It's a complicated situation, but I think that sweeping the episode under the rug and pretending it never happened is definitely wrong, and not just because it's a good episode.
I also firmly believe that when it comes to Michael Jackson, his talent and skills and his artist should continued to be embraced for generations. I’m sure many people can attest to that, that no matter how messy someone was in real life, that their art is timeless.
I'm pretty nervous about this video, partially because of the heated nature of the subject, but partially because I struggled so much with it. The original draft of this video was 20 minutes long, which was getting very out of hand, so this is the condensed version. If I said anything you want clarification on, please let me know and I can answer. I honestly feel a bit out of my league in terms of discussing societal issues and what is the best thing to do (as you will see in my conclusion), so please forgive me if inadvertently put my foot in my mouth.
@@MagusMarquillin Wait, culture shifts? So I can't go around grabbing ladies by their p***y as a formal greeting anymore? Well this is a fine how-do-you-do!
@@davidgusquiloor2665 I'd argue it should have been pulled September 9th, 1991 @ 8pm sharp. But better late than never. Honestly the documentary has gotten enough buzz around it that anyone who is tangentially connected to MJ has to do something no one has been forced to previously: Take a Side. Previously it was acceptable to give a non-comital response and move on, leaving enough plausible deniability to go either way for anyone who is firmly on either side. Ok, perhaps it wasn't acceptable, but no one was holding anyones feet to the fire either.
@@MungkaeX Burning Books doesn't prevent this from happening again. I'm sure every pedophile would love the evidence of their crimes to be censored. That way people don't learn from it. That is how things like MJ, and Weinstein happen. Silence. That episode would start conversations, important ones. And the Simpsons could donate the proceeds to anti child abuse causes to actually do some good, and not just bury their shame. It's a PR move, and it's chickenshit.
"I'm not popular enough to be different!" Love the commentary of that line. I ironically quote that line all the time. Also love: "You mean there really is a Bart? God Lord! Also the "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" parody.
Yeah, I love that it captures an aspect of Homer's childishness- that fear when you're twelve or whatever that you're going to wear something considered "uncool" and be a laughing stock. I've never been a huge fan of this episode- the ending is too mawkish for my English sensibilities, and the Bart/Lisa thing is meh. But the first act is absolute peak Simpsons. It uses my favourite non-Simpson, Mr Burns, perfectly
@@mankytoes Yeah, that's a good aspect of it too. I also love that we're getting unintentionally biting social commentary from such a shallow character.
Moe's hair used to be black too before it became a dark grey, And Barney used to be blonde. The answer is simple. The characters weren't fully developed yet and the chinese coloration labor who colored the cells, had no idea and didn't get precise instructions. *edit* (removed typos)
if it wasnt a season 3 episode I would say get rid of it but for its importance it has to be on air..its literally when the show went from good to great in terms of consistent commentary
Bart's coldness kind of reminds me of his first ever appearence, in wich he is having what appears to be an existential crisis questioning the nature of the human mind. It really contrasts with how he is normally portrayed. Nowadays they would probably give those moments to Lisa and it wouldn't feel out of place.
Actually, the idea for MJ playing another character came from MJ himself. He was the one who requested that they not use his likeness for the show if i remember the commentary correctly.
He was legally obligated to not use his image, or sing. They brought in a MJ impersonator for the singing parts, also had MJ sing and "accidentally" used the real MJ
Props to you for admitting uncertainty about what Fox should do. Far too often, people believe they need a definitive take on current events or pop culture. I wish more people were comfortable admitting that sometimes, they just don't know.
I used to love this episode growing up... the "Lisa, it's your birthday" song still jumps into my head sometimes. This is the first I've heard about it being pulled though. Interesting video friend.
I'm fine with continuing to air the episode...and I'm fine with not airing the episode anymore. I can understand both arguments. That said, I think it should remain available on their streaming library for those who actively look for it. It's a great episode and there's nothing overtly inappropriate about the content (e.g. sharing a bed).
@Mattbrain your library has a dvd set of the Simpsons? Wow you must live in a big city or something. My library just has educational, nature, and foreign films /videos
I think they should have just added a disclaimer before the episode and kept it on streaming services. I get why they got rid of it, but I think its still a good episode that fans should have access to.
@@theleonpasta7336 I thought the showrunners had a good argument: It doesn't belong to the fans, it belongs to them, and they, as creators, can do with it as they like. I respect that.
I doubt it. Season 3 DVDs were in print for quite a long time before the decision to pull the episode was made. There's so many of them out there it's very unlikely the prices will skyrocket any time soon, and people asking overinflated prices will just get ignored. Case in point: a couple of months ago I managed to complete my Simpsons collection of all the seasons that matter for me (1-9) by coming across Season 3 in a thrift store/recycling center. Paid a whopping 1€ for the set. It's truly a DVD & Blu Ray collector's market at the moment.
She’s terrible, she’s like the most one dimensional character ever, mostly because her entire personality is “wacky and random” and she’s clearly not a normal baby, she’s like nothing.
Yeah, especially since one of the people in the doc openly admitted that he was lying. Who's to say leaving Neverland is one big lie to exploit someone who's already dead....
I don't really think it should have been pulled the simpsons featured him because he was the fit for an inspirational singer and such idk how much you could blame them
Yeah, I never really looked into him until after his death, but looking over the allegations (which change repeatedly) It looks to me like they were put up to it by their parents for money.
These videos always make my day better. I think I'm gonna gear up soon to start to try to watch every episode of The Simpsons. So if you don't hear from me again, you know what killed me.
@@ronanhavern1980 I am, but I didn't accomplish my goal, so that's not saying anything. I downloaded the first 30 seasons and I mixed the episodes together so that you'd watch an episode from season 1, then 2, then 3 and so on, with all the Halloween specials mixed in at a random. It made it easier to digest the whole series. I made it about halfway through when my harddrive was corrupted and destroyed and I lost my will to continue. Perhaps it saved my life, we'll never know
Bart: Well, don't be so surprised. I did write that "Lisa, It's your Birthday" song. Lisa: Yeah, with that mental patient who thought he was Michael Jackson. Bart: Whoa! Thinking back, I'm kind of surprised Mom and Dad let a crazy man spend all night in my bedroom. Homer: Simpler time.
Well IF Michael Jackson did use the episode to groom children, making a joke about it in a later episode IS NOT FUNNY. It's inappropriate, offensive and vulgar. Leaving Neverland Film has been debunked. The Simpsons producers comments are wreckless and stupid.
To be honest, removing the episode from circulation achieves the opposite result of "banning" the episode: people will be interested in watching the episode, drawing attention when you didn't want that. Basically, a prime example of the Streisand effect . That's why people give a fuck about Song of the South instead of ignoring it.
Considering how big Disney is, and that Dumbo's crow characters still get talked about with the movie still being sold and not banned. I think even if Song of the South was easily available to watch, people would talk about it, especially considering there Disney had a theme park attraction based on it.
