This is a topic that I always knew would be a video someday. A Golden Age video is kinda mandatory for a Simpsons UA-cam review channel. But I put it off for a long time because I was intimidated by the topic. It's not really the kind of thing you can throw a bunch of research at or measure easily. And there has already been a lot of discourse about the topic, many popular UA-cam video essays about it. I wasn't interested in writing a manifesto declaring which seasons I think are "golden" and which aren't, so instead I framed this more about the question itself. It ended up being one of the more challenging videos to write, because there so few definitive answers. Hope you all enjoy my musings. (Also, on the video editing front, I hope you like VISUAL PUNS because there are a lot of those in here. Thank god for that Gold Homer joke in Dog of Death.) 🤣
One thing I never see defined is the show's "silver age" or "bronze age". Would the Scully years/early Jean years be the Silver Age? Would the Selman years be the Bronze Age?
If you ask anyone from Spain, they will tell you the Golden Age went from seasons 1 - 10. The original voice actors for Homer and Mr. Burns died right after Season 10, and the show was never the same for us. Those voices were too iconic.
I feel similarly about Phil Hartman. Despite not being part of the main cast, he had a certain "glue" quality to the makeup of the show. His final appearance was S10 and the show really started to decline after his final appearance.
@thrillhouse4151 While not as sad, the actress for Bart in the French dub left after Season 22, and while the new actress does a fine job, it's not quite the same (that voice was super iconic and the original actress even got to play Bart in that one South Park episode that had him). Similarly, Flanders' actor left after Season 10, and while his delivery is very different, it feels quite in tone with, well, his Flanderisation coming from Maude's death.
@@skakirask Phil Hartman was great with his 2 main stay characters and those random 1 off characters he would play. I sometimes find myself wondering what kind of different episodes we would've had if Lionel Hutz and Troy McClure still existed. Nevermind whatever random side characters he could've had. The monorail guy and bart's big brother are probably among my favorite one off characters in the show
The fact there is SO MANY seasons classed as a “golden era” is incredible especially considering most shows only have 1 single season listed as it’s golden era.
They should just make Homer 12 feet tall and covered in 14 karat gold permanently. Then when people ask when the golden age is, we can say right now and it will be the truth
I think there are several factors behind it. Part of the problem is that the writers change over time. So while they might think they're putting out their best work ever... that's because it's what they want to do now. It reflects different sensibilities and perspectives. I also think that they don't remember the old episodes very well. In the commentaries you frequently see them talking about how they haven't seen an episode since it first aired. It's not surprising then that they're far more disconnected from them than fans that have been rewatching.
This is a comparison I never thought of but makes sense when you word it like that. Obviously, the people making the show would be a little more reluctant to call much of their work bad. Not to say all of modern Simpsons IS bad, but you can clearly tell there was a quality drop at some point and most people agree. End of the day, the creators don't really call the shots: The golden age is whatever the viewer determines, both for themself personally and as a general consensus.
Next Mysteries question suggestion: What is the population of Springfield? How big is Springfield really? It has a lot of sport arenas, museum, and things like that but not the kind of bustling high-rises one might encounter in Capitol City. I'd love to hear your thoughts about! #TeamCletusSimpsonsHistories
It's like Jerry Seinfeld's fame level, it depends on the episode. If they want him to be a loser nobody, people don't know him, but if they want people to recognize him, he's a nation-wide famous and beloved comedian.
great idea - obviously this is very much the nature of the beast when writing about the population of a large town, but the size of Springfield always seems in pretty direct contrast to the amount you see known characters in crowd shots
I stand by that Homer Goes to College has the best culmination of a running gag. Homer’s one sided fight with the dean wraps up with my favorite joke: Sorry about that prank where I hit you with my car. Prank?
The movie is pretty mid tho I watched it twice within the last month and I only watched it a second time because it was so forgettable I forgot I had even watched it lmao
It genuinely shocked me to learn that people dislike season 1. It's finding its bearings but so many of the episodes are so heartfelt with great humour.
Not really surprising as the season, itself, is VERY different and feels "off" from all other seasons. I could see why it's not everyone's a cup of tea. Also it's not really funny compared too other seasons at all
For us in the Latin American fanbase of the Simpsons, it is generally considered that the Golden Age ended at season 14, since after that, Homer’s voice actor change. The og voice actor (Humberto Velez) made Homer sound hilarious and the way he said things. But the one from season 15 onward just made Homer sound whinny.
You mean S15 when the first run with the original cast ended, it was 16 that had all the recasts. I recall most latin fans being just as fond of S9-15 as 3-8 precisely because the cast still did a great job with these. Glad most of them eventually came back in S32.
Something similar happened in italy when we lost Tonino Accolla, the voice of homer. It just didnt feel the same anymore. Although accolla voiced homer until season 23, so its less the end of the golden age and more the end of an era.
Tbch I like the work of Victor Manuel Espinoza has Homer, but yeah I agree it was weird when he was trying to emulate Humerto's performance, it got better when he stopped doing that
It is really interesting to hear about how other language cast member changes can affect the show! Of course, as an English language only watcher I can see how it makes a difference, like how I do not consider the Golden Age of The Simpsons starting until Season 2 cuz in S1 Homer just sounded too...weird.
I'm also a 1-8 man and I like your point about "balance" when it comes to seasons 9 and 10. Also the term "Golden Age" can mean a mythical period in the past where everything was good, which really ties in with the idea of nostalgia. Season 1 gives me that feeling for how unique and unusual it is - watching it is like going back in time for me. Whereas later seasons I will rewatch solely for the jokes, I'll watch Season 1 for the vibes.
I’m getting into the Simpsons late and over the past few weeks I’ve been watching the “golden era” episodes. Cant say I personally like seasons 1-3 all that much. For me anyway, the show really hits its stride around 4. So far I’m at 8 and enjoying it quite a lot. Four years of just incredible TV
I think my only issue with the Rose Tinted Argument is I SHOULD be nostalgic for seasons 9 and 10. I grew up with them, and I liked them at the time. But I rewatch the series now and the drop off is both quick and prominent. The jokes are less layered or "screw the audience"-y, instead going back to on the nose gags that miss more. You also see bad habits take off, like an overreliance on positive celebrity cameos. These are tangible things to point to.
If the series could make fun of celebrity culture again, it would easily get rid of one iron weight on the series’ back. There’s more than enough people deserving of being riffed on including the influencers and their scummy practices. I mean that’s what South Park has been doing for years now.
I was only watching the episodes we had on tape, with some of them from season 3, but missing the seasons 4-8 almost entirely. My favorites were Trash of the titans and City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, but also Last exit to Springfield. When the show got to the season 13, I noticed the episodes not being as good as they have been, but the older episodes I have seen since are almost all so much better.
@@rayvenkman2087i disagree? Not that I'm a huge fan of the fawning over celebrity guest episodes a la Elon, Lisa Goes Gaga etc. but the Simpsons has never been South Park, and whenever it has tried to be South Park it has flopped. SP does not mind being mean-spirited and adolescent - it's kind of the point of the show, and its quick production cycle means it can very easily do ripped from the headlines plots.
@@cmbeadle2228 The SImpsons, yes, never made fun of celebrities the same way SP or FG did, if at all, they always had them and obviously the jokes were consented. Unlike FG which doesn't care what they think.
Counterpoint to the rose tinted glasses theory: The first seasons of the Simpsons that I watched were the late Scully-Early Al Jean seasons (11-15 or so). I watched them as syndication on the UK's 'Sky' network. I loved these episodes when I watched them and became a Simpsons fan (although by no means hardcore). Years later a friend of mine introduced me to the Golden Age seasons (1-8 as he presented them) and they blew me away. I had seen basically none of them before. Now I am a hardcore 1-8 Golden Age believer and I dislike the exact era of the show I should have nostalgia for. Nostalgia can be a powerful force, but it is not always the judgement poisoning thing people argue it always is.
Time will gild memories but the gold flakes off as soon as you go back to whatever it is that you remember - at least it does for me. I seem to have more resentment towards things i used to love than i ever would if i hadn't. Then again if people are speaking of episodes they have not seen in years the effect could be different.
The first seven/eight/maybe some of nine (IT DOESN’T matter exactly which seasons you put in that category) was perhaps the best television ever. I adored the Simpsons as a kid, and watching those early episodes as an adult is every bit as entertaining. When the Simpsons was new, those first “however” many seasons, stands up against any TV in history.
Yep same, I only just last year watched the first 8 seasons of the Simpsons for the first time; I have no “nostalgic” connection to them. Everything I’ve seen from the later years seems incredibly unfunny and forced in comparison. I think the writers just use the rose tinted glasses excuse as copium, like of course they aren’t going to say the show went downhill. It only still exists to keep the brand and merchandise alive, it would be bad business sense to admit the show is far beyond its prime. Hell, it would be bad business sense to say the show isn’t in its best seasons to date.
What I hear is: “I don’t need to strive to be better, I have stayed the same and your nostalgia has clouded your perception of how good I am” What a hack sentiment. The Steve Ditko example is wild, because those comics do hold up and are objectively better than any spiderman comic since, that is why it’s one of the only eras of spiderman that is continually reprinted. TLDR nostalgia is a weak defence against artistic failure. I would bet money you could find someone who has never seen the simpsons, make them watch all of it, and they would still roughly fall under the same golden age years consensus
To disagree with Matt and Al, I first watched the Simpsons in 2020 when I went to the Simpsons ride at Universal, and decided to give a random season a watch on the hotel TV. I just went to a random season, and that random season was S24, I loved it. I watched S23, 22, 21, and I loved them. After going home 1 week later, I finally watched S1-7, and I loved them even more. So, as you can see, I have no nostalgia for early Simpsons, since I didn’t watch it first, and I have an open mind for modern Simpsons, bc I watched them first, I had an open mind going into them. I am the opposite of what Matt and Al were talking about And yet i am, in fact, a firm believer of the Golden Age and understand that S1-9 are better than Seasons like, 13-29 by a lot So no, the golden age is real, and if I were Matt or another show runner, I would say: “Yes, while I, and the other members of the team, try to add new and exciting things to the show constantly, and try to top ourselves each time for the sake of enjoyment, we do recognize the show is long past its glory days. But it doesn’t matter, we just hope we can add some laughs to your day.” Instead of: “Erm, you guys are just reminiscing about the past, geezers! Like, open your miiiind man!”
Your fantastic intro sequence to Simpsons Mysteries contains screenshots exclusively from Seasons 1-9, plus one outlier from Season 13. That creative choice definitely reinforces the idea that this is the only era “worthy” of montage assembly, partly because you can guarantee that every viewer will recognise every single image.
Not necessarily. The choice to use Season 1-9 screenshots in his intro sequence doesn't mean that is the only era worthy of montages. There can be any number of confounding explanations. Here's a few: -1- Timing/Experience. His first Simpsons Mystery video was made in 2014. Likely when he was far less experienced with the Simpsons and UA-cam. If you were starting out making videos, wouldn't you try learning on what you were more familiar with? In his case, if he was more experienced with earlier Simpsons episodes than new ones, he'd lean on them more in his intros. This isn't uncommon in the UA-cam sphere. Many gaming personalities do often incorporate designs that become more retro in the future. For example, Caddicarus started his UA-cam career reviewing PS3 and 4 games which is why his logo has the PS3/4 buttons on it. But now he reviews a variety of games across many different platforms and focusses on skits (and also the PS5 has different coloured buttons) so his logo is more of an artifact or retro throwback than a declaration of his current style. Anyway, I imagine if TheRealJims had to make the intro from scratch today, or if he started the Simpsons Mystery series today, he might have used different screenshots as he'd be more familiar with more episodes. -2-: The context of the mysteries themselves: Many of the mysteries he presents in his videos have been long running. With even modern Simpons episodes adding details to the pile. Such as Nelson's father, Martin and Kearney. Given that the Simpsons rarely deviates from its status quo, many of these mysteries have been present from the early Seasons. And his videos often introduce when the mystery first began. So if you were making a UA-cam Series documenting when a Simpsons Mystery started and needed a visual representation, you'd naturally lean on using the older Simpsons Seasons where that mystery was first introduced. Like, it doesn't really make sense to use a modern screenshot of modern Hermann to represent the mystery of Hermann as he was mostly present in those earlier seasons and the mystery is focussed more on his earlier appearances anyway. This leads to the next explanation: -3-: The focus of the seasons and the role of the internet. It is entirely possible that early Simpsons episodes focussed more on content that led to mysteries. While newer Simpsons either don't have that focus, or still do but the Mystery hasn't yet picked up steam or traction. Like, the "Ralph Wiggum Viking" Mystery didn't immediately kick in when that episode first aired. It kicked in years after the fact. Also, since many early Simpons episodes came out before the Internet and UA-cam and Reddit really allowed fan theories to run wild, it allowed the mysteries of older seasons to grow more as there weren't easy ways to get an answer. This pheonoma has actually happened before in other communities. Using video games as an example, the 2004 video game Grand Theft Auto San Andreas sparked a massive mystery that Bigfoot was in the game. Bigfoot was actually never in the game but it was so easy to create a cheap hoax using mods and screenshots and there was no way to disprove them. This made Bigfoot and GTA SA very popular. But even though current GTA and RDR games actually do have Bigfoot, aliens and even more secrets, they aren't as popular as all original bigfoot mystery because the internet has allowed any and all mysteries to be revealed day 1 by players and modders. Pokemon is also another example. There can't be another "Mew Under the Truck" because if there were, you'd know it on day 1. All of these explanations can perfectly explain why TheRealJims chose to primarily rely on older Simpsons Screenshots for his opening, yet it doesn't correlate that reveals that era to be a golden age.
i'd also like to add: - mixing in 4:3 screenshots with 16:9 screenshots would probably not be very pleasing to the eye and would also be hard to edit - same logic applies to mixing cel animated screenshots with the digitally animated screenshots - there's not much content in s14-s20 to warrant much mysteries (not to say these seasons are bad, i quite like em)
Honestly, that was one of the best Simpsons essays I've ever seen; fair, funny, bringing new ideas to the table. I love that you are neither a hater nor a fanboy, but a critical fan. We really ARE in the Golden Age of TheRealJims. ^^
11:15 Personally, I grew up with seasons 15 - 20, those are the seasons where I was watching new episodes on broadcast television and was aware of them as new episodes. But I can still quite clearly see when I rewatch them today that those seasons were a lot weaker, and that the older episodes are much stronger. The idea that the 2 - 8 golden age only exists within the minds of the people who grew up with those seasons just... seems to be blatantly false, to me
I was wondering who the 5% were who didn't consider season 6 part of the Golden Age, then I remembered there are a handful of old Simpsons fans who ONLY like season 1 and 2, and think everything after that was a betrayal of the show's original vision or whatever
That’s their loss lol they miss out on so much classic stuff, they were mainly old nerd types who thought the show was built for them by being smart/grounded and less wacky than other cartoons
@@yellowfamilyfunny3065 Seasons 1-2 aren't realistic that's a laugh. I remember when my 10-year-old tried to jump a gorge on a skateboard. I remember when my children solved a crime adults couldn't and had a clown want to kill one of them. Bob's Burgers and King of the Hill are the more realistic cartoons. The Simpsons was always very cartoony. Down to earth are the last words I would use to describe this show. Unlike Loud House which actually did have down-to-earth plots and jumped the shark. We went from Lincoln wanting to sit at the grownups table to plots about ghost hunting.
