Could 'The Simpsons' Have Remained Relatively Fresh and Relevant?

Regular readers might remember that that a few of my previous posts have referenced a long-lived TV cartoon show known as ‘The Simpsons’. While this focus on a specific TV show might seem borderline obsessive, most people below a certain age fail to grasp how revolutionary it was when it debuted in the early 1990s. Prior to that show, almost every single TV show was full of stereotypically idealized people (parents, children, siblings, cops, doctors, teachers etc) and any deviation from this highly artificial norm was only presented for contrast. Even shows with supposedly ‘normal’ or flawed characters were just idealized characters pretending to be normal or flawed. And I am aware that there were a handful of exceptions to this rule such as ‘Married with Children’- which preceded ‘The Simpsons’ by a couple of years on the same TV network. My point is that this show paved the way for a lot of what people today see as normal and standard in such shows today.

One of the most popular explanations for the decline of this show, from its average ratings to viewership numbers, focuses on its age. According to this explanation, it is hard to keep a show “fresh”, “interesting” and “engaging” after over thirty seasons. A similar explanation lays the blame at running out of material because they of being on the air for a very long time. While both explanations seem likely at first sight, a more detailed analysis of their logic exposes their deficiencies. As some will remember, the first 9-12 seasons of that show has consistently high quality. In other words, they had no problem maintaining quality and popular appeal for over a decade- which is much longer than the average successful TV show. The second explanation seems more plausible, as TV shows can certainly run of material, but ‘The Simpsons’ unlike most other TV shows had a rich and fleshed-out cast of well-written, complex and engaging secondary characters to provide such material.

Which brings us the third popular explanation- which has some merit, but not in the way it is usually presented. It is well know that a lot of issues with that show started when almost all original writers departed by the 9th or 10th season. The new crop of writers who replaced them, while talented, did not have the same dedication to the spirit of that show and its lore as their predecessors. Consequently, they took far fewer risks, did not care about fidelity to the original show lore, were subservient to network executives, preferred to autopilot the show etc. While these are perfectly valid criticisms and had a role in the slow decline of that show, they do not touch on what are probably the most important and systemic reasons for its sad decline. Before going further, I should point out that a couple of the points made in the rest of this post have been mentioned on a couple of YouTube videos on this topic.

1] One of the most unique and engaging feature of episodes from the golden age of this show was that it tried hard to not reduce its characters (even minor secondary ones) to simple caricatures. The main characters were shown as basically normal people, albeit with their own flaws. Similarly, even supposedly good characters such as Marge and Lisa were often shown as less than perfect and all-knowing, in addition to having less than admirable ulterior motives. Secondary characters were similarly well-written. The owner of the dive bar, Moe Szyslak, was shown in a negative light as well as a sad and lonely man. The ultra-religious neighbor, Ned Flanders, was religiously fervent as well as an otherwise decent person. The Convenience store owner, Apu, was shown as being a bit dishonest but as an otherwise decent human being. Even the mafia don character was not a one-dimensional caricature. The writing and show lore was so good that even secondary characters felt realistic and engaging to levels uncommon in even popular TV shows.

One of the most consequential changes from the golden era to everything which followed was that every character ended up becoming a very blunt, highly predictable and one-dimensional caricature of what they once had been. While this is especially obvious for the main and important secondary characters, the rot was more widespread. Complex and nuanced characters became simplistic caricatures who spouted a few famous catchphrases, acted in stereotyped ways and generally stopped displaying any ability to introspect. The plots of the shows became increasingly outrageous and ridiculous, not unlike what can be seen with the plague of superhero movies over the past decade. All those guest appearances by celebrities did not help either. The show went from what was arguably the best adult cartoon show to an empty carnival spectacle with lots of flash but no substance.

2] Let us now talk about its increasing and unpleasant political bias- which like most of Hollywood and entertainment industry has gone to what can be best described as the extreme ‘woke’ California liberal. For the first 10-11 years after it started airing on December 17th, 1989- the show was an almost equal opportunity offender. Sure, it made more jokes about Republicans and conservatives- but not by that much. Also, many of the cultural positions which the right, especially evangelical Christians, got themselves into in the 80s and 90s deserved to be mocked. However, that show was not afraid of poking fun at liberals and Democrats. Let me remind readers that the long-time corrupt and womanizing mayor of Springfield, mayor Quimby, is an obvious caricature of Ted Kennedy and is hinted as belonging to the Democratic party. The show had also no problem pointing out that there isn’t much real difference between the Democratic and Republican party in one of their most famous classic Halloween episode (Treehouse of Horror VII “Citizen Kang”).

We can also talk about how the wife of Reverend Lovejoy was partially modelled on Tipper Gore (ex-wife of Al Gore) and there are many more examples of them poking fun of liberals and Democrats in the first 10-12 seasons. My point is that episodes of that show from its golden age had no problem mocking politicians and secondary characters of all ideologies and party affiliations. However that changed over the years to the point that every newer episode of that show I had the misfortune of accidently viewing felt like it was written by a very specific type of preachy, humorless and self-righteous liberal. While this unfortunate change can be also seen in many areas of mainstream entertainment, it is especially obvious in shows which were far more even-handed in the past. This trend has two major negative effects on the quality of the product- firstly, it restricted the range of topics and issues which are safe to mock. But more importantly, the general audience does not like preachy, self-righteous and conceited people lecturing them about anything.

3] We cannot also forget that ‘The Simpsons’ did not seriously and properly develop secondary characters past the first 9-10 seasons. The lack of development for these characters and their story arcs matter since because once it became obvious that the show was going to keep airing past the first 7-10 years, they should have realized that such characters (of which they were many) would be necessary. Some readers might protest that the show did try to develop characters such as Moe Szyslak, Principal Skinner, Edna Crabapple, Ned Flanders etc. However these later attempts were half-hearted, at best, and the writing quality was very safe and generic by this time. As you might remember, the initial success and golden era of that show had a lot to do with taking risks, great writing, paying attention to the underlying show mythos etc. A somewhat related topic is how that show did a pretty poor job of addressing socio-economic changes which occurred after the early 2000s.

As some might remember, one of the defining characteristics of the golden era of that show was how well it addressed issues facing average people at that time- from poorly run schools, how large and small corporations screwed people, how many institutions had become hollow shells of their former selves and generally how things had started to do down. More relevantly, the handling of these issues and the quality of satire was top notch. If you think otherwise, let me remind you that the golden era of Simpsons, among other things, actively portrayed local politicians working with the mafia, large corporations dumping radioactive waste into local rivers and lakes, convenience store owners as resourceful but dishonest, doctors and hospitals as greedy, school teachers as people who could not find a better job and much more. This changed a lot after the early 2000s when the show went on safe auto-pilot and became more about empty caricatures, zany antics, requisite buzz words and one liners, celebrity appearances and other stuff that could no longer hold its previous audience or cultural relevance.

I should also add that advancing the chronological age of the children by a year every 2-3 years once the show had gone past its 10-year mark might have also helped. This along with serious character arcs for secondary characters and carefully written and fleshed out new secondary characters could have kept the show relevant well into the 2010s. But that was too much work and too ‘unsafe’ for corporate managers and bean-counters. So we are now left with the empty shell of what was once a great and pathbreaking show which could have been even an even more culturally influential and relevant show- just like almost every single American corporation.

What do you think? Comments?