@@cookiemocher388 not really, Dumbo rarely gets talked about period. It's one of Disney's lest popular animated films these days. I haven't thought about Dumbo in 10 years till just now, and i've at least played Kingdom Hearts. Imagine how relevant the parts they want you to remember are to most people, then try to imagine how relevant the crows are on top of that. Song of the South is probably only as remembered as it is now specifically because "its the racist movie disney blacklisted from their catalog" is a very strong hook. if you just said it was a racist disney movie involving animation, i'd assume Hunchback of Notre Dame was wht you're talking about. Then when you respond with "no the unintentionally racist one where its not a message against racism its just very racist" i'd probably jump to Pocahontas still. Then maybe the little mermaid remake for making the titular character do black face and asking for a medal for doing it. The point is eventually people stop carrying about controversy because its like fire, its destructive with fuel. without a source to continue drawing upon its gonna die out. Stark raving dad was only remembered by the average person explicitly because of the ban because most people don't really think much about older episodes of the show as much as moments and clips from it. When they cut the episode of spongebob where mr krabs is old people remembered the episode more, despite all the iconic jokes it had ("are you feeling it now mr krabs", the blinker joke, the old song, "i hate the pill", "i'm waiting old man", "patrick thats not a ride", the fashionably late bit, etc) it was never a particularly well remembered episode. only because they cut it for the panty raid joke, which most people who know that episode might forget that was even a bit, did the episode become popular again. If they never cut it from syndication I guarantee you It wouldn't have become as memorable especially like stark raving dad because you're not just telling people the episode was cut for this one thing, you're telling them all the jokes they remembered are now being taken away too and thats where the controversy spreads like wild fire when if they just never talked about it people hell in FIVE YEARS would probably forget they made an episode with Michael jackson because most people don't care for either nowadays. Now it's gonna be a controversy forever, and that episodes going to be one of the single most famous in the shows history.
For as controversial as some pieces of art can be, they are very important as educational pieces, and to show fans of certain IPs how they evolved with the times.
@@Neogears1312You’re referring to the episode “Mid-Life Crustacean”. As a massive SpongeBob fan, I can say that I love that episode. I never, EVER thought of it as a controversial episode, it was all just lighthearted fun with jokes that land so much harder for the adult viewers
Homer does look good in pink. Yellow and pink complement each other well and it reminds me of Homer's iconic pink donut (and for all I know, this episode is the genesis of that). Context is verything - what with Homer being a cultural icon he is indeed popular enough to be different. This is also consistent with his more outlandish behavior in recent years. I feel like I like this episode more than I should. Leon Kompowsky is a really compelling character and I think there's some biting stuff on how society categorizes "subversives" that really gels with me. I agree that the Bart/Lisa plot and the Homer plot are somewhat muddled and I think Bart's callousness was intentional to lighten the mood - this episode could've been a lot darker and it was wise to back away from that. I do like how this was framed (compared to Lisa Goes Gaga) because the clash between "Michael"'s presentation vs. society's expectations mirrors Homer from the beginning - granted, people expected someone in particular and are rightfully upset but there's something about this non-conforming earnestness that builds off of Homer's laundry mishap from earlier. The allegations cast an unfortunate shadow on otherwise lighthearted and silly moments on the episode that are impossible to ignore. I understand how it can be difficult to watch. I already liked this episode. I don't want to dislike it and a part of me is in denial. One of the greatest aspects of art is that every individual can interpret it in their own way. Art is a reflection of human nature and learning more or getting different perspectives on art can only broaden this scope. Neither art nor people are as simple as they appear or as we are willing to believe and by accepting this nuance we can only enhance our understanding of how we look at art and people.
No matter what happened with Michael Jackson, none of that takes away his amazing influence and how incredible his body of work is, that holds up to this very day.
real fans should have the box sets for all the extras deleted scenes and commentaries anyways..their fascinating...the episodes are just a bonus to be honest since i seen them all already and their always in syndication
I really love this channel. The close and caring analysis you give to media is admirable and you seem like a genuinely decent person. Keep up the awesome work! I’d love to see more Pixar reviews!
There's something very Simpsons about the colour pink, even if nobody regularly wears it. The car, the interior design, the donuts... About the Michael Jackson controversy, I totally get your UA-cam crossover reasoning. I, myself, once co-wrote a theatrical play where one of the main characters were based on a real life person who literally became a murderer just a few months after we wrote the play. It was a really tough time and, in retrospect, I think I went through a minor depression for a while there. However, we decided to go on with the production since we developed the characters and events so much into our own thing, this person wasn't really in it anymore.
The HBO documentary is a bit sketchy. Some facts just don't check out. No definitive proof of the allegations has ever been found. The 93 case has been proven to be the result a failed extortion attempt, which the documentary barely glosses over. Makes me wonder about the motives and intentions of those involved. I'd recommend everyone (including Jim) to investigate more about the MJ subject, and not take what HBO presents at face value. About the episode, I think FOX are well in their right to do as they see fit with their property, and in an age where the episode can easily be found online, I don't it's that big of a problem for fans and whomever wishes to watch the episode.
Not to mention the fact that they literally still have the episodes with the John K. couch gags intact up on streaming services despite the fact there’s much harder evidence against him for essentially doing the same thing people accused MJ of doing.
@@Asukenick dunno if he actually voiced the character, but his person, personality, and/or likeness together were in multiple episodes or referenced in other episodes.
I'm sorry but I have to be the one to butt in about the "I think he did it" stuff. I think there are WAY too many people who are taking the Leaving Neverland documentary at face value without taking into account the intentions of both the director and the accusers. Not only did the director have to change the film for specific territories because he played up certain statements to sound more salacious but the the accusers have been in several lies caught in versions of the story changing one too many times to be "coincidences". They didn't go to the cops after they had their "revelations" they went to the press. The same press that has an axe to grind against him from the gate. No one in mainstream media is going to say MJ was innocent because that doesn't get clicks. It's true now as it was over a decade ago when he was exonerated. There isn't even any proof that the "promise ring" wasn't just a cracker jack ring. If you need someone to go into way more detail about this charade check out Razorfist's channel and his multi-part series on everything regarding the accusations. I'm not asking you to change your mind Jim I'm just askign to look at it more informed eyes instead of taking a glorified tabloid tell-all/ I won't dislike the video purely because of your feelings or anything. I'm just disappointed. The Simpsons creators do however have every right to take down the episode though just so they don't cause a further stink by association.
Videos that in the guy decided to make the hit piece after the guy's been dead for almost a decade leaving no way for him to defend himself and I highly doubt they talk to the family or anybody close to the situation
These two situations are completely different. Bill Cosby never appeared in-person on the Simpsons, never had an episode that revolved around him, and never groomed minors based on his apprearence in the show.
Here in the UK Sky One cut the Cosby stuff out of Saturdays of Thunder, yet when I last checked, Milhouse saying “switch the heads on the Cosby kids” in Milhouse Doesn’t Live Here Anymore still goes by uncut.
Love the work keep it up, honestly the most relaxed youtube reviewer and keeping to the editing style helps these stay timeless (or as in still good even years later)
I agree with adding a Whoopi Goldberg and Leonard Maltin style introduction like those racist Looney Tunes cartoons, historical context that can teach a lesson, its more helpful than shallow censorship
The only problem is that implies there is something wrong with the MJ episode, when the reality is that the accusations against him have more holes than swiss cheese.
I would rather that than banning the episode, but I don't think it's necessary. He was never found guilty and Leaving Neverland has been debunked multiple times already as a "documentary". It wasn't banned when he was actually fighting charges in court, it certainly shouldn't be banned now.
I appreciate your honesty. This isn't an easy topic and you put your skin in the game in order to let your opinion be heard, that's something I respect. "There are times in life when the truth ain't black nor white, but a subtler shade of gray, yo. And when the path of justice is obscured by the fog of uncertainty, there is only one solution: House party!"
Power rangers also has an actor who ended up in big trouble, years after he left the show. I’m talking about Ricardo Médina from Wildforce. I love that season and Cole is one of my favorite characters. I have taught myself to separate the character and the actor. That is also what I do for this Simpsons episode. It’s still a huge classic to me! Thank you for doing this review and discussing the topic carefully and in a friendly manner. Your channel is very sweet and gives me lots of good insight into the secrets of the simpsons. I’m so glad I discovered this channel. I really appreciate the careful planning you do for every video on your channel. I like how you never talk down to us. Great job keeping it real. Glad to have this episode on DVD so I can watch it when I feel in the mood to do so!
Great job as always. It's refreshing to hear someone (especially someone with a platform and followers) say "I don't know what the best answer is." Your content is always thoughtful, respectful, and interesting. You've handled a complicated subject really gracefully here.
