The Rise and Fall (and Possible Re-ascention) of The Simpsons Empire

An in-depth look at the pop-culture legacy of North America’s favourite cartoon family

Hisham Kelati , the fulcrum (University of Ottawa)

I was relaxing in my friend’s basement when an acquaintance of mine dropped by with the new Family Guy DVD. Everyone’s eyes lit up with childlike adoration as he popped it into the DVD player. I casually rolled my eyes and muttered, “Do we have to watch this lame shit? If you want classic cartoon comedy, get The Simpsons Movie.”

In hindsight, this may not have been the best thing to say, but anything that conveyed a similar sentiment would have led to the same outcome: a room full of college-aged people shrieking profanities and hurling empty tallboys at me.

What is it with people and their sudden surge of fanatical favouritism for Family Guy? Why does the loyal Simpsons fan base seem to be ever-thinning?

Some journalistic research led me to an inconceivable truth: The Simpsons might be losing it.

The early, trail-blazing years

For those living under a rock for the last two decades, The Simpsons is a satirical cartoon created in 1989 by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX). Actually, the Simpson family first appeared as shorts on The Tracey Ullman Show in April 1987. In 1989, a team of production companies adapted The Simpsons into a half-hour series for FOX. The show takes place in the fictional town of Springfield, where everything seems to revolve around the exploits of the titular family. Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie spark all of the zany adventures in Springfield; like Homer becoming an astronaut, Bart jumping a canyon on his skateboard, and Lisa creating her own feminist doll.

It’s neither the family dynamic nor the storylines woven around these characters that have gone awry. How could they have? The Simpsons has lasted over 20 years, influencing Western culture to such a degree that, in August 2007, linguist and University of Pennsylvania professor Mark Liberman said, “The Simpsons has apparently taken over from Shakespeare and the Bible as our culture’s greatest source of idioms, catchphrases, and sundry other textual allusions.”

Proof: “d’oh” is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary (but without the apostrophe).

You’ve got to admit, that is one hell of a feat.

The Simpsons related to middle-class North Americans in the early ’90s in a way that hasn’t been seen on TV since. The characters satirized North American stereotypes — the boneheaded father, the nagging wife, the donut-gobbling police chief, the crusty millionaire — and allowed for an entire generation to clearly see the absurdity of the moral standards and cultural norms that seemed so antiquated and backwards during that day and age. The Simpsons held a mirror up to society and showed it what was wrong, and people laughed.

The series seeped into every aspect of American life, and went unnoticed by no one. For example, then-President George Bush Sr. commented on the poor moral fabric of the American family in 1992: “We’re going to keep trying to strengthen the American family. To make them more like the Waltons and less like The Simpsons .”

The show was also the trailblazer for many of today’s notable adult cartoons, such as King of the Hill and South Park, as well as raunchy classics like Ren and Stimpy. Before The Simpsons , animated shows were considered appropriate only for children. It was the original adult cartoon and gave a lot of hope to animators and comedy writers that were hoping to work on something other than new episodes of The Care Bears. Even Ricky Gervais has called The Simpsons a major influence on his British comedy The Office.

Growing pains

The problem today is that television viewers no longer believe in The Simpsons ’ ability to relate to the average North American family. The core appeal of The Simpsons is disputably the unchanging nature of the show. Springfield, the characters, and most of the problems the characters are faced with have been the same since the beginning: Homer’s boozing and negligent parenting, Bart’s rebelliousness, Marge’s anxious concern, and so on.

Michael Strangelove, a professor in the communication department at the University of Ottawa, illustrates the main argument of The Simpsons ’ detractors.

“After the initial innovation of its format and content, The Simpsons failed to continue to change as the audience, the world, and competing shows changed. The same message wears a little thin after awhile,” he said.

According to Robert Stacey, assistant professor in the English department at the U of O, there are a number of factors that have attributed to the downfall of The Simpsons ’ empire, such as its reliance on celebrity guests for the sake of having celebrity guests; its inability to compete with its immensely culturally relevant golden days; and its longevity.

“Due to [its] long-running history through so many cultural and social changes, it’s getting a bit harder for [The Simpsons ] to try and come up with fresh and new concepts, while trying to stay true to [its] roots,” said Stacey.

In 2003, Chris Suellentrop — writer for the online Slate Magazine — wrote that what made the show popular in the beginning was “Matt Groening’s and James L. Brooks’ conception of an animated TV family that was more realistic than the live-action Huxtables and Keatons and Seavers who populated 1980s television. Unlike other TV families, for example, The Simpsons would go to church, have money problems, and watch television.”

He went on to explain that the show has lost it because “The Simpsons themselves, and the rest of the Springfield populace, have become empty vessels for one-liners and sight gags, just like the characters who inhabit other sitcoms. (Think Chandler Bing.)”

Mike Reiss, a writer for the show, admitted to New York Times Magazine that “much of the humanity has leached out of the show over the years. . . . It hurts to watch it, even if I helped do it.”

So another problem may be the talent of the show’s writers. According to Al Jean, one of the show’s original writers, most of the writers working for the show currently range in age from 30 to over 50. Executives seem to consistently hire writers who grew up watching The Simpsons in the glory-day 90s. These writers then try and pen episodes that are as legendary as their predecessors, but they fall short.

The pressure of keeping the long-running show fresh has been felt by its staff for many years now. Ian Maxtone-Graham, who joined the writing staff in 1995, told the Independent in 1998: “I think we should pack it in soon, and I think we will — we’re running out of ideas.”

Staff writer-producer George Meyer admitted to MSNBC.com in 2000, “We’re starting to see some glimmers of the end. . . . It’s certainly getting harder to come up with stories, no question.”

In his article for Slate, Suellentrop attempted to pinpoint and outline some of the theories for the show’s decrease in quality. He suggested the show suffered from “too many cooks,” which Meyer also implied to MSNBC.com.

“We have more writers now,” he said. “In the early days, I think, more of the show, more of the episode, was already in the first draft of the script. Now there’s more room-writing that goes on, and so I think there’s been a kind of homogenization of the scripts. . . . Certainly, the shows are more jokey than they used to be. But I think they also lack the individual flavour that they had in the early years.”

Suellentrop also pointed out the show’s “brain drain” — long-absent influential individuals include creator Groening and Brooks, actor Phil Hartman (deceased in 1998), and writers Jean, Mike Reiss, Greg Daniels, and Conan O’Brien. Other theories he noted include the overabundance of celebrity guest stars and the show’s inability to keep up with the passage of time (also proposed by Stacey and Strangelove, respectively). Finally, Suellentrop suggested that an “incredible anxiety of influence hovers over Simpsons writers, who realize that they are judged not by the standards of network television, but by the standards of their own show’s golden age.”

Maybe these are the reasons why a lot of the older viewers completely skip over new episodes and latch on to one of the many new adult cartoons which owe everything to the yellow-skinned family — most notably Family Guy.

The pop-culture powerhouse

A new hope came the summer of 2007, in the form of the most anticipated cartoon movie of all time: The Simpsons Movie. For all the criticism that has bombarded The Simpsons for the last decade, The Simpsons Movie proved that the family still has what it takes. Taking shots at the war on terror, global warming, and its own audience (to name a few), the movie raked in $526 million as of January 2008. Created by a slew of the series’ original staff (including Groening and Brooks, as well as original director David Silverman), the movie single-handedly revitalized the franchise. Although fans and critics predicted that the movie would be as much of a dud as the show has been in recent years, it proved them wrong and breathed life into the dying franchise, garnering generally favourable reviews and offering a glimmer of hope to the loyal fan base.

It appears as though The Simpsons hasn’t lost it — not completely, anyway.

Strangelove claimed that, “There’s not much reason to watch [The Simpsons ] any more. . . . Now it is little more than a marketing vehicle for selling toxic crap made in China to kids. Toxic pop culture fills our landfills while we all stand around like Bart Simpson and say, ‘I didn’t do it.’ ”

In an April 2006 interview with the A.V. Club, Groening thought otherwise: “I honestly don’t see any end in sight. I think it’s possible that the show will become too financially cumbersome . . . but right now, the show is creatively, I think, as good or better than it’s ever been. The animation is incredibly detailed and imaginative, and the stories do things that we haven’t done before. So creatively, there’s no reason to quit.”

A possible re-ascension

The juggernaut that is (not was) The Simpsons has been lambasted by critics and fans alike, and yet there is not a dent worth mentioning in the show’s reputation as an icon. I say this with a bit of hope but also with a bit of confidence. Why? Because even after their apparent downfall from pop-culture relevance, the creators came back and made a movie that showed that they still had potential and could tap into the series’ past-day glory, raking in over $500 million in the process.

My hope and confidence is based on the fact that this once-great institution has the ability to pull itself together as seen in the latest crop of increasingly hilarious episodes, and in a movie that successfully used golden-era “Simpsons-esque” satirical tactics of social and political commentary on present-day issues.

The show has far too much clout to not be taken seriously. The Simpsons still manages to maintain a large viewership and attract new fans — while the first season enjoyed an average of 13.4 million viewers per episode in the United States, the 17th season ended with an average of 9.2 million viewers. It isn’t even a third of American Idol’s average of just over 30 million, but the numbers are healthy — often matching those of hit shows like House and Prison Break. And as long as ratings are hovering around a solid number, FOX will likely keep renewing the show for additional seasons. If that’s the case, here’s hoping that if The Simpsons is on for a long time to come, that the series finds its voice again.

“‘To start, press any key.’ Where’s the ‘any’ key? I see ‘esc,’ ‘catarl,’ and ‘pig up.’ There doesn’t seem to be any ‘any’ key. Whoa! All this computer hacking is making me thirsty. I think I’ll order a ‘tab’. ”

Yeah, that’s the voice.





Volume 95 Issue 23	The Official University of Manitoba Students' Newspaper Website	March 12, 2008

Home About Us Advertising Rates Contact Staff Current Issue PDF Employment Letters to the Editor Meet the Staff Online Archives Volunteer Online Classifieds St. Vincent's Academy Diaries	Font Size Respond Email Print-Friendly The Rise and Fall (and Possible Re-ascention) of The Simpsons Empire An in-depth look at the pop-culture legacy of North America’s favourite cartoon family Hisham Kelati , the fulcrum (University of Ottawa) I was relaxing in my friend’s basement when an acquaintance of mine dropped by with the new Family Guy DVD. Everyone’s eyes lit up with childlike adoration as he popped it into the DVD player. I casually rolled my eyes and muttered, “Do we have to watch this lame shit? If you want classic cartoon comedy, get The Simpsons Movie.” In hindsight, this may not have been the best thing to say, but anything that conveyed a similar sentiment would have led to the same outcome: a room full of college-aged people shrieking profanities and hurling empty tallboys at me. What is it with people and their sudden surge of fanatical favouritism for Family Guy? Why does the loyal Simpsons fan base seem to be ever-thinning? Some journalistic research led me to an inconceivable truth: The Simpsons might be losing it. The early, trail-blazing years For those living under a rock for the last two decades, The Simpsons is a satirical cartoon created in 1989 by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX). Actually, the Simpson family first appeared as shorts on The Tracey Ullman Show in April 1987. In 1989, a team of production companies adapted The Simpsons into a half-hour series for FOX. The show takes place in the fictional town of Springfield, where everything seems to revolve around the exploits of the titular family. Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie spark all of the zany adventures in Springfield; like Homer becoming an astronaut, Bart jumping a canyon on his skateboard, and Lisa creating her own feminist doll. It’s neither the family dynamic nor the storylines woven around these characters that have gone awry. How could they have? The Simpsons has lasted over 20 years, influencing Western culture to such a degree that, in August 2007, linguist and University of Pennsylvania professor Mark Liberman said, “The Simpsons has apparently taken over from Shakespeare and the Bible as our culture’s greatest source of idioms, catchphrases, and sundry other textual allusions.” Proof: “d’oh” is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary (but without the apostrophe). You’ve got to admit, that is one hell of a feat. The Simpsons related to middle-class North Americans in the early ’90s in a way that hasn’t been seen on TV since. The characters satirized North American stereotypes — the boneheaded father, the nagging wife, the donut-gobbling police chief, the crusty millionaire — and allowed for an entire generation to clearly see the absurdity of the moral standards and cultural norms that seemed so antiquated and backwards during that day and age. The Simpsons held a mirror up to society and showed it what was wrong, and people laughed. The series seeped into every aspect of American life, and went unnoticed by no one. For example, then-President George Bush Sr. commented on the poor moral fabric of the American family in 1992: “We’re going to keep trying to strengthen the American family. To make them more like the Waltons and less like The Simpsons .” The show was also the trailblazer for many of today’s notable adult cartoons, such as King of the Hill and South Park, as well as raunchy classics like Ren and Stimpy. Before The Simpsons , animated shows were considered appropriate only for children. It was the original adult cartoon and gave a lot of hope to animators and comedy writers that were hoping to work on something other than new episodes of The Care Bears. Even Ricky Gervais has called The Simpsons a major influence on his British comedy The Office. Growing pains The problem today is that television viewers no longer believe in The Simpsons ’ ability to relate to the average North American family. The core appeal of The Simpsons is disputably the unchanging nature of the show. Springfield, the characters, and most of the problems the characters are faced with have been the same since the beginning: Homer’s boozing and negligent parenting, Bart’s rebelliousness, Marge’s anxious concern, and so on. Michael Strangelove, a professor in the communication department at the University of Ottawa, illustrates the main argument of The Simpsons ’ detractors. “After the initial innovation of its format and content, The Simpsons failed to continue to change as the audience, the world, and competing shows changed. The same message wears a little thin after awhile,” he said. According to Robert Stacey, assistant professor in the English department at the U of O, there are a number of factors that have attributed to the downfall of The Simpsons ’ empire, such as its reliance on celebrity guests for the sake of having celebrity guests; its inability to compete with its immensely culturally relevant golden days; and its longevity. “Due to [its] long-running history through so many cultural and social changes, it’s getting a bit harder for [The Simpsons ] to try and come up with fresh and new concepts, while trying to stay true to [its] roots,” said Stacey. In 2003, Chris Suellentrop — writer for the online Slate Magazine — wrote that what made the show popular in the beginning was “Matt Groening’s and James L. Brooks’ conception of an animated TV family that was more realistic than the live-action Huxtables and Keatons and Seavers who populated 1980s television. Unlike other TV families, for example, The Simpsons would go to church, have money problems, and watch television.” He went on to explain that the show has lost it because “The Simpsons themselves, and the rest of the Springfield populace, have become empty vessels for one-liners and sight gags, just like the characters who inhabit other sitcoms. (Think Chandler Bing.)” Mike Reiss, a writer for the show, admitted to New York Times Magazine that “much of the humanity has leached out of the show over the years. . . . It hurts to watch it, even if I helped do it.” So another problem may be the talent of the show’s writers. According to Al Jean, one of the show’s original writers, most of the writers working for the show currently range in age from 30 to over 50. Executives seem to consistently hire writers who grew up watching The Simpsons in the glory-day 90s. These writers then try and pen episodes that are as legendary as their predecessors, but they fall short. The pressure of keeping the long-running show fresh has been felt by its staff for many years now. Ian Maxtone-Graham, who joined the writing staff in 1995, told the Independent in 1998: “I think we should pack it in soon, and I think we will — we’re running out of ideas.” Staff writer-producer George Meyer admitted to MSNBC.com in 2000, “We’re starting to see some glimmers of the end. . . . It’s certainly getting harder to come up with stories, no question.” In his article for Slate, Suellentrop attempted to pinpoint and outline some of the theories for the show’s decrease in quality. He suggested the show suffered from “too many cooks,” which Meyer also implied to MSNBC.com. “We have more writers now,” he said. “In the early days, I think, more of the show, more of the episode, was already in the first draft of the script. Now there’s more room-writing that goes on, and so I think there’s been a kind of homogenization of the scripts. . . . Certainly, the shows are more jokey than they used to be. But I think they also lack the individual flavour that they had in the early years.” Suellentrop also pointed out the show’s “brain drain” — long-absent influential individuals include creator Groening and Brooks, actor Phil Hartman (deceased in 1998), and writers Jean, Mike Reiss, Greg Daniels, and Conan O’Brien. Other theories he noted include the overabundance of celebrity guest stars and the show’s inability to keep up with the passage of time (also proposed by Stacey and Strangelove, respectively). Finally, Suellentrop suggested that an “incredible anxiety of influence hovers over Simpsons writers, who realize that they are judged not by the standards of network television, but by the standards of their own show’s golden age.” Maybe these are the reasons why a lot of the older viewers completely skip over new episodes and latch on to one of the many new adult cartoons which owe everything to the yellow-skinned family — most notably Family Guy. The pop-culture powerhouse A new hope came the summer of 2007, in the form of the most anticipated cartoon movie of all time: The Simpsons Movie. For all the criticism that has bombarded The Simpsons for the last decade, The Simpsons Movie proved that the family still has what it takes. Taking shots at the war on terror, global warming, and its own audience (to name a few), the movie raked in $526 million as of January 2008. Created by a slew of the series’ original staff (including Groening and Brooks, as well as original director David Silverman), the movie single-handedly revitalized the franchise. Although fans and critics predicted that the movie would be as much of a dud as the show has been in recent years, it proved them wrong and breathed life into the dying franchise, garnering generally favourable reviews and offering a glimmer of hope to the loyal fan base. It appears as though The Simpsons hasn’t lost it — not completely, anyway. Strangelove claimed that, “There’s not much reason to watch [The Simpsons ] any more. . . . Now it is little more than a marketing vehicle for selling toxic crap made in China to kids. Toxic pop culture fills our landfills while we all stand around like Bart Simpson and say, ‘I didn’t do it.’ ” In an April 2006 interview with the A.V. Club, Groening thought otherwise: “I honestly don’t see any end in sight. I think it’s possible that the show will become too financially cumbersome . . . but right now, the show is creatively, I think, as good or better than it’s ever been. The animation is incredibly detailed and imaginative, and the stories do things that we haven’t done before. So creatively, there’s no reason to quit.” A possible re-ascension The juggernaut that is (not was) The Simpsons has been lambasted by critics and fans alike, and yet there is not a dent worth mentioning in the show’s reputation as an icon. I say this with a bit of hope but also with a bit of confidence. Why? Because even after their apparent downfall from pop-culture relevance, the creators came back and made a movie that showed that they still had potential and could tap into the series’ past-day glory, raking in over $500 million in the process. My hope and confidence is based on the fact that this once-great institution has the ability to pull itself together as seen in the latest crop of increasingly hilarious episodes, and in a movie that successfully used golden-era “Simpsons-esque” satirical tactics of social and political commentary on present-day issues. The show has far too much clout to not be taken seriously. The Simpsons still manages to maintain a large viewership and attract new fans — while the first season enjoyed an average of 13.4 million viewers per episode in the United States, the 17th season ended with an average of 9.2 million viewers. It isn’t even a third of American Idol’s average of just over 30 million, but the numbers are healthy — often matching those of hit shows like House and Prison Break. And as long as ratings are hovering around a solid number, FOX will likely keep renewing the show for additional seasons. If that’s the case, here’s hoping that if The Simpsons is on for a long time to come, that the series finds its voice again. “‘To start, press any key.’ Where’s the ‘any’ key? I see ‘esc,’ ‘catarl,’ and ‘pig up.’ There doesn’t seem to be any ‘any’ key. Whoa! All this computer hacking is making me thirsty. I think I’ll order a ‘tab’. ” Yeah, that’s the voice.


Terms of Use RSS Feeds © Copyright 2008 The Manitoban Newspaper Publications Corporation