Disputes over salaries for the actors (with Fox wanting to cut their per episode salary from $400,000 to $250,000 per episode) nearly resulted in the series being axed by Fox.
Candidly, I wasn’t concerned about the fates of the actors. All I could think was that the writers who have kept the series alive for 23 years and put the words into the actors’ mouths get a hëll of a lot less than that, and it would have sucked to see the writers out of work because the actors couldn’t make ends meet on a quarter mill per show. My guess is that even with a pay cut, they make more per single episode than the writers make for entire seasons.
PAD
• 
But the voice acting has improved over the course of the series, while the quality of writing has been tumbling downhill at an ever-increasing rate. I could also cite seniority, as I doubt any of the current writers have been affiliated with the show for as long as the actors have.
I think the phrase, “Sez you,” comes to mind. I think it’s amazing that the writers have managed to keep the series fresh and alive for over two decades. That’s astounding, and to just dismiss that out of hand…
.
I mean, honestly, the attitude of that: The notion that people keep tuning in for twenty three years purely because of the voice actors. There is a metric ton of cancelled TV shows that had top flight talent on the screen and writers who simply didn’t get it done. If it’s not on the page, it’s not on the stage, and in this case, if it weren’t on the stage, it wouldn’t have been running this long.
.
PAD
In fairness, if the producers had replaced the voice talent there would be a MASSIVE fan outcry — but if the producers only replaced the writers it wouldn’t have gotten a paragraph online. It’s like that famous quote (though not so famous I can remember who said it; and I may be paraphrasing): “No movie ever halted production because a writer refused to come out of his trailer.”
As for THE SIMPSONS itself, it’s a mixed bag. At times they really seem to be stretching themselves for plots (Superintendent Chalmers gets fired! Selma marries Fat Tony!), but given how many shows start repeating themselves after 2 or 3 seasons, to be continuing for 23 years is quite a feat. And the longer it’s on, the more we can all say…
SIMPSONS DID IT!
It’s been quite a while since I last heard the Simpsons referred to as “fresh.” I haven’t read a positive review or even heard a positive comment about a new episode (excluding Treehouses of Horror, and even those have fallen off) in a very long time. The show had incredibly gifted writers at one time, but it’s been coasting for maybe ten seasons. I still laugh once or twice per episode, but that’s not a very good batting average, given how many jokes they cram into each one.
I don’t think anybody is “dismissing” the writers. The pay disparity between the actors and the writers is not something I look at as unfair. Everybody is being paid what their worth according to the bottom line. If Nancy Cartwright or Dan Castellaneta left the show, that’s it,the show is going away… it may take a season or so to happen, but longtime Simpson fans just aren’t going to stand for it. You lose a writer and it’s comparatively not as big a deal. The show will still survive and may even ascend higher as new and better writers are found.
I think you are equating inertia with quality, Peter.
I used to be one of those people who likes to talk about how the Simpsons wasn’t as good as it used to be. I did that until I noticed people saying, “It’s not as good as it was 6 years ago,” and I realized that 6 years ago, the time they thought of as the golden age, was the same time that I started complaining.
.
So I looked back at the the old shows and realized that I shouldn’t complain about how Homer has gotten dumber every year, because many of the things I laughed at in the early years were just as dumb as what he’s doing now. That’s how it is with most of the stuff I’d complained about, it wasn’t that the show had changed, it’s just that I’d already seen the Simpsons. The only way to fix that is for the Simpsons to change into an entirely different show, which wouldn’t have made anyone happy.
.
After that I started enjoying the show again. I take it for what it is, instead of blaming it for not giving me the same reaction I had when I first saw it. If the writing isn’t the best it has ever been, it’s still really good. Sure, it has it’s ups and down, but the only real problem is familiarity.
.
That’s not a fault of the writers, that’s just the way life is.
Agreed. I havn’t really felt compelled to watch the show in at least a decade.
And, not to be unkind to writers in general – but it’s a staff which has changed up a great deal over the years. The actors have always been those characters. You can keep the show going with different writers. Different actors makes for an entirely different scenario.
It’s animation. They could, quite frankly, find suitable voice actors to nail these characters on any college campus, and find great voice actors at any agency in LA.