I like your videos they are awesome but here is were I'll disagree with you. Taking a stance based on only one side of the story is bad. If anything I would refer to the episode "Homer Bad Man" as an allegory. Since you watched the documentary I would suggest watching a video debunking it. I would recommend the videos done by a UA-camr called Razor Fist.
I agree. Unfortunately, MJ is no longer here to defend himself, which is why making the documentary is so easy. They could say just about anything and the person they're accusing isn't there to rebutt it, even if he had very clear counter-evidence.
If you're going to delete all content associated with anyone accused of any sexual impropriety, you might as well throw out all of the output of Hollywood from the last 50 years or so
Even if it's true that he was guilty, I kind of doubt he'd need to use the simpsons to 'groom kids'. He was a world famous pop star, way more famous in fact than the simpsons, whatever the truth is about their relationships, I kind of doubt he befriended children on the basis of a one of appearance in the simpsons over an above any of his other accomplishments, or the fact that he had a theme park and a zoo at his house. It's almost quite narcissistic for the simpsons to think they might have had that kind of influence. That's very different to the youtube collaboration you're describing, youtubers are generally not that famous in the real world so if you had someone on your channel the likelihood is you would be introducing them to new people. Nobody hadn't heard of michael jackson when he made this episode and in fact it wasn't entirely open that it was him for many years.
Nah, anyone selling previously-purchased copies comes under the first-sale doctrine. Fox/Disney can't take back the viewing rights they already sold with the DVDs.
I suppose the banning of this episode from airing and future DVD releases will make this episode a rarity. Something only a true Simpsons fan would have access to. Glad I got my copy of season 3.
me too....season 3 was always the season I worked the most for since i got it last in terms of the first 9 so when I got it I was so happy since it was always out when I would go to the best buy
Take it out of syndication? Fair enough. Take it off the DVD? No, you’re cheating the fan, the consumer, the archivist. The work *is* the work; present it as it is.
No, taking an episode out of syndication because two liars who testified in court under oath that MJ didn't touch them years ago who suddenly came out of nowhere to get money and fame from HBO with no evidence (eye witness testimony is worthless in court especially if it happened 25 years ago) is not a reason to take it out. Actually read the court files from the cases MJ was involved in and don't let two money grubbers shape your view on a serious subject
Yeah, I mean Old School Sesame Street does it and just puts "for adults only" on it so that no one buys it for their preschooler and make them think yelling when you're mad is all right, or that all adult male strangers will be kind and respectful to little girls and show them around by the hand.
@marianne mccrank Ha, yes. But it does think the old episodes of the show isn't appropriate for kids today. It started in 1969, after all. The 70s was a dangerous era with concrete playgrounds and lead baby toys.
Bit rich of Groening to disavow Michael Jackson because of grooming, when he visited that guy's island a few times. Y'know, that guy who didn't kill himself.
Considering with Matt that was one story said by one person with nothing else to really back anything up, in hindsight it's easy to say that may have been a bum tale. Matt's a cartoon creator, not beloved celeb, hey may have less safety clout like Jackson still has
I think you have a very nuanced and thoughtful outlook on the controversy so I really appreciate the in depth section on it. Having grown up with The Simpsons and Micheal Jackson this is easily in my top ten episodes (if only for the "careful he wets himself" line) so having it sort of covered up saddens me a great deal. I can respect the wishes of the creators but also find myself disagree with them but as it is it their art and I think they deserve a measure of control over it.
I could see why the episode would be pulled during the controversies, but that time has long since past. They pulled the NYC one after 9/11, but it's back now. Nowadays the only one who is hurt by all this is the fans who are missing out on a very well done golden age episode.
I think you made some good points. It's okay to like the episode and the performance while still being concerned about the allegations, and it's understandable why the people who made this content are uncomfortable with it now. Honestly hearing more information on why it was pulled makes it make more sense to me. I appreciate the video and how delicate it was to make an opinion here. Obviously it's hard as we will never really know for sure.
I just stick to what the courts have come to label the rulings, which has been, Not Guilty all three times. There's too much sketchiness and reason of doubt with what the accusers claim happened. It all seems like attempts to get rich from their stand point. And honestly, I can't help but agree with the notion. Things just don't add up. The fact that we'll never know the real truth, shows that people should go with what the courts say, instead of shitting on a dead man for something unprovable, being ruled in MJ's favour.
I don't think this episode is all that much of a conspiracy, especially since it's confirmed by the end that MJ's character is actually called Leon Kompowsky and only started talking like MJ because it made him and everyone else happier. It's not Michael Jackson hanging out with the Simpsons, it's a guy who just likes talking with his voice.
This episode only taught me that it's what you believe in your heart. Things don't always appear as they seem in life. Best episode ever. In art you take away what you want, and I'm glad I got to take away a meaning.
I think that you expressed it perfectly. There are simply some details we will never know. Saying "I think, based off the available evidence" is a wise way to frame this controversial topic. As for taking the episode off, I feel that self-censorship isn't an inherently bad thing. I don't feel the creators are saying to the public "you are forbidden from watching this episode" but more of "we are uncomfortable continuing to profit off of such a problematic situation." A very well thought out video!
They don't have to profit off of it. They could donate the proceeds to anti child abuse causes, and do more to actually help than just hiding their shame.
@@shorewall Well that's not a realistic prospect as where the money made off the episode goes is not creator's decision to make. The Simpsons is owned by Fox which is now owned by Disney and you already know as big businesses they'll be damned if they'll to lose a single cent. In the world of entertainment its all about keeping up your image, and that's especially important for such a huge franchise as the simpsons. If they want to pull the episode until the heat dies down so be it. Even if they decide not to show it again luckily we live in the digital age and it can easily be pirated over the internet.
I think they should do what Spotify did with R Kelly songs. It doesn't show up in the autoplay and it is not ever recommended, but if you search for that episode specifically you can find it.
Eloquently put as always sir. I think its an interesting situation to try and fighure out if something can be viewed in a vacuum or not. The song always hit me hard and even when all this stuff came out years ago, I think I was able to sort of compartmentalize it. Hall of the Very Good, but no Like Father Like Clown.
For me, the best moment of the episode is the group therapy session. As for the controversy - here in the UK, one channel refused to show The Cartridge Family initially. But it was still available on VHS ("Too Hot For TV") and DVD. And in later years that episode was shown with minor edits. Given that, I still think the whole tone of the episode is anti-gun, and the troubling bit is Marge KEPT the gun at the end of the episode. With Stark Raving Dad, the solution would be to show it outside primetime and not in syndication. A warning might help. It's still an intriguing, funny and emotion-filled episode. To deny it exists is wrong.
I don't see the cartridge family as anti-gun. The NRA members at the end are horrified with how homer uses his pistol, which I think gives it the bit of neutrality it needs. Showing that your average gun owner is more responsible than Homer, but questioning if it should be so easy for people like Homer to have access
@@merman1974 yeah, that is always stupid to me, authors saying the meaning of a story takes away the entire point of satire and stories like this. It turns an opportunity for discussion into a yes or no fact, just because people are afraid that they will have the wrong interpretation
7.51: The "No Apartheid Now" poster on Lisa's door. Wow. Never seen it before. And since this is the internet: Yes, I agree with the statement. I am surprised I probably never caught this sight or managed to forget about it. Also, it shows how super old this episode is. Edit: It says "End Apartheid Now".
So as someone who has read and watched a lot about Michael Jackson and researches topics like this heavily before making a decision: I think Leaving Neverland is a lot of lies created to make money and for publicity. There are way too many things like the director specifically saying he was trying to spin a narrative, and the one major guy continuing to work with Michael up until his death, and being quite upset when he was not allowed to participate in the shows created for him after his death. It doesn't sit right at all. As for the episode, I don't think they should be discontinuing it from publication at all. There is no evidence he did it, he was never convicted, and they didn't ban it the multiple other times that he was accused. If they didn't ban it before when he was in court, they definitely shouldn't ban it now when a one sided "documentary" (hit piece) is made about it after his death when he can no longer defend himself. It's a very good episode and there is no harm in continuing to show it.
