles and trials. If there's no characters worth empathizing with, then all you have is cartoon clowns telling/doing a series of empty, clownish jokes. When it comes down to it, any show--live or animated--that makes you feel for the characters as if they're real people, where their qualities can mimick your own , and can leave a thoughtful look on your face is more important than any strained effort to be funny.
When Homer teamed up with Mel Gibson, I really couldn't care what they did together, much less watch this episode again. I'm not sure how this is a parody of a sitcom (much less an American family), but maybe I don't get the jokes, or maybe I'm not living in some neighborhood where celeberties land their planes out on my street, or maybe this form of New Simpson's cartoon logic is just lame and pathetic. But who knows? By Season 18 we'll have 'new and innovative' episodes depicting how Lisa isn't really a Simpson because of one night fling Marge had with some Harvard college proffessor, voiced by [insert trendy guest star here] or, how Bart has come out of the closet and how he has a boyhood crush on Milhouse.
Wouldn't that just bring in the ratings and rave reviews of how the Simpsons is still fresh and funny after all these years! (end sarcasm)
On the otherhand, letting the show stop and let it be in reruns for about five years, then making a new series, provided the writers cared more about character developement and less on marketing it as 'kewl' follow-up to the Simpsons, would force the writers to slow down the crazyness and try to make the characters more relateable and most importantly--likeable to earn the veiwer's respect.
(A side note: I saw the Pebbles and Bam Bam show before the original Flintstones, and I hated it because the show was boring, not because it showed the kids older)
Also, I sure as hell would rather see Lisa join the Peace Corps, as an anxious, early 20's type than see the current Homer get a new job and have absurd co-worker played by [insert trendy star here] go on some craaaazy adventure/scheme. But the most of your examples are charicatures of how corny the show could be like. But these situations aren't any more absurd than Homer finding a new job every week, or how Homer and Marge are somehow three years older while Bart and Lisa are the same age, how Lisa is an eight year old vegitarian buddist(sp), or how some family member just happens to run into some movie star in every episode. Most of all, I'd rather see the characters take a one-time age leap and act somewhat human rather than see more generic cartoon gags like trains flying through the air, flipping semis and other stupid and unfunny stuff: i.e. Panda rape."
Bart is the product of what the writers make him out to be. Your hate of change notwithstanding, Bart can either be a well-developed character at age 22, or a poorly developed stereotype at age 10. As I said, it's all a matter of if you can tolerate change, or just whine: "It's new, it's differernt, I HATE IT!!!!"
BTW, I wrote this in 2003 when this was a then current topic:
"What's more important to the Simpsons, or any show--live or animated than how a character looks? It's called "Empathy", meaning how you relate and care about a characters foibles and trials. If there's no characters worth empathizing with, then all you have is cartoon clowns telling/doing a series of empty, clownish jokes. When it comes down to it, any show--live or animated--that makes you feel for the characters as if they're real people, where their qualities can mimick your own , and can leave a thoughtful look on your face is more important than any strained effort to be funny.
When Homer teamed up with Mel Gibson, I really couldn't care what they did together, much less watch this episode again. I'm not sure how this is a parody of a sitcom (much less an American family), but maybe I don't get the jokes, or maybe I'm not living in some neighborhood where celeberties land their planes out on my street, or maybe this form of New Simpson's cartoon logic is just lame and pathetic. But who knows? By Season 18 we'll have 'new and innovative' episodes depicting how Lisa isn't really a Simpson because of one night fling Marge had with some Harvard college proffessor, voiced by [insert trendy guest star here] or, how Bart has come out of the closet and how he has a boyhood crush on Milhouse.
Wouldn't that just bring in the ratings and rave reviews of how the Simpsons is still fresh and funny after all these years! (end sarcasm)
On the otherhand, letting the show stop and let it be in reruns for about five years, then making a new series, provided the writers cared more about character developement and less on marketing it as 'kewl' follow-up to the Simpsons, would force the writers to slow down the crazyness and try to make the characters more relateable and most importantly--likeable to earn the veiwer's respect.
(A side note: I saw the Pebbles and Bam Bam show before the original Flintstones, and I hated it because the show was boring, not because it showed the kids older)
Also, I sure as hell would rather see Lisa join the Peace Corps, as an anxious, early 20's type than see the current Homer get a new job and have absurd co-worker played by [insert trendy star here] go on some craaaazy adventure/scheme. But the most of your examples are charicatures of how corny the show could be like. But these situations aren't any more absurd than Homer finding a new job every week, or how Homer and Marge are somehow three years older while Bart and Lisa are the same age, how Lisa is an eight year old vegitarian buddist(sp), or how some family member just happens to run into some movie star in every episode. Most of all, I'd rather see the characters take a one-time age leap and act somewhat human rather than see more generic cartoon gags like trains flying through the air, flipping semis and other stupid and unfunny stuff: i.e. Panda rape."
galway gal!
New member
And I hated the fact the movie and most of the episodes that followed tried to/did establish that Spongebob and Patrick are kids and not adults.
Instead of making him grow old they did the opposite and it completely contradicts a lot of the moments from the early episodes.
I like how Stewie's character has changed over the years.
Instead of making him grow old they did the opposite and it completely contradicts a lot of the moments from the early episodes.
I like how Stewie's character has changed over the years.
[email protected]
New member
What the what?
From just 2 sentences, you've concluded that I hate change? Just because I don't have a problem with 1 cartoon character in his current dimensions, that automatically means that I must be a kainotophobe who dislikes any and all manner of change? Really??
That's news to me, because I never once said that, or even implied it. I've never understood the whole "anyone who doesn't share my opinion is automatically a hater" rationale.
Actually, I don't hate change at all; I just don't see the need to fix something which, in my opinion, isn't broken. Any problems the Simpsons writers may be having with Bart aren't going to be magically solved by aging the character--or any of the other characters, for that matter.
From just 2 sentences, you've concluded that I hate change? Just because I don't have a problem with 1 cartoon character in his current dimensions, that automatically means that I must be a kainotophobe who dislikes any and all manner of change? Really??
That's news to me, because I never once said that, or even implied it. I've never understood the whole "anyone who doesn't share my opinion is automatically a hater" rationale.
Actually, I don't hate change at all; I just don't see the need to fix something which, in my opinion, isn't broken. Any problems the Simpsons writers may be having with Bart aren't going to be magically solved by aging the character--or any of the other characters, for that matter.
Goldwater J
New member
Opinion. Personally, I neither need nor want for my cartoon characters to behave realistically, because they're cartoons. I don't watch cartoons for realism. If I want realism, I'll watch live action drama or the news.
Correct. And evidently, the writers like Bart as a 10-year-old.
I think that it's important that we (the viewers) don't confuse our wants with the shows' needs. Some of you out there may want the producers of The Simpsons to age their characters, but they don't need to by any stretch of the imagination. Fans have been watching The Simpsons religiously for over a decade, regardless of how tedious, repetitive, formulaic and unrealistic the show has become, and if people still love the series and cling on to it like a security blanket, then what's the producers motivation to change anything about it? Anyways, as previously stated, The Simpsons has done 2 flash-forward episodes, so it's not as if we've never seen what the characters might be like when they're older. I personally don't think that they need to make a whole new series about elder Simpsons characters when they could just pull out one of those every few seasons.
Like I said before, ultimately, the decision is up to the creators. If the shows' creators feel like the old formula has become stale and tired and they want to age their characters, then they will age them, otherwise, there's always fan fiction if you really need to see Bart and Lisa Simpson in college or whatever. Also like I said once before, if one's idea of "improving" a series is changing everything about it to the point where it's a different beast entirely, then I have to question if that person is really a fan of the series at all.
Let's also keep in mind that "different" doesn't always mean "better", or even as good. I mean, sure, All Grown Up was a different series than it's predecessor Rugrats was, but was it really a better series just because the characters aged? Personally, I thought then (and still do now) that Nick should have left AGU as a one-time-only special. Turning it an endless series was overkill. Experimentation is a game of chance, and many TV executives aren't gamblers; they'd rather stick with a formula that they know works than to try something new. would rather stay safe and secure in their big comfy chairs than take a chance of losing viewers and money by experimenting with some change that runs the risk of being universally hated by the public.
And for the record, I don't hate change. I just don't believe in making changes for the sake of change alone.
Correct. And evidently, the writers like Bart as a 10-year-old.
I think that it's important that we (the viewers) don't confuse our wants with the shows' needs. Some of you out there may want the producers of The Simpsons to age their characters, but they don't need to by any stretch of the imagination. Fans have been watching The Simpsons religiously for over a decade, regardless of how tedious, repetitive, formulaic and unrealistic the show has become, and if people still love the series and cling on to it like a security blanket, then what's the producers motivation to change anything about it? Anyways, as previously stated, The Simpsons has done 2 flash-forward episodes, so it's not as if we've never seen what the characters might be like when they're older. I personally don't think that they need to make a whole new series about elder Simpsons characters when they could just pull out one of those every few seasons.
Like I said before, ultimately, the decision is up to the creators. If the shows' creators feel like the old formula has become stale and tired and they want to age their characters, then they will age them, otherwise, there's always fan fiction if you really need to see Bart and Lisa Simpson in college or whatever. Also like I said once before, if one's idea of "improving" a series is changing everything about it to the point where it's a different beast entirely, then I have to question if that person is really a fan of the series at all.