@@icecreamhero2375 obviously I don’t mean actually realistic, The Simpsons was always an absurdist and silly show but that season 1 & 2 had a more grounded approach to their stories, having more traditional sitcom plots and sentimentality. Season 4 onwards ups the absurdity of The Simpsons world considerably, you could and would not have homer from the first two seasons go to space or cause a nuclear meltdown in a simulator
Issue with the rose-tinted-argument for me, is that I was just as much a child in the post season 10 episodes as I was viewing the pre season 10 episodes, yet I could tell the difference in quality.
Yeah, usually creators and many sorts of people use the "it's just nostalgia" to dismiss the glowing fact that it's very much likely that almost any media 20 years ago were way more humanly relatable than any sort of content today, even for generations that weren't even alive back then. I don't know why. Maybe it's the cultural material of then and the general weariness of both the creators and of our current time. You must be very desensitized to not perceive it.
I grew up in the 2000s during the "middle era" of the show, so I tend to be more forgiving of those episodes. Nowadays, I feel the '90s seasons are more consistently entertaining, but my nostalgia goggles prevent me from hating what followed.
As a kid, growing up with mixed season reruns and new episodes Y always preferred S3-S9, I liked some episodes of S1-2 but those seasons felt so different, and lile liked a lot of episodes of Season 10-15, But the consistency diminished
I think 1-10 is a great overall grouping to consider the Golden Age, both because 10 is such a nice, round number to end on, and seasons 1-10 basically encompass the entire 90s. The Simpsons and Seinfeld are both shows that embody the 90s to me and ran for basically the entire decade. And I don't expect Simpsons to ever "reach" those heights again; it's almost impossible to, Simpsons can't rule the world like they used to. I don't keep up with modern Simpsons, but so long as each season coming out is "pretty good", I think we're doing alright.
The funny thing is, I actually started watching the show during Season 9, but I always considered the Scully era to be a Bronze era. Seasons 1 and 2 are the "Silver Age" and 3-8 were the "Golden Age". 13-18 were the Dark Age, then right after the movie things improved a fair amount, until we eventually reach the point where everything's just a mixed bag, with the occasional gem and stinker being about equally likely to show up.
I've been watching since the beginning and I 100% agree with you. I dropped off the show around season 13, partly due to what I perceived as a drop in quality and partly because I was crazy busy with college at that point. I distinctly remember returning to the series in season 20 and waiting for the DVD releases of 13-18 so I could catch back up (and being pretty "meh" about them when I did watch them).
The irony is, I'd probably consider 13-16 a Bronze Age. And I guess Seasons 9-12 an Iron Age?... It gets kinda messy. At the time, it felt like approaching and going beyond Season 20 that things were improving. But with hindsight, 13-16 were a precipitous before things became a really big mess. This is, of course, EXTREMELY subjective. And purely my feelings. But it comes to mind.
As a lifelong viewer from S1 onward, I too believe S3-S8 to be the unimpeachable Golden era of The Simpsons. Your application of the ages to the surrounding seasons is very appropriate. I'm harder on the show than you in that I didn't really love the movie. I pretty much stopped watching entirely after S12, and have since caught many episodes I've missed in 20 years on TV syndication and streaming by chance. It's very rarely that I'm impressed by one, and episodes that monkey with classic character's canons in less than stellar ways (Looking at Sideshow Bob's Family arc, ugh) really grind my gears! I still love 'The Simpsons', but my memory of it is basically a time capsule of those six magical years in the 90s. I'm okay with this, and I really appreciate seeing a well-reasoned approach to the topic by a certified youtube scholar!
The fact that season 20 has a higher percentage than season 19 means either some people chosen only season 20 as the golden age or some people just selected seasons without keeping it as a single age.
I know you were using it as an example of how nostalgia can cloud our memory, but can I just say that the ending to Homie the Clown is absolutely brilliant? We finally get to see the incredible climatic set-piece that the entire episode was gradually building towards (Homer and Krusty riding the tiny bicycle through the loop) and then we discover that Krusty's debts to the mafia amounted to a mere 48 dollars, revealing that the entire conflict could have been avoided had either Krusty simply paid up or if the mafia waivered the petty cash he owed. They're even honourable enough to offer change for his 50 bucks!
Exactly. And Krusty's debts and loans from the mob were established from the very beginning. Plus Homer failing to ride the small bike was something that we wanted him to succeed at. Great comment there. 😊
I think he knows that. Homey the Clown is a great example of a satisfactory plant and payoff... Unlike the Armin Tamsarian episode where they just wheel the real Seymour Skinner out of town and decide never to talk about it again.
@@ridensroom6957 i know thats the joke, but it's still nonsensical reasoning which any modern episode would get ripped apart for. There does feel like an untouchable aura to anything in those earlier seasons, but at the same time I get defensive myself over them lol
Shhh...your defending "Homie The Clown" goes against the narrative that there was never a Simpsons golden age, and therefore goes against the narrative that the show isn't on a decline...
That's not a satisfying payoff. Someone mentioning a thing, and then doing said thing later is extremely common in stories. Krusty only owing $48 makes the whole conflict a waste of time. That entire episode is terrible.
I absolutely love season one! I love the weird animation and minimalistic backgrounds. It just has such a nostalgic innocence feel to it. So I would include it in my “golden age” selection. I also find the tv rating argument a little tired now. People watch shows very differently then we did back in the 90’s it’s kind of impossible to actually create a real number to show how popular something is. I still love the show now and yes I do think some of the better episodes were in the old seasons but I’m aware that’s a lot of nostalgia bias. This most recent Halloween episode was so good! One of the best in years. Anyway love the channel as always ❤
I've lately seen the term "Classic Simpsons" more often when discussing the show's 90s output, including this channel, and I think it's a better one that "Golden Age" imo.
Thank you for the Season 9 love! Rewatching this season, I really feel it is about as good as Season 8 and even has a couple less dud episodes than the previous year. It’s really a great victory lap before the (in my opinion) drastic drop-off that happens at season 10.
I feel the definition of the Golden Age is getting narrower and narrower as time goes on. It feels like nowadays it's 3-8, but also that 8 was "mostly good" and 3 also had its weak moments so it's really just 4-7. Personally, for me it's 1-10 but I think every season has at least some merit. I didn't start feeling like the show was actively producing more bad episodes than good until Season 17 or so. I think losing Phil Hartman hurt quite a lot. Personally, I'm old enough to remember the negative reactions to the Scully era via the SNPP website and nohomers, and I've even read negative reviews from Usenet users for Season 5 episodes. Agree with your statement on Season 2 being schmaltzy but that's actually why I love it so much. I absolutely recommend watching the first two seasons though since the barbed social commentary is still totally there. It's just a bit better hidden.
it depends on who you talk to but really you can treat it similar to the bell curve of votes, 6 seems to be the peak with 7 and 8 being less good but still full of classics with 9 being the first signs of trouble. 9 and 10 still have classics, but they also have a few duds I'd rather skip and I can't say the same about 4 or 5
Terrific job on this video. Thank you for being clear with your own opinions and respecting the different members of the fan base. I love seasons 8 & 9. I think that they are very underrated. They are part of my Golden age for sure!
I vehemently disagree on the "rose-tinted glasses" argument, and I think people like Al Jean just search for excuses why their stint with the show is rated horribly. I, for example, saw season 12-16 as a kid and have fond memories of some of these episodes... but when I watch them again, I can see the clear fall from grace The Simpsons has suffered. I agree that there is a certain nostalgia for things you see as a kid... but also, I think it's unfair to say that nobody can fairly re-evaluate these things as an adult. Also, about the newer episodes: in my opinion, A LOT more would be forgiven (like silly plot resolutions) if the episodes would be funnier. Cause that is what's missing. The insanely densely written humour. Oh, and the humanity.
I've definitely not seen any rose-tinted effect with the shows I used to watch. For example, I've gone back and rewatched both Pokemon and Digimon after becoming an adult. Pokemon holds up really well for hundreds of episodes, even ones I didn't see as a kid. Meanwhile it was hard to even get through the first handful of digimon episodes because that show starts off very kiddy. I think the only reason I will eventually trudge through it is because I know it gets better, especially in season 3.
Yeah, I grew up watching The Simpsons, both serialized and new releases. I'm only 19, but even I can see how much better seasons 3-8 are than the others. Never had any idea which season an episode was from, yet the only episodes i remember for being are the Golden Age ones.
Those quotes about nostalgia really hit home. Most new games I pick up (which aren't many) are sequels to franchises I fell in love with as a kid, or entries in franchises I overlooked as a kid, while most of the games I actually _play_ are from early to mid-00s.
6:25 I’m actually one of the 5% who didn’t vote 6. No real reason for not picking 6. I’m just a huge fan of the first 4 seasons for its more down to earth vibe. For example, Lisa’s substitute is my all-time favorite.
I figured that most of the people who didn't pick seasons 4-7 didn't not pick all of them, but rather they'd mostly be either season 1-4 or season 5-8, or something along those lines
One thing that is very interesting in terms of nostalgia and rose-colored glasses. When I first discovered the Simpsons, our Norwegian channel had a weird schedule when airing the episodes. I think they mixed episodes from season 1 through 8 as well as season 13-15. I guess it was that they bought the rights for some of the newer seasons? As a 12-13 year old I noticed that there were slight differences in the animation, but didn't think much of it. Point is that I have a weird nostalgia for season 13-15 since it was intermixed with the classics.
I find the idea of TV golden ages very interesting because, like you said, people commonly attribute large changes in production and writing to just one singular episode, acting like all the episodes were fully created in order one after the other. People use the Term “Jump the shark” as a indication of a shows decline, but actually the episode of Happy days with the shark jump was insanely popular and the series had many successful seasons after the shark jump, kinda defeating the entire point of identifying one episode as the end of a era
You fundamentally misunderstand what jumping the shark is about. The jump the shark term is because of how much Happy Days changed from "show about nostalgia for Americana" to "Fonzie does increasingly stupid shit for ratings" after that episode's success. It represents a decline for the show because it's a complete change in tone that both alienates the original, intended audience, and becomes more of a thing to gawk at for the new audience with each increasingly stupid gimmick to get ratings.
This is especially true when you consider how many seasons have carry over episodes that were put together by the previous showrunner(s). Or, for that matter, little things like John Swartzwelder being perhaps the show's most prolific and beloved writer who also happened to write some of the most divisive or even hated episodes of the Scully era (Kill the Alligator and Run, Simpsons Safari, etc)
@@lhfirex I remember reading a at a discount book store the Official Jumped the Shark book that had to be published about 2000 or so. It was just full of the snarkiest, Gen-X-iest prose out there. I especially remember reading a passage about South Park how it "Jumped the Shark" because it made a movie and the show wasn't the exact same season 1 that even the creators want to disavow. Pretty short sighted, and why the term is thrown around willy nilly.
Speaking as someone who was born towards the end of Mike Scully’s run, my earliest Simpsons memories were still reruns of Seasons 3-8, before seeing the movie in theatres, catching some later season reruns, a few premieres of the burgeoning HD era, and I began collecting the season boxsets in order. Season 1 was nothing like how I saw the show beforehand, but I was captivated by how different and innocent it was. I’d never seen anything earlier than Bart the Murderer, so it was incredible to see this sort of proto-Simpsons. I got less of it when we got Season 2, as it was picking up the pace and getting funnier, but for a brief time, I felt like I had discovered The Simpsons all over again. I spent months collecting the next couple, watching every episode in order and seeing things get more familiar, but stopped towards the end of Season 9 because the individual episodes were getting way spottier. We picked up the rest of the Scully seasons out of habit, because 12 was the newest DVD at the time. After watching the show in order, it’s like I had this entirely new perspective on it. What changed over time, when it got good, when it got not-as-good-all-the-time. And I think that’s a shared experience with others who’ve watched it this way on DVD or streaming, or were lucky to be alive at the beginning. There’s a lot of factors I know about now that led to Season 9 being a relative misstep, but I didn’t know them at the time. That’s all my experience with Golden Age Simpsons and how I formed it in my head, but if some people are able to extend it through to the movie and beyond, I guess like any opinion, subjectivity is welcome. What I feel bad about is that whenever I watch a current episode now, I want to love it but I can’t. When I watched everything up to Season 30 in order a few years ago, by the time I was at 25, I was stuck in “bitch eating crackers” mode. Every plot beat and joke bothered me, even if it was something I would’ve like a couple hundred episodes earlier. Were these the very worst episodes? Of course not, but I was too full for that 20 course dessert. It’s why, with the Scully and teens years as a bridge, I try to keep the classic and modern episodes as far away from each other as I can in my mind. If someone tells me the newest season was the best since 8, I’d question it. Best since 20? I can believe it. I’m sure the past couple seasons really have been an improvement, they have been from what I’ve seen, but I can see they’re a different kind of good than the early seasons. A follow-up video discussing a Silver Age would have an interesting comment section. A lot of individuals torn over a super specific 4 season run later on being the spirital successor to Classic Simpsons, or if it’s all mediocre. (That opinion amuses me, because it would actually be impressive if they could make 500+ equally average episodes in a row.)
I always saw season 10 as the end of the golden era. Not only because I personally feel like that's where the decline in quality starts, but also because that's the last season made in the 90s. The simpsons were a 90s phenomenon, but they also needed the 90s as a part of their identity. I always felt like the 2000s broke the Simpsons in some way. Not to mention that new shows were then starting to crawl up, trying to take its place. Including, ironically, futurama
I agree with you in regards to the 90s aspect of it all. Everyone was gunning to BE "The Simpsons" while The Simpsons were kind of just making episodes as they already WERE The Simpsons. Plus the way the entire world got way darker and serious (at least to a teenager in Canada) after 2001 did not help the nostalgia factor present around the early seasons of the show.
Matt Groening should have jumped from show to show, and not try to run all of them simultaneously, I have enjoyed the first few seasons of Disenchantment .
In contradiction to a premise you lay out early in this video, I think the end of the Simpsons Golden Age *can* be linked to one episode: Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie. It's not a character change or a thematic change in the show, but rather a moment after which neither the viewers nor the writers can think of the show in the same terms. By laying out bare so much of "how the sausage gets made" in one episode (for better and for worse), we can no longer interact with this piece of media the same way we used to. To be clear, that's not a qualitative statement. I'm not saying all episodes after Poochie are bad, or that all episodes before are good. But that episode marks the shift: one era before, and another era after.
That's so funny you say that because I was thinking the same thing! I was wondering, "what would be my pick if I had to make one?" And while the Poochie episode is awesome and amazing, there is an argument that the point of view of the show is permanently changed after doing such an episode. They had done plenty of industry insider episodes with I&S but the meta Simpsons angle makes it different
I used to love that ep I really did. What changed it for me was the incredibly defensive dvd commentary of Principal and the Pauper. There were echoes of where I had heard a similar message before. That made me go back and really evaluate what they were doing with Poochie, and I'd pin it down to a single scene even that signals the end of that era. The one where Bart gets to be the mouthpiece of the writers to deliver a 'take that' to the audience. It's so heavy handed in retrospect, so obviously out of character, and it only landed as well as it did despite that thanks to the sheer strengths of the jokes surrounding it.
I'd agree, and add that Homer's Enemy and The Spin-Off Showcase are also, in their different ways, deconstructions of the show, and that the cumulative effect of the three episodes meant that things couldn't go on as before. After those three episodes, why not abandon the backstory of a significant secondary character and then announce that everyone is going to pretend the revelation never happened? You've already winked at the audience, so what's the fuss? I can understand the writers' surprise at how jarring the audience found that particular episode after having seen earlier deconstructive episodes find at least a measure of acclaim. To be clear, I really rate both Homer's Enemy and Poochie, but you can only do something like that once before you are in effect cannibalising your show. I think the writers perhaps knew this and decided to deconstruct the show because they assumed it would shortly be ending. Scully had to either try and reconstruct the show or try and carry on as before and I don't think an attempt to return to the status quo ante would have been any more successful than the change in emphasis he in fact decided on.