If the documentary Square One was given as much publicity as the Leaving Neverland 'documentary', then everyone would be in agreement that this episode is fine, as it is overwhelmigly obvious that he is innocent.
I'm just upset that they're trying to disappear the line: "Marge, I can’t wear a pink shirt to work, everybody wears white shirts. I’m not popular enough to be different."
Bold of you and admirable statements. As of mid 2019 i can only commend people to watch leaving neverland and reach conclusions only after the fact. No summarys, no refutations, no middle man. Just you and the doc.
I feel like, while removing this episode from general circulation is probably the correct decision from the corporate perspective, the censorship of past shames still feels... off. While it's understandable for them to pull it, they're still functionally pretending like it never happened and are hoping people forget about it. Instead of hiding their shame, it would be better for them to release the episode, at source quality, and declare that particular episode public domain. It would be good PR, it'd let people post it without having to worry about legal action, it would distance corporate from the episode, and it would ensure that the episode won't be lost rather than just hoping for the best.
To be fair all episodes of the Simpsons are easily available to stream anyway. The episode will always be easy to find even if the studio don't host it anywhere themselves, so why should they bother?
@@emmastrange5557 Unfortunately, those episodes that are publicly available for free are uploaded illegally, and can be taken down at any moment with a single cease and desist. Releasing it to public domain would resolve that issue entirely, and would resolve the legal issue.
Brave to talk about the controversy, props to you on that, and on conveying your opinions in an extremely professional manor. I myself, cannot bring myself to watch the documentary. I don't feel fully informed to comment, however, based on your "UA-cam guest star" example, I have to side with the producers, that pulling the episode was the correct call. From a PR standpoint, and to almost distance themselves from and acknowledge their mistake. I agree though, that there is a separation between being able to enjoy something (to say "it's good") and be upset that the subject matter and person at hand, is sullied. An example that springs to mind is the professional wrestler Chris Benoit, a fan-favourite and very gifted technical wrestler, who would end up committing a double murder. Like I can still say that I enjoyed Benoit's work, I will admit, "Stark Raving Dad" is still a very good episode. The song "Lisa it's your birthday" is beautiful, the plot is extremely well balanced, and I think you may have even understated the landmark moment it was for the show. It breaks my heart for it to have been removed, but yes, I do agree. I fortunately, do own an original Season 3 DVD, and will definitely give this episode another watch, when I deem the time appropriate. Credit again for the way you handled this video. As usual, your content is a highlight to my day. Thank you.
I didn't know that was mike's voice after watching this for the last 29 years (duh on me). This was such a wholesome episode and I don't see anyway that it groom's children.
Removing it from TV/syndication/streaming, where people can stumble on it without realising, makes sense. In the case of hypothetical future DVD/BD releases (they've annoyingly given up on Simpsons DVDs anyway) the best thing would probably be to include the episode, but only make it accessible through a deliberate menu choice and add a disclaimer explaining why it was pulled.
People who have watched Leaving Neverland and took it as truth should also check all the countering arguments for a balanced view rather than have one-sided view presented to them. Listen, but confirm.
The difference is that Jackson used the episode to boost his image as someone you could trust to leave your kids alone with. Weinstein is obviously a terrible person, but it's far harder to argue that specific films he worked on were made primarily for the purpose of grooming.
You make a lot of great points and have obviously given this a lot of thought. I would probably pull the episode off syndication but keep it on the Blu-rays, perhaps with a new commentary track
Huh, somehow I hadn't seen this video. Probably wasn't in my sub box. But I just wanted to commend you for handling the MJ stuff as honestly and maturely as you did. It's a real rough area for a lot of people.
I agree with what you said. I honestly had no clue they completely pulled the show from airing & future DVDs. I do agree though. He did a great job, but if he really did do the things he did, I totally get why the creators don’t want that kind of thing to be held over them. I still love this episode though.
I understand your point. I'm on MJ's side here. He was on the FBI's watch list for almost 15 years and they founf nothing. I think the documentary is in poor taste and talks stuff against someone who can't defend himself. Years after he was proven innocent. But it is brave to state your opinion. Nad you made it in a respectful way.
It's a complicated situation, but I think that sweeping the episode under the rug and pretending it never happened is definitely wrong, and not just because it's a good episode.
I also firmly believe that when it comes to Michael Jackson, his talent and skills and his artist should continued to be embraced for generations. I’m sure many people can attest to that, that no matter how messy someone was in real life, that their art is timeless.
I'm still think he's just Barney with a shaved head.
I dunno, he's a little taller than Barney.
He's Kearney's dad.
And now I can't unsee it.
He's Bobby's Dad.
Wait that's another show.
@@stefan1024 yesh
I'm pretty nervous about this video, partially because of the heated nature of the subject, but partially because I struggled so much with it.
The original draft of this video was 20 minutes long, which was getting very out of hand, so this is the condensed version. If I said anything you want clarification on, please let me know and I can answer. I honestly feel a bit out of my league in terms of discussing societal issues and what is the best thing to do (as you will see in my conclusion), so please forgive me if inadvertently put my foot in my mouth.
You're good man. :) Now let's all have some frosty chocolate milkshakes.
TheRealJims I hope you’ll be able to deal with all the MJ “stans” defending him, they get REALLY viscous and angry.
TheRealJims I honestly 100% agree with you sentiment it’s very reasonable and well thought out
It's a nuanced and smart take on the issue. Credit for addressing such a difficult topic.
You got a nice video here, sober and to the point you wanted to make.
the episode was perfectly ok when the the man was actually on trial for the allegations, banning it 10 years after his death seems ridiculous
It really showcases how the culture has shifted - I'm counting on gravity to pull the penduleum back a bit soon.
@@MagusMarquillin Wait, culture shifts? So I can't go around grabbing ladies by their p***y as a formal greeting anymore?
Well this is a fine how-do-you-do!
This is what bothers me. Why now?
What changed that makes it worse than it was before?
It's weird.
@@davidgusquiloor2665 I'd argue it should have been pulled September 9th, 1991 @ 8pm sharp. But better late than never.
Honestly the documentary has gotten enough buzz around it that anyone who is tangentially connected to MJ has to do something no one has been forced to previously: Take a Side. Previously it was acceptable to give a non-comital response and move on, leaving enough plausible deniability to go either way for anyone who is firmly on either side. Ok, perhaps it wasn't acceptable, but no one was holding anyones feet to the fire either.
@@MungkaeX Burning Books doesn't prevent this from happening again. I'm sure every pedophile would love the evidence of their crimes to be censored. That way people don't learn from it. That is how things like MJ, and Weinstein happen. Silence. That episode would start conversations, important ones. And the Simpsons could donate the proceeds to anti child abuse causes to actually do some good, and not just bury their shame. It's a PR move, and it's chickenshit.
"I'm not popular enough to be different!"
Love the commentary of that line. I ironically quote that line all the time. Also love: "You mean there really is a Bart? God Lord! Also the "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" parody.
Yeah, I love that it captures an aspect of Homer's childishness- that fear when you're twelve or whatever that you're going to wear something considered "uncool" and be a laughing stock. I've never been a huge fan of this episode- the ending is too mawkish for my English sensibilities, and the Bart/Lisa thing is meh. But the first act is absolute peak Simpsons. It uses my favourite non-Simpson, Mr Burns, perfectly
@@mankytoes Yeah, that's a good aspect of it too. I also love that we're getting unintentionally biting social commentary from such a shallow character.
Next Simpsons mystery: Why does Wiggum sometimes have blue hair and sometimes black?
On comics usually Blue was used to save on black ink, maybe the same happened to the animators?
Why is Judge Snyder sometimes white (yellow) and sometimes black?
he dyes it?..
Moe's hair used to be black too before it became a dark grey, And Barney used to be blonde. The answer is simple. The characters weren't fully developed yet and the chinese coloration labor who colored the cells, had no idea and didn't get precise instructions. *edit* (removed typos)
Smithers was also black
This episode is part of the Simpsons history. No way it should be removed from syndication
It's on fx on demand still free to watch of you get fx.
@@carybeweary7209 I still have the DVD so I'm good.
if it wasnt a season 3 episode I would say get rid of it but for its importance it has to be on air..its literally when the show went from good to great in terms of consistent commentary
It's ridiculous for it to get pulled. What's next they pull all episodes with Apu in it?
Tom R I agree.
Bart's coldness kind of reminds me of his first ever appearence, in wich he is having what appears to be an existential crisis questioning the nature of the human mind. It really contrasts with how he is normally portrayed.
Nowadays they would probably give those moments to Lisa and it wouldn't feel out of place.
I get the feeling the coldness reflects Matt Groening's perception of the character.
Actually, the idea for MJ playing another character came from MJ himself. He was the one who requested that they not use his likeness for the show if i remember the commentary correctly.
And he's not listed in the end credits
This☝️
I’ve probably watched those commentary episodes more than any other show or movie.
And yes, they state that it was MJs idea
He was legally obligated to not use his image, or sing. They brought in a MJ impersonator for the singing parts, also had MJ sing and "accidentally" used the real MJ
@@innertuber4049 I noticed this as a kid and just assumed they impersonated him really well.
@@brittisloveHehehe
Props to you for admitting uncertainty about what Fox should do. Far too often, people believe they need a definitive take on current events or pop culture. I wish more people were comfortable admitting that sometimes, they just don't know.
I used to love this episode growing up... the "Lisa, it's your birthday" song still jumps into my head sometimes. This is the first I've heard about it being pulled though. Interesting video friend.
I think it was pulled after the recent documentary about MJ, lots of his stuff got pulled from the radio recently as well.
@@cumheamacdiarmada6757 Yeh your right there
Same even after what's went on
It's a damn shame they couldn't get MJ himself to sing that part.
@@cumheamacdiarmada6757 cowards the lot of them
I'm fine with continuing to air the episode...and I'm fine with not airing the episode anymore. I can understand both arguments. That said, I think it should remain available on their streaming library for those who actively look for it. It's a great episode and there's nothing overtly inappropriate about the content (e.g. sharing a bed).
i have it on dvd..lucky me
@Mattbrain your library has a dvd set of the Simpsons? Wow you must live in a big city or something. My library just has educational, nature, and foreign films /videos
I think they should have just added a disclaimer before the episode and kept it on streaming services. I get why they got rid of it, but I think its still a good episode that fans should have access to.
@@theleonpasta7336 I thought the showrunners had a good argument: It doesn't belong to the fans, it belongs to them, and they, as creators, can do with it as they like. I respect that.
Carl wears a pink shirt, but he's popular enough to be different.
He's a war hero though
Woa so now my season 3 dvds are actually valuable!
Was just thinking the same thing!
I doubt it. Season 3 DVDs were in print for quite a long time before the decision to pull the episode was made. There's so many of them out there it's very unlikely the prices will skyrocket any time soon, and people asking overinflated prices will just get ignored.
Case in point: a couple of months ago I managed to complete my Simpsons collection of all the seasons that matter for me (1-9) by coming across Season 3 in a thrift store/recycling center. Paid a whopping 1€ for the set.
It's truly a DVD & Blu Ray collector's market at the moment.
do you have a character study of Maggie? she's weirdly perfect!
She’s terrible, she’s like the most one dimensional character ever, mostly because her entire personality is “wacky and random” and she’s clearly not a normal baby, she’s like nothing.
ุ ุ it’s pretty hard to get your point across when you’re a 1 year old
@@myfellowsonicfans7131 good God, I've never heard of anyone who hates Maggie. Grow a soul.
@@melodiclogic9904Not for Stewie Griffin
Shes no stewie griffin.. Maggie has as much personality as Santa's little helper..simpsons can't push the boundaries like family guy
Respectful how you cut the music in the last half.
I did not expect you to even talk about the controversy but I’m glad you did
Personally, I believe the Leaving Neverland documentary is very one-sided, and I believe that the Stark Raving Dad episode shouldn't have been pulled.
Excatly.
ua-cam.com/play/PLeltLPR4SjLr67tBqTzWC9Hdnh_UURKMx.html
"Leaving Neverland" is just another money grab.
Yeah, especially since one of the people in the doc openly admitted that he was lying. Who's to say leaving Neverland is one big lie to exploit someone who's already dead....
I don't really think it should have been pulled the simpsons featured him because he was the fit for an inspirational singer and such idk how much you could blame them
Yeah, I never really looked into him until after his death, but looking over the allegations (which change repeatedly) It looks to me like they were put up to it by their parents for money.
"Hi, I'm Homer Simpson, from The Simpsons." ... BEST description ever!
at that time saying that carried a lot of weight..it was the height of simpsosn mania so its meta commentary
These videos always make my day better. I think I'm gonna gear up soon to start to try to watch every episode of The Simpsons. So if you don't hear from me again, you know what killed me.
Post season 9 Simpsons?
@@iododendron3416 all of it
Good luck!
Are you still alive?
@@ronanhavern1980 I am, but I didn't accomplish my goal, so that's not saying anything. I downloaded the first 30 seasons and I mixed the episodes together so that you'd watch an episode from season 1, then 2, then 3 and so on, with all the Halloween specials mixed in at a random. It made it easier to digest the whole series. I made it about halfway through when my harddrive was corrupted and destroyed and I lost my will to continue. Perhaps it saved my life, we'll never know
Bart: Well, don't be so surprised. I did write that "Lisa, It's your Birthday" song.
Lisa: Yeah, with that mental patient who thought he was Michael Jackson.
Bart: Whoa! Thinking back, I'm kind of surprised Mom and Dad let a crazy man spend all night in my bedroom.
Homer: Simpler time.
Mac Monkeyhat that should be an actual line on the show lol
Joel Lennon It is a line in the show!! It’s from the episode ‘walking big & tall’
Well IF Michael Jackson did use the episode to groom children, making a joke about it in a later episode IS NOT FUNNY. It's inappropriate, offensive and vulgar. Leaving Neverland Film has been debunked. The Simpsons producers comments are wreckless and stupid.
History shouldn't be cancelled
True very true indeed
I like this episode because I get my own special birthday song, as my name is Lisa. I’m also glad I still have my Simpson DVD’s
Happy Birthday Lisa!
Awww you special little snowflake
Nora you get Nora by the Dubliners so you’re pretty special too!!
Lisa it's your Birthday, Happy Birthday Lisa🎶
Cookie Mocher thank you!
To be honest, removing the episode from circulation achieves the opposite result of "banning" the episode: people will be interested in watching the episode, drawing attention when you didn't want that. Basically, a prime example of the Streisand effect
.
That's why people give a fuck about Song of the South instead of ignoring it.
Considering how big Disney is, and that Dumbo's crow characters still get talked about with the movie still being sold and not banned. I think even if Song of the South was easily available to watch, people would talk about it, especially considering there Disney had a theme park attraction based on it.
@@cookiemocher388 not really, Dumbo rarely gets talked about period. It's one of Disney's lest popular animated films these days. I haven't thought about Dumbo in 10 years till just now, and i've at least played Kingdom Hearts. Imagine how relevant the parts they want you to remember are to most people, then try to imagine how relevant the crows are on top of that.
