The Simpsons: Where did it all go Wrong?

Let's face it. Take The Simpsons at its peak and it was simply unbeatable. I hear a lot of shit these days regarding Family Guy, and how it is superior to the former. But without The Simpsons, I really don't think Family Guy would exist; for one, the Griffins do somewhat deliberately mirror their yellow cousins. For another, The Simpsons brought animation to primetime TV and re-established the idea that "it's OK for adults to like cartoons." And thus the foundations were laid for the likes of the aforementioned, Beavis and Butthead, King of the Hill, South Park, etc.

I felt it necessary to appreciate the show and what it has achieved before I go on to slate the state it is in now. Yes, the first 9 series were something comedy could be proud of. It observed the typical American family incredibly well, and created some very original and somewhat classic characters. And I think the reason it worked so well was because the humour was incredibly simple, yet very effective. I think the ultimate example of this would have to be an early episode from the first series: "There's No Disgrace Like Home," in which Homer observes at his company picnic that all the other families seem to uphold a much healthier dynamic than the Simpsons do - and thus attempts to go about fixing it by consulting a family therapist. It didn't try to be anything too clever, it just focused on jokes that could be universally appreciated and ensured they were delivered and timed effectively. A lot of people find the first series very hard work to watch now (the animation, characters and voices have evolved so much since then that it's difficult to take seriously), but I still enjoy it immensely. Of course, series 4 deserves the biggest round of applause for "Marge vs. the Monorail" alone.

It is a crying shame that its prime was so short-lived in retrospect to how long it's actually been going. I've touched on some message boards, and the opinion that it went downhill somewhere after series 9 (1998) seems to be upheld fairly unanimously. That's over 10 years of supposed declining quality. I have to admit that what I've seen of the later series is quite patchy. I watch it on Channel 4 from time-to-time, and I think they've caught up to somewhere around 2003/2004. Obviously, I saw the movie, and my other half has also recently enlisted my company in watching the latest episodes. However, I think what I've seen is enough to state that it leaves a lot to be desired. Take the most recent episode that actually had its premiere in the UK: "In the Name of Grandfather." The plotline of this episode was of the "Simpsons Go To..." category in the "we're really running out of ideas" saga. I can see why new locations would be an appealing prospect to the writers, but these episodes consist of nothing but done-to-death stereotypes and "look here's a famous landmark lol" jokes. I'd also rather watch Big Brother and listen to Katy Perry simultaneously than re-watch any of the other episodes from series 20, too.

But what was it about the show that changed? Did the same jokes become old? Did they run out of ideas? Was it simply not possible to keep up the good standard for more than a decade? I'm of the opinion that it is a mixture of the lot. Firstly, yes, the character-based jokes in particular have become somewhat tiring. Homer is bald, fat, and stupid - we get it. Marge is over-caring, under-appreciated, and nags a lot - we get it. Bart is stupid, rebellious and owns a skateboard - we get it. Lisa is ethical and intelligent - we get it. Maggie sucks a dummy... yes, we get it. And given the title of the show, there is some pressure for the plot to surround at least one of the five characters... 434 fucking times over. And yes, there are some decent and well-loved background characters, too, but unfortunately they've succumbed to the same fate.

Secondly, did they run out of ideas? Yes, every one of the new episodes I've watched seems to contain a plot somewhat similar to ones I've seen before. That, or the plot is completely inane and unbelievable, detracting from the fact that to some extent the show needs to reflect the realities of family life. Surely the more outrageous storylines could be saved for Futurama?

Was it simply not possible for the show to keep up to a good standard for 20 years? Given the restrictions the show placed upon itself, I'd say the declining quality was inevitable. Yes, they may have killed off Maude Flanders and Patty Bouvier did come out of the closet, but as a general rule nothing within The Simpsons may change for more than one episode. I admire the show for that mentality; however, it does not justify why they continue to make new episodes (and people continue to watch it). Incidentally, the fact that it is now in high definition does not count. Personally, I don't watch the show for high quality animation.

It really is tragic that The Simpsons has become its own worst enemy, but I do personally try to recall the great episodes when asked if I like the show or not. It clearly is important for any series to quit while it's ahead.