This was maybe the most thoughtful and balanced discussion I've heard on the topic of the Simpsons quality as a show, an maybe super-fandom in general. Seriously, great kudos, I could think of nothing more to add.
1-8 is also where I fall on this. I was at peak nostalgia age starting at about season 9-10, yet it's those earlier seasons which I'll actually sit down and watch. There were shifts in the humor during this time, but as a whole the episodes flowed better and more consistently landed with their end goals (whether that was schmaltz or jokes.) Season 9 was still "good" on the whole but you could feel the fatigue, and after that the humor I loved from The Simpsons seemed to move to Futurama.
This is one of the best videos on Simpsons I've ever seen, truly interesting prospective on simpsons fans. The Meta "Why would a man whose shirt says ‘Genius at work’ spend all of his time watching a children’s cartoon show?” joke applies here.
@@chrisrj9871 actually the simpsons schedule was changed often not just "late", but 8 pm New York time isn't really "late", that's considered prime time television.
@@Oridan1 This sounds like Granny Smith vs. Golden Delicious Very similar ideas it sounds like....or else I don't get your argument, as a person not aware of the specifics of TCG games Edit: I think more accurately your comment was probably "explaining" why OP's argument was valid I guess
I think the argument made sense in 2007, but now the seasons from back then are older than the classic ones were at that point and very few people will argue that something like season 15 is part of the golden age.
I guess that's the main reason on why i and a lot of people keep loving the newer episodes that had a diferent take in the show (Lisa The Boyscout/Pixelated And Affraid/A Serious Flanders) instead of the overused plots that the show has made since it's beginning, this is an amazing video and demonstrate how a show can still be viewed as funny depending on who you're asking
I feel like the latest season is doing what the series should have been done years ago and that’s experimenting. Think outside the box. Make up new scenarios for the characters to experience. Revisit old ones with a new angle and ideas for it. Heck, use an overdone plot and put a new spin on it. Marge and Homer having another marriage crisis again? Have it be the work of a petty asshole going out of their way to ruin it just to be an asshole. Or to lampoon it further; people think they’re having martial problems because one of their friends heard an out of context exchange between them and mistakenly thought they’re having a fight before going off to tell everyone else about it while the two are wondering what’s even going on. Make it play out like another one of those episodes but the viewers are the ones having the jokes played on.
@@rayvenkman2087 Forreal. The episode where Bart falls down a missle silo is one of the coolest episodes ever because it's just in a completley different part of town.
@BobtheX Sometimes when you're around for that long, you gotta experiment every once in a while. Season 7 and 8 are proof of this. It's not always going to produce a success and it's hard to top the first ten seasons just because of the talent of writers the show had in the 90's is unparalleled even by the standards of other programs but it's worth trying. Plus Jean was showrunner for too long. Even JNT didn't helm Doctor Who for that long of a period compared to his tenure on the Simpsons and it no doubt contributed to the Zombie Simpsons argument. Matt Selman taking charge as showrunner and the results Season 33 and 34 produced proves my point. It's a herculean task to top the likes of Season 3-4, 5-6 or 7-8 but that's okay, most shows would kill just to even have their Simpsons Season 10 including Hazbin Hotel to name an example. Post-Classic episodes like Barthood and Trilogy of Error show that the show can still make a classic but they're not concentrated in a single season as much. A good showrunner makes all the difference to the quality output of a series. Just look at Michael Piller's Star Trek TNG tenure starting with Season 3 up to his departure in Season 6 with Yesterday's Enterprise, The Most Toys, Sarek, The Best of Both Worlds Part I & II and The Inner Light among the most loved episodes of the series. All made possible thanks to him.
A golden age isnt so much about the episodes themselves, it's more about what was possible and permissible within the episodes, depending on how the characters were situated within it. In S 1-5, it was, as you say, very sentimental - very focussed on one family reacting to a world that they didn't undertsand and it didn't understand them and the small cadre of other oddballs who felt the same way, It was a show driven by the values of the protagonists. As it became less about story and consequnces and more about the set up and delivery of jokes, this was fine because the jokes were playing the long game with the audience. The "golden age" ended when the jokes became quicker, more obvious, sometimes funnier but were delivered at the expense of characters, not via the characters journey through a situation and we slid into jerkass Homer, a too broad cast of disposable characters who just walk in to say a catch phrase and the celebrities who started appearing as themselves for the sake of doing it. My 2c
I've been rewatching and buying the DVD's and when I looked at the episode listings for 12 I was like "oh damn, I can't see many I'm looking forward to watching" and I took a long break
This is interesting, because I’ve always taken it for granted that most would say Seasons 1 - 9 was the Golden Age, with the episode “The Principal and the Pauper” being considered the “Jump the Shark” moment.
I'd say season 2 is when the golden episodes start to really grow into an era, while 9 is when the cracks are starting to show. The principal and the pauper is not responcible for the downfall of the golden age, but it was symptomatic of the end incoming. When "screw the audience jokes" became "screw the audience" plots. Plus the teenage seasons have now had just as much time to gain the nostalgia of a new generation, and time to mull them over in general, that would afford them golden status if it was purely a nostalgia thing.
I feel like season 9's tree house of horror is a good indicator of the overall season. The first 2 segments are really good (Homega Man, Fly VS Fly), but Easy-Bake Coven is just... bland. There's one or two good jokes in it, but first time I watched it I remember thinking that that segment just... sucked.
The show started off being about Bart, and took a couple seasons to become mostly about Homer in accordance with fan response. Some embraced Homer's increasingly wild antics, while others mourned the man who pawned his TV to pay for mental healthcare for his family. I loved the wholesome charm of the first two seasons, yet strapped in and felt the G's of over the top Homer that followed. I'd say the average scores are about right.
I never had seasons on DVD. Just assortments of random episodes. Normally I'd just watch the simpsons every night on TV so I can't even make a call on when the Golden Age was because I watched the entire series for years out of order, just watching whatever happened to be on without the knowledge of what other episodes it was made alongside. Stuff in the teen seasons are some of the ones I loved most growing up
Without a doubt, Seasons 1 and 2 are my favourite. It feels so unique and old school. I love it. Then it is season 9. Never laughed harder than during that season of the show. Then it's the certified classic 3-8. Those shows are so good that they stand out during that period....but they don't quite have the charm and quirkiness of 1 or 2, nor the balanced insanity of 9. They still make up what Simpsons is and should be. But.....1,2 and 9 really really get my goat and my heart.
one topic i think would be interesting is how well the simpsons fit into modern times. they were designed for the late 80's/early 90's, and even in the 90's John Waters was telling The Simpsons how old-fashioned they seem. I wonder if being stuck in tradition makes it feel archaic, or if they've integrated the modern world/technology into the show as well as they can.
Agreed. I just restarted S3 on Disney+ on the weekend. Oh Homer, you could've avoided so much trouble if you had just gone to see Look Who's Oinking another night.
I get madder than a.. yak in heat, whenever the senseless dunderpates exclude Season 2, yet include Season 9 or even 10. Season 2 had all the necessary characterization, and the zaniness was toned down. The literary roots of Harvard eggheads are most evident in the quiet pathos often visible in Season 2. SEASON 2 WAS A BEAUTIFUL MAN! CAN'T YOU LITTLE VULTURE LEAVE IT ALONE!?
@@ariagabariaga1632 I agree, but I have to say it seems Homer hasnt been the only one “increasing their word power” recently - thank you readers digest!
Personally, I think seasons 2-9 are part of the golden age. Season 2 was more down to earth and emotional than the later years (will always cherish Lisa's Substitute) and season 9 always felt like part of season 8 in my opinion where episodes were still classic but one can tell that cracks were starting to show. I guess that was not surprising though since a bunch of episodes like The New York one and The Principal and the Pauper were holdovers from season 8. Those episodes could easily be part of the same season as Homer's Enemy. Season 10 however was when the episodes started to feel more different with all the screw-the-audience jokes and celebrating guests popping up every other episode.
I'm glad you picked the same years as I did when I filled out the poll. I have a lot of feelings on this, as I practically watched the show from the age of 2 (I was born in 1988), so it was a very nostalgic part of my childhood. But I have a distinct memory from when I was about 10. I was a huge Simpsons fan, and it felt very personal to me. My mom took me to a talk from Mike Reiss at a college campus and in an auditorium, we watched Marge vs. the Monorail together and the audience loved it. That's when it truly hit me how the show appealed to all age levels. There was a richness, a fullness to the show, that started dwindling in the Mike Scully era. I don't blame him, specifically, but that is where I see the cracks in the formula, and the more self-aware "commenting on a joke" style of humor that the earlier seasons lacked. The show itself seemed to be unable to support its own momentum and it felt as if it stopped caring about itself. Obviously, it was still trying new things, but it couldn't get past it's own glory and lost it's spark. The Maude Flanders death is a particular pivot for me not because the show revolved around her, but it was such a cruel twist on an established character that seemed designed to be "shocking" rather than meaningful (a la Bleeding Gums Murphy). The humor felt very shallow more often than deep from then on. Consistency is key, and when the consistent humor is subpar and the consistent storylines are barebones, the golden age ends.
What a fantastic video. It's seasons 2-9 for me, although 9 is definitely hit and miss - but the hits are so good that I can't not include it. Season 1 is exactly as you described - still finding its feet, and it just feels a bit weird to watch - it doesn't have that classic Simpsons feel for me. But I totally understand anyone who would include it, and at the end of the day it is always going to be a subjective and personal choice. Keep up the great work Jims, your videos always make me laugh and make me think.
Fab video- for me personally the Golden Age officially stopped with the death of Phil Hartman. I feel that his energy was never truly (and in all fairness never could be) replaced.
This is one of my favorite videos from you so far, very informative for such a subjective topic, entertaining as always, and I think you achieved what you set out to make.
I would love a video on the review archive, though I guess it might be a hard structure for a whole video. As someone who has only seen maybe 20 episodes total (6 probably being modern) This always was an interesting thing to go through. I've seen a lot of shows have this sort of unclear idea of the golden era, and like implied it does really tie into when it was watched as part of your formative years. I think what ends up being more interesting to me is this need to justify not liking a show as much all the time, when the answer could just be time and tastes changing. But it is what it is anyhow, was a really cool video.
Honestly, hearing you talk about Homie the Clown kinda made me realize a specific bias I have, where I don't judge references I wasn't around for as harshly. Like I tend to view modern Simpsons as very out of touch, because I get the references and often eye roll at them or think they're unfunny, something that I think I'm very much shielded from when they refer to phenomena that I wasn't around for, because I can't really tell how it would scan when it was fresh.
Honestly this is a topic I've been subconsciously thinking about since finding your channel some odd years ago, but I'm not sure if I ever thought you'd actually cover it. Was super interesting to hear your research and your personal thoughts on the subject! My personal take is, I don't really know what my golden age is. I have my favourite episodes obviously, but I can't even name a personal favourite season yet, let alone a favourite era. In my mind, as long as the show has something going for it that keeps me watching, it's in a good place.
This video has finally convinced me to take the plunge and actually watch all of The Simpsons. I've seen a handul of episodes as a kid/teen, and I've always _heard_ that it got really bad in the later seasons, but I just always kind of believed that, but really basing it on anything. I guess it's probably silly to have been subscribed for so long without really watching the show this channel is built around, but these characters are so embedded into pop culture that it's still enjoyable to hear about them even without seeing most of the content they appear in. Though back to the original point; I will at some point, maybe very far into the future, return to this video and comment whether or not the perceived Golden Age is mostly a nostalgia thing. Thank you for truly pushing me into this series, I don't think I'll regret it.
An argument for season 9 could be that the end of a golden age is still a part of that age. So you can include season 9 because thats where it becomes divisive, where you have a fair split between "its bad" and "its good".
Despite me leaning toward 2-9 while encouraging folks to look back at 1, I'm perfectly happy watching just about any season up to the earliest solo Al Jean stuff. I watched weekly up to 2012, but Co-Dependents Day was absolutely my "We're well out of the golden age" moment.
After watching so much Simpsons commentary over the past few years, I've seen that the creator and writers for the most part don't have a very mature grasp of criticism, constructive or otherwise. Whenever the topic of the shows quality dipping is brought up, Groaning uses the same argument he uses there (though he's a lot more passe' then the others and not so deeply wounded by opinions ) while everyone else gets really vitriolic, overly defensive and self justifying of bashing the fans because when their not talking about that, their very often completing their own genius.....im not even being facetious about that, go watch the DVD commentaries released around the time prior to the time around movies release and you'll see alot of fart sniffing going on with the occasional appearance of the animators giving more humble opinions about their work. The creators are entitled to their opinions and the fandom has made an overly big stink about somethings to merit Comic book guys existence, But the creators act like it's impossible for their creation to ever be bad and instead of accepting that, they often fight tooth and nail to pull a Mcbaine and throw a grenade at the heckling crowd even when there is something clearly lacking.
14:40 I think he's just emphasizing that he even laughs at "off" (as in not good in quality) episodes, but this one was so bad he didn't laugh once. Confusing due to the use of the OFF acronym elsewhere on the forum, but I think it makes the most sense syntactically. Anyways, great video as always!
I see the golden age as 3-9 (and maybe 10), but I'd call the Mike Scully era the 'it's still good, it's still good' age. If you're going through the Simpsons and only wanted to watch when it was good, I think that the stopping point is 'whenever you get bored during the Scully era'; there's still plenty of good there, but it's also got some really key moments in the show's history that both show you what the show's going to become, or are such big moments that you'd be missing something by not watching (i.e. Maude's death, Barney going sober).
I can absolutely think of examples of things I like where I was 'late' to them, where long-time fans don't like them as much - whether seasons of TV shows or albums by bands. There's definitely an element of that in play.
I don't really get what makes people so dislike seasons 10-12. Just season 12 there's ton of classic episodes: Trilogy of Error, Tale of Two Springfields (one of my top 10 episodes of entire series), Simpsons tall tales, Worst episode ever, Lisa the treehugger, The Crayon episode...
In the commentary for seasons 4 and 5, Al Jean remarks that they would sometimes take heat for the silly, zany, random, and pop-culture-aware jokes they would include. Speaking in 2004-2005, he says that they do a lot less of that now because _Family Guy_ does nothing but. And I think that's part of what creates the perception of a « _Golden Age_ ». When _The Simpsons_ debuted, they were the first animated comedy targeted at a grown-up sense of humour in more than 25 years. Year 2 saw their success aped by a variety of animal contenders of fair-to-good quality: _Family Dog, Rocko's Modern Life, and Fish Police._ All perished quickly, but were commemorated on tombstones in _Treehouse of Horror II._ I'd argue that _Ren & Stimpy_ was especially niche, targeted at teens and young adults only. (That didn't prevent it from having moments of genius.) Then came _The Critic._ I'll admit I'm in the camp of those who - at the time - actually enjoyed its sensibility more than _The Simpsons._ It was Jean and Reiss at their most silly, zany, random, and pop-culture-aware. It had good ratings, but was axed - first by ABC and then by Fox - because it failed to overtake _The Simpsons_ as the greatest new thing ever. But how could it have? It was far from the first funny, not-for-children cartoon on prime-time TV. It had magnificent writing, but its world of New York glitterati was probably too far removed from everyday middle American experience to be universally relatable. Then came _Family Guy,_ which - lest we forget - was cancelled after 3 seasons for failing to distinguish itself from _The Simpsons_ in any way. Actually, I'd argue that it was distinct in its conscious lack of heart, sentiment, and sense of reality. It aimed only to shock, deride, and tear down. It's as if its creators were disappointed in _The Simpsons_ for not living up to the worst names alarmist critics had called it back in 1990. And they'd decided to put things right: Damnit, if a cartoon that would end Western civilization didn't exist, then we'd have to invent one! And smart-ass millennials took it to their bosom. _(Hi! Hi! Hi! Bosom!)_ Only no one yet understood that smart-ass millennials, weaned on the VCR, had no concept of appointment viewing. They'd watch when they damn well felt like it. And so you have the historic un-cancelling of the series after its DVD sales went through the roof. And now, at the same time, you've got _Futurama._ And _Family Guy_ spin-offs. And _Robot Chicken._ And they're all running in syndication. And now, suddenly, everything's animated. And surreal. And smart-ass. And nothing about this is really a surprise or a discovery anymore. And the so-called golden age just isn't going to happen again. Not unless we forget about all of this stuff for another 20-30 years. And then rediscover it. Right, Ann-Margrock and Stony Curtis?
Interesting to hear Jean and Groening's perspective and there's an element of truth to it but I also think there's an element of dishonesty - the difference between talk of a golden age now and the contemporaneous criticism the show was getting in the 90s is time has passed and dust has settled and public opinion is now more consistent. The argument its due to nostalgia ignores the fact a whole generation of Simpson fans have now grown up with "Classic Simpsons" not being what was airing when they were first introduced to the show. I myself only watched some of the classic episodes back in 2020, but still hold them in much higher regard than the mid-season episodes I watched as a tweenager In Mike Reiss' book his argument more closely matches the one you made, after the show has been on the TV for a certain amount of time, it becomes more difficult to innovate and surprise the audience within the established framework of the show
I think the nostalgia thing is true. I grew up with the show, but definitely toward the tail end of what most would consider the Golden Age, and I still quite like The Principal and The Pauper. I totally understand why people wouldn't like it, but for me it was a really fun subversion at the time. Probably because I hadn't watched the early seasons as they aired. It was just a bit of Simpsons history for me.
I think your claim at 17:52 sums up the entire thing. When The Simpsons first came out, it was the first American animated sitcom since Wait Till Your Father Gets Home fifteen years earlier and it was very unique since it had a strong production team and people thought it was amazing due to it carving out its niche as high-quality animation and tv respectively. So the secret to the Simpsons' success was timing. Nowadays although it definitely has nostalgia and internet memes going for it, I think if The Simpsons came out today it would be like an Adventure Time, Bob's Burgers or Regular Show. Beloved and nostalgic but not a cultural phenomenon. Good video!
11:40 I love the episode Homie the Clown and I agree with what you say but for some reason I’ve always loved and remembered that Chachi joke even when I was younger and had no idea who Chachi was, the awkwardness of Bart saying “whats a Chachi?” always cracked me up
I first saw season 6 interspersed with re-runs of older episodes I had also never seen before, and season 5 as re-runs interspersed with older and newer episodes. It was only when getting the DVDs that I could really appreciate how buck-wild the Mirkin years were, and how much of a shock they would have been to people who had already seen all of seasons 1-4 and nothing else.
Nostalgia can play a huge role in how you see a show or game. My first pokemon game was diamond, so that will hold a special place and I'll look back on it fondly. I started watching taskmaster because I enjoy a certain comedian who was on the show, and so his season, season 6, is one I do enjoy even though I can see why others enjoy it less (and taskmaster is so good that even the 'bad' seasons are still great)
Pokemon is actually a really interesting case since I feel the perception of the games shifts against the older entries as time goes on. This may have to do with the remakes, but I remember a time that everyone claimed that G/S/C were among the best (I still love them for polishing the gameplay of the original and feeling like a true sequel). Recently it seems things have turned with the postgame in Kanto being criticized as too shallow.
@@lowman5893 the shift could also be from a changing audience. People who say that gen 1 and 2 are their favourites have maybe stopped following pokemon stuff and so don't answer polls about their favourite gens. The community is more full of people who play the more recent games, and maybe don't have the consoles to play the later ones. I have the opposite problem and don't have the consoles for the newer ones so haven't been able to play them. It's interesting to compare that to TV shows, as there isn't the same kind of barrier of not having the right console.
@@lisahenry20 Oh absolutely. Another possibility is the advance in technical capabilities. While there has been improvements in the sharpness of the animation in the Simpsons, it is nowhere near as drastic as comparing the original R/G/B to the newest gen of pokemon. That and the plot of a pokemon game has never really been the selling point, making the advancements in mechanics and postgame all the more noticeable.
@@lowman5893 its a very predictable cycle. For the last 3-ish years gen 4 and 5 has been the primary nostalgic era, now its about to be gen 5 and 6. When i was playing gen 5 at 10 yrs old, the internet forums were filled with ppl saying gen 1 and 2 were waaay better than this horrid new gen 5! And then a bit after that it was gen 3 being so much better than gen 6, etc etc. Older fans start realizing how repetitive and profit driven the entire franchise is, and young fans look at the older games and since they came out when these kids were 3 yrs old, they automatically kinda look down on them as old and shoddy. 5 years later the younf fans are starting to see the grift, the old fans are gone or dont care to be vocal anymore, and new kids think whatever gen they grew up with is peak... so on forever i assume
My counter to Jean and Groening assertion that we're just looking at the old episodes through the lens if nostalgia is that the only reason there still are new episodes is because of nostalgia. I think it's fair to say that if the words weren't coming out of Homer's mouth (or pick a random Simpsons character) then the show likely wouldn't still be around.
THANK YOU for saying that Principal and the Pauper didn't mark the "downfall" of the Simpsons. When I watched it, I always registed it as just yet another quirky episode. Okay, they retconned a character's backstory SLIGHTLY. So what? How many episodes end with a major change that never gets addressed again? Homer went to freaking SPACE and then went back to working at the nuclear powerplant. Bart had an elephant. Lisa had several ponies. Mr. Burns got shot by Maggie. But Skinner being someone he's not, which changes literally NOTHING? Ohhh, they went too far!!! Gimme a break.
A character being another character the whole time is really stupid and lazy. I would hate it even if it happened in another show. I would be pissed if I turned on Spongebob and Mr. Krabs wasn't the real Mr. Krabs. Its a dumb plot twist.
I love that you made this episode, but I almost wonder if the more interesting question is if other ages exist enough to be definable. Still, you reintroduced me to the Simpsons Archive, so thank you for that, Jims.
I'm almost 40 years old and watched every new episode of The Simpsons growing up (which was the style at the time) from when it was great until it stunk. Also bear in mind that a Golden Age is some great time in the deep past, and ages decline from there : one direction, Golden > Silver > Bronze. #1 - Tracey Ullman is the Archaic Age, barely remembered through fragments of culture before written language. #2 - Season 1 is Ur-Simpsons, similar to season 1 of The Office: many elements are there, but the real flowering of culture has yet to happen. #3 - Seasons 2 through 8 are the Golden Age: most episodes were great, some were very good, very few were okay. This is the age of heroes which we store in our collective unconscious. #4 - Season 9 & 10 were almost immediately the opposite: most were okay, some very good, a few great. It gets a little worse each year. So the Silver Age is seasons 9 through, I don't know, let's say, 14. #5 - Bronze Age is everything after. By this point we're just referencing the episodes and lines we remember from the Golden Age, the Shakespeare of adult animated sitcoms, and not producing anything new --of lasting worth--. Temporary entertainment sure, not of lasting worth to future civilizations. You show them 1-8 and rub it in their faces with their stupid AI-generated yuk-yuks electronically drip-fed into their nervous system.
@@powervidsful - We're the ones with more years of experience, so we know what we've seen and you can't just brush off what we have to say. BTW old is 90+, 40s is still young and capable. Kids don't know what old is.
I didn’t watch any Simpsons (aside from a few random episodes here and there) until I was in my 20s, and I watched every episode from season 1 through 12. I can pretty confidently say nostalgia is not the only reason certain earlier seasons are looked upon more favourably
Yeah the Groening and Al Jean counterarguments don't really hold water for me, especially with seasons much later than 8-12 still airing when I was quite young. I've gone back and seen episodes from 1-8 that I somehow missed and absolutely cracked up at them the same I would for any I consider "golden age", and also watched episodes I remember watching growing up from later seasons and gave them a "meh" at best response.
I'm one of those season 3 to 8 people but the first 10 seasons are still watchable. My problem is the massive shift in style of writing and characterizations that started around season 9 (I'm not gonna put all the blame on the principal and the pauper, but it's a prime example) It's funny how the show Arthur stayed more consistent with writing style and characterizations within the show's 25 seasons then The Simpsons did. With that show they had more stories lines focused on secondary characters, and didn't constantly have to have Arthur and his family be the center of every story. Where the Simpsons family always had to be part of every story, thus handicaping the writing creativity. And this is from a person who watched both shows growing up and still sporadically as a adult. And the Simpson's writting staff are out of touch. If a favourite food product of your's recipe gets drastically changed and doesn't taste anywhere close to what it originally did, why would you continue to buy a sub par, to repulsive product? The same thought process can be applied to media.
I would identify myself as a very casual Simpsons fan: I enjoy the general characters and environment, and didn't really grow up with it to feel nostalgic. In fact, I don't think I really started watching it until after the release of The Simpsons Movie. I was aware it existed, and my family of 5 went to see the movie in theaters when I was about 12 years old. And even when I did watch the show, I watched out of order, without noticing any big changes between writing styles. But I've always heard through the grapevine of the Golden Age being between Seasons 2 and 9. And the poll went as I expected. But much like how I got into The Simpsons when it was already an established part of pop culture, I think the general reception has a similar backing: maybe the Simpsons nowadays isn't inherently bad, but people are so accustomed to it, that they look to other forms of animation for fresher entertainment.
There's something to be said for shows going on for too long. An episodic show has to do *something* to be surprising and exciting each episode, and a story driven show has to start leaving constant loose ends they can latch onto if they continue the show. It's why I haven't watched South Park in such a long time, even before I drifted from that sort of humour in general, I was just tired of how much it had to constantly escalate how offensive and gross it was, to get the same reactions that Cartman getting probed by aliens, or Kenny dying every episode did in 1999. People get used to the show, putting the writers in a place where they have to find ways to mix it up. It's how we go from "The kids swear a lot, and that one got probed" to "Satanic forest animal blood orgy" and beyond.
I'm always surprised when people suggest skipping season 1. Maybe because I grew up with those episodes on audio cassettes *waves his walking stick* and I know the German dub by heart, especially of Sideshow Bob's first episode. There's something so very nostalgic about season 1 and it has a lot of really funny moments.
I'm so glad you did this. This is a topic that i've always considered kind of tiresome because it's been pretty clear to me season 1: the birth Season 2-7: actual golden age. Heart, originality... Season 8-9: as you said, they start exploring new possibilities. Kinda hit or miss by their standards even if the misses would be hits by anybody else. Season 10-13ish: Lost some of the hard but a lot of great wackiness. Evolved into more of a regular comedy. Onwards... each season it's its own thing, honestly It's just about being very especific to me but i'm so curious to hear your thoughts and your more "essayist" videos are my favourites of yours.
I remember in middle school/high school complaining about the direction of the show, but still managed to watch every episode and still discuss it on Monday. In late high school (season 10ish) is when it felt like it was changing too much. I remember catching a few gems in season 12,hoping that simpsons can keep going, but by then i was in college. I think you find many ppl in this similar situation having moved on with their lives as the show has shifted from what you once remembered as great.
I think I can confidently add seasons 9 and 10 to my golden age argument just because I think it has a vast majority of Mike Scully's best episodes from his era as showrunner and there are characters still being introduced that became regulars, with season 9 being a varied tapestry of what all the showrunners brought to the table in one place. Its also still home to many classic moments, as is season 10 (I'll admit I think Mom & Pop Art is carrying the season on its shoulders)
Had the pleasure of speaking with Mike Scully, he was incredibly nice and took the time to give some very intelligent, insightful advice on comedy writing to some armature writers/comedians.
This is a topic that I always knew would be a video someday. A Golden Age video is kinda mandatory for a Simpsons UA-cam review channel. But I put it off for a long time because I was intimidated by the topic. It's not really the kind of thing you can throw a bunch of research at or measure easily. And there has already been a lot of discourse about the topic, many popular UA-cam video essays about it. I wasn't interested in writing a manifesto declaring which seasons I think are "golden" and which aren't, so instead I framed this more about the question itself. It ended up being one of the more challenging videos to write, because there so few definitive answers. Hope you all enjoy my musings.
(Also, on the video editing front, I hope you like VISUAL PUNS because there are a lot of those in here. Thank god for that Gold Homer joke in Dog of Death.) 🤣
I’m surprised you haven’t made this video till now
I hope you do a video on those old archives of reviews from way back then. The three that you picked out were interesting.
One thing I never see defined is the show's "silver age" or "bronze age". Would the Scully years/early Jean years be the Silver Age? Would the Selman years be the Bronze Age?
Scratchy sporting fresh eyes - perfect
@@BB-te8tc good point, I’d maybe lean towards the scully era? would make an interesting follow up!
If you ask anyone from Spain, they will tell you the Golden Age went from seasons 1 - 10. The original voice actors for Homer and Mr. Burns died right after Season 10, and the show was never the same for us. Those voices were too iconic.
I really like all these insights from different countries, it truly was a global phenomenon.
I feel similarly about Phil Hartman. Despite not being part of the main cast, he had a certain "glue" quality to the makeup of the show. His final appearance was S10 and the show really started to decline after his final appearance.
@thrillhouse4151 While not as sad, the actress for Bart in the French dub left after Season 22, and while the new actress does a fine job, it's not quite the same (that voice was super iconic and the original actress even got to play Bart in that one South Park episode that had him).
Similarly, Flanders' actor left after Season 10, and while his delivery is very different, it feels quite in tone with, well, his Flanderisation coming from Maude's death.
@@skakirask Gil was the replacement for Phil Hartman, and he was…Gil.
@@skakirask Phil Hartman was great with his 2 main stay characters and those random 1 off characters he would play. I sometimes find myself wondering what kind of different episodes we would've had if Lionel Hutz and Troy McClure still existed. Nevermind whatever random side characters he could've had. The monorail guy and bart's big brother are probably among my favorite one off characters in the show
The fact there is SO MANY seasons classed as a “golden era” is incredible especially considering most shows only have 1 single season listed as it’s golden era.
If the golden era is Seasons 2-9, then the golden era of The Simpsons is longer than the entire run of most shows.
Same thing with SpongeBob or family guy
I have such nostalgia, but then I go back and it's even funnier than I remember as a kid. It's a crazily good show.
Actually 3, the first 3 seasons are always classed as such. Family guy, Simpsons, SpongeBob etc
They should just make Homer 12 feet tall and covered in 14 karat gold permanently. Then when people ask when the golden age is, we can say right now and it will be the truth
Be the change you want to see in the world, Max. Put 12 foot tall golden homer in your next cartoon
The God has spoken. Make Homer Golden
And also you should win stuff by watching!
And when Homer's not on screen, everyone asks, "Where's Homer?"
max watches jim and that makes me unexplicably happy
"The writers argue against there being a Golden Age" puts me in mind of "Metallica has fiercely defended St. Anger"
I think there are several factors behind it. Part of the problem is that the writers change over time. So while they might think they're putting out their best work ever... that's because it's what they want to do now. It reflects different sensibilities and perspectives. I also think that they don't remember the old episodes very well. In the commentaries you frequently see them talking about how they haven't seen an episode since it first aired. It's not surprising then that they're far more disconnected from them than fans that have been rewatching.
@@Belgandshut up
This is a comparison I never thought of but makes sense when you word it like that. Obviously, the people making the show would be a little more reluctant to call much of their work bad. Not to say all of modern Simpsons IS bad, but you can clearly tell there was a quality drop at some point and most people agree. End of the day, the creators don't really call the shots: The golden age is whatever the viewer determines, both for themself personally and as a general consensus.
@@toon10001two and what, you’re the keeper of all comparisons? You ain’t shit
Metallica jumped the Shark when Dave Mustaine left the band to make the superior band Megadeth :p
Next Mysteries question suggestion: What is the population of Springfield? How big is Springfield really? It has a lot of sport arenas, museum, and things like that but not the kind of bustling high-rises one might encounter in Capitol City. I'd love to hear your thoughts about! #TeamCletusSimpsonsHistories
It's like Jerry Seinfeld's fame level, it depends on the episode. If they want him to be a loser nobody, people don't know him, but if they want people to recognize him, he's a nation-wide famous and beloved comedian.
That's a cool idea. I'd love to see that
Yeah that's a good one. It simultaneously seems to be a small town and a massive metropolis with multiple ethnic districts
@@Business_Skeleton Pretty much, it's a small town and big city at the same time.
great idea - obviously this is very much the nature of the beast when writing about the population of a large town, but the size of Springfield always seems in pretty direct contrast to the amount you see known characters in crowd shots
I stand by that Homer Goes to College has the best culmination of a running gag. Homer’s one sided fight with the dean wraps up with my favorite joke:
Sorry about that prank where I hit you with my car.
Prank?
For me, I've always considered the movie as my chosen ending of the series, at least until the actual finale in 2042.
"Beyond the Laughter" is a good capping off point, too.
Hah, 2042, they will probablly try to milk the series at least until 2050
With AI they probably could.
@@BB-te8tc with Disney owning it, I could see that as a possibility
The movie is pretty mid tho I watched it twice within the last month and I only watched it a second time because it was so forgettable I forgot I had even watched it lmao
It genuinely shocked me to learn that people dislike season 1. It's finding its bearings but so many of the episodes are so heartfelt with great humour.
It definitely has a different tone.
They are good stories and characters, but I just don't think they're very funny, so it's hard to consider them "Golden" comedy.
It oozes charm, but you'd rather not stay there, like your grandparents house
Not really surprising as the season, itself, is VERY different and feels "off" from all other seasons. I could see why it's not everyone's a cup of tea. Also it's not really funny compared too other seasons at all
I tend to skip season one.. it's painful to get through
For us in the Latin American fanbase of the Simpsons, it is generally considered that the Golden Age ended at season 14, since after that, Homer’s voice actor change. The og voice actor (Humberto Velez) made Homer sound hilarious and the way he said things. But the one from season 15 onward just made Homer sound whinny.
You mean S15 when the first run with the original cast ended, it was 16 that had all the recasts. I recall most latin fans being just as fond of S9-15 as 3-8 precisely because the cast still did a great job with these. Glad most of them eventually came back in S32.
Something similar happened in italy when we lost Tonino Accolla, the voice of homer. It just didnt feel the same anymore. Although accolla voiced homer until season 23, so its less the end of the golden age and more the end of an era.
in the spanish spain dub happens the same thing, but the cutoff is at season 8
Tbch I like the work of Victor Manuel Espinoza has Homer, but yeah I agree it was weird when he was trying to emulate Humerto's performance, it got better when he stopped doing that
It is really interesting to hear about how other language cast member changes can affect the show! Of course, as an English language only watcher I can see how it makes a difference, like how I do not consider the Golden Age of The Simpsons starting until Season 2 cuz in S1 Homer just sounded too...weird.
I'm also a 1-8 man and I like your point about "balance" when it comes to seasons 9 and 10. Also the term "Golden Age" can mean a mythical period in the past where everything was good, which really ties in with the idea of nostalgia. Season 1 gives me that feeling for how unique and unusual it is - watching it is like going back in time for me. Whereas later seasons I will rewatch solely for the jokes, I'll watch Season 1 for the vibes.
I’m getting into the Simpsons late and over the past few weeks I’ve been watching the “golden era” episodes. Cant say I personally like seasons 1-3 all that much. For me anyway, the show really hits its stride around 4. So far I’m at 8 and enjoying it quite a lot. Four years of just incredible TV
I get the same feeling too having grown up from 85- now. Simpsons was my favorite
@@jabrokneetoeknee6448the peak of the show 😎
I think my only issue with the Rose Tinted Argument is I SHOULD be nostalgic for seasons 9 and 10. I grew up with them, and I liked them at the time. But I rewatch the series now and the drop off is both quick and prominent.
The jokes are less layered or "screw the audience"-y, instead going back to on the nose gags that miss more. You also see bad habits take off, like an overreliance on positive celebrity cameos. These are tangible things to point to.
If the series could make fun of celebrity culture again, it would easily get rid of one iron weight on the series’ back. There’s more than enough people deserving of being riffed on including the influencers and their scummy practices.
I mean that’s what South Park has been doing for years now.
I was only watching the episodes we had on tape, with some of them from season 3, but missing the seasons 4-8 almost entirely. My favorites were Trash of the titans and City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, but also Last exit to Springfield. When the show got to the season 13, I noticed the episodes not being as good as they have been, but the older episodes I have seen since are almost all so much better.
Season 20 was fifteen years ago. If it was going to get reevaluated and embraced, it would have happened by now.
@@rayvenkman2087i disagree? Not that I'm a huge fan of the fawning over celebrity guest episodes a la Elon, Lisa Goes Gaga etc. but the Simpsons has never been South Park, and whenever it has tried to be South Park it has flopped. SP does not mind being mean-spirited and adolescent - it's kind of the point of the show, and its quick production cycle means it can very easily do ripped from the headlines plots.
@@cmbeadle2228 The SImpsons, yes, never made fun of celebrities the same way SP or FG did, if at all, they always had them and obviously the jokes were consented. Unlike FG which doesn't care what they think.
Counterpoint to the rose tinted glasses theory:
The first seasons of the Simpsons that I watched were the late Scully-Early Al Jean seasons (11-15 or so). I watched them as syndication on the UK's 'Sky' network. I loved these episodes when I watched them and became a Simpsons fan (although by no means hardcore).
Years later a friend of mine introduced me to the Golden Age seasons (1-8 as he presented them) and they blew me away. I had seen basically none of them before. Now I am a hardcore 1-8 Golden Age believer and I dislike the exact era of the show I should have nostalgia for. Nostalgia can be a powerful force, but it is not always the judgement poisoning thing people argue it always is.
Time will gild memories but the gold flakes off as soon as you go back to whatever it is that you remember - at least it does for me. I seem to have more resentment towards things i used to love than i ever would if i hadn't. Then again if people are speaking of episodes they have not seen in years the effect could be different.
The first seven/eight/maybe some of nine (IT DOESN’T matter exactly which seasons you put in that category) was perhaps the best television ever. I adored the Simpsons as a kid, and watching those early episodes as an adult is every bit as entertaining. When the Simpsons was new, those first “however” many seasons, stands up against any TV in history.
Yep same, I only just last year watched the first 8 seasons of the Simpsons for the first time; I have no “nostalgic” connection to them. Everything I’ve seen from the later years seems incredibly unfunny and forced in comparison.
I think the writers just use the rose tinted glasses excuse as copium, like of course they aren’t going to say the show went downhill. It only still exists to keep the brand and merchandise alive, it would be bad business sense to admit the show is far beyond its prime. Hell, it would be bad business sense to say the show isn’t in its best seasons to date.
What I hear is: “I don’t need to strive to be better, I have stayed the same and your nostalgia has clouded your perception of how good I am”
What a hack sentiment.
The Steve Ditko example is wild, because those comics do hold up and are objectively better than any spiderman comic since, that is why it’s one of the only eras of spiderman that is continually reprinted.
TLDR nostalgia is a weak defence against artistic failure.
I would bet money you could find someone who has never seen the simpsons, make them watch all of it, and they would still roughly fall under the same golden age years consensus
I’m exactly the same (although more sympathetic to seasons 9-19)
Are the Simpson's writers so out of touch? No, it's the fans who are wrong.
Fans: “Lisa goes GaGa is a worse episode than Lisa’s Substitute.”
Writers: “That’s just like, your opinion, man.”
Nailed it
Right 💛
@@born2hula325 I really liked Lisa's Substitute. Anyone who disagrees is a baboon.
@@AmyDaisy69 A what?!
To disagree with Matt and Al, I first watched the Simpsons in 2020 when I went to the Simpsons ride at Universal, and decided to give a random season a watch on the hotel TV. I just went to a random season, and that random season was S24, I loved it. I watched S23, 22, 21, and I loved them. After going home 1 week later, I finally watched S1-7, and I loved them even more. So, as you can see, I have no nostalgia for early Simpsons, since I didn’t watch it first, and I have an open mind for modern Simpsons, bc I watched them first, I had an open mind going into them. I am the opposite of what Matt and Al were talking about
And yet i am, in fact, a firm believer of the Golden Age and understand that S1-9 are better than Seasons like, 13-29 by a lot
So no, the golden age is real, and if I were Matt or another show runner, I would say:
“Yes, while I, and the other members of the team, try to add new and exciting things to the show constantly, and try to top ourselves each time for the sake of enjoyment, we do recognize the show is long past its glory days. But it doesn’t matter, we just hope we can add some laughs to your day.”
Instead of:
“Erm, you guys are just reminiscing about the past, geezers! Like, open your miiiind man!”
I wouldnt take that seriously the opinion of people wtih clear conflict of interest
I appreciate how you used all the Simpsons content creators as the voices of the episode reviews.
Czs world a legend in the comments
cz why are you on like every video i watch we watch the same people i stg
There are more than three other Simpsons content creators.
@@singleplayermomentsyeah, this guy is the r word
Your fantastic intro sequence to Simpsons Mysteries contains screenshots exclusively from Seasons 1-9, plus one outlier from Season 13. That creative choice definitely reinforces the idea that this is the only era “worthy” of montage assembly, partly because you can guarantee that every viewer will recognise every single image.
Which is from s13
@@Pacmanfan-po9rn The Blunder Years
Not necessarily. The choice to use Season 1-9 screenshots in his intro sequence doesn't mean that is the only era worthy of montages. There can be any number of confounding explanations. Here's a few:
-1- Timing/Experience.
His first Simpsons Mystery video was made in 2014. Likely when he was far less experienced with the Simpsons and UA-cam. If you were starting out making videos, wouldn't you try learning on what you were more familiar with? In his case, if he was more experienced with earlier Simpsons episodes than new ones, he'd lean on them more in his intros. This isn't uncommon in the UA-cam sphere. Many gaming personalities do often incorporate designs that become more retro in the future. For example, Caddicarus started his UA-cam career reviewing PS3 and 4 games which is why his logo has the PS3/4 buttons on it. But now he reviews a variety of games across many different platforms and focusses on skits (and also the PS5 has different coloured buttons) so his logo is more of an artifact or retro throwback than a declaration of his current style.
Anyway, I imagine if TheRealJims had to make the intro from scratch today, or if he started the Simpsons Mystery series today, he might have used different screenshots as he'd be more familiar with more episodes.
-2-: The context of the mysteries themselves:
Many of the mysteries he presents in his videos have been long running. With even modern Simpons episodes adding details to the pile. Such as Nelson's father, Martin and Kearney. Given that the Simpsons rarely deviates from its status quo, many of these mysteries have been present from the early Seasons. And his videos often introduce when the mystery first began. So if you were making a UA-cam Series documenting when a Simpsons Mystery started and needed a visual representation, you'd naturally lean on using the older Simpsons Seasons where that mystery was first introduced.
Like, it doesn't really make sense to use a modern screenshot of modern Hermann to represent the mystery of Hermann as he was mostly present in those earlier seasons and the mystery is focussed more on his earlier appearances anyway.
This leads to the next explanation:
-3-: The focus of the seasons and the role of the internet.
It is entirely possible that early Simpsons episodes focussed more on content that led to mysteries. While newer Simpsons either don't have that focus, or still do but the Mystery hasn't yet picked up steam or traction. Like, the "Ralph Wiggum Viking" Mystery didn't immediately kick in when that episode first aired. It kicked in years after the fact. Also, since many early Simpons episodes came out before the Internet and UA-cam and Reddit really allowed fan theories to run wild, it allowed the mysteries of older seasons to grow more as there weren't easy ways to get an answer.
This pheonoma has actually happened before in other communities. Using video games as an example, the 2004 video game Grand Theft Auto San Andreas sparked a massive mystery that Bigfoot was in the game. Bigfoot was actually never in the game but it was so easy to create a cheap hoax using mods and screenshots and there was no way to disprove them. This made Bigfoot and GTA SA very popular. But even though current GTA and RDR games actually do have Bigfoot, aliens and even more secrets, they aren't as popular as all original bigfoot mystery because the internet has allowed any and all mysteries to be revealed day 1 by players and modders. Pokemon is also another example. There can't be another "Mew Under the Truck" because if there were, you'd know it on day 1.
All of these explanations can perfectly explain why TheRealJims chose to primarily rely on older Simpsons Screenshots for his opening, yet it doesn't correlate that reveals that era to be a golden age.
@@FraserSouristhank you for the superb explanation!
i'd also like to add:
- mixing in 4:3 screenshots with 16:9 screenshots would probably not be very pleasing to the eye and would also be hard to edit
- same logic applies to mixing cel animated screenshots with the digitally animated screenshots
- there's not much content in s14-s20 to warrant much mysteries (not to say these seasons are bad, i quite like em)
Honestly, that was one of the best Simpsons essays I've ever seen; fair, funny, bringing new ideas to the table. I love that you are neither a hater nor a fanboy, but a critical fan. We really ARE in the Golden Age of TheRealJims. ^^
RealJims is THE Real Jim. Always trying to talk about more than the everchanging "Golden Era".
Realjims is low key the best channel in youtube
It was a really good and interesting watch for sure!
Amen@@loutoad123
Hang on, I'm the Real Jim. That guy TheFakeTims has been impersonating as me for nine years.
11:15 Personally, I grew up with seasons 15 - 20, those are the seasons where I was watching new episodes on broadcast television and was aware of them as new episodes. But I can still quite clearly see when I rewatch them today that those seasons were a lot weaker, and that the older episodes are much stronger. The idea that the 2 - 8 golden age only exists within the minds of the people who grew up with those seasons just... seems to be blatantly false, to me
Interesting perspective I must say!
I was wondering who the 5% were who didn't consider season 6 part of the Golden Age, then I remembered there are a handful of old Simpsons fans who ONLY like season 1 and 2, and think everything after that was a betrayal of the show's original vision or whatever
That's an interesting perspective
That’s their loss lol they miss out on so much classic stuff, they were mainly old nerd types who thought the show was built for them by being smart/grounded and less wacky than other cartoons
@@yellowfamilyfunny3065 Seasons 1-2 aren't realistic that's a laugh. I remember when my 10-year-old tried to jump a gorge on a skateboard. I remember when my children solved a crime adults couldn't and had a clown want to kill one of them. Bob's Burgers and King of the Hill are the more realistic cartoons. The Simpsons was always very cartoony. Down to earth are the last words I would use to describe this show. Unlike Loud House which actually did have down-to-earth plots and jumped the shark. We went from Lincoln wanting to sit at the grownups table to plots about ghost hunting.
@@icecreamhero2375 obviously I don’t mean actually realistic, The Simpsons was always an absurdist and silly show but that season 1 & 2 had a more grounded approach to their stories, having more traditional sitcom plots and sentimentality. Season 4 onwards ups the absurdity of The Simpsons world considerably, you could and would not have homer from the first two seasons go to space or cause a nuclear meltdown in a simulator
Then those people should see King of The Hill.
Issue with the rose-tinted-argument for me, is that I was just as much a child in the post season 10 episodes as I was viewing the pre season 10 episodes, yet I could tell the difference in quality.
Yeah, usually creators and many sorts of people use the "it's just nostalgia" to dismiss the glowing fact that it's very much likely that almost any media 20 years ago were way more humanly relatable than any sort of content today, even for generations that weren't even alive back then. I don't know why. Maybe it's the cultural material of then and the general weariness of both the creators and of our current time. You must be very desensitized to not perceive it.
I grew up in the 2000s during the "middle era" of the show, so I tend to be more forgiving of those episodes. Nowadays, I feel the '90s seasons are more consistently entertaining, but my nostalgia goggles prevent me from hating what followed.
I mean even among ppl like myself who did not watch any era growing up there tends to be a consensus on the first 6-8 seasons being the best ones.
@@CoryTheNormSame here but those mid years have some hard laughs from me
As a kid, growing up with mixed season reruns and new episodes
Y always preferred S3-S9, I liked some episodes of S1-2 but those seasons felt so different, and lile liked a lot of episodes of Season 10-15, But the consistency diminished
I think 1-10 is a great overall grouping to consider the Golden Age, both because 10 is such a nice, round number to end on, and seasons 1-10 basically encompass the entire 90s. The Simpsons and Seinfeld are both shows that embody the 90s to me and ran for basically the entire decade. And I don't expect Simpsons to ever "reach" those heights again; it's almost impossible to, Simpsons can't rule the world like they used to. I don't keep up with modern Simpsons, but so long as each season coming out is "pretty good", I think we're doing alright.
The funny thing is, I actually started watching the show during Season 9, but I always considered the Scully era to be a Bronze era. Seasons 1 and 2 are the "Silver Age" and 3-8 were the "Golden Age". 13-18 were the Dark Age, then right after the movie things improved a fair amount, until we eventually reach the point where everything's just a mixed bag, with the occasional gem and stinker being about equally likely to show up.
I've been watching since the beginning and I 100% agree with you. I dropped off the show around season 13, partly due to what I perceived as a drop in quality and partly because I was crazy busy with college at that point. I distinctly remember returning to the series in season 20 and waiting for the DVD releases of 13-18 so I could catch back up (and being pretty "meh" about them when I did watch them).
Seasons 13-15 were GREAT to be honest. I found those seasons to be more consistent compared to the Scully years.
The irony is, I'd probably consider 13-16 a Bronze Age.
And I guess Seasons 9-12 an Iron Age?...
It gets kinda messy. At the time, it felt like approaching and going beyond Season 20 that things were improving. But with hindsight, 13-16 were a precipitous before things became a really big mess.
This is, of course, EXTREMELY subjective. And purely my feelings. But it comes to mind.
I've heard 8 or 9 through 11 or 12 called 'purgatorio'. Worst Episode Ever podcast I think it was.
As a lifelong viewer from S1 onward, I too believe S3-S8 to be the unimpeachable Golden era of The Simpsons. Your application of the ages to the surrounding seasons is very appropriate.
I'm harder on the show than you in that I didn't really love the movie. I pretty much stopped watching entirely after S12, and have since caught many episodes I've missed in 20 years on TV syndication and streaming by chance. It's very rarely that I'm impressed by one, and episodes that monkey with classic character's canons in less than stellar ways (Looking at Sideshow Bob's Family arc, ugh) really grind my gears!
I still love 'The Simpsons', but my memory of it is basically a time capsule of those six magical years in the 90s. I'm okay with this, and I really appreciate seeing a well-reasoned approach to the topic by a certified youtube scholar!
The fact that season 20 has a higher percentage than season 19 means either some people chosen only season 20 as the golden age or some people just selected seasons without keeping it as a single age.
Season 20 was the switch to HD animation.
I know you were using it as an example of how nostalgia can cloud our memory, but can I just say that the ending to Homie the Clown is absolutely brilliant? We finally get to see the incredible climatic set-piece that the entire episode was gradually building towards (Homer and Krusty riding the tiny bicycle through the loop) and then we discover that Krusty's debts to the mafia amounted to a mere 48 dollars, revealing that the entire conflict could have been avoided had either Krusty simply paid up or if the mafia waivered the petty cash he owed. They're even honourable enough to offer change for his 50 bucks!
Exactly. And Krusty's debts and loans from the mob were established from the very beginning. Plus Homer failing to ride the small bike was something that we wanted him to succeed at. Great comment there. 😊
I think he knows that. Homey the Clown is a great example of a satisfactory plant and payoff... Unlike the Armin Tamsarian episode where they just wheel the real Seymour Skinner out of town and decide never to talk about it again.
@@ridensroom6957 i know thats the joke, but it's still nonsensical reasoning which any modern episode would get ripped apart for. There does feel like an untouchable aura to anything in those earlier seasons, but at the same time I get defensive myself over them lol
Shhh...your defending "Homie The Clown" goes against the narrative that there was never a Simpsons golden age, and therefore goes against the narrative that the show isn't on a decline...
That's not a satisfying payoff. Someone mentioning a thing, and then doing said thing later is extremely common in stories. Krusty only owing $48 makes the whole conflict a waste of time. That entire episode is terrible.
I absolutely love season one! I love the weird animation and minimalistic backgrounds. It just has such a nostalgic innocence feel to it. So I would include it in my “golden age” selection. I also find the tv rating argument a little tired now. People watch shows very differently then we did back in the 90’s it’s kind of impossible to actually create a real number to show how popular something is. I still love the show now and yes I do think some of the better episodes were in the old seasons but I’m aware that’s a lot of nostalgia bias. This most recent Halloween episode was so good! One of the best in years. Anyway love the channel as always ❤
I've lately seen the term "Classic Simpsons" more often when discussing the show's 90s output, including this channel, and I think it's a better one that "Golden Age" imo.
Thank you for the Season 9 love!
Rewatching this season, I really feel it is about as good as Season 8 and even has a couple less dud episodes than the previous year. It’s really a great victory lap before the (in my opinion) drastic drop-off that happens at season 10.
I feel the definition of the Golden Age is getting narrower and narrower as time goes on. It feels like nowadays it's 3-8, but also that 8 was "mostly good" and 3 also had its weak moments so it's really just 4-7. Personally, for me it's 1-10 but I think every season has at least some merit. I didn't start feeling like the show was actively producing more bad episodes than good until Season 17 or so. I think losing Phil Hartman hurt quite a lot.
Personally, I'm old enough to remember the negative reactions to the Scully era via the SNPP website and nohomers, and I've even read negative reviews from Usenet users for Season 5 episodes.
Agree with your statement on Season 2 being schmaltzy but that's actually why I love it so much. I absolutely recommend watching the first two seasons though since the barbed social commentary is still totally there. It's just a bit better hidden.
it depends on who you talk to but really you can treat it similar to the bell curve of votes, 6 seems to be the peak with 7 and 8 being less good but still full of classics with 9 being the first signs of trouble.
9 and 10 still have classics, but they also have a few duds I'd rather skip and I can't say the same about 4 or 5
To me 1-9 is the golden age, with 3-7 being the peak years but the seasons around it are still great.
Terrific job on this video. Thank you for being clear with your own opinions and respecting the different members of the fan base. I love seasons 8 & 9. I think that they are very underrated. They are part of my Golden age for sure!
I vehemently disagree on the "rose-tinted glasses" argument, and I think people like Al Jean just search for excuses why their stint with the show is rated horribly.
I, for example, saw season 12-16 as a kid and have fond memories of some of these episodes... but when I watch them again, I can see the clear fall from grace The Simpsons has suffered.
I agree that there is a certain nostalgia for things you see as a kid... but also, I think it's unfair to say that nobody can fairly re-evaluate these things as an adult.
Also, about the newer episodes: in my opinion, A LOT more would be forgiven (like silly plot resolutions) if the episodes would be funnier. Cause that is what's missing. The insanely densely written humour. Oh, and the humanity.
I've definitely not seen any rose-tinted effect with the shows I used to watch. For example, I've gone back and rewatched both Pokemon and Digimon after becoming an adult. Pokemon holds up really well for hundreds of episodes, even ones I didn't see as a kid. Meanwhile it was hard to even get through the first handful of digimon episodes because that show starts off very kiddy. I think the only reason I will eventually trudge through it is because I know it gets better, especially in season 3.
Evn as a kid I felt the same way. 1-2 was the rise, 12-16 was the decline.
Yeah, I grew up watching The Simpsons, both serialized and new releases. I'm only 19, but even I can see how much better seasons 3-8 are than the others. Never had any idea which season an episode was from, yet the only episodes i remember for being are the Golden Age ones.
Those quotes about nostalgia really hit home. Most new games I pick up (which aren't many) are sequels to franchises I fell in love with as a kid, or entries in franchises I overlooked as a kid, while most of the games I actually _play_ are from early to mid-00s.
6:25 I’m actually one of the 5% who didn’t vote 6. No real reason for not picking 6. I’m just a huge fan of the first 4 seasons for its more down to earth vibe. For example, Lisa’s substitute is my all-time favorite.
5% crew represent!
I figured that most of the people who didn't pick seasons 4-7 didn't not pick all of them, but rather they'd mostly be either season 1-4 or season 5-8, or something along those lines
One thing that is very interesting in terms of nostalgia and rose-colored glasses. When I first discovered the Simpsons, our Norwegian channel had a weird schedule when airing the episodes. I think they mixed episodes from season 1 through 8 as well as season 13-15. I guess it was that they bought the rights for some of the newer seasons? As a 12-13 year old I noticed that there were slight differences in the animation, but didn't think much of it. Point is that I have a weird nostalgia for season 13-15 since it was intermixed with the classics.
I find the idea of TV golden ages very interesting because, like you said, people commonly attribute large changes in production and writing to just one singular episode, acting like all the episodes were fully created in order one after the other.
People use the Term “Jump the shark” as a indication of a shows decline, but actually the episode of Happy days with the shark jump was insanely popular and the series had many successful seasons after the shark jump, kinda defeating the entire point of identifying one episode as the end of a era
You fundamentally misunderstand what jumping the shark is about. The jump the shark term is because of how much Happy Days changed from "show about nostalgia for Americana" to "Fonzie does increasingly stupid shit for ratings" after that episode's success. It represents a decline for the show because it's a complete change in tone that both alienates the original, intended audience, and becomes more of a thing to gawk at for the new audience with each increasingly stupid gimmick to get ratings.
This is especially true when you consider how many seasons have carry over episodes that were put together by the previous showrunner(s).
Or, for that matter, little things like John Swartzwelder being perhaps the show's most prolific and beloved writer who also happened to write some of the most divisive or even hated episodes of the Scully era (Kill the Alligator and Run, Simpsons Safari, etc)
@@lhfirex I remember reading a at a discount book store the Official Jumped the Shark book that had to be published about 2000 or so. It was just full of the snarkiest, Gen-X-iest prose out there. I especially remember reading a passage about South Park how it "Jumped the Shark" because it made a movie and the show wasn't the exact same season 1 that even the creators want to disavow. Pretty short sighted, and why the term is thrown around willy nilly.
@@lhfirex but the show was still majorly successful so like does it matter
Speaking as someone who was born towards the end of Mike Scully’s run, my earliest Simpsons memories were still reruns of Seasons 3-8, before seeing the movie in theatres, catching some later season reruns, a few premieres of the burgeoning HD era, and I began collecting the season boxsets in order. Season 1 was nothing like how I saw the show beforehand, but I was captivated by how different and innocent it was. I’d never seen anything earlier than Bart the Murderer, so it was incredible to see this sort of proto-Simpsons. I got less of it when we got Season 2, as it was picking up the pace and getting funnier, but for a brief time, I felt like I had discovered The Simpsons all over again. I spent months collecting the next couple, watching every episode in order and seeing things get more familiar, but stopped towards the end of Season 9 because the individual episodes were getting way spottier. We picked up the rest of the Scully seasons out of habit, because 12 was the newest DVD at the time.
After watching the show in order, it’s like I had this entirely new perspective on it. What changed over time, when it got good, when it got not-as-good-all-the-time. And I think that’s a shared experience with others who’ve watched it this way on DVD or streaming, or were lucky to be alive at the beginning. There’s a lot of factors I know about now that led to Season 9 being a relative misstep, but I didn’t know them at the time. That’s all my experience with Golden Age Simpsons and how I formed it in my head, but if some people are able to extend it through to the movie and beyond, I guess like any opinion, subjectivity is welcome.
What I feel bad about is that whenever I watch a current episode now, I want to love it but I can’t. When I watched everything up to Season 30 in order a few years ago, by the time I was at 25, I was stuck in “bitch eating crackers” mode. Every plot beat and joke bothered me, even if it was something I would’ve like a couple hundred episodes earlier. Were these the very worst episodes? Of course not, but I was too full for that 20 course dessert. It’s why, with the Scully and teens years as a bridge, I try to keep the classic and modern episodes as far away from each other as I can in my mind. If someone tells me the newest season was the best since 8, I’d question it. Best since 20? I can believe it. I’m sure the past couple seasons really have been an improvement, they have been from what I’ve seen, but I can see they’re a different kind of good than the early seasons.
A follow-up video discussing a Silver Age would have an interesting comment section. A lot of individuals torn over a super specific 4 season run later on being the spirital successor to Classic Simpsons, or if it’s all mediocre. (That opinion amuses me, because it would actually be impressive if they could make 500+ equally average episodes in a row.)
I always saw season 10 as the end of the golden era. Not only because I personally feel like that's where the decline in quality starts, but also because that's the last season made in the 90s. The simpsons were a 90s phenomenon, but they also needed the 90s as a part of their identity. I always felt like the 2000s broke the Simpsons in some way. Not to mention that new shows were then starting to crawl up, trying to take its place. Including, ironically, futurama
I agree with you in regards to the 90s aspect of it all. Everyone was gunning to BE "The Simpsons" while The Simpsons were kind of just making episodes as they already WERE The Simpsons.
Plus the way the entire world got way darker and serious (at least to a teenager in Canada) after 2001 did not help the nostalgia factor present around the early seasons of the show.
Plus ten seasons isn’t a bad run for a series.
Matt Groening should have jumped from show to show, and not try to run all of them simultaneously, I have enjoyed the first few seasons of Disenchantment .
In the 90's, the Simpsons were part of the counter culture. In the 2000's they were an established worldwide phenomenom.
Totally agree, ten seasons is that solid block of 90s episodes before Phil Hartman died and Futurama took over...
In contradiction to a premise you lay out early in this video, I think the end of the Simpsons Golden Age *can* be linked to one episode: Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie. It's not a character change or a thematic change in the show, but rather a moment after which neither the viewers nor the writers can think of the show in the same terms. By laying out bare so much of "how the sausage gets made" in one episode (for better and for worse), we can no longer interact with this piece of media the same way we used to.
To be clear, that's not a qualitative statement. I'm not saying all episodes after Poochie are bad, or that all episodes before are good. But that episode marks the shift: one era before, and another era after.
That's so funny you say that because I was thinking the same thing! I was wondering, "what would be my pick if I had to make one?" And while the Poochie episode is awesome and amazing, there is an argument that the point of view of the show is permanently changed after doing such an episode. They had done plenty of industry insider episodes with I&S but the meta Simpsons angle makes it different
I used to love that ep I really did. What changed it for me was the incredibly defensive dvd commentary of Principal and the Pauper. There were echoes of where I had heard a similar message before. That made me go back and really evaluate what they were doing with Poochie, and I'd pin it down to a single scene even that signals the end of that era. The one where Bart gets to be the mouthpiece of the writers to deliver a 'take that' to the audience. It's so heavy handed in retrospect, so obviously out of character, and it only landed as well as it did despite that thanks to the sheer strengths of the jokes surrounding it.
I'd agree, and add that Homer's Enemy and The Spin-Off Showcase are also, in their different ways, deconstructions of the show, and that the cumulative effect of the three episodes meant that things couldn't go on as before. After those three episodes, why not abandon the backstory of a significant secondary character and then announce that everyone is going to pretend the revelation never happened? You've already winked at the audience, so what's the fuss? I can understand the writers' surprise at how jarring the audience found that particular episode after having seen earlier deconstructive episodes find at least a measure of acclaim. To be clear, I really rate both Homer's Enemy and Poochie, but you can only do something like that once before you are in effect cannibalising your show. I think the writers perhaps knew this and decided to deconstruct the show because they assumed it would shortly be ending. Scully had to either try and reconstruct the show or try and carry on as before and I don't think an attempt to return to the status quo ante would have been any more successful than the change in emphasis he in fact decided on.
This was maybe the most thoughtful and balanced discussion I've heard on the topic of the Simpsons quality as a show, an maybe super-fandom in general. Seriously, great kudos, I could think of nothing more to add.
1-8 is also where I fall on this. I was at peak nostalgia age starting at about season 9-10, yet it's those earlier seasons which I'll actually sit down and watch. There were shifts in the humor during this time, but as a whole the episodes flowed better and more consistently landed with their end goals (whether that was schmaltz or jokes.) Season 9 was still "good" on the whole but you could feel the fatigue, and after that the humor I loved from The Simpsons seemed to move to Futurama.
This is one of the best videos on Simpsons I've ever seen, truly interesting prospective on simpsons fans.
The Meta "Why would a man whose shirt says ‘Genius at work’ spend all of his time watching a children’s cartoon show?” joke applies here.
When was The Simpsons ever exclusively for kids? And why is it on late night?
@@chrisrj9871 actually the simpsons schedule was changed often not just "late", but 8 pm New York time isn't really "late", that's considered prime time television.
That is actually a good take from Matt. The longer a show goes for, the more fans have to compare. This is the same reason TCGs get power creep.
apples to oranges. Power creep is more to the show having to change the status quo because they've already done everything else with the characters
@@Oridan1 This sounds like Granny Smith vs. Golden Delicious
Very similar ideas it sounds like....or else I don't get your argument, as a person not aware of the specifics of TCG games
Edit: I think more accurately your comment was probably "explaining" why OP's argument was valid I guess
I think the argument made sense in 2007, but now the seasons from back then are older than the classic ones were at that point and very few people will argue that something like season 15 is part of the golden age.
I guess that's the main reason on why i and a lot of people keep loving the newer episodes that had a diferent take in the show (Lisa The Boyscout/Pixelated And Affraid/A Serious Flanders) instead of the overused plots that the show has made since it's beginning, this is an amazing video and demonstrate how a show can still be viewed as funny depending on who you're asking
I feel like the latest season is doing what the series should have been done years ago and that’s experimenting. Think outside the box. Make up new scenarios for the characters to experience. Revisit old ones with a new angle and ideas for it.
Heck, use an overdone plot and put a new spin on it. Marge and Homer having another marriage crisis again? Have it be the work of a petty asshole going out of their way to ruin it just to be an asshole.
Or to lampoon it further; people think they’re having martial problems because one of their friends heard an out of context exchange between them and mistakenly thought they’re having a fight before going off to tell everyone else about it while the two are wondering what’s even going on. Make it play out like another one of those episodes but the viewers are the ones having the jokes played on.
@@rayvenkman2087 Forreal. The episode where Bart falls down a missle silo is one of the coolest episodes ever because it's just in a completley different part of town.
@BobtheX Sometimes when you're around for that long, you gotta experiment every once in a while. Season 7 and 8 are proof of this. It's not always going to produce a success and it's hard to top the first ten seasons just because of the talent of writers the show had in the 90's is unparalleled even by the standards of other programs but it's worth trying.
Plus Jean was showrunner for too long. Even JNT didn't helm Doctor Who for that long of a period compared to his tenure on the Simpsons and it no doubt contributed to the Zombie Simpsons argument.
Matt Selman taking charge as showrunner and the results Season 33 and 34 produced proves my point. It's a herculean task to top the likes of Season 3-4, 5-6 or 7-8 but that's okay, most shows would kill just to even have their Simpsons Season 10 including Hazbin Hotel to name an example.
Post-Classic episodes like Barthood and Trilogy of Error show that the show can still make a classic but they're not concentrated in a single season as much. A good showrunner makes all the difference to the quality output of a series.
Just look at Michael Piller's Star Trek TNG tenure starting with Season 3 up to his departure in Season 6 with Yesterday's Enterprise, The Most Toys, Sarek, The Best of Both Worlds Part I & II and The Inner Light among the most loved episodes of the series.
All made possible thanks to him.
A golden age isnt so much about the episodes themselves, it's more about what was possible and permissible within the episodes, depending on how the characters were situated within it. In S 1-5, it was, as you say, very sentimental - very focussed on one family reacting to a world that they didn't undertsand and it didn't understand them and the small cadre of other oddballs who felt the same way, It was a show driven by the values of the protagonists. As it became less about story and consequnces and more about the set up and delivery of jokes, this was fine because the jokes were playing the long game with the audience. The "golden age" ended when the jokes became quicker, more obvious, sometimes funnier but were delivered at the expense of characters, not via the characters journey through a situation and we slid into jerkass Homer, a too broad cast of disposable characters who just walk in to say a catch phrase and the celebrities who started appearing as themselves for the sake of doing it. My 2c
For me its seasons 3-11. With behind-the-laughter being a perfect finale.
Agree.
I've been rewatching and buying the DVD's and when I looked at the episode listings for 12 I was like "oh damn, I can't see many I'm looking forward to watching" and I took a long break
Love that episode. It's the perfect parody of Behind the Music. Probably one of my favorites.
I quite like the idea of Bart changing the channel at the end of "Poochie" as a finale.
Lisa's "pills" joke just doesn't do it for me. Just another college frat boi redneck guffaw joke.
This is interesting, because I’ve always taken it for granted that most would say Seasons 1 - 9 was the Golden Age, with the episode “The Principal and the Pauper” being considered the “Jump the Shark” moment.
I'd say season 2 is when the golden episodes start to really grow into an era, while 9 is when the cracks are starting to show. The principal and the pauper is not responcible for the downfall of the golden age, but it was symptomatic of the end incoming. When "screw the audience jokes" became "screw the audience" plots.
Plus the teenage seasons have now had just as much time to gain the nostalgia of a new generation, and time to mull them over in general, that would afford them golden status if it was purely a nostalgia thing.
I feel like season 9's tree house of horror is a good indicator of the overall season. The first 2 segments are really good (Homega Man, Fly VS Fly), but Easy-Bake Coven is just... bland. There's one or two good jokes in it, but first time I watched it I remember thinking that that segment just... sucked.
Exactly, if those teen seasons were good perception of them would have improved by now. The writing quality simply dropped.
The show started off being about Bart, and took a couple seasons to become mostly about Homer in accordance with fan response. Some embraced Homer's increasingly wild antics, while others mourned the man who pawned his TV to pay for mental healthcare for his family. I loved the wholesome charm of the first two seasons, yet strapped in and felt the G's of over the top Homer that followed. I'd say the average scores are about right.
I never had seasons on DVD. Just assortments of random episodes. Normally I'd just watch the simpsons every night on TV so I can't even make a call on when the Golden Age was because I watched the entire series for years out of order, just watching whatever happened to be on without the knowledge of what other episodes it was made alongside. Stuff in the teen seasons are some of the ones I loved most growing up
Without a doubt, Seasons 1 and 2 are my favourite. It feels so unique and old school. I love it.
Then it is season 9. Never laughed harder than during that season of the show.
Then it's the certified classic 3-8. Those shows are so good that they stand out during that period....but they don't quite have the charm and quirkiness of 1 or 2, nor the balanced insanity of 9. They still make up what Simpsons is and should be. But.....1,2 and 9 really really get my goat and my heart.
I'll say it: I'm so used to you using that stock photo of Al jean that when you used a modern one at 12:57, it felt like a jump scare.
one topic i think would be interesting is how well the simpsons fit into modern times. they were designed for the late 80's/early 90's, and even in the 90's John Waters was telling The Simpsons how old-fashioned they seem. I wonder if being stuck in tradition makes it feel archaic, or if they've integrated the modern world/technology into the show as well as they can.
Im personally a seasons 2-8 guy, can always revisit these and never get tired of them
Agreed. I just restarted S3 on Disney+ on the weekend. Oh Homer, you could've avoided so much trouble if you had just gone to see Look Who's Oinking another night.
I get madder than a.. yak in heat, whenever the senseless dunderpates exclude Season 2, yet include Season 9 or even 10. Season 2 had all the necessary characterization, and the zaniness was toned down. The literary roots of Harvard eggheads are most evident in the quiet pathos often visible in Season 2. SEASON 2 WAS A BEAUTIFUL MAN! CAN'T YOU LITTLE VULTURE LEAVE IT ALONE!?
@@ariagabariaga1632 I'll have whatever you're smoking
@@ariagabariaga1632 I agree, but I have to say it seems Homer hasnt been the only one “increasing their word power” recently - thank you readers digest!
Personally, I think seasons 2-9 are part of the golden age. Season 2 was more down to earth and emotional than the later years (will always cherish Lisa's Substitute) and season 9 always felt like part of season 8 in my opinion where episodes were still classic but one can tell that cracks were starting to show. I guess that was not surprising though since a bunch of episodes like The New York one and The Principal and the Pauper were holdovers from season 8. Those episodes could easily be part of the same season as Homer's Enemy. Season 10 however was when the episodes started to feel more different with all the screw-the-audience jokes and celebrating guests popping up every other episode.
I'm glad you picked the same years as I did when I filled out the poll. I have a lot of feelings on this, as I practically watched the show from the age of 2 (I was born in 1988), so it was a very nostalgic part of my childhood. But I have a distinct memory from when I was about 10. I was a huge Simpsons fan, and it felt very personal to me. My mom took me to a talk from Mike Reiss at a college campus and in an auditorium, we watched Marge vs. the Monorail together and the audience loved it. That's when it truly hit me how the show appealed to all age levels. There was a richness, a fullness to the show, that started dwindling in the Mike Scully era. I don't blame him, specifically, but that is where I see the cracks in the formula, and the more self-aware "commenting on a joke" style of humor that the earlier seasons lacked. The show itself seemed to be unable to support its own momentum and it felt as if it stopped caring about itself. Obviously, it was still trying new things, but it couldn't get past it's own glory and lost it's spark. The Maude Flanders death is a particular pivot for me not because the show revolved around her, but it was such a cruel twist on an established character that seemed designed to be "shocking" rather than meaningful (a la Bleeding Gums Murphy). The humor felt very shallow more often than deep from then on. Consistency is key, and when the consistent humor is subpar and the consistent storylines are barebones, the golden age ends.
Great content. This is clearly still in the golden age of your series
What a fantastic video. It's seasons 2-9 for me, although 9 is definitely hit and miss - but the hits are so good that I can't not include it. Season 1 is exactly as you described - still finding its feet, and it just feels a bit weird to watch - it doesn't have that classic Simpsons feel for me. But I totally understand anyone who would include it, and at the end of the day it is always going to be a subjective and personal choice. Keep up the great work Jims, your videos always make me laugh and make me think.
Fab video- for me personally the Golden Age officially stopped with the death of Phil Hartman. I feel that his energy was never truly (and in all fairness never could be) replaced.
Yes!
@@alexeidarling quite right.
This is one of my favorite videos from you so far, very informative for such a subjective topic, entertaining as always, and I think you achieved what you set out to make.
I would love a video on the review archive, though I guess it might be a hard structure for a whole video.
As someone who has only seen maybe 20 episodes total (6 probably being modern) This always was an interesting thing to go through. I've seen a lot of shows have this sort of unclear idea of the golden era, and like implied it does really tie into when it was watched as part of your formative years. I think what ends up being more interesting to me is this need to justify not liking a show as much all the time, when the answer could just be time and tastes changing. But it is what it is anyhow, was a really cool video.
Honestly, hearing you talk about Homie the Clown kinda made me realize a specific bias I have, where I don't judge references I wasn't around for as harshly.
Like I tend to view modern Simpsons as very out of touch, because I get the references and often eye roll at them or think they're unfunny, something that I think I'm very much shielded from when they refer to phenomena that I wasn't around for, because I can't really tell how it would scan when it was fresh.
Honestly this is a topic I've been subconsciously thinking about since finding your channel some odd years ago, but I'm not sure if I ever thought you'd actually cover it. Was super interesting to hear your research and your personal thoughts on the subject!
My personal take is, I don't really know what my golden age is. I have my favourite episodes obviously, but I can't even name a personal favourite season yet, let alone a favourite era. In my mind, as long as the show has something going for it that keeps me watching, it's in a good place.
This video has finally convinced me to take the plunge and actually watch all of The Simpsons. I've seen a handul of episodes as a kid/teen, and I've always _heard_ that it got really bad in the later seasons, but I just always kind of believed that, but really basing it on anything.
I guess it's probably silly to have been subscribed for so long without really watching the show this channel is built around, but these characters are so embedded into pop culture that it's still enjoyable to hear about them even without seeing most of the content they appear in. Though back to the original point; I will at some point, maybe very far into the future, return to this video and comment whether or not the perceived Golden Age is mostly a nostalgia thing.
Thank you for truly pushing me into this series, I don't think I'll regret it.
Feel free to reply to me when you finish your run.
An argument for season 9 could be that the end of a golden age is still a part of that age. So you can include season 9 because thats where it becomes divisive, where you have a fair split between "its bad" and "its good".
Despite me leaning toward 2-9 while encouraging folks to look back at 1, I'm perfectly happy watching just about any season up to the earliest solo Al Jean stuff. I watched weekly up to 2012, but Co-Dependents Day was absolutely my "We're well out of the golden age" moment.
After watching so much Simpsons commentary over the past few years, I've seen that the creator and writers for the most part don't have a very mature grasp of criticism, constructive or otherwise. Whenever the topic of the shows quality dipping is brought up, Groaning uses the same argument he uses there (though he's a lot more passe' then the others and not so deeply wounded by opinions ) while everyone else gets really vitriolic, overly defensive and self justifying of bashing the fans because when their not talking about that, their very often completing their own genius.....im not even being facetious about that, go watch the DVD commentaries released around the time prior to the time around movies release and you'll see alot of fart sniffing going on with the occasional appearance of the animators giving more humble opinions about their work. The creators are entitled to their opinions and the fandom has made an overly big stink about somethings to merit Comic book guys existence, But the creators act like it's impossible for their creation to ever be bad and instead of accepting that, they often fight tooth and nail to pull a Mcbaine and throw a grenade at the heckling crowd even when there is something clearly lacking.
14:40 I think he's just emphasizing that he even laughs at "off" (as in not good in quality) episodes, but this one was so bad he didn't laugh once. Confusing due to the use of the OFF acronym elsewhere on the forum, but I think it makes the most sense syntactically.
Anyways, great video as always!