Song of the South is probably only as remembered as it is now specifically because "its the racist movie disney blacklisted from their catalog" is a very strong hook. if you just said it was a racist disney movie involving animation, i'd assume Hunchback of Notre Dame was wht you're talking about. Then when you respond with "no the unintentionally racist one where its not a message against racism its just very racist" i'd probably jump to Pocahontas still. Then maybe the little mermaid remake for making the titular character do black face and asking for a medal for doing it.
The point is eventually people stop carrying about controversy because its like fire, its destructive with fuel. without a source to continue drawing upon its gonna die out. Stark raving dad was only remembered by the average person explicitly because of the ban because most people don't really think much about older episodes of the show as much as moments and clips from it. When they cut the episode of spongebob where mr krabs is old people remembered the episode more, despite all the iconic jokes it had ("are you feeling it now mr krabs", the blinker joke, the old song, "i hate the pill", "i'm waiting old man", "patrick thats not a ride", the fashionably late bit, etc) it was never a particularly well remembered episode. only because they cut it for the panty raid joke, which most people who know that episode might forget that was even a bit, did the episode become popular again. If they never cut it from syndication I guarantee you It wouldn't have become as memorable especially like stark raving dad because you're not just telling people the episode was cut for this one thing, you're telling them all the jokes they remembered are now being taken away too and thats where the controversy spreads like wild fire when if they just never talked about it people hell in FIVE YEARS would probably forget they made an episode with Michael jackson because most people don't care for either nowadays. Now it's gonna be a controversy forever, and that episodes going to be one of the single most famous in the shows history.
For as controversial as some pieces of art can be, they are very important as educational pieces, and to show fans of certain IPs how they evolved with the times.
@@Neogears1312You’re referring to the episode “Mid-Life Crustacean”. As a massive SpongeBob fan, I can say that I love that episode. I never, EVER thought of it as a controversial episode, it was all just lighthearted fun with jokes that land so much harder for the adult viewers
Homer does look good in pink. Yellow and pink complement each other well and it reminds me of Homer's iconic pink donut (and for all I know, this episode is the genesis of that). Context is verything - what with Homer being a cultural icon he is indeed popular enough to be different. This is also consistent with his more outlandish behavior in recent years.
I feel like I like this episode more than I should. Leon Kompowsky is a really compelling character and I think there's some biting stuff on how society categorizes "subversives" that really gels with me. I agree that the Bart/Lisa plot and the Homer plot are somewhat muddled and I think Bart's callousness was intentional to lighten the mood - this episode could've been a lot darker and it was wise to back away from that. I do like how this was framed (compared to Lisa Goes Gaga) because the clash between "Michael"'s presentation vs. society's expectations mirrors Homer from the beginning - granted, people expected someone in particular and are rightfully upset but there's something about this non-conforming earnestness that builds off of Homer's laundry mishap from earlier. The allegations cast an unfortunate shadow on otherwise lighthearted and silly moments on the episode that are impossible to ignore. I understand how it can be difficult to watch.
I already liked this episode. I don't want to dislike it and a part of me is in denial. One of the greatest aspects of art is that every individual can interpret it in their own way. Art is a reflection of human nature and learning more or getting different perspectives on art can only broaden this scope. Neither art nor people are as simple as they appear or as we are willing to believe and by accepting this nuance we can only enhance our understanding of how we look at art and people.
Be honest, yellow, pink and blue are practically the very colors of the whole Simpsons brand.
No matter what happened with Michael Jackson, none of that takes away his amazing influence and how incredible his body of work is, that holds up to this very day.
Glad I have the old DVD box set with this episode included..
I literally said the same thing aswell
real fans should have the box sets for all the extras deleted scenes and commentaries anyways..their fascinating...the episodes are just a bonus to be honest since i seen them all already and their always in syndication
@@razkable Real fans don't gatekeep
I love your videos and I think you did a good job discussing the controversy.
I really love this channel. The close and caring analysis you give to media is admirable and you seem like a genuinely decent person. Keep up the awesome work! I’d love to see more Pixar reviews!
There's something very Simpsons about the colour pink, even if nobody regularly wears it. The car, the interior design, the donuts...
About the Michael Jackson controversy, I totally get your UA-cam crossover reasoning. I, myself, once co-wrote a theatrical play where one of the main characters were based on a real life person who literally became a murderer just a few months after we wrote the play. It was a really tough time and, in retrospect, I think I went through a minor depression for a while there. However, we decided to go on with the production since we developed the characters and events so much into our own thing, this person wasn't really in it anymore.
i was thinking the exact same thing about pink. it really gives off season 2-3 vibes to me
I was so worried about this, but you delivered the best and most thoughtful approach that I've seen. Thank you very much
The HBO documentary is a bit sketchy. Some facts just don't check out. No definitive proof of the allegations has ever been found. The 93 case has been proven to be the result a failed extortion attempt, which the documentary barely glosses over. Makes me wonder about the motives and intentions of those involved. I'd recommend everyone (including Jim) to investigate more about the MJ subject, and not take what HBO presents at face value. About the episode, I think FOX are well in their right to do as they see fit with their property, and in an age where the episode can easily be found online, I don't it's that big of a problem for fans and whomever wishes to watch the episode.
Shouldn’t the episodes with Bill Cosby be banned AND pulled since he was ACTUALLY convinced?
Not to mention the fact that they literally still have the episodes with the John K. couch gags intact up on streaming services despite the fact there’s much harder evidence against him for essentially doing the same thing people accused MJ of doing.
But he didn't guest star right?
@@Asukenick dunno if he actually voiced the character, but his person, personality, and/or likeness together were in multiple episodes or referenced in other episodes.
Your analysis and insights are excellent. You sound like someone with several post-secondary degrees
Woo! New extra seconds! Keep it up Jims! Love these!
I'm sorry but I have to be the one to butt in about the "I think he did it" stuff. I think there are WAY too many people who are taking the Leaving Neverland documentary at face value without taking into account the intentions of both the director and the accusers. Not only did the director have to change the film for specific territories because he played up certain statements to sound more salacious but the the accusers have been in several lies caught in versions of the story changing one too many times to be "coincidences". They didn't go to the cops after they had their "revelations" they went to the press. The same press that has an axe to grind against him from the gate. No one in mainstream media is going to say MJ was innocent because that doesn't get clicks. It's true now as it was over a decade ago when he was exonerated. There isn't even any proof that the "promise ring" wasn't just a cracker jack ring. If you need someone to go into way more detail about this charade check out Razorfist's channel and his multi-part series on everything regarding the accusations. I'm not asking you to change your mind Jim I'm just askign to look at it more informed eyes instead of taking a glorified tabloid tell-all/ I won't dislike the video purely because of your feelings or anything. I'm just disappointed. The Simpsons creators do however have every right to take down the episode though just so they don't cause a further stink by association.
Thank you
ua-cam.com/play/PLeltLPR4SjLr67tBqTzWC9Hdnh_UURKMx.html
Videos that in the guy decided to make the hit piece after the guy's been dead for almost a decade leaving no way for him to defend himself and I highly doubt they talk to the family or anybody close to the situation
So the michael jackson episode gets pulled but all the cosby jokes don’t?
These two situations are completely different. Bill Cosby never appeared in-person on the Simpsons, never had an episode that revolved around him, and never groomed minors based on his apprearence in the show.
Here in the UK Sky One cut the Cosby stuff out of Saturdays of Thunder, yet when I last checked, Milhouse saying “switch the heads on the Cosby kids” in Milhouse Doesn’t Live Here Anymore still goes by uncut.
@@adultmoshifan87 I live in Ireland - shocked to hear that. At least Dr. Hibbert's Cosby shirts haven't been changed, lol.
adultmoshifan87 on channel 4, they showed the episode where they live in a 19th century house and it still has the cosby scene
@@adultmoshifan87 "Saturdays of Thunder" must be the episode with the largest number of different versions around.
Love the work keep it up, honestly the most relaxed youtube reviewer and keeping to the editing style helps these stay timeless (or as in still good even years later)
Michael Jackson is innocent!
nah, he was a sex offender.
