mahna mahna .net

Like many personal blogs of its era, this blog is moribund, a casualty of what we might call "the Facebook effect." However, as of late 2015, two things are clear: (1) The Indie Web is a thing, and (2) the re-decentralization of the web is a thing. So who knows? 2016 2017 (!) could be the year this blog rises from its own ashes. Stay tuned!

Tuesday, 20 May 2003
We all worry about the folks who create The Simpsons running out of ideas. (Well, those of us who do not believe that’s already happened worry about it.) If truth be told, the series is just not as consistently funny as it used to be. How much longer can it possibly go on?

Last night as I was watching the show, a solution struck me. What if all the characters changed? I mean, what if they shook up the show with some season-ender that just changed everything, and then picked up from there the following season, and stuck with the changes? It would be sort of like that trick they pulled on you in the original Legend of Zelda, where, at game’s end, you were suddenly told there was a second quest to fulfill. And in that second quest, all the locations were the same, and yet different; all the characters were the same, and yet different.

Imagine: Springfield outlaws nuclear power, doing away with Homer’s job and reducing Mr. Burns to a beggar. Mayor Quimby is impeached and removed from office. Moe finally comes out of the closet and declares his love for Smithers; they open a bed and breakfast while Barney takes over Moe’s tavern. The Simpsons win the lottery and move into Mr. Burns’s mansion. Maggie (but no one else) suddenly ages a few years and is no longer completely dependent on Marge, who celebrates her freedom by running for mayor. You get the idea. Now it’s your turn: What happens to Flanders? Grandpa? The Old Sea Captain? Perhaps some characters become more important than before, while others fade into obscurity (I nominate Reverend Lovejoy). Mightn’t all this get us ten years of fresh scripts?

Alas, history shows this approach isn’t a guaranteed creative jackpot: Recall the directionless second season of Twin Peaks, in which they changed most of the show’s characters drastically but couldn’t very well figure out what to do with them. Still, wouldn’t bizarro Simpsons someday be better than no Simpsons?
posted to /misc at 8:20am :: 3 responses



Bart had this to say (05/20/2003 11:25:55):
I like the idea, I don`t know if it's to do, but I like it anyway. Have you tried contact Mat already?
Edna Crabapple had this to say (05/20/2003 12:08:23):
Typical. That boy never proofreads.
John had this to say (06/09/2003 14:15:41):
Problem with the concept. I mean, I like your ideas, it changes the characters but keeps them... But haven't they been doing that with Superman with a ton of uproar? (for those who haven't read about the latest script for the next superman movie -- they want to make it so Krypton was never destroyed and some other things. And for those who don't know comic books - they changed Superman to a pure energy a few years ago, screwing up his powers but keeping them all the same)

I don't know, maybe it's the traditionalist in me trying to let thoughts be known about this... But then again, change is good and sometimes improves the product (look at "Cheere" after Diane left)...

Your thoughts?

name:
url / email: (optional)
thoughts:
remember me next time
/blog (467)
/art (36)
/books (6)
/cinema (13)
/music (13)
/life (97)
/bayarea (25)
/misc (120)
/items (21)
/news (82)
/site (21)
/tech (42)
/wisdom (9)
Blosxom
Creative Commons
Atom
2010 (6)
2009 (10)
2008 (11)
2007 (30)
2006 (64)
2005 (58)
2004 (95)
2003 (193)
my Amazon wish list

© 2016 Matthew Newton, published under a Creative Commons License.