Let's also keep in mind that "different" doesn't always mean "better", or even as good. I mean, sure, All Grown Up was a different series than it's predecessor Rugrats was, but was it really a better series just because the characters aged? Personally, I thought then (and still do now) that Nick should have left AGU as a one-time-only special. Turning it an endless series was overkill. Experimentation is a game of chance, and many TV executives aren't gamblers; they'd rather stick with a formula that they know works than to try something new. would rather stay safe and secure in their big comfy chairs than take a chance of losing viewers and money by experimenting with some change that runs the risk of being universally hated by the public.
And for the record, I don't hate change. I just don't believe in making changes for the sake of change alone.
I never said you hate change in all possible corners of the universe (as you've somehow manged to surmise from my own two sentences), but the change within the Simpsons 'universe' is something you seem to have a knee-jerk reaction of: "Bad, bad, bad, bad....".
Too bad because there's enough of that 'rationale' coming from the show's defenders (the same people who thinks the show is a pale imitation of it's former self) yet if anyone has any ideas that take them out of their happy comfort zone, just sit back and watch the 'True fans!' flip out.
How do you know? As the saying goes, 'you can dance with the devil you do know, or you can dance with the one you don't.' You might be right as the current staff can't compentently handle the characters, but who knows? If the staff was given the opportunity to experiment with the cast besides warping the characters to fit into more and more idiotic situations, it could spark a new level of creative enthusiasm.
I never said the Simpsons should be 100 percent realistic, so calm down. I said the show was better when it contained more realism and creating characters you can empathize with is a key to establishing a winning program. Hell, I love the movie the Lion King and obviously it's not realistic, but the story is based on a humanistic power struggle and the characters acted like humans in an animal world and that's why the story worked. You didn't see Simba at the end of the movie suddenly shoot laser beams out of his eyes and destroy all of his enemies, or something totally unfitting of the situation.
I'm not hawking Simpsons merchandise, so I really don't care how the writers (and the people who buy that crap) feel about Bart "being stuck at age 10.".
Follow your own advice. Becasue you want the characters to remain unaged, therefore it makes the writers justified in their similar pursuits.
This is the show's worst problem--it thinks it's fanbase is as inert as the staff and of course if you seen Matt Groening at a comic book convention, the nerds out there would ***** and moan about the show potentially changing. However, becasue of my work, I see roughly between 75-200 people a day and sometimes I talk with people about the Simpsons when I have a few minutes and sometimes they see what I'm drawing, which is usually Maggie as a 13yr old (my design, nothing like the show) or something Simpsons Spinoff related.
Guess what? Since 1999, I've spoken with almost 10,000 people about the Simpsons ageing in a new series, and out of all the people whom I've spoken with over the past decade, only about 5 sounded like as anal-rententive as the people who 'defend' the characters staying the same becasue "it's a cartoon!". These people aren't my friends, they have nothing to gain or lose by giving me their opinion and I know no one here has done any legwork to say I'm wrong. (And if Matt Groening implies ageing the characters are wrong at a Comic Book Convention, of course the nerds are going to cheer for him because he's Matt Groening).
IMO, all three of the "futures" have been ****ing stupid, yes even Lisa's Wedding. All three of these 'future' episodes were parodies of a Jetsony future and aren't representative of how the show should age the characters.
You got to stop this "I support whatever the show does becasue it's what the producers do!" mentality. I really am begining to feel like I'm replying to Mr. Smithers. (Yeah, I know, I sound like just like the CBG, so don't bother pointing that out.) :ack:
If that's your rule about being a fan of the show, then I guess the writers aren't fans of the show, either. And I'd rather see a new series on FX where 12 years have gone by, but it's still set in the present day without the detestable **** the three "Future" episodes tried passing off.
Okay, you just lost all credibility right there. Rugrats was a show about toddlers/babies having fantasies and when they characters aged in a new series, that took the show's McGuffin away. On the otherhand, the Simpsons is/was a parody/satire of the American family, so as long as the family doesn't adopt ozmodiar, or bigfoot, it can still function and be relevent if they made a new series that jumped ahead a dozen years.
There'd be no Simpsons if some people took no chances, but then again, I'm not supposed to question the Simpson's Institution. :shrug: , again.
And I don't believe in pawning off cheap sequels to a popular name, just as each new season of the show is around just so people don't forget to buy more merchandise.
BTW, this is what I'm drawing: http://simpspin.deviantart.com
Too bad because there's enough of that 'rationale' coming from the show's defenders (the same people who thinks the show is a pale imitation of it's former self) yet if anyone has any ideas that take them out of their happy comfort zone, just sit back and watch the 'True fans!' flip out.
How do you know? As the saying goes, 'you can dance with the devil you do know, or you can dance with the one you don't.' You might be right as the current staff can't compentently handle the characters, but who knows? If the staff was given the opportunity to experiment with the cast besides warping the characters to fit into more and more idiotic situations, it could spark a new level of creative enthusiasm.