With *great* writing, the season after they did this would have higher ratings, if only because I’d start watching again.
Sure, they could find replacements, but they’d lose a ton of their audience.
.
Comedy Central threatened to do the same thing with Futurama, and the uproar was enough to help convince CC to back down.
“t’s animation. They could, quite frankly, find suitable voice actors to nail these characters on any college campus, and find great voice actors at any agency in LA.”
Considering the sheer number of characters that Dan Castellaneta, Hank Azaria, and Harry Shearer provide voices for, they’d probably need to find A LOT of people to replace them.
But yeah, I concur with what other people have been saying here: the writing for the show has been mediocre to awful for a while (I’d say for about the last dozen seasons).
They couldn’t remotely come close to finding replacements, Matthew.
.
Sure, we’ve all met guys who can do a pretty good job of repeating the lines we’ve all heard before in exactly the way the original actors said them. Parroting and acting are not the same thing. There have been Bugs Bunny cartoons since Mel Blanks, but they’re not as good. The emotions aren’t the same even when the voice is nailed. Plus, it takes a whole team of people to replicate the voices that Mel Blanks did. I’d say the Simpsons would be even harder, since the actors put a lot of themselves into the characters.
.
Plus, these actors are much more well known to the fans than the average voice actors. The fans just wouldn’t accept faux Simpsons.
The show’s started to wear a bit thin for me; out of the times I tuned in I’ve caught a few stray episodes that had similar plots to older episodes, they just changed the characters involved. But I think the biggest thing that’s been bugging my “suspension” is: How many times can the kids go on Summer vacation and still not advance a grade? I know, I know, it’s a cartoon, even live sitcoms “reset” after every episode, they’re interchangeable… I think I’m just getting sitcom burnout after watching them waaay back at the beginning. I’ll still watch the always-entertaining Halloween episodes, and if they can keep the show going, more power to them.
.
(And Willy will always be awesome)
In fairness, cartoon characters not aging is pretty much a staple of cartoons. This is true from THE SIMPSONS (how old can Maggie get without speaking — or growing?) to FAMILY GUY (in one episode Stewart’s (Stewie’s evil adversary) sperm was used for insemination, Stewart was born, and he grew to Stewie’s size — all while Stewie remained the same) to SCOOBY DOO (is the same dog from the ’70s the one who’s still alive today?) This is one area where the willing suspension of disbelief for cartoons is a given.
I just don’t find the show enjoyable anymore. I still watch it, but for me it’s like a loveless marriage where neither party cares gor the other and refuse to get divorced. I keep hoping to laugh each Sunday but normally have to wait for bobs burgers or family guy for a laugh. I wish Simpsons would rake a huge gamble and age the characters 5 years and see what new stories that might produce
The TAG Blog wrote a similar post about the animation crew working on The Simpsons.
Everyone working on that show should be better-compensated. It’s a cash-cow for Fox, having generated billions, and the talent (writers, actors, and everyone else) should be compensated accordingly.
Hëll, had I known, I’d have offered to do all the voices of all the characters for $10k and episode. Granted, it would have sucked rocks and been quickly canceled, but hey, at least I’d have gotten my butt out of debt.
And that’s what I get for checking my grammar while on decongestants. $10k “an” episode.
I’m a long term fan of the show. And I’m a fan of all those involved including the voice cast, and I’ve defended their salaries which may seem high, but is much lower than what many performers on live action series make. Yes, the writers deserve to be well paid too, as does everyone who has contributed to the success of the show.
I think a lot of this was Fox blowing smoke again, by dragging contract negotiations into the public again. They’ve done it before with THE SIMPSONS and they did it back when FUTURAMA was being revived.
Still, I was vocal online about this subject for the past few days, and the main reason is that I don’t want to see this show end as the result of corporate greed. No matter what one might thing of the quality of the show now versus earlier seasons, I think as a multi-decade mainstay of American pop-culture, it should end when the people who make it decide to call it quits. I think they’ve earned that privilege.
My thoughts. Other opinions may vary.
01. The voice actors are not dependent on The Simpsons as their only potential source of income. But even at a reduced rate, each member of the primary cast is still making more money than say… Mel Blanc or Daws Butler at their peak.