I love your character history videos, but these mysteries videos are always so much fun
I see the golden age as 3-9 (and maybe 10), but I'd call the Mike Scully era the 'it's still good, it's still good' age. If you're going through the Simpsons and only wanted to watch when it was good, I think that the stopping point is 'whenever you get bored during the Scully era'; there's still plenty of good there, but it's also got some really key moments in the show's history that both show you what the show's going to become, or are such big moments that you'd be missing something by not watching (i.e. Maude's death, Barney going sober).
I want to thank you, TRJ. If it wasn't for you, my English would have definitely declined. Your videos keep me in shape even during holidays.
I really respect the way you include the other Simpsons UA-cam creators in your videos. Great video as always!
I can absolutely think of examples of things I like where I was 'late' to them, where long-time fans don't like them as much - whether seasons of TV shows or albums by bands. There's definitely an element of that in play.
I don't really get what makes people so dislike seasons 10-12. Just season 12 there's ton of classic episodes: Trilogy of Error, Tale of Two Springfields (one of my top 10 episodes of entire series), Simpsons tall tales, Worst episode ever, Lisa the treehugger, The Crayon episode...
Season 12 is really funny, feels way closer to “classic Simpsons” than the soulless husk we get for the most part nowadays.
totally
In the commentary for seasons 4 and 5, Al Jean remarks that they would sometimes take heat for the silly, zany, random, and pop-culture-aware jokes they would include. Speaking in 2004-2005, he says that they do a lot less of that now because _Family Guy_ does nothing but. And I think that's part of what creates the perception of a « _Golden Age_ ».
When _The Simpsons_ debuted, they were the first animated comedy targeted at a grown-up sense of humour in more than 25 years. Year 2 saw their success aped by a variety of animal contenders of fair-to-good quality: _Family Dog, Rocko's Modern Life, and Fish Police._ All perished quickly, but were commemorated on tombstones in _Treehouse of Horror II._
I'd argue that _Ren & Stimpy_ was especially niche, targeted at teens and young adults only. (That didn't prevent it from having moments of genius.)
Then came _The Critic._ I'll admit I'm in the camp of those who - at the time - actually enjoyed its sensibility more than _The Simpsons._ It was Jean and Reiss at their most silly, zany, random, and pop-culture-aware. It had good ratings, but was axed - first by ABC and then by Fox - because it failed to overtake _The Simpsons_ as the greatest new thing ever.
But how could it have? It was far from the first funny, not-for-children cartoon on prime-time TV. It had magnificent writing, but its world of New York glitterati was probably too far removed from everyday middle American experience to be universally relatable.
Then came _Family Guy,_ which - lest we forget - was cancelled after 3 seasons for failing to distinguish itself from _The Simpsons_ in any way. Actually, I'd argue that it was distinct in its conscious lack of heart, sentiment, and sense of reality. It aimed only to shock, deride, and tear down. It's as if its creators were disappointed in _The Simpsons_ for not living up to the worst names alarmist critics had called it back in 1990. And they'd decided to put things right: Damnit, if a cartoon that would end Western civilization didn't exist, then we'd have to invent one! And smart-ass millennials took it to their bosom. _(Hi! Hi! Hi! Bosom!)_ Only no one yet understood that smart-ass millennials, weaned on the VCR, had no concept of appointment viewing. They'd watch when they damn well felt like it. And so you have the historic un-cancelling of the series after its DVD sales went through the roof.
And now, at the same time, you've got _Futurama._ And _Family Guy_ spin-offs. And _Robot Chicken._ And they're all running in syndication. And now, suddenly, everything's animated. And surreal. And smart-ass. And nothing about this is really a surprise or a discovery anymore. And the so-called golden age just isn't going to happen again. Not unless we forget about all of this stuff for another 20-30 years. And then rediscover it. Right, Ann-Margrock and Stony Curtis?
Interesting to hear Jean and Groening's perspective and there's an element of truth to it but I also think there's an element of dishonesty - the difference between talk of a golden age now and the contemporaneous criticism the show was getting in the 90s is time has passed and dust has settled and public opinion is now more consistent. The argument its due to nostalgia ignores the fact a whole generation of Simpson fans have now grown up with "Classic Simpsons" not being what was airing when they were first introduced to the show. I myself only watched some of the classic episodes back in 2020, but still hold them in much higher regard than the mid-season episodes I watched as a tweenager
In Mike Reiss' book his argument more closely matches the one you made, after the show has been on the TV for a certain amount of time, it becomes more difficult to innovate and surprise the audience within the established framework of the show
I think the nostalgia thing is true. I grew up with the show, but definitely toward the tail end of what most would consider the Golden Age, and I still quite like The Principal and The Pauper. I totally understand why people wouldn't like it, but for me it was a really fun subversion at the time. Probably because I hadn't watched the early seasons as they aired. It was just a bit of Simpsons history for me.
I think your claim at 17:52 sums up the entire thing. When The Simpsons first came out, it was the first American animated sitcom since Wait Till Your Father Gets Home fifteen years earlier and it was very unique since it had a strong production team and people thought it was amazing due to it carving out its niche as high-quality animation and tv respectively. So the secret to the Simpsons' success was timing. Nowadays although it definitely has nostalgia and internet memes going for it, I think if The Simpsons came out today it would be like an Adventure Time, Bob's Burgers or Regular Show. Beloved and nostalgic but not a cultural phenomenon. Good video!
11:40 I love the episode Homie the Clown and I agree with what you say but for some reason I’ve always loved and remembered that Chachi joke even when I was younger and had no idea who Chachi was, the awkwardness of Bart saying “whats a Chachi?” always cracked me up
I first saw season 6 interspersed with re-runs of older episodes I had also never seen before, and season 5 as re-runs interspersed with older and newer episodes. It was only when getting the DVDs that I could really appreciate how buck-wild the Mirkin years were, and how much of a shock they would have been to people who had already seen all of seasons 1-4 and nothing else.
Nostalgia can play a huge role in how you see a show or game. My first pokemon game was diamond, so that will hold a special place and I'll look back on it fondly. I started watching taskmaster because I enjoy a certain comedian who was on the show, and so his season, season 6, is one I do enjoy even though I can see why others enjoy it less (and taskmaster is so good that even the 'bad' seasons are still great)
Pokemon is actually a really interesting case since I feel the perception of the games shifts against the older entries as time goes on. This may have to do with the remakes, but I remember a time that everyone claimed that G/S/C were among the best (I still love them for polishing the gameplay of the original and feeling like a true sequel). Recently it seems things have turned with the postgame in Kanto being criticized as too shallow.
@@lowman5893 the shift could also be from a changing audience. People who say that gen 1 and 2 are their favourites have maybe stopped following pokemon stuff and so don't answer polls about their favourite gens. The community is more full of people who play the more recent games, and maybe don't have the consoles to play the later ones. I have the opposite problem and don't have the consoles for the newer ones so haven't been able to play them.
It's interesting to compare that to TV shows, as there isn't the same kind of barrier of not having the right console.
@@lisahenry20 Oh absolutely. Another possibility is the advance in technical capabilities. While there has been improvements in the sharpness of the animation in the Simpsons, it is nowhere near as drastic as comparing the original R/G/B to the newest gen of pokemon. That and the plot of a pokemon game has never really been the selling point, making the advancements in mechanics and postgame all the more noticeable.
@@lowman5893 its a very predictable cycle. For the last 3-ish years gen 4 and 5 has been the primary nostalgic era, now its about to be gen 5 and 6. When i was playing gen 5 at 10 yrs old, the internet forums were filled with ppl saying gen 1 and 2 were waaay better than this horrid new gen 5! And then a bit after that it was gen 3 being so much better than gen 6, etc etc. Older fans start realizing how repetitive and profit driven the entire franchise is, and young fans look at the older games and since they came out when these kids were 3 yrs old, they automatically kinda look down on them as old and shoddy. 5 years later the younf fans are starting to see the grift, the old fans are gone or dont care to be vocal anymore, and new kids think whatever gen they grew up with is peak... so on forever i assume
My counter to Jean and Groening assertion that we're just looking at the old episodes through the lens if nostalgia is that the only reason there still are new episodes is because of nostalgia.
I think it's fair to say that if the words weren't coming out of Homer's mouth (or pick a random Simpsons character) then the show likely wouldn't still be around.
THANK YOU for saying that Principal and the Pauper didn't mark the "downfall" of the Simpsons. When I watched it, I always registed it as just yet another quirky episode. Okay, they retconned a character's backstory SLIGHTLY. So what? How many episodes end with a major change that never gets addressed again? Homer went to freaking SPACE and then went back to working at the nuclear powerplant. Bart had an elephant. Lisa had several ponies. Mr. Burns got shot by Maggie. But Skinner being someone he's not, which changes literally NOTHING? Ohhh, they went too far!!! Gimme a break.
A character being another character the whole time is really stupid and lazy. I would hate it even if it happened in another show. I would be pissed if I turned on Spongebob and Mr. Krabs wasn't the real Mr. Krabs. Its a dumb plot twist.
Homer going to space is based on teachers going to space. Why wouldn't he be able to go back to the powerplant.
I love that you made this episode, but I almost wonder if the more interesting question is if other ages exist enough to be definable.
Still, you reintroduced me to the Simpsons Archive, so thank you for that, Jims.
I'm almost 40 years old and watched every new episode of The Simpsons growing up (which was the style at the time) from when it was great until it stunk. Also bear in mind that a Golden Age is some great time in the deep past, and ages decline from there : one direction, Golden > Silver > Bronze.
#1 - Tracey Ullman is the Archaic Age, barely remembered through fragments of culture before written language.
#2 - Season 1 is Ur-Simpsons, similar to season 1 of The Office: many elements are there, but the real flowering of culture has yet to happen.
#3 - Seasons 2 through 8 are the Golden Age: most episodes were great, some were very good, very few were okay. This is the age of heroes which we store in our collective unconscious.
#4 - Season 9 & 10 were almost immediately the opposite: most were okay, some very good, a few great. It gets a little worse each year. So the Silver Age is seasons 9 through, I don't know, let's say, 14.
#5 - Bronze Age is everything after. By this point we're just referencing the episodes and lines we remember from the Golden Age, the Shakespeare of adult animated sitcoms, and not producing anything new --of lasting worth--. Temporary entertainment sure, not of lasting worth to future civilizations. You show them 1-8 and rub it in their faces with their stupid AI-generated yuk-yuks electronically drip-fed into their nervous system.
well said 👏👏
Old people I swear
@@powervidsful - babies want free stuff.
@@chrisrj9871 and that's bad because.......?
@@powervidsful - We're the ones with more years of experience, so we know what we've seen and you can't just brush off what we have to say.
BTW old is 90+, 40s is still young and capable. Kids don't know what old is.
15:08
“Gosh, it’s kind of like Moonlighting, isn’t it?” - Donatello, 1990
TheRealJims videos really fit in like a glove while I'm in the middle of collecting The Simpsons season sets on DVD and Blu-Ray!
Fun fact: in the last 15 years, I have watched more of this channel than Simpsons.
I've watched exactly 3 episodes of the simpsons in my life but I watch this channel every single day
I didn’t watch any Simpsons (aside from a few random episodes here and there) until I was in my 20s, and I watched every episode from season 1 through 12. I can pretty confidently say nostalgia is not the only reason certain earlier seasons are looked upon more favourably
Yeah the Groening and Al Jean counterarguments don't really hold water for me, especially with seasons much later than 8-12 still airing when I was quite young. I've gone back and seen episodes from 1-8 that I somehow missed and absolutely cracked up at them the same I would for any I consider "golden age", and also watched episodes I remember watching growing up from later seasons and gave them a "meh" at best response.
I'm one of those season 3 to 8 people but the first 10 seasons are still watchable. My problem is the massive shift in style of writing and characterizations that started around season 9 (I'm not gonna put all the blame on the principal and the pauper, but it's a prime example)
It's funny how the show Arthur stayed more consistent with writing style and characterizations within the show's 25 seasons then The Simpsons did.
With that show they had more stories lines focused on secondary characters, and didn't constantly have to have Arthur and his family be the center of every story. Where the Simpsons family always had to be part of every story, thus handicaping the writing creativity.
And this is from a person who watched both shows growing up and still sporadically as a adult.
And the Simpson's writting staff are out of touch.
If a favourite food product of your's recipe gets drastically changed and doesn't taste anywhere close to what it originally did, why would you continue to buy a sub par, to repulsive product?
The same thought process can be applied to media.
a video on the simpsons archive would be super interesting
I'm envious of those that get to see your Simpsons Mysteries videos for the first time.
I would identify myself as a very casual Simpsons fan: I enjoy the general characters and environment, and didn't really grow up with it to feel nostalgic. In fact, I don't think I really started watching it until after the release of The Simpsons Movie. I was aware it existed, and my family of 5 went to see the movie in theaters when I was about 12 years old. And even when I did watch the show, I watched out of order, without noticing any big changes between writing styles. But I've always heard through the grapevine of the Golden Age being between Seasons 2 and 9. And the poll went as I expected.
But much like how I got into The Simpsons when it was already an established part of pop culture, I think the general reception has a similar backing: maybe the Simpsons nowadays isn't inherently bad, but people are so accustomed to it, that they look to other forms of animation for fresher entertainment.
There's something to be said for shows going on for too long. An episodic show has to do *something* to be surprising and exciting each episode, and a story driven show has to start leaving constant loose ends they can latch onto if they continue the show. It's why I haven't watched South Park in such a long time, even before I drifted from that sort of humour in general, I was just tired of how much it had to constantly escalate how offensive and gross it was, to get the same reactions that Cartman getting probed by aliens, or Kenny dying every episode did in 1999.
People get used to the show, putting the writers in a place where they have to find ways to mix it up. It's how we go from "The kids swear a lot, and that one got probed" to "Satanic forest animal blood orgy" and beyond.
I'm always surprised when people suggest skipping season 1. Maybe because I grew up with those episodes on audio cassettes *waves his walking stick* and I know the German dub by heart, especially of Sideshow Bob's first episode. There's something so very nostalgic about season 1 and it has a lot of really funny moments.
I'm so glad you did this. This is a topic that i've always considered kind of tiresome because it's been pretty clear to me
season 1: the birth
Season 2-7: actual golden age. Heart, originality...
Season 8-9: as you said, they start exploring new possibilities. Kinda hit or miss by their standards even if the misses would be hits by anybody else.
Season 10-13ish: Lost some of the hard but a lot of great wackiness. Evolved into more of a regular comedy.
Onwards... each season it's its own thing, honestly
It's just about being very especific to me but i'm so curious to hear your thoughts and your more "essayist" videos are my favourites of yours.
I remember in middle school/high school complaining about the direction of the show, but still managed to watch every episode and still discuss it on Monday. In late high school (season 10ish) is when it felt like it was changing too much. I remember catching a few gems in season 12,hoping that simpsons can keep going, but by then i was in college. I think you find many ppl in this similar situation having moved on with their lives as the show has shifted from what you once remembered as great.
The Golden Age of the simpsons began whenever I started watching, and it ended whenever I stopped watching.
I think I can confidently add seasons 9 and 10 to my golden age argument just because I think it has a vast majority of Mike Scully's best episodes from his era as showrunner and there are characters still being introduced that became regulars, with season 9 being a varied tapestry of what all the showrunners brought to the table in one place. Its also still home to many classic moments, as is season 10 (I'll admit I think Mom & Pop Art is carrying the season on its shoulders)
Maybe the real golden age was the friends we made along the way.
This was great, thanks for uploading! Seasons 3-11 is my personal golden era
I feel Behind The Laughter works as a great finale for classic Simpsons even though it's a few seasons after where I'd cut off for the golden era
Had the pleasure of speaking with Mike Scully, he was incredibly nice and took the time to give some very intelligent, insightful advice on comedy writing to some armature writers/comedians.