I never said the Simpsons should be 100 percent realistic, so calm down. I said the show was better when it contained more realism and creating characters you can empathize with is a key to establishing a winning program. Hell, I love the movie the Lion King and obviously it's not realistic, but the story is based on a humanistic power struggle and the characters acted like humans in an animal world and that's why the story worked. You didn't see Simba at the end of the movie suddenly shoot laser beams out of his eyes and destroy all of his enemies, or something totally unfitting of the situation.
I'm not hawking Simpsons merchandise, so I really don't care how the writers (and the people who buy that crap) feel about Bart "being stuck at age 10.".
Follow your own advice. Becasue you want the characters to remain unaged, therefore it makes the writers justified in their similar pursuits.
This is the show's worst problem--it thinks it's fanbase is as inert as the staff and of course if you seen Matt Groening at a comic book convention, the nerds out there would ***** and moan about the show potentially changing. However, becasue of my work, I see roughly between 75-200 people a day and sometimes I talk with people about the Simpsons when I have a few minutes and sometimes they see what I'm drawing, which is usually Maggie as a 13yr old (my design, nothing like the show) or something Simpsons Spinoff related.
Guess what? Since 1999, I've spoken with almost 10,000 people about the Simpsons ageing in a new series, and out of all the people whom I've spoken with over the past decade, only about 5 sounded like as anal-rententive as the people who 'defend' the characters staying the same becasue "it's a cartoon!". These people aren't my friends, they have nothing to gain or lose by giving me their opinion and I know no one here has done any legwork to say I'm wrong. (And if Matt Groening implies ageing the characters are wrong at a Comic Book Convention, of course the nerds are going to cheer for him because he's Matt Groening).
IMO, all three of the "futures" have been ****ing stupid, yes even Lisa's Wedding. All three of these 'future' episodes were parodies of a Jetsony future and aren't representative of how the show should age the characters.
You got to stop this "I support whatever the show does becasue it's what the producers do!" mentality. I really am begining to feel like I'm replying to Mr. Smithers. (Yeah, I know, I sound like just like the CBG, so don't bother pointing that out.) :ack:
If that's your rule about being a fan of the show, then I guess the writers aren't fans of the show, either. And I'd rather see a new series on FX where 12 years have gone by, but it's still set in the present day without the detestable **** the three "Future" episodes tried passing off.
Okay, you just lost all credibility right there. Rugrats was a show about toddlers/babies having fantasies and when they characters aged in a new series, that took the show's McGuffin away. On the otherhand, the Simpsons is/was a parody/satire of the American family, so as long as the family doesn't adopt ozmodiar, or bigfoot, it can still function and be relevent if they made a new series that jumped ahead a dozen years.
There'd be no Simpsons if some people took no chances, but then again, I'm not supposed to question the Simpson's Institution. :shrug: , again.
And I don't believe in pawning off cheap sequels to a popular name, just as each new season of the show is around just so people don't forget to buy more merchandise.
BTW, this is what I'm drawing: http://simpspin.deviantart.com
Ash/Brock/Team Rocket must have drank some sort of never aging potion.Simply Stunning.
New member
Some one made a pretty crazy theory for the entire Pokemon universe including why they never age. It all has to do with a real life Ash Ketchum being in a coma.
It's an interesting read.
It's an interesting read.
Snugglebug
New member
Well, who's to say he really does age? For a young adult, you can't expect to see a visable change after a couple of years.
It has be offically stated that the characters will remain the same age as long as the show is still on the air.
One Piece has the same problem.
It has be offically stated that the characters will remain the same age as long as the show is still on the air.
One Piece has the same problem.
How is it a problem? Why is it important for some fans to see the Straw Hat Crew get older every year? What would seeing Luffy and the crew with receding hair lines add to the series? Nothing much would be my guess. If there's no reason to age the characters, then why age them?
Going back to The Simpsons for a moment, I'd like to point out that the implication that I'm a Simpsons fan makes me laugh, as I haven't seen an episode of The Simpsons in over a decade. I am not a fan of the show nor am I defending it by any means. I perfectly agree 100% that the old "Homer screws up and has to fix things" formula was getting tired, which is why I stopped watching the series altogether. I still haven't seen The Simpsons Movie, nor do I intend to. The problem that I see here is that some fans believe that they can write the series better than the people who are currently writing it, which may or may not be true, but ultimately, it's their series, not yours, so ultimately, the decision of whether or not any changes will be made if solely up to the shows' writers and the producers, not the fans. I'm not defending the series or it's writers. I'm just saying that they're not going to change the formula as long as it's working for them and it is profitable for them, regardless whether a few angry fans dislike it or not.
