From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
Subject: Re: I&STM
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:20:16 GMT
	<1992Nov4.202847.1735@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: jdonald@us.oracle.com's message of 04 Nov 92 16:28:47 -0400

In article <1992Nov4.202847.1735@oracle.us.oracle.com>
jdonald@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald) writes:

>I thought this was easily the worst episode ever.  Simply not funny.

How soon we forget the stain of "Colonel Homer."

>"Where did he put the firecracker?"  I can't imagine child
>abuse being funny.  Now, somebody being eaten by a gorilla, somebody
>being hit by lightning, that's funny.  Child abuse is not.  The way I
>interpreted it, this was a reference to a standard technique of using
>dolls to get physically/ sexually abused children to talk about the
>abuse incidents.

Judgment call.  Tasteless it was, no question.  Tasteless can be OK if
you can pull off the humor and pull it off well.  (Who here didn't
laugh until he cried when Dan Aykroyd said, "Jane, you ignorant slut,
who did you sleep with to get this job?")  It was a reference to those
anatomical dolls, I'm sure, but it wasn't an explicit reference to
sexual molestation of children per se.  Whether the humor justified
the tastelessness is, as I say, a judgment call.  My own judgment says
it didn't quite make it.

>Bart dropping his pants.  How many times is this funny?  Well, it was
>funny when we saw it in a previous episode.  But I don't think that 
>Bart's butt is inherintly funny.  Also, we have never actually seen
>Homer spank Bart, have we?  So why does Bart expect it so readily?

I didn't see it this way.  Bart dropped his pants, not for the humor
value of dropping his pants, but to establish the desperation of his
plea.  He was willing to endure any level of physical pain ("go
nuts!") if only he could be permitted to see the Itchy and Scratchy
movie.

>Bart as a stripper.  Really more repulsive than funny.  The bad thing
>about things like this is that I used to disagree with parents who
>didn't let their children watch the Simpsons - I no longer disagre
>with them.  I would not have wanted my children (if I had any) to
>watch that scene.

There's no way I'd let small children watch this show, and it's been
my favorite thing on TV for going on three years.  It is definitely
for adults.  I might let a mature 10-year-old watch it, but that would
be about my limit.  (I admit I am conservative in such matters.)

>Star Trek.  In Living Color has done it.  Saturday Night Live has
>done it.  Mad magazine has done it.  Local high school talent shows
>have done it.  Now, the Simpsons have done it, and they didn't do it
>any better than anyone else.  Should have left it alone, and come up
>with something original.

Of course everybody has made fun of it.  It is an icon of our culture.
That doesn't mean that there isn't fresh satire to be had there.  The
only one of the list you provide that has specifically lampooned the
age of the cast is "In Living Color," and their rendition wasn't
nearly as funny as this one.  Shatner's toupee, the title "So Very
Tired," the line "Again with the Klingons," etc. were all gutbusters,
as far as I was concerned.

Now, on the other hand, one may argue that satirizing the pointless
and idiotic Star Trek movies is like satirizing professional
wrestling:  there just isn't any way to make it significantly dumber.
There is a case to be made for that criticism, but it's not the same
as the one you make.

>Homer being very familiar with Chief Justices.  [. . .]  Once in a
>while, when Homer throws out something like that, it is funny.  Yes,
>it is out of character for Homer to say anything too intellectual, but
>[. . .] 
>But we know that this is an aberration, Homer is simply not a bright
>guy.  I can't believe he is that familiar with the names of the
>Supreme court justices.

You almost said it, and I think that you'd agree:  this device (having
Homer suddenly pipe up with something intellectual) is funny if used
S P A R I N G L Y.  If they overuse it, it will just become stupid.
Twice in three years fits my definition of "sparingly."

>And I didn't like the bit about 40 years from now, although I don't really
>have an argument against it.  I just didn't like it.

I was of two minds about this.  I thought it was a bit of a weak way
out of the episode, but I got a big kick out of the "also with 'Beauty
and the Beast'" gag and of course the movie footage itself.  Homer's
assessment:  "Itchy's a jerk," made me laugh, too.

>This episode was an appeal to the lowest common denominator.  It
>exploited cliches instead of exposing them.  It twisted character
>traits in order to go after laughs.  It relied on gimmicks that got a
>laugh in the past.  It became a parody of itself.  I repeat, this was
>by far the worst episode ever.

I think you are judging it *way* too harshly.  It did "exploit" a
couple of cliches, maybe (though the "Star Trek" bit is the only
example I can think of, and that one isn't too strong).  I don't know
that any character traits were "twisted," excepting Homer's brief
rendezvous with intelligence.

Besides, you've missed the point: you didn't once mention Itchy and
Scratchy in your post!  We were treated to some of the funniest, most
twisted Itchy and Scratchy footage ever, and plenty of it (though,
once again, I will not rest until there is a 24-hour Itchy and
Scratchy cable channel)!  How you can judge this episode so harshly
without even a nod to everybody's favorite cat-and-mouse duo is beyond
me.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons