"Dark" Simpsons opening creates controversy

It's basically the little dirty secret we all are aware of, but we don't discuss because it's uncomfortable. We don't want to know that all the comforts we have are due to little Malaysian girls working midnight shifts at the factory.
 
To this day, i will never understand the idea behind animation sweatshops. The thing is what is really the issue behind this?

Is it a studio trying to get production done faster and more importantly cheaper? Cause I know they can setup studios here in the u.s. for the same thing and pay cheap. So long as there is promise of moving up, fledging young artists might do something like that.

The interesting thing is, its one of the reasons CGI has taken over, many american cgi artists are working on those productions, not sweatshops.
 
I'm fairly certain they didn't do it under Fox's nose. They had to know about this months beforehand. Just because James L. Brooks has a "no notes" policy on the show doesn't mean Fox isn't aware of what they're airing. That's part of my problem with this couch gag; it wasn't really telling us anything we don't know or treading new ground, except to be even more exaggerated than the I&S Movie gag and other similar ones throughout the series. Also, it was another in a long line of "too long" couch gags that take time away from the episode itself.

In a broader sense, yeah, it might have reminded complacent audiences that some workers in the world (though not necessarily those working on The Simpsons) have poor working conditions while in the service of developed nations, and that's unfortunate to say the least, but that's about it.
 
This also would have been a good "AWARENESS" scene like... ten years ago.

Where more TV animation is being done in-house because of programs like Flash, CGI slowly making it's way to television, and digital cel-shading being a more efficient way of coloring cartoons.

Overseas animation still happens, but I'm fairly certain (I'm not going by statistics, only by what recent shows I know that do animation in-house) it's decreased by a lot.
 
It takes a lot to turn me off but this definitely did. I missed the episode when it aired (intentionally) so I checked it out on Hulu to see the opening everyone was talking about. Yikes, that didn't sit well with me at all.
 
I fully support the oppression of fake animals that do not exist such as unicorns in animated show openings.

I love my DVD's even more knowing that their holes were poked in by unhappy and enslaved unicorns.

When everything goes digital, I will demand magical glue be made from the essence of unicorns :evil: .
 
Agreed... I was wondering where they where going with this rather bizarre intro, but said 'oh, yeah' when the fox logo was revealed.

I haven't watched the simpsons in years, ever since the plots started repeating themselves. But this episode felt like a good classic, so maybe I'll tune in again.
 
I personaly say that everyone has over reacted to this entire "issue". If the over seas studio had no problem animating this, then why should we have a problem seeing it. I think it sheds good light, on the fact that we are a very fortunate nation and that we should be eternaly greatful for that. And it also shows the hard work behind animation, and just maybe it will raise some awareness about it. Perhaps in an extreme way, but for all the good.
 
Yup, compared to the people in the 'satire', everyone in the west enjoys a cozy, well-paid, secure job. Yeah, I know this was an attempted knock at the Fox network, but they must think they're fans are uneducated nutburgers living in the 90's.
 
Well then, I assume this is a kick back to what some people see in the merchandising of Simpson things. I don't know the full story, but have only watched the opening and have to say it was ... weird.
 
Just remember, it was Al Jean's idea ;) . He courted Bansky to work on the show.

And also remember, Fox Broadcasting APPROVED everything that was shown. And more often than not they approve of material in these animated cartoons that skewers them endlessly. So as much as everyone always wants to paint Fox as the bad guys and the big evil corporation they seem have no problem with being made fun of as long as it means they can keep exploiting the material.

So this wasn't like some sleeper attack by the devious revolutionary producers of the Simpsons.

I doubt someone is going to stage a protest at the KwickEMart gift shop outside the Simpsons ride at Universal Studios any time soon.

Now maybe a better argument can be made about American companies and corporations outsourcing all these things to other countries and taking advantage of less privileged populations to produce cheap goods, etc.

Also, since I'm not sure we can check the YouTube link, anyone remember TOONS TAKE OVER from Tiny Toons? Buster outright abuses a poor, helpless animator. Buster then threatens any animators that dare ask for "more money."
 
I very much liked the 'dark' opening. It began with gleeful discomfort in the exagerrated portrayal of the animation assembly-line, then went gingerly onward into fantastically macabre absurdity. If the episode that it preceded had possessed some aspect of that, I might have watched it. I admit, I'm literally unable to comprehend how some people might find it really upsetting. It's the emotional equivalent of somebody speaking Mongolian at me. I recognize generally what it is, but it means nothing to me.

I particularly don't consider it to have been, "mean-spirited." Family Guy's routine belittling of the physical appearances of particular people strikes me as mean-spirited, but not this.

The reaction to it as 'satire' seems misguided. Several people seem to be making a very straightforward assumption that it is meant to satire real conditions, especially those of the poor Unicorns who are senselessly exploited to punch holes in discs, but I think that it could be regarded as instead as deliberately preposteous exagerration to the end of satirizing beliefs held about the manufacturing of The Simpsons as associated media.

Perhaps it's not even anything that specific, but just a strange, grim sequence that can be appreciated on its own that borrows from subjects for satire merely as a convenient context for black comedy.
 
Look, guys, this is Banksy. He's a radical and a bombthrower. He's not trying to make you feel good about how fortunate you are, he's trying make you feel bad about how you benefit from the labor of others with the hope that you'll support change to that system. And he's not trying to defend the Simpsons by exaggerating known criticism of them to the point of absurdity, he doesn't care about defending the Simpsons. You can come up with other interpretations, but if you're trying to look at this without considering politics, you're not looking at the whole picture.

Some of Banksy's illegal graffiti art, to give you an idea of where he comes from:

banksy_bang300_300x400.jpg



banksy%5B1%5D.jpg


wpe3%5B1%5D.jpg
 
Back
Top