I agree that The Simpsons has it's share of creative problems, but I don't think that characters' being stuck in their current ages is one of them. It would be possible to improve the series and change the stale, tired formula of The Simpsons without aging the characters. I agree that old formula is tired, but I don't see aging the cast as a solution. I've seen that and I wasn't impressed.
simpsin, your art is nice, though, and I actually find it admirable how passionate you are toward your craft. This is precisely why fan fiction just doesn't work for me; inevitably, you'll come to a situation where you're saying 'A' and the people who work on the show will say 'B'. My personal feeling is that if you're idea of improving a show is to transform said show into something completely different from what it is, then why not simply create and work with original characters? You basically are anyway. When it's characters that you created, you make the rules and are able to do whatever you want to do with them.
One more thing (Jackie Chan Adventures reference): For the record, my problem with All Grown Up wasn't that the Rugrats characters were magically transformed from toddlers to tweens. My problem with AGU was that with the main characters as tweens, AGU offered nothing that was new, different or innovative. AGU was an assembly line carbon copy of every other tween kidocm that was on the air at the time. The gang from Rugrats went from being original characters to forgettable caricatures. The only characters whom I (kind of) liked in their AGU forms were Phil & Lil.
Going back to The Simpsons for a moment, I'd like to point out that the implication that I'm a Simpsons fan makes me laugh, as I haven't seen an episode of The Simpsons in over a decade. I am not a fan of the show nor am I defending it by any means. I perfectly agree 100% that the old "Homer screws up and has to fix things" formula was getting tired, which is why I stopped watching the series altogether. I still haven't seen The Simpsons Movie, nor do I intend to. The problem that I see here is that some fans believe that they can write the series better than the people who are currently writing it, which may or may not be true, but ultimately, it's their series, not yours, so ultimately, the decision of whether or not any changes will be made if solely up to the shows' writers and the producers, not the fans. I'm not defending the series or it's writers. I'm just saying that they're not going to change the formula as long as it's working for them and it is profitable for them, regardless whether a few angry fans dislike it or not.
I agree that The Simpsons has it's share of creative problems, but I don't think that characters' being stuck in their current ages is one of them. It would be possible to improve the series and change the stale, tired formula of The Simpsons without aging the characters. I agree that old formula is tired, but I don't see aging the cast as a solution. I've seen that and I wasn't impressed.
simpsin, your art is nice, though, and I actually find it admirable how passionate you are toward your craft. This is precisely why fan fiction just doesn't work for me; inevitably, you'll come to a situation where you're saying 'A' and the people who work on the show will say 'B'. My personal feeling is that if you're idea of improving a show is to transform said show into something completely different from what it is, then why not simply create and work with original characters? You basically are anyway. When it's characters that you created, you make the rules and are able to do whatever you want to do with them.
One more thing (Jackie Chan Adventures reference): For the record, my problem with All Grown Up wasn't that the Rugrats characters were magically transformed from toddlers to tweens. My problem with AGU was that with the main characters as tweens, AGU offered nothing that was new, different or innovative. AGU was an assembly line carbon copy of every other tween kidocm that was on the air at the time. The gang from Rugrats went from being original characters to forgettable caricatures. The only characters whom I (kind of) liked in their AGU forms were Phil & Lil.
Yeesh. Such anger. Calm down, seriously. We're talking about a cartoon, here. A cartoon that I stopped following years ago, I might add. Relax. No matter how much we like TV, it's still just TV.
While I admire your passion (and your artwork is really good), this whole argument is moot because it's built around your personal opinions and nitpicks. You want the characters to age. You think the current show is crap. You thought The Simpsons was better when it was realistic. You know some other people who think that characters should age. Great. But in the end it all comes down to the same thing: The Simpsons is the creators' show, not yours, and as such they get the final creative call on it, regardless of whether you agree with what they do or not.
I personally haven't agreed with what The Simpsons have been doing for some time, which is precisely why I fell off the show. I also think the show's problems run much, much, deeper than the characters' frozen ages, but since I'm not the one getting paid the big bucks to produce the show, my ranting about what I feel is wrong with The Simpsons isn't going to change anything.
My lack of desire to see Bart and the others get older every few years doesn't stem from my being a Simpsons super fanboy who resists any changes made to the characters (far from it; I don't watch the show anymore, so I really don't care what they decide to do) but simply because I'm not in charge of the show and I have no creative voice regarding it, so I don't see what my raising a stink about what's going on in the show now would accomplish.
When you get a million dollar contract for an animated series, you can age the characters or do whatever else you want with it. But I don't see the point in spewing bile about a show and suggesting it can be "improved" by changing it into something completely different.
On that note: if your vision of what a show should be doing differs so greatly from what the producers are doing, then why not simply cut out the middle man and make your own show with original characters? That way, you call all the shots and you make all the rules.
