Toon Zone Talkback - No "Simpsons" Movie Sequel Yet, "Several Years" Left for Series

I'm one of the few that while I liked the movie didn't find it amazing by any means like a lot of people said it was "just like classic Simpsons". But I wouldn't mind another movie or two.

While recent seasons aren't as good, I still think they are not as bad as people make them out to be, especially more recent ones. I'm sure if I was a kid like I was when S1-10 aired I'd love them.

Anyways even with the decline, I still think it'll be a sad day when we know The Simpsons are finally over.
 
With the recent quality of episodes, and increasing amount of new Seth Macfarlane series, I wouldn't be suprised if someday The Simpsons just gets cancelled instead of the staff simply deciding to end the series.
 
I think three Seth shows is officially critical mass.

The Simpsons is still second or third on the block in ratings though so it really isn't in line for cancellation. It really is up to the staff I think.
 
I don't buy this "several years" stuff. I could honestly see the Simpson's going on forever. Simpson's now is basically just Saturday Night Live but in animated form: making fun of current pop culture/current events. And there'll always be current events/pop-culture to make fun of. It's why Seth McFarlane can keep on making shows. The only one I could see ending is South Park, cause there seem to be less episodes being made & Matt Stone/Trey Parker's contract only runs until 2011 so I could see them ultimately ending the show then.
 
Not really. If one of the VA's dies, they would end the show out of respect.

If it happens mid-season, they'd have to hire a replacement VA to finish the last couple of episodes and they'd probably end it there.

I certainly cannot see Simpsons continuing without the main voice cast. That alone assures that Simpsons will end someday.
 
I don't know about forever, but I'd be willing to say it'll still be on when I have kids the same age I was when I first saw it (6-7). Seriously, it just seems like this show will keep going for a long time.
 
They were willing to change the VA of Futurama, sure Simpsons are way more iconic but still, its not a definite.

And while every other show seems to be a Mcfarlane cartoon, the quality of FG is worse than current Simpsons IMO, as long as both are making money they'll keep them both. And even if FG is at the moment more popular among teenagers, they don't have the iconic status as the Simpsons, especially Worldwide were everyone knows who the simpsons are but not the same for Family Guy.
 
Futurama is going into its sixth season and is a moderate success, whereas The Simpsons has been a cultural phenomenon and is in its 21st season. Plus it was questionable whether Fox was *actually* willing to change the Futurama VAs or if it was just a bluff in negotiating.

The Simpsons is waaaay past the point of changing main castmembers. They wouldn't continue the show without them. I think even Groening wouldn't allow it.
 
Yeah I agree. It'll end when either Matt Groening or one of the main VA's pass away, kinda like when they ended Peanuts after Schultz passed.

I still like the The Simpsons. While it isn't as consistently excellent as it was a decade ago, it's still good and the best FOX aminated series IMO. The Treehouse of Horror episodes every year are always funny.
 
Sorry, but as much as I hate to believe it, if any of the main voice actors die, they WILL BE REPLACED. It's not like Disney closed up shop when the orginal voice of Mickey Mouse passed away. Also, unless the sales of all the DVD, keychains, tampons or any of the other crappy merchandise with the "Simpsons" lables stamped on them fades, the show will keep going to remind people there's merchandise to be had. When the show makes 200 million off syndication and new episodes in adverstising revenue, but makes 720 million worldwide hawking it's wares, the quality of writing becomes a non-issue.

EDIT: I found this on a site that's very critical of the Tenth Season onward, and this sums up why the quality of the first 8 seasons is the best (and most likely not seen again)...

I was one of those 9-year-olds that grew up with the show. While I watched The Simpsons back then and was entertained by it on a baser level, it wasn’t until later in high school when I appreciated the show for what it was: a dense, multi-faceted comedy that rewarded thoughtful viewers with sharp, intelligent humor. At age 9, I thoroughly enjoyed the show’s slapstick tendencies and occasional puerile jokes (Buttzilla, anyone?) since the cultural references usually flew over my head. As I grew up, I fell in love with the show as subtle allusions to classic literature, film, and pop culture revealed themselves, while the edgy social satire suddenly made sense. This had the effect of making The Simpsons even richer; it was the show that kept on giving. Imagined nostalgia and hollow sentiment have nothing to do with why I love the first eight or so seasons.

Admittedly, the original episodes were “crude and primitive in their execution” – no argument there. Then again, I would expect an episode produced in 2009 to look better than one produced in 1989. Aesthetics aside, the episodes in the first couple seasons were still well-written and the characters endearing, effortlessly setting the stage for the brilliance that characterized later seasons. The impact those seasons had on viewers is indelible and their critical reception is well-deserved. It’s a tough act to consistently prolong year after year.

While I can sense Mr. Groening’s brooding frustration at those who damn a body of work because of a few bad instances, I don’t think the show’s most sober critics are doing that. We’re not that simple-minded. It is disingenuous, however, to say that the show has “absolutely done brilliant stuff consistently throughout its history.” No way. It is a complete lack of consistency that is the hallmark of Zombie Simpsons. Plots have become lazier, gags cruder. Venerable characters have been redefined after years of careful development (notably, Homer’s perplexing transformation from oafish, loving father to obnoxious, injury-prone jackass), a perfect foil for the insufferable and foolish cavalcade of celebrity guest stars. The show that has, for all intents and purposes, defined modern comedy has slipped into the conventions that it used to boldly and routinely reject.

Accepting Zombie Simpsons for what it is, let’s go ahead take Mr. Groening’s assertion at face value, that is, the folks who work on the show continue to enjoy what they do and that’s why they keep doing it. Well, duh. Talk about an an easy ad hominem argument, which in the face of declining viewership and social relevance makes even less sense. It still prints money for those involved, but really, how fat do your coffers need to be?

Listen, none of us would be complaining if the show had soldiered on with contemporary ideas and quality intact. But, as Mr. Groening implies, it’s not reasonable to expect that. We agree. Twenty years is an eternity in television. We’ve been insistent that Zombie Simpsons as is bears little resemblance to the show that preceded it. So either fix it (improbable, now that we’re fumbling through the twentieth season), call it something else (pointless – a spade’s a spade), or just let it die. We’ve been happily endorsing the latter option and not just out of empty, callous spite. There’s simply no shame in admitting when enough’s enough.


Sadly, the thinking of "It's good because it's the Simpsons!" is what makes the show go round these days, not because the show is objectively good. Sites like IGN and publications like TV Guide love using this mentality and goes down the Simpsons every week and just keep fueling this mess. Oh, and finally:

history3.jpg
 
I can summarize this whole post in one sentence: Nostalgia. even if he doesn't want to admit it. You can't realistically expect the show to keep talking about the same issues for the past 20 years, even the Flintstones and the Jetsons evolved and changed a bit.

You can't expect Bart to keep doing the same things for the past 20 years, Dennis the menace is no longer... a menace. heck, even Bart menaces on the 90's are not even threatening today and most of the issues presented are not even relevant.

That the current seasons don't deal with issues? of course they do, You just need to take a good look.

That the writing if off and only cares about the merchandise? Of course it will, Television is a business, Fox is a Business, Matt is a businessman/Producer, and The Simpsons is a product. (Like it always has been just now marketed to a new generation)

I find fun that people flood the forums flaming people who like the current seasons, and bashing the current seasons like if it's gonna change the world. the fact is the show has several years and I doubt the show will go on without the main voices. You can't compare it to Mickey Mouse, because Mickey Mouse is aimed for 3-5 year old children not adults 18-45 who know the difference.
 
I can't speak for the writer of that particular post, but make no mistakes; the primary reason that cirka seasons 3 to 7 or 8 (in other words, cirka 1992 to 1996 or 1997) is considered the golden age of the Simpsons is NOT due to nostalgia. The show really was VASTLY different then than now.

A true example of how nostalgia alone is able to affect peoples view of The Simpsons however is when certain younger people say things like "yeah, the show sure does suck these days, but it was awsome up till 2004!". Because it is impossible to point to some specific, objective thing that unites, say, the average episode from 1994 and the average episode from 2003 but that does not also apply to the average episode in 2009. There is however A LOT of objective things that differinates an average episode from 1994 with average episodes from 2003 and 2009...
 
Toon Zone Talkback - No "Simpsons" Movie Sequel Yet, "Several Years" Left for Series

This is the silliest blanket statement in the history of blankets, or statements. Also, this implies people must only love the older episodes more because they're hopelessly nostaligic and hate the new ones soley on the basis they're new, which is complete BS. Just look at the quality of the "Bonk it" gag from a few weeks ago comapred to the scene from "Lisa vs Malibu Stacy"...