02. I do have to agree that there have been some “hit or miss” episodes over the last couple of years. Writers come and go, so maybe it’s the continuity editor, or whatever you might call the position, that needs to be more stable. I hate to think that they (the producers and/or Fox) are intentionally dumbing down the show.
03. If the news had leaked out, that would have been one thing. But to go public from the start was definitely mismanagement of the situation on Fox’s part. Unless this was all part of some publicity stunt.
04. At some point, they will have to make a final decision about the series. Isn’t there some old adage about it better to go out on top?
05. If a series was going to last this long, why couldn’t it be Law and Order?
I know how The Simpson’s can get better scripts. Hire the comedy writers away from Fox and Friends. Every episode is comedy gold!
Writers? Actors? What are you people talking about? Don’t you know an animated series like “The Simpsons” just simply happens? If there were writers and actors, they’d’ve been eligible for Emmys, and you never hear anything there about such people where “The Simpsons” is concerned.
While it’s not hard to empathize with the fact that PAD feels a need to defend his fellow writers, the Simpsons has come to a point where, truth be told, it can be objectively said that the writing is bad. Compare current episodes to season 3-7, and the “it’s a matter of opinion” argument falls through.
Well, I’ve noticed that something I may have found funny 10, 15, or 20 years ago isn’t funny to me now. Does that mean that the writing back then sucked and I was too young and stupid to realize? Or does that mean it was funny then and my tastes have changed over the years?
I’ve come to the realization that I’m no longer the target audience for many shows, so I can’t judge if something is funny or not to the target audience of today. All I know is that if I like it, I’ll watch it. If not, then I don’t watch.
I agree, the writers are what keeps the show going. You could easily have people submit voices to prove they can sound like the existing characters do, and find hordes of people able to do the same thing for cheaper. And their voices aren’t deep with emotion, or having anything special about them, they are just rather plain. It the dialog that keeps people interested.
Let people who watch the show still, or who bought the DVDs, vote on which episodes they liked, find out who wrote them, and hire just those guys back again. Offer them enough money, and you have tons of it to spend, to make it happen.
So the argument is that, unlike every other TV series in the history of television, “The Simpsons” has survived for over two decades on the talents of the actors. And that my saying that’s not so is unsupportable opinion. Here’s a notion: maybe it’s nearly impossible for the same people to watch and enjoy a TV program on the same level for twenty three years because familiarity breeds contempt. But these writers have managed to keep the show fresh and alive for a new generation of viewers who don’t come into it with the baggage of twenty previous years of expectations and are able to enjoy the series as a consequence. How about showing a little gøddámņ respect for that achievement instead of dismissively contending that there’s not enough money in the world to reward the voice actors while the writers deserve šhìŧ.
.
This is really astounding to me. I mean, I get the notion that Hollywood has contempt for writers; I just didn’t think it would be on such vivid display here. Especially–ESPECIALLY–when the actors were looking to cash in on the merchandising for characters that THEY DIDN’T CREATE. They weren’t in the writer’s room year after bloody year conceiving the characters. Do the writers get a piece of the action for the characters they create? Aside from Matt Groening and perhaps some of the producers (and maybe not even them), I very much doubt it. So the designs of the characters don’t matter; the words put into the mouths of the characters don’t matter. Only the way they’re spoken.
.
The strange thing was, I wasn’t trying to diminish the contributions of the actors. I was just saying that the contributions of the writers shouldn’t be ignored, and that it would have been a shame if the writers had been out of a job because the actors decided that they weren’t paid enough at a quarter of a million per episode. And the basic response I get is that the writers are worthless. All that matters is the characters and the actors.
.
Nice to see the Hollywood mentality at work here.
.
Oh, and for the record, the line about no movie ever being shut down because the writer wouldn’t come out of his trailer? You probably read that here. That was me quoting something John Ordover said. Then again, what does that matter? We’re just writers.
.
PAD
Both the actors and the writers are worth whatever they can get for their labor. Writers come and go on that show. The actors have been there for two decades. I don’t see longtime fans accepting some other guy’s voice as Homer. They’ll accept an episode written by someone as long as it’s funny… but if you mess with what their senses tell them, that’s gonna have a much greater effect. That’s just the way it is. People don’t tune into the show because of who writes it. They tune in because they love Homer… not just what he does and says but how he sounds when he says it.
I think that Mark Evanier put it best here:
.
http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2011_10_09.html#021402
.
The writers wouldn’t have been out of a job because of the decisions of the actors.
.
“I could even try to spin the story so it’ll say that if you won’t give up part of your slice, the pie will cease to exist and the bakers will all go unemployed and their children will starve and that’ll be all your fault.”
.
I think that your post putting it on the actors is unhelpful. Point out that the writers are getting screwed, no problem. I think the writers deserve a lot more (John Swartzwelder is one of the best in my opinion.) But your post made it into an actors vs. writers issues, which I don’t think helped. Point out that it is executives vs everyone else, that the writers and actors are far more important to running the show that those who are paid much more, and I’ll agree.
But your post made it into an actors vs. writers issues, which I don’t think helped.
.
No, the subsequent posts by others turned it into actors vs. writers. “The actors are great! The writers suck! The acting has only improved! The writing has only deteriorated.” All I said was that it was a shame that the fates of so many people, whose contributions are so vital, rested in the hands of a few people who were making way more than any of them were. It was other people on this board who decided to make it an argument over perceived merits.
.
PAD
The problem is that most people, the average joes, are ever only familiar with actors. I am a serious film fan and always interested in the behind-the-scenes creative people, but most of my friends don’t even care to know who the director is.
Um, no. Peter, YOU made it about actors vs writers when you wrote “All I could think was that the writers who have kept the series alive for 23 years and put the words into the actors’ mouths get a hëll of a lot less than that, and it would have sucked to see the writers out of work because the actors couldn’t make ends meet on a quarter mill per show.” The implicit here is that you think the work of the writers is at least equal in worth to that of the actors. That’s wrong-headed thinking. You also impugned the actors’ motivations for wanting a better deal, which is just pettiness showing through. You have no idea what the financial goals of the actors are and to sum up that motivation as “they can’t figure out how to make ends meet on a quarter mil per show” is demonstrative of that. Maybe they don’t just want to “make ends meet.” Some of these actors support non-profit organizations that you might find beneficial to our society… some of them, Julie Kavner in particular, lead very private lives so nobody knows what she does with her private wealth. And, quite frankly, it’s none of your business or mine. You think about the writers because you’re a writer and that’s the extent of your depth here.
I don’t think it’s survived on the talents of the actors OR the writers, but on merchandising and just the simple fact that it’s The Simpsons. I’ve never heard anyone say, “Wow, the writing is still really good.” What I have heard, more than anything else, is, “I just watch it because I’m used to it.”
Agreed. It has survived because of the popularity of the property.
The most experienced writer in the Simpsons has written 59 of the 400+ shows there have been; second place has 23. So there’s hardly one group of writers who have worked thru all these years developing the characters. The writing team has always had a lot of coming and going. Truth is nowadays, anyone can get to write a Simpsons episode (Rogen, Castellanetas, Gervais). Of course, that shows the producers have little respect for the writers, but also proves the franchise is the selling point, not the subpar writing.
“Here’s a notion: maybe it’s nearly impossible for the same people to watch and enjoy a TV program on the same level for twenty three years because familiarity breeds contempt.”
Bingo.
I stopped watching the Simpsons about 10 years ago myself, though at the time I recognized my attitude for it being exactly what PAD said. I had watched so much of it, I’d had my fill.
I still catch maybe 2 or 3 episodes a year, but overall, I don’t really ever go out of my way to watch them and spend the time doing something else.
Bleeding Cool just posted an article about how a freelancer was paid the the WGA minimum for his script
I’d like to think that the minimum was because it was a spec and he’s not on staff, but who knows.
Ongoing animated series (or any series, really) rarely, if ever, buy spec scripts. I don’t know how it works on “The Simpsons,” but either the show runner gave the writer a springboard, or else the writer was invited to come in and pitch and developed, in conjunction with the show runner, an episode which he then wrote.
.
I’ve written four episodes of “Young Justice.” There’s a standard rate that I get paid. Guys like Greg and Brandon presumably get paid much more; on the other hand, they do a gargantuan amount of work: developing the overview, writing the bible, coming up with the springboards and basic plot concepts, sometimes writing scripts, supervising the writing of all the scripts, plus meetings, meetings, meetings.
.
And I’ll bet they ain’t getting a quarter mill an episode. More to the point, I suspect the people doing their jobs over at “The Simpsons” aren’t either. If I’m wrong about that, then fantastic.
.
I guess what it comes down to is: no one (except executives) can diminish the contributions of the voice actors. But boy, they’re quick on the trigger to throw the writers under the bus.
.
PAD
.
When the news of this was first breaking, I really wasn’t sure that I could see a side I really sympathized with. On the one hand, you have a company making boatloads of cash and asking actors to take a pay cut. One the other hand, you have voice actors crying because they just won’t be able to make ends meet any more on a paltry quarter million dollars an episode.
.
But what I’m seeing here and in some other places is kind of hilarious. Tons of comments that discuss how the voice actors are better than ever and are what make the show work. In places (such as here) where the issue has been brought up, tons of posts essentially saying the the writers don’t really matter that much or at least don’t matter as much as the voice actors have insofar as the shows long term and continued success.
.
And yet, many of the same people saying that the voice actors are better than ever and the the writers don’t really matter that much are the same people saying that the show isn’t really that fresh anymore, the show isn’t as good or funny as it once was and that they barely watch anymore (if at all) because the writing just isn’t as good as it used to be.
.
So, just to break that down…
.
People say that the voice actors got better over time.
People say that the writing got stale and less funny over time.
People say that the writers aren’t worth anywhere near the actors and that the actors were the key to the show’s success.
The same people who said all of the above say that they do not watch much or at all any more because the writing has gone downhill.
.
Logic much?
Jerry,
Exactly, Jerry! Exactly!People are so quick to dismiss the contributions of writers.
.
You know, when this thread first started,
I was actually inclined to support the voice actors. I remember how, during Kermit the Frog’s first appearance after the death of Jim Henson, the “new Kermit” uttered his first words.
.
Everyone in the household looked at each other and voiced a sad conclusion: he didn’t sound the same.
.
So I was at first leaning toward giving the voice actors the benefit of the doubt.
.
I mean a Chris Meloni can leave a “Law and Order: SVU” and be replaced with another character; if Homer,Marge, Bart, Maggie and Lisa don’t sound like Homer, Bart, Marge, Maggie and Lisa then there’s a problem. The characters can’t be replaced and if they don’t sound right, then…
.
Except, upon further reflection, these “voice actors” have the least to do with their characters’ success and are the most easily replaceable on television.
.
They need to get their character’s voice right and emote into a microphone. That’s it. I’m sorry, but I’ve always thought such “skill” was overrated, eve in the case of superlative voice action, like Robin Williams in “Aladdin”.
.
Do voice actors, have to worry about body language, tearing up after slamming a phone down, staring a perp down, how their smile or scowl looks? Do they have to worry about actually running, driving or doing stunts?
Do they have to worry about the small, powerful use of their hands and expressions that have made actors from Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro to “L&O: SUV”‘s Meloni and incomparable Mariska Hargitay legendary?
.
The answer, of course, is no.
.
It is writing that kept “Law and Order” fresh after 20 seasons despite – or because of – an ever revolving cast. If voices could have been found to at least be similar to the current voice actors, think most people would shrug.
.
Heck, a creative writer could take a moment – or perhaps a whole episode explaining WHY everyone’s voice is different ad then it would never need be brought up again.
“They need to get their character’s voice right and emote into a microphone. That’s it. I’m sorry, but I’ve always thought such “skill” was overrated, eve in the case of superlative voice action, like Robin Williams in “Aladdin”.”
Well, Jerome, all I can say to that is that I’m guessing you’ve never tried it. There’s a dámņ sight more involved than just “getting their character’s voice right and emoting into a microphone,” especially if you’re doing a character voice (a voice other than your normal speaking voice)–which is what the vast majority of regular and recurring characters on The Simpsons are.
Dan Castellaneta doesn’t naturally sound like Homer or any of the other characters he voices. Most of the actors on the show are “multi-voice” actors. Being able to juggle multiple characters, even when you can record each one separately, isn’t easy. And when those characters recur, you have to be able to keep them recognizable over a broad emotional range, and at varying volume levels. Add to the fact that, on a show like The Simpsons, you’re eventually going to have to sing in that voice, and you’ve got a challenge in front of you.
Sure, you don’t have to hit your mark, or make specific gestures, or change your posture (although you’re gonna do the former automatically and sometimes the latter helps get the voice right), but if you think all that’s necessary is standing in front of a mike while you read from a script, you’re way off base.
And here’s something even more hilarious, for all those people who claim that the public wouldn’t stand for different voices.
.
There have already been substitutions.
.
Years ago, up in Canada, the cast came up for a “Simpsons Live” presentation. One of the things they did was read a script aloud. Guess who wasn’t there? Julie Kavner. Didn’t matter. One of the other cast members did a faultless impersonation of her, and they talked about how–when sometimes one or the other of them isn’t available for some reason, another of them subs in.
.
So you guys have actually heard people other than the voice actors voicing the characters. And you couldn’t tell the dámņëd difference.
.
PAD
Paul 1963,
I never said the voice actors weren’t talented. I said their contributions to their projects’ success was overrated.
.
Hugh Laurie leaves “House” or Mariska Hargitay leaves “Law and Order:SVU” and fans are going to instantly notice.
.
If one the “Simpsons” voice actors left, well, again, as long as the animators draw them the same and as long as they’re written well the average fan won’t notice or care and even if they do notice a slight change almost certainly won’t care as long as they’re written and drawn in new episodes that make them laugh.
Sure PAD, a few characters get swapped back and forth. Apparently the two actresses who do Itchy and Scratchy have trouble remembering which actress is supposed to do which.
.
That’s not the case with the most important characters. Nobody’s replacing Dan Castellaneta as Homer Simpson. They Might be able to replace a couple of the Hank Azaria characters with a single replacement actor, but Moe alone would be a pain to replace with both the appropriate voice and all the character that Hank has brought to the role over the years. Throw in the tons of other characters he does and there would be enough problems that people would notice problems.
As a writer myself, I can see Peter’s point, although I fail to see where in my previous post on this thread I wrote in favor of the voice actors. The only negative thing I said about the writing was that the series could probably use a better script editor/continuity person.
Regardless of who might be at fault, there are bound to be some “hit or miss” episodes of any long running series. That’s just the law of averages. The fact that The Simpsons has lasted as long as it has IS a milestone. Only the original Law and Order series and Gunsmoke have made a similar accomplishment. The western wisely decided to ride off into the sunset while it still could do so proudly since they basically stuck to the same cast and characters throughout the series, but I feel the other was cancelled long before its time.
Being animated, The Simpsons could literally go on forever with good writing and an audience willing to accept others taking over for the original voice cast when the time comes.
But whether or not they will remains to be seen.
Yet isn’t it interesting that a two year renewal will now put the series through the end of Season 25. If FOX has any plans to do so, I think that would be the milestone to retire on, which is part of why I still think this (FOX worrying about the budget) was all a big publicity stunt to begin with.
“Only the original Law and Order series and Gunsmoke have made a similar accomplishment.”
.
If you’re limiting yourself to U.S. prime-time TV, maybe. Otherwise, these shows get blown out of the water, longevity-wise by several soap operas. Guiding Light, to give one example, ran on TV from 1952-2009, and started on radio back in 1937. Others also began in the 50s or 60s, and are either still airing, or were only recently canceled.
.
Then, across the pond (as the saying goes) there’s Doctor Who, which initially ran for 26 years, 1963-1989. And there may well be even longer-running British shows.
.
And speaking of radio, The Lone Ranger ran from 1933-1955. Or to 1957, if you factor in the 1949-1957 TV series, too. The Jack Benny Show ran from 1932-1955. Or to 1965, if you factor in the 1950-1965 TV series. Amos and Andy ran from 1929-1955.
.
The Simpsons’ 23 seasons, Law and Order’s (original series) 20 seasons, and Gunsmoke’s 20 TV seasons don’t even come close to some of those others.
.
Rick
THE SIMPSONS is sort of like SNL in that there’s an “untouched golden age” and then a shifting, very subjective POV about when the show stopped being funny (people never seem able to just admit that their tastes might have changed — no the show sucks now objectively).
I can’t think of any show, though, that is more a testament of the talent of its writing staff than THE SIMPSONS. Few of your favorite shows are necessarily quotable. And even fewer have lines that enter the cultural lexicon — “I for one welcome my ant overlords” or “Me fail English? That’s unpossible” for starters. I think people can list countless others.
However, I do think Dan Castellaneta deserves an honorary Emmy (perhaps coinciding with the show’s final season) for his work as Homer Simpson. He has created a cultural icon. And much of it, in my opinion, comes from his performance.
I wonder if the same is true of comics? Most fans love their first 10 years of reading superhero comics, and are lukewarm or hostile to whatever comes later.
.
People feel like the magic is gone and whoever is in charge of the characters is ruining them, but maybe the magic is gone simply because you now know too much about the ins and outs of superhero comics to simply enjoy them.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that increasingly older comic readers are the ones who whine that “they’ve read it all before”. Sometimes to the point of obnoxiousness.
.
I admit at times I get tired or reading Batman vs. The Joker and daredevil vs. Bullseye, for example. Even so, these complaints are easily rectified if these confrontations are written in a new way.
.
Even when they are, we seem to forget that new readers – and yes, they exist – somewhere will be reading these confrontations for the first time. For those who feel superhero comics are “same old, same old” well maybe they’ve been reading stories about guys and gals in colorful costumes punching each other for too long.
.
John Byrne had a brilliant take on this once. During his run on “Fantastic Four” he had Doctor Doom (actually Kristoff but I digress) try to kill the quartet by launching the Baxter Building into outer space. This was a similar trick to what he did in one of the first ten Lee/Kirby issues. But his reasoning, which you think more villains would adopt, is: 1.) This almost killed them before 2.) It took extraordinary circumstances and luck unlikely to be duplicated to enable them to survive 3.) Why think up something new when we can just try this again?
Yeah, I’ve noticed that increasingly older comic readers are the ones who whine that “they’ve read it all before”. Sometimes to the point of obnoxiousness.
.
Yeah, and here’s the thing: back when I was a kid getting into reading comics, the only people I had to influence my opinions on it was other kids. The Internet didn’t exist. I find myself wondering about youngsters now, exploring comic boards on the Internet and finding it rife with older readers who bìŧçh endlessly about how crappy the comics are. I wonder how many kids have had their blossoming interest in the genre crushed beneath the weight of adult cynicism.
.
PAD
PAD,
Great question. I believe the number is higher than we’d like to think.
.
My girlfriend’s son had never read comics. I took him to his first trip to a comic store. He took a liking to them. He recently broke his arm so I saw they were selling 2 for $1.00 books polybagged. These included much-derided ’80s books and New Universe books which had more talent than older “experts” seem to remember.
.
His response? They are really old but I like them! And trust me, this is a kid who would have no problem telling me if he thought they were lame or worse.
.
A young comic reader enjoying comics because he thought they were fun and a good read. Imagine that.
I recently sent my 12-year-old cousin the six-issue mini-series Supergirl: Cosmic Adventures in the 8th Grade for her birthday. Yesterday, I got a thank-you card from her. She loved them. A lot. I’ve no idea to what degree she’s interested in comics, overall, so it was a bit of a gamble sending them to her. But given that she said “they are amazing” in her note, it looks like I made the right choice.
.
Will she become a long-time comics reader? Will my 9-year-old nephew, for whom I recently got a slew of Free Comic Book Day comics and titles from the 50 cent bin? Only time (and prices, and how they compare with other forms of entertainment, quality-wise) will tell. For now, at least, both are enjoying what they’ve received.
.
By an interesting coincidence, just a few days after I’d decided to buy Supergirl: Cosmic Adventures in the 8th Grade for my cousin, a copy of Comics Buyer’s Guide arrived in my mailbox. The cover story? “Comics are for kids again.”
.
Jerome Maida, I’m a Batman fan, but I haven’t read any of the Bat books in years. So I’ve no idea how often the Joker’s been showing up, lately. I think, in general terms, there’s a danger of his being over-used. I get that he’s a popular character; and if sales of the Bat books increase when Joker’s on the cover, of course DC’s going to want to use him a lot. The problem, as I see it, is two-fold. At least. First, a lot of comics today try to project some degree of verisimilitude. Yes, you have people with super powers, but they live and work in the more-or-less real world. Long gone are the days when you’d have stories like the one where the anthropomorphic planet Earth battled Captain Marvel. So, the Joker showing up again and again and again undercuts that verisimilitude. It makes Batman, Gordon, the police, the people at Arkham and the overall justice system all look incompetent.
.
The second part of the problem is the issue of whether comics are intended to tell ongoing stories for long-time readers, or whether the expectation (as it once was) is that there’s a reader turn-over every few years. I think there’s room enough for both kinds of comics; but when you have something like Batman Vs. the Joker, there’s a bit of a quandary. Batman has a very broad appeal. So, does DC publish stories for an audience that’s expected to turn over every few years (with the result that Batman/Joker confrontations seem fresh, not “same old, same old”); or does it publish stories for a long-term readership, in which characters change and grow, and the status is no longer quo? In short, a comics series that’s more like a novel, movie, or serialized TV series?
.
Or does it do both? What if DC published a Batman book (or books) with Bruce Wayne, Ðìçk Grayson, Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, etc., aimed at a readership that turned over every few years; and a book (or books) aimed at long-term readers, which has Ðìçk replaced by Jason replaced by Tim, and other permanent changes; and which, eventually has an ending? Could that work? Would comics readers (and the general public) ever get used to two-tiered Batman stories? On one tier, he’s eternally 25-35 (or whatever his age is supposed to be); on the other, he ages in more-or-less real time and eventually dies.
.
Maybe, every 10 or 20 or 30 years or so, the long-running Batman story or stories are re-set at the beginning for a new generation of readers. The way there’s a new movie version of Hamlet every now and again. I was looking at DVDs at the library yesterday, and saw the Kenneth Branagh Hamlet on the shelf next to the David Tennent version. Same core story, but each production took a slightly different approach. Maybe one long-running story involving Batman concludes with a situation like that in Batman Beyond, while a subsequent version concludes with a Dark Knight-type of ending.
.
These hypothetical two-tier scenarios could apply to any character and company, of course. I’m just using DC and Batman as an example.
.
Maybe, as far as superhero comics are concerned, a two-tiered system would work best. A kid reads Batman for a few years, because it has exciting adventures and it’s fun trying to figure out the clues and solve the crimes as he reads. A few years later, he starts reading the second tier bat-book(s), which offer greater depth and even more psychological complexity among the characters. Later, his kids read the first-tier book(s), and by the time they get to the second tier, DC is publishing a new version of those ongoing adventures, updated slightly for that new generation.
.
PAD, I suspect neither my cousin nor my nephew has ever had reason to visit a comics-related board on the Internet. If they do in the future, I’d like to think they wouldn’t be swayed by comments from strangers; that they’d read what they liked, or if they were influenced, it’d be by their friends and classmates. But then, I’ve no idea how many of their peers read comics.
.
Oh, and to tie this in with The Simpsons my nephew likes Simpsons-related comics. One title he picked up at a comic shop I took him to had a Watchmen parody. I doubt he’s even heard of Watchmen, so those references probably mean nothing to him; but maybe in a few years, he’ll look at it again and chuckle at the in-jokes.
.
One of my favorite scenes in Supergirl: Cosmic Adventures in the 8th Grade? Lena Luthor reversing the polarity of the neutron flow.
.
Rick
MSNBC.com has an article up about Seth MacFarlane and Family Guy, which touches base on a variety of things regarding the show (and the other MacFarlane-created shows), along with The Simpsons:
.
MacFarlane: ‘Family Guy’ should’ve already ended
Show creator says he secretly hopes fans will say, ‘We’re done with it’
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44880176/ns/today-entertainment/#.TpbcjnLXcwQ
What is really disturbing here is that our affection for the Simpsons has generated billions of dollars in profits for not just a capitalist parasite, but for one of the most despicable of capitalist parasites, Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch is not just evil, he is Montgomery Burns level of cartoon evil, and he and his company have made billions from the Simpsons, and stand to make billions more in the future, with or without this deal.
Liberal capitalism, what a system!