While I admire your passion (and your artwork is really good), this whole argument is moot because it's built around your personal opinions and nitpicks. You want the characters to age. You think the current show is crap. You thought The Simpsons was better when it was realistic. You know some other people who think that characters should age. Great. But in the end it all comes down to the same thing: The Simpsons is the creators' show, not yours, and as such they get the final creative call on it, regardless of whether you agree with what they do or not.
I personally haven't agreed with what The Simpsons have been doing for some time, which is precisely why I fell off the show. I also think the show's problems run much, much, deeper than the characters' frozen ages, but since I'm not the one getting paid the big bucks to produce the show, my ranting about what I feel is wrong with The Simpsons isn't going to change anything.
My lack of desire to see Bart and the others get older every few years doesn't stem from my being a Simpsons super fanboy who resists any changes made to the characters (far from it; I don't watch the show anymore, so I really don't care what they decide to do) but simply because I'm not in charge of the show and I have no creative voice regarding it, so I don't see what my raising a stink about what's going on in the show now would accomplish.
When you get a million dollar contract for an animated series, you can age the characters or do whatever else you want with it. But I don't see the point in spewing bile about a show and suggesting it can be "improved" by changing it into something completely different.
On that note: if your vision of what a show should be doing differs so greatly from what the producers are doing, then why not simply cut out the middle man and make your own show with original characters? That way, you call all the shots and you make all the rules.
<3 Funny - Chick <3
New member
Then make your own show based off the Simpsons? Honestly the Simpsons isn't going to change and there's no reason to do so. You're going for a more sitcom funny, where lessons stick and characters grow and change.
The Simpsons is a never changing comedy, on to give cheap laughs to those who need it. Adding plot and aging runs the risk of alienating viewers who can't watch a show regularly due to their lives, and those viewers that just want something to watch that's going to make them giggle.
Heck, your show could end up like Watchmen, where instead of using pre-made characters your original ones turn out even better.
The Simpsons is a never changing comedy, on to give cheap laughs to those who need it. Adding plot and aging runs the risk of alienating viewers who can't watch a show regularly due to their lives, and those viewers that just want something to watch that's going to make them giggle.
Heck, your show could end up like Watchmen, where instead of using pre-made characters your original ones turn out even better.
ConcernedMom
New member
Where did I say "lessons" and the percived gradual growing and changing!? My idea is based on a new show where it's jumps ahead and the characters stay the same age and it wouldn't be afraid to tackle adult situations and themes. You can back your cynical self out of that corner now and I'm sorry, but there is more than one kind of comedy it isn't McFarlane based random ****.
As far as being sitcommy, here's a good description of why the first six seasons weren't the BS you imagine them as:
"It’s not as though The Simpsons had never explicitly (and seriously) shown emotional family moments before. In the first season Marge rescued Lisa from bad motherly advice (Moaning Lisa), in the second season Marge accused Bart of ruining Thanksgiving (Bart vs. Thanksgiving), in the third season Homer didn’t want to go to Bart’s soapbox derby race (Saturdays of Thunder), in the fourth season Marge felt ignored by Homer during her play (A Streetcar Named Desire), in the fifth season Marge threw Homer out (Secrets of a Successful Marriage), and in the sixth season Lisa’s wedding (Lisa’s Wedding . . . duh) collapsed because of her love for Homer. Genuine emotional moments were often handled within the framework of the show and The Simpsons knew how to play them with a light touch; using them to swiftly advance the story and then getting them out of the way."
The old Simpsons knew how to be light, but not "Full House" light and just because the older Simpsons episodes didn't involve the bland randomness the current state animation enjoys, that does NOT make the older Simpsons a sitcom. Compare that to the new Simpsons where even the most 'jokey' sentimental scene makes Full House's 'emotion' look like the Green Mile.
Get it yet? Now, are we on the same page?
Never changing comedy? I'd be hard pressed to call what it's showing these days as a 'comedy.' :yawn: And I really hope the show has higher standards, at least in lip-service, than to what you are suggesting. But where I part ways in your "who gives a **** it's the Simpsons!" description of the show, is the older episodes had more 'plot', charm and charisma than the tired, empty, random slapstick the show now follows. And I have to honestly believe that the show has far fewer consistant fans than it did ten years ago.
One way I gauge the quality of the Simpsons is how well the current fanbase defends it. Since about two years before the movie till the present, the detached-from-reality mentality of "It's the Simpsons, the worst episode is still better than 99 percent of TV!" has become the battle cry for the show's defenders. Not only does this excuse wishful thinking, it's a disservice to other shows, animated or not, that current fans refuse to watch because Homer isn't in it.
EDIT: For the record, for the people who keep accusing my ideas of being a generic sitcom, I know you guys are putting your own imagination and experience into inerpitating what I write, so if you guys are seeing a generic sitcom, it's because you want one.
As far as being sitcommy, here's a good description of why the first six seasons weren't the BS you imagine them as:
"It’s not as though The Simpsons had never explicitly (and seriously) shown emotional family moments before. In the first season Marge rescued Lisa from bad motherly advice (Moaning Lisa), in the second season Marge accused Bart of ruining Thanksgiving (Bart vs. Thanksgiving), in the third season Homer didn’t want to go to Bart’s soapbox derby race (Saturdays of Thunder), in the fourth season Marge felt ignored by Homer during her play (A Streetcar Named Desire), in the fifth season Marge threw Homer out (Secrets of a Successful Marriage), and in the sixth season Lisa’s wedding (Lisa’s Wedding . . . duh) collapsed because of her love for Homer. Genuine emotional moments were often handled within the framework of the show and The Simpsons knew how to play them with a light touch; using them to swiftly advance the story and then getting them out of the way."
The old Simpsons knew how to be light, but not "Full House" light and just because the older Simpsons episodes didn't involve the bland randomness the current state animation enjoys, that does NOT make the older Simpsons a sitcom. Compare that to the new Simpsons where even the most 'jokey' sentimental scene makes Full House's 'emotion' look like the Green Mile.
Get it yet? Now, are we on the same page?
Never changing comedy? I'd be hard pressed to call what it's showing these days as a 'comedy.' :yawn: And I really hope the show has higher standards, at least in lip-service, than to what you are suggesting. But where I part ways in your "who gives a **** it's the Simpsons!" description of the show, is the older episodes had more 'plot', charm and charisma than the tired, empty, random slapstick the show now follows. And I have to honestly believe that the show has far fewer consistant fans than it did ten years ago.
One way I gauge the quality of the Simpsons is how well the current fanbase defends it. Since about two years before the movie till the present, the detached-from-reality mentality of "It's the Simpsons, the worst episode is still better than 99 percent of TV!" has become the battle cry for the show's defenders. Not only does this excuse wishful thinking, it's a disservice to other shows, animated or not, that current fans refuse to watch because Homer isn't in it.
EDIT: For the record, for the people who keep accusing my ideas of being a generic sitcom, I know you guys are putting your own imagination and experience into inerpitating what I write, so if you guys are seeing a generic sitcom, it's because you want one.
sexual panda
New member
Then I have to ask, "What's the point of aging them?" They tackle adult issues when the writers want to using the appropriate characters, or at least they did. Now that you've explained yourself more it seems mundane to change them.
I understand that you want to bring back the way the Simpsons were but why is it that aging them is the only way to accomplish this? I'm not an avid Simpsons fan, I haven't seen a newer episode in a while, nor am I really a MacFarlene fan. I haven't watched a newer episode of Family Guy in a long time. I've been spending most of my free time watching movies.
Also, whatever your vision may be, it fails off the bat if you can't explain it properly in words first, so if we're seeing it as a generic sitcom then you need to do something about it.
I understand that you want to bring back the way the Simpsons were but why is it that aging them is the only way to accomplish this? I'm not an avid Simpsons fan, I haven't seen a newer episode in a while, nor am I really a MacFarlene fan. I haven't watched a newer episode of Family Guy in a long time. I've been spending most of my free time watching movies.
Also, whatever your vision may be, it fails off the bat if you can't explain it properly in words first, so if we're seeing it as a generic sitcom then you need to do something about it.
Ryan The Lion- RAWR!
New member
Ehh, for the sake of comedy, most writers and creators would drop the the character development, personalities, believibility, and continuity and flanderize them. All for just a cheap, sick joke.
And Blackstar, OK fine. The Simpsons can be as timeless as they can be...
..but I STILL say Pokemon(the anime) and One Piece have NO excuses!
The former did mention years have passed, yet they remained unchainged. And when Satoshi develops into an expert, he drops back into a n00b in the next generation? Why not use a different character? I wish Chronicles was back... Do you know why people prefer the Pokemon Adventures Manga? Why people even prefer Digimon(the anime)? Because both have actual development, time skips, and features a new generation of protagonists. The Pokemon video games weren't better, either.
The Latter, well, how long has it been since they searched for the Grand Line? Has years pass, yet they remained unchanged? Other Shonen Jump titles have time skips(especially Dragonball). Why not One Piece?
And Blackstar, OK fine. The Simpsons can be as timeless as they can be...
..but I STILL say Pokemon(the anime) and One Piece have NO excuses!
The former did mention years have passed, yet they remained unchainged. And when Satoshi develops into an expert, he drops back into a n00b in the next generation? Why not use a different character? I wish Chronicles was back... Do you know why people prefer the Pokemon Adventures Manga? Why people even prefer Digimon(the anime)? Because both have actual development, time skips, and features a new generation of protagonists. The Pokemon video games weren't better, either.
The Latter, well, how long has it been since they searched for the Grand Line? Has years pass, yet they remained unchanged? Other Shonen Jump titles have time skips(especially Dragonball). Why not One Piece?
That'd make me sad 
I'm just going to assume they've all taken a dip at the Fountain of Youth
edit
Easy there Game_Freak4 I think the reason why they revert Ash back to begining stage is so we can see him train new Pokemon all over again. It'd be pretty boring if they used the same Pokemon over and over, just won each battle. I'm sure Ash would beat against Paul in one second had he used his old Pokemon. However he likes trying over again, learn about new Pokemon. I'd love to see Barrys reaction to every pokemon Ash has back at Oaks LOL. That'd be a hoot. The only thing that bugs me is how Ash and co can never tell Team Rockets desguises, over past 500 episodes and they still can't tell LOL. Than again that's a Pokemon complaint thread, doesn't belong here.
I'm just going to assume they've all taken a dip at the Fountain of Youth
edit
Easy there Game_Freak4 I think the reason why they revert Ash back to begining stage is so we can see him train new Pokemon all over again. It'd be pretty boring if they used the same Pokemon over and over, just won each battle. I'm sure Ash would beat against Paul in one second had he used his old Pokemon. However he likes trying over again, learn about new Pokemon. I'd love to see Barrys reaction to every pokemon Ash has back at Oaks LOL. That'd be a hoot. The only thing that bugs me is how Ash and co can never tell Team Rockets desguises, over past 500 episodes and they still can't tell LOL. Than again that's a Pokemon complaint thread, doesn't belong here.
The point of a new series where 12 years have passed (yet it takes place in the present and no Jetsony garbage) is to re-establish the family, mainly the character of Maggie (age 13) and her new brother, Eric (age 10). (Calm down.) The family would look like this:
--Homer and Marge (ages 48 and 46) still are the fretful parents and unlike the current show Marge has to work.
--Bart, age 22: Morning show DJ that has to be 'good' but likes to get into trouble.
--Lisa, age 20: Dropped out of college and now is a travelling musican all over the US and canada.
--Maggie, age 13: Lisa hating tomboy who feels like she doesn't fit in with the rest of the family, and is a near-bully of the 7th Grade girls.
--Eric, age 10: Spoiled, laid-back kid who has Marge's hair and voice and unlike Bart at that age, has a girlfriend.
I'm of the old-school fans who remembers when the characters were rounded enough to find them identifiable and after half the series of warping them out of character, the only way people would give the style of comedy the Simpsons used to be like a chance is to push the 'reset' button on Springfield.
Another nice thing about doing the 'reset' is there are more established characters than can be added in a new series compared to trying to add them in the current show. For example, in my idea, Bart is dating Gina Vendetti, a one time charcters on the orignal show, but along with dating Gina, Bart can be part of his clique of friends, similarly, Lisa can meet new people and Maggie and Eric have their friends. And then there's the original secondary cast that has remained the same over the years, moved out died, or whatever and then there could be episodes that deal with the changes that happened over the past 12 years.
I can understand thinking these kinds of changes being absurd if the Simpsons was only 5 or 6 years old, but after 20 years of the same set up, how much more "Homer gets a new job" or "Homer and Marge get into fight" can you keep making?
BTW, if you want an episode guide to my spinoff, a guy was nice enough to keep tabs on the ideas here: http://babysimpson.co.uk/index.php?action=eric
--Homer and Marge (ages 48 and 46) still are the fretful parents and unlike the current show Marge has to work.
--Bart, age 22: Morning show DJ that has to be 'good' but likes to get into trouble.
--Lisa, age 20: Dropped out of college and now is a travelling musican all over the US and canada.
--Maggie, age 13: Lisa hating tomboy who feels like she doesn't fit in with the rest of the family, and is a near-bully of the 7th Grade girls.
--Eric, age 10: Spoiled, laid-back kid who has Marge's hair and voice and unlike Bart at that age, has a girlfriend.
I'm of the old-school fans who remembers when the characters were rounded enough to find them identifiable and after half the series of warping them out of character, the only way people would give the style of comedy the Simpsons used to be like a chance is to push the 'reset' button on Springfield.
Another nice thing about doing the 'reset' is there are more established characters than can be added in a new series compared to trying to add them in the current show. For example, in my idea, Bart is dating Gina Vendetti, a one time charcters on the orignal show, but along with dating Gina, Bart can be part of his clique of friends, similarly, Lisa can meet new people and Maggie and Eric have their friends. And then there's the original secondary cast that has remained the same over the years, moved out died, or whatever and then there could be episodes that deal with the changes that happened over the past 12 years.
I can understand thinking these kinds of changes being absurd if the Simpsons was only 5 or 6 years old, but after 20 years of the same set up, how much more "Homer gets a new job" or "Homer and Marge get into fight" can you keep making?
BTW, if you want an episode guide to my spinoff, a guy was nice enough to keep tabs on the ideas here: http://babysimpson.co.uk/index.php?action=eric