I?m not going to transcribe the whole thing, but it takes almost exactly the same amount of time as the interminable ?Bonk It? scene and the following happens:
  • Homer endangers his family (and ignores his wife) by buttering a muffin he made with the EZ Bake oven he bought for his car
  • Grandpa gets nervous around Bart?s toy because his ?skull is eggshell thin?
  • Grandpa accidentally launches a missile from Sgt. Thug?s Mountaintop Command Post that causes a giant off screen explosion (which Bart thinks is cool)
  • Lisa thanks Grandpa for the presents only to have him complain that they bought lousy stuff (he thinks they should?ve gotten something useful e.g. ?a nice pipe organ?)
  • Grandpa then goes on one of his awesomely bizarre rants and mentions: things smelling like mustard, all the ugly people he sees, his glaucoma, and the fact that the the President is a ?Demi-crat?
  • After the family cold-heartedly abandons their elderly relative in a car he gets stuck because he can?t unbuckle his seatbelt.
All of the above was done in the same amount of time that Zombie Simpsons did ?Bonk It?. This is why Zombie Simpsons is thinner than Dickensian gruel. Where once they were thinking ?How many jokes can we cram in??, now it?s ?How much longer can we stretch this??

Talking about issues? Hell, the Zombie Simpsons can even barely mutter it's way through something. It's like they hired Chief Wiggum to write the story.



The Simpsons deals with issues in such a lacksidasical manner it takes anything even remotely serious out of the story, thus the story has no weight and means nothing. And as Krusty said: "it's funny when the schlubs got class!" Zombie Simpsons has no class.



I never said the show should never, ever make money, but when Merchandising is the sole reason for keeping the Zombie Simpsons alive, then it's a very valid criticsism. No wonder they spend $5 million an episode that attracts 7 million viewers and if there was no merchandise, there'd be no show. (Btw, the show makes very little in legal internet downloads.)



Seeing how those 18-45 year olds 'cant tell the difference' between the first half of the show and the second half of the show, Fox would find two or three people to take a voice actor's spot if something bad happened.

Finally, from the Dead Homer Society:

I?m of the well documented opinion that the show that used to be The Simpsons has basically been on auto-pilot for a decade, and a very low altitude auto-pilot at that. The underlying structure of the show is so incredibly strong that the actual content of the episodes can be filled in paint-by-number style and, no matter how dull and formulaic it becomes, at least a few people will still call it brilliant. As a result, the quality of the new episodes has very little effect on the amount of profit the franchise can generate. And since the quality of the episodes isn?t a priority, it?s gone to hell.
 
On this sit probaly. Personally (before this current season and season 18) the last great season was nine, the last good was ten, and the last truly creative was 11. From 12-17 the series is unwatchable in my opinion.
 
Toon Zone Talkback - No "Simpsons" Movie Sequel Yet, "Several Years" Left for Series

Of COURSE it's nostalgia! :ack:

But to paraphrase a quote from the show:

?Hey, this is the only message board in America that?s not afraid to tell the truth, that everything is just fine!"

Anyway, as much as I like to harp on the low ratings, if I?m FOX I could care less if the show loses 10% of its audience annually. Even if I don?t make a dime broadcasting new episodes for Season 21, thanks to merchandising the show show and making bonusless S20 DVD sets, I?m still swimming in money. For FOX, The Simpsons is a merchandising property that also happens to be a television program. They have no interest in making the show incisive and clever because doing so would have no real impact on their bottom line.
 
The Simpsons' ratings aren't low at all. It's the third highest-rated show on Fox right now (behind House and Family Guy) and it's consistently around 4.0 in the 18-49 demo. Total viewers don't matter in advertising, and thus don't matter in ratings. And if you don't believe me... http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/12/12/faq-do-total-viewers-matter/36064

And The Simpsons' ratings are actually up slightly from last year, which is an accomplishment, seeing as besides Animation Domination nearly every single show on TV has ratings that are down.

Anyone who says The Simpsons gets low ratings doesn't know what they're talking about. Fox gets plenty of ad revenue from first-run episodes, more than almost all of their other shows.
 
C'mon! This season we've been inundated with "Oh god! It's the 20th Anniversery Celebration Year!" and that has helped with the ratings. If it wasn't the 20th Annivery 'year', it would have even less viewers compared to Season 20.
 
Anniversary bump or not, the show has good enough ratings to get renewed on its own without merchandising or syndication or anything. Those things increase the show's monetary value a lot, but with the ratings it gets it would survive fine without them. It's earned its spot on the Sunday night lineup through ratings alone, if Fox was doing it only for merchandising and syndication value they would have shipped premieres off somewhere else by now.

And that was the case last season, and the season before that, and the season before that, and so on.
 
IMO, like I said before, I doubt any network would spend $5 million an epiosde on a show that takes in an average of 7 million viewers if that was the sole source of income. It's a "merchandise first, show second" cash generating entity.
 
Back
Top