TheRealJim: I’m gonna review a Simpsons episode
UA-cam: great!
TheRealJim: The episode will be Stark Raving Dad
UA-cam: Wait! That’s illegal!
"Careful men he wets his pants"
This is such an amazingly well written video! Well done TheRealJims great approach to a difficult subject
I agree with adding a Whoopi Goldberg and Leonard Maltin style introduction like those racist Looney Tunes cartoons, historical context that can teach a lesson, its more helpful than shallow censorship
Adrian Dezendegui who do you get to host this one i wonder
The only problem is that implies there is something wrong with the MJ episode, when the reality is that the accusations against him have more holes than swiss cheese.
@@MrJoeyWheeler fine, make two versions
@@crimsondynamo615 Oprah?
I would rather that than banning the episode, but I don't think it's necessary. He was never found guilty and Leaving Neverland has been debunked multiple times already as a "documentary".
It wasn't banned when he was actually fighting charges in court, it certainly shouldn't be banned now.
Great, thoughtful commentary on a very difficult topic for Simpson's fans. A+!
So you think MJ did it off of no evidence.
I still love this take, "I don't know what the best answer is" really the best answer for this situation I think
Your reviews and general vibe always calm me down when I’m anxious lol
Please do an extra seconds on Bart Gets An Elephant! It's a great episode with some interesting and topical themes to explore
I appreciate your honesty. This isn't an easy topic and you put your skin in the game in order to let your opinion be heard, that's something I respect.
"There are times in life when the truth ain't black nor white,
but a subtler shade of gray, yo.
And when the path of justice is obscured by the fog of uncertainty, there is only one solution: House party!"
Power rangers also has an actor who ended up in big trouble, years after he left the show. I’m talking about Ricardo Médina from Wildforce. I love that season and Cole is one of my favorite characters. I have taught myself to separate the character and the actor. That is also what I do for this Simpsons episode. It’s still a huge classic to me! Thank you for doing this review and discussing the topic carefully and in a friendly manner. Your channel is very sweet and gives me lots of good insight into the secrets of the simpsons. I’m so glad I discovered this channel. I really appreciate the careful planning you do for every video on your channel. I like how you never talk down to us. Great job keeping it real. Glad to have this episode on DVD so I can watch it when I feel in the mood to do so!
Found your channel yesterday and I’ve been binge watching your Simpsons videos also can we get a Simpsons history for groundskeeper willie?
I've been here for a while and same can just binge watch his vids
Connor Campbell I’ve watched the history and mystery playlist in its entirety in the past couple days
@@hendog24 think Ive got like 2 left to watch ha
Great job as always. It's refreshing to hear someone (especially someone with a platform and followers) say "I don't know what the best answer is." Your content is always thoughtful, respectful, and interesting. You've handled a complicated subject really gracefully here.
I like your videos they are awesome but here is were I'll disagree with you. Taking a stance based on only one side of the story is bad. If anything I would refer to the episode "Homer Bad Man" as an allegory. Since you watched the documentary I would suggest watching a video debunking it. I would recommend the videos done by a UA-camr called Razor Fist.
I agree. Unfortunately, MJ is no longer here to defend himself, which is why making the documentary is so easy. They could say just about anything and the person they're accusing isn't there to rebutt it, even if he had very clear counter-evidence.
Oh my effing gosh. I just realized that was ACTUALLY Michael. Insane
You did great, not an easy video to make. I used to watch this one on my birthdays because of the last few minutes.
If you're going to delete all content associated with anyone accused of any sexual impropriety, you might as well throw out all of the output of Hollywood from the last 50 years or so
Last 100 years. Research Louis B Mayer (founder of MGM) or Harry Cohn (founder of Columbia Pictures).
Even if it's true that he was guilty, I kind of doubt he'd need to use the simpsons to 'groom kids'. He was a world famous pop star, way more famous in fact than the simpsons, whatever the truth is about their relationships, I kind of doubt he befriended children on the basis of a one of appearance in the simpsons over an above any of his other accomplishments, or the fact that he had a theme park and a zoo at his house. It's almost quite narcissistic for the simpsons to think they might have had that kind of influence. That's very different to the youtube collaboration you're describing, youtubers are generally not that famous in the real world so if you had someone on your channel the likelihood is you would be introducing them to new people. Nobody hadn't heard of michael jackson when he made this episode and in fact it wasn't entirely open that it was him for many years.
Honestly, you’re right, Homer should be seen in the pink shirt more. It REALLY does look very well on him.
Fantastically well done! You handled the awkward subject matter brilliantly.
Watch as they issue cease and desist takedowns for the original DVD set auctions on eBay.
Nah, anyone selling previously-purchased copies comes under the first-sale doctrine. Fox/Disney can't take back the viewing rights they already sold with the DVDs.
I suppose the banning of this episode from airing and future DVD releases will make this episode a rarity. Something only a true Simpsons fan would have access to. Glad I got my copy of season 3.
me too....season 3 was always the season I worked the most for since i got it last in terms of the first 9 so when I got it I was so happy since it was always out when I would go to the best buy
oh quit with that gatekeeping BS.
Or you could just stream/pirate it, so no gatekeep needed
At the end of the day, it's the product of the production team and they're free to do what they want with it.
Take it out of syndication? Fair enough.
Take it off the DVD? No, you’re cheating the fan, the consumer, the archivist. The work *is* the work; present it as it is.
I completely agree with this mindset
No, taking an episode out of syndication because two liars who testified in court under oath that MJ didn't touch them years ago who suddenly came out of nowhere to get money and fame from HBO with no evidence (eye witness testimony is worthless in court especially if it happened 25 years ago) is not a reason to take it out. Actually read the court files from the cases MJ was involved in and don't let two money grubbers shape your view on a serious subject
Yeah, I mean Old School Sesame Street does it and just puts "for adults only" on it so that no one buys it for their preschooler and make them think yelling when you're mad is all right, or that all adult male strangers will be kind and respectful to little girls and show them around by the hand.
@marianne mccrank Ha, yes. But it does think the old episodes of the show isn't appropriate for kids today. It started in 1969, after all. The 70s was a dangerous era with concrete playgrounds and lead baby toys.
Excatly the point.
ua-cam.com/play/PLeltLPR4SjLr67tBqTzWC9Hdnh_UURKMx.html
Bit rich of Groening to disavow Michael Jackson because of grooming, when he visited that guy's island a few times.
Y'know, that guy who didn't kill himself.
Considering with Matt that was one story said by one person with nothing else to really back anything up, in hindsight it's easy to say that may have been a bum tale. Matt's a cartoon creator, not beloved celeb, hey may have less safety clout like Jackson still has
I think you have a very nuanced and thoughtful outlook on the controversy so I really appreciate the in depth section on it. Having grown up with The Simpsons and Micheal Jackson this is easily in my top ten episodes (if only for the "careful he wets himself" line) so having it sort of covered up saddens me a great deal. I can respect the wishes of the creators but also find myself disagree with them but as it is it their art and I think they deserve a measure of control over it.
I could see why the episode would be pulled during the controversies, but that time has long since past. They pulled the NYC one after 9/11, but it's back now. Nowadays the only one who is hurt by all this is the fans who are missing out on a very well done golden age episode.
Oh man, this was my absolute favourite episode back when I was a kid
I think you made some good points. It's okay to like the episode and the performance while still being concerned about the allegations, and it's understandable why the people who made this content are uncomfortable with it now. Honestly hearing more information on why it was pulled makes it make more sense to me. I appreciate the video and how delicate it was to make an opinion here. Obviously it's hard as we will never really know for sure.
I just stick to what the courts have come to label the rulings, which has been, Not Guilty all three times. There's too much sketchiness and reason of doubt with what the accusers claim happened. It all seems like attempts to get rich from their stand point. And honestly, I can't help but agree with the notion. Things just don't add up.
