The Simpsons to kill off one of their main characters this season, reveals show produ

Seinfeld is better than Simpsons used to be.

And it knew better than to keep is going for 30 years. :o

A lot of people would still argue Seinfeld should have ended when Larry David left. The last two seasons were watchable, but definitely not as good. And the series finale was just terrible. So I'm not sure that's the best example of a show knowing when to quit.
 
I'll take the last two seasons of Seinfeld over current Simpsons, though.
 
I really don't think any show can last that long and not deteriorate to some degree.

Even South Park, which I still consider serviceable, peaked in my opinion quite a while back.

The Simpsons downward spiral is generally agreed to have started some time after Season 8. Though there were still good episodes every now and then. But after the 20th season? Nope.

The Simpsons also lost most (all?) of its good writers (or at least the ones that made it what it was in the 90's), which doesn't help.
 
The Simpsons stopped being funny when they essentially became a parody of themselves. They exaggerated the characters to such a degree that they lost whatever grounding they had (Homer became too stupid, Marge became too manic, Lisa too preachy, etc) and they started reusing basic plots except making them a bit zanier and "edgier" (Maude Flanders dies!). This started happening around 1999-2000. Coupled with the blow of Phil Hartman dying, that's when I think the show started to suck.
 
I thought they just agreed to some new contracts that took them past 2015. Wasn't there a big "will Simpsons end?" news story about a year ago, but then they renegotiated?

Not that it'd matter to me if they ended tomorrow or 2025. They've been on autopilot forever.
Oh yeah, I think it's to season 27... in fact I think I posted about it in the main Simpsons thread. :o

Edit: I kind of sort of did. With this show and the voice contracts going back and forth I'm not sure what their official end date is.
 
Last edited:
The Simpsons stopped being funny when they essentially became a parody of themselves. They exaggerated the characters to such a degree that they lost whatever grounding they had (Homer became too stupid, Marge became too manic, Lisa too preachy, etc) and they started reusing basic plots except making them a bit zanier and "edgier" (Maude Flanders dies!). This started happening around 1999-2000. Coupled with the blow of Phil Hartman dying, that's when I think the show started to suck.

I think it's somewhat inevitable once a show lasts that long. It's still not as bad as Family Guy, which deteriorated at a much faster rate in a similar fashion. Granted it was never as good - but still.

On the voices, I am surprised it hasn't been more of an issue, because almost every voice actor is essential. A handful of actors do all the supporting characters.
 
A lot of people would still argue Seinfeld should have ended when Larry David left. The last two seasons were watchable, but definitely not as good. And the series finale was just terrible. So I'm not sure that's the best example of a show knowing when to quit.

Seinfeld remained great all the way to the end... when IMO, the last two seasons were just slightly less great. Amazing, amazing show. The only show I own every episode of (in the black box set with the coffee table book).

The Simpsons were that until, as everyone's said, the early 00's. Now they're surviving because the first 10 (and a bit) years were SO great everyone's got a lot of good will.
 
I think Simpsons survives on its brand-name and a genuine fan love of its characters. The characters on the show have been with some people from early childhood to full-fledged adulthood, so like you said there's good will, but maybe even a bit of an emotional attachment.

So I get how they could keep old fans. What I don't get is how they could pull in new fans, because those feelings of nostalgia and attachment aren't there, and they could see it for what it is, an unfunny, quite dated show well past its prime.
 
I for one, hold out hope that if a truly major character died that it would help to speed the finale up, but also to perhaps change up the show in a positive way. Imagine if the repurcussions of this event actually mattered and had effects on the show until the series ended? Unlike, say, Maude Flanders death?
 
Not really sure what they would do for a series finale. Somehow I doubt it will be tasteful.
 
If it's a series finale, it'd probably be something really important like Homer finds his long-lost brother... oh wait, did that.... I mean, his long-lost moth-- oh right, they did that too... Uh, then maybe Springfield is faced with destruct--- oh, never mind, they did that a dozen times... Okay, then a major character die-- oh yeah.

Really all they have left is Maggie speaking and... ah, that's been done too.

That's the problem with 600 episodes. Your show is its own worst enemy. I'm sure whatever the finale is, it'll be pretty saccharine with a lot of "emotional" moments. And no one will remember it half as much as one of their classic episodes.
 
Let's just spitball this here...

What if, out of all people... Marge died?
 
The finale could be them grown up... but they did that too.

I can't think of anything they haven't done that could be used for the finale. Even killing everyone off has been done in Treehouse episodes. Whatever they have planned I'm hoping it's something no one, including themselves, has thought of before. Maybe it involves Bart and a hurricane. :o
 
If they really want to shake things up then have the whole series be an insane fever-dream of a 34 year old Bart in a mental asylum. Of course, his family all died in a fire back in 1989 and now he just relives the same year for the past two plus decades.
 
If they really want to shake things up then have the whole series be an insane fever-dream of a 34 year old Bart in a mental asylum. Of course, his family all died in a fire back in 1989 and now he just relives the same year for the past two plus decades.


Dark.
 
Marvin Monroe gives him a lobotomy at the end.

Can you imagine the letters? :)
 
Marvin Monroe gives him a lobotomy at the end.

Can you imagine the letters? :)


I can already hear Comic Book Guy's nitpicks. "How could Dr. Monroe administer a lobotomy on Bart if he had also died when Bart was a child? Give me a good answer for that and I will give you this picture of David Tenant autographed by Matt Smith."
 
Marvin Monroe's not in Bart's family. He's just a random townsperson that seeps into his fantasy world. It's like Vanilla Sky meets One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest meets the worst creepypasta on the Internet.

EDIT: Oh right, he died in the series. I have an answer for that. He only died in Bart's fantasy world. He represented one aspect of Bart's damaged psyche so he was purged through some electroshock therepy.
 
Last edited:
Marvin Monroe's not in Bart's family. He's just a random townsperson that seeps into his fantasy world. It's like Vanilla Sky meets One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest meets the worst creepypasta on the Internet.


:applaud :toth
 
I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a spin off, all things considered.
 
Actually that was a standalone show. Do they did have a crossover... of sorts.
 
I'd end the show with a twilight zone episode where Homer and/or Bart becomes aware that that the Simpson family is caught in a time loop where they stay the same age and do the same things (for instance Bart must have finished fourth grade 5-6 times now on the show plus all the other times not shown) while events in the world keep on moving forward.

So have Homer/Bart find out what is causing this and fix it so that the family can finally "move on" with their lives.
 
They have sort of referenced that before but never outright. I vaguely remember Lisa saying something along the lines of how they never seem to grow up once.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"