The fact that we'll never know the real truth, shows that people should go with what the courts say, instead of shitting on a dead man for something unprovable, being ruled in MJ's favour.
I don't think this episode is all that much of a conspiracy, especially since it's confirmed by the end that MJ's character is actually called Leon Kompowsky and only started talking like MJ because it made him and everyone else happier. It's not Michael Jackson hanging out with the Simpsons, it's a guy who just likes talking with his voice.
The past is often uncomfortable, but to try and pretend it never happened? Is just wrong. At least that's what I think.
This episode only taught me that it's what you believe in your heart. Things don't always appear as they seem in life. Best episode ever. In art you take away what you want, and I'm glad I got to take away a meaning.
I think that you expressed it perfectly. There are simply some details we will never know. Saying "I think, based off the available evidence" is a wise way to frame this controversial topic. As for taking the episode off, I feel that self-censorship isn't an inherently bad thing. I don't feel the creators are saying to the public "you are forbidden from watching this episode" but more of "we are uncomfortable continuing to profit off of such a problematic situation."
A very well thought out video!
They don't have to profit off of it. They could donate the proceeds to anti child abuse causes, and do more to actually help than just hiding their shame.
@@shorewall Well that's not a realistic prospect as where the money made off the episode goes is not creator's decision to make. The Simpsons is owned by Fox which is now owned by Disney and you already know as big businesses they'll be damned if they'll to lose a single cent. In the world of entertainment its all about keeping up your image, and that's especially important for such a huge franchise as the simpsons. If they want to pull the episode until the heat dies down so be it. Even if they decide not to show it again luckily we live in the digital age and it can easily be pirated over the internet.
Somethings wrong! Did dad die?
No!
Huh! What do you know I'm relieved!
that scene and the scene with mj looking at lisa through her window and bart commenting on it is so awkward in context ..like wow
I think they should do what Spotify did with R Kelly songs. It doesn't show up in the autoplay and it is not ever recommended, but if you search for that episode specifically you can find it.
Eloquently put as always sir. I think its an interesting situation to try and fighure out if something can be viewed in a vacuum or not. The song always hit me hard and even when all this stuff came out years ago, I think I was able to sort of compartmentalize it. Hall of the Very Good, but no Like Father Like Clown.
For me, the best moment of the episode is the group therapy session.
As for the controversy - here in the UK, one channel refused to show The Cartridge Family initially. But it was still available on VHS ("Too Hot For TV") and DVD. And in later years that episode was shown with minor edits. Given that, I still think the whole tone of the episode is anti-gun, and the troubling bit is Marge KEPT the gun at the end of the episode.
With Stark Raving Dad, the solution would be to show it outside primetime and not in syndication. A warning might help. It's still an intriguing, funny and emotion-filled episode. To deny it exists is wrong.
I don't see the cartridge family as anti-gun. The NRA members at the end are horrified with how homer uses his pistol, which I think gives it the bit of neutrality it needs. Showing that your average gun owner is more responsible than Homer, but questioning if it should be so easy for people like Homer to have access
@@fungusonus while that is part of the plot, Matt Groening himself has stated the episode is anti-guns
@@merman1974 yeah, that is always stupid to me, authors saying the meaning of a story takes away the entire point of satire and stories like this. It turns an opportunity for discussion into a yes or no fact, just because people are afraid that they will have the wrong interpretation
7.51: The "No Apartheid Now" poster on Lisa's door. Wow. Never seen it before. And since this is the internet: Yes, I agree with the statement. I am surprised I probably never caught this sight or managed to forget about it. Also, it shows how super old this episode is.
Edit: It says "End Apartheid Now".
yeah 1991 was a time man..
Excellent discussion on a very hard topic, really love your videos x
Another fantastic upload from the greatest channel on UA-cam. ❤️
the moonwalk-joke is one of the best jokes, ever.
It's a tough one. You definitely handled it well.
So as someone who has read and watched a lot about Michael Jackson and researches topics like this heavily before making a decision:
I think Leaving Neverland is a lot of lies created to make money and for publicity. There are way too many things like the director specifically saying he was trying to spin a narrative, and the one major guy continuing to work with Michael up until his death, and being quite upset when he was not allowed to participate in the shows created for him after his death. It doesn't sit right at all.
As for the episode, I don't think they should be discontinuing it from publication at all. There is no evidence he did it, he was never convicted, and they didn't ban it the multiple other times that he was accused. If they didn't ban it before when he was in court, they definitely shouldn't ban it now when a one sided "documentary" (hit piece) is made about it after his death when he can no longer defend himself.
It's a very good episode and there is no harm in continuing to show it.
I completely agree.
ua-cam.com/play/PLeltLPR4SjLr67tBqTzWC9Hdnh_UURKMx.html
Always weird how they pulled this but not the John K couch gag episode
If the documentary Square One was given as much publicity as the Leaving Neverland 'documentary', then everyone would be in agreement that this episode is fine, as it is overwhelmigly obvious that he is innocent.
I'm just upset that they're trying to disappear the line: "Marge, I can’t wear a pink shirt to work, everybody wears white shirts. I’m not popular enough to be different."
Bold of you and admirable statements. As of mid 2019 i can only commend people to watch leaving neverland and reach conclusions only after the fact. No summarys, no refutations, no middle man. Just you and the doc.
Loved your point of view dude, really good analysis, keep up the good work! ✨
I feel like, while removing this episode from general circulation is probably the correct decision from the corporate perspective, the censorship of past shames still feels... off.
While it's understandable for them to pull it, they're still functionally pretending like it never happened and are hoping people forget about it.
Instead of hiding their shame, it would be better for them to release the episode, at source quality, and declare that particular episode public domain. It would be good PR, it'd let people post it without having to worry about legal action, it would distance corporate from the episode, and it would ensure that the episode won't be lost rather than just hoping for the best.
To be fair all episodes of the Simpsons are easily available to stream anyway. The episode will always be easy to find even if the studio don't host it anywhere themselves, so why should they bother?
@@emmastrange5557 Unfortunately, those episodes that are publicly available for free are uploaded illegally, and can be taken down at any moment with a single cease and desist. Releasing it to public domain would resolve that issue entirely, and would resolve the legal issue.
Brave to talk about the controversy, props to you on that, and on conveying your opinions in an extremely professional manor. I myself, cannot bring myself to watch the documentary. I don't feel fully informed to comment, however, based on your "UA-cam guest star" example, I have to side with the producers, that pulling the episode was the correct call. From a PR standpoint, and to almost distance themselves from and acknowledge their mistake.
I agree though, that there is a separation between being able to enjoy something (to say "it's good") and be upset that the subject matter and person at hand, is sullied. An example that springs to mind is the professional wrestler Chris Benoit, a fan-favourite and very gifted technical wrestler, who would end up committing a double murder.
Like I can still say that I enjoyed Benoit's work, I will admit, "Stark Raving Dad" is still a very good episode. The song "Lisa it's your birthday" is beautiful, the plot is extremely well balanced, and I think you may have even understated the landmark moment it was for the show. It breaks my heart for it to have been removed, but yes, I do agree. I fortunately, do own an original Season 3 DVD, and will definitely give this episode another watch, when I deem the time appropriate.
Credit again for the way you handled this video. As usual, your content is a highlight to my day. Thank you.
watch the documentary AND Razorfist defense. You got both sides argument. make your own then.
I watched the documentary. Pretty fucked up stuff, I really doubt they would pull that shit out of nowhere.
@@tayleign the doc is all fake
@@tayleign
If you research you would find that they actually copied most of their claims from a 1996 book. The allegations are completely fake.
I didn't know that was mike's voice after watching this for the last 29 years (duh on me). This was such a wholesome episode and I don't see anyway that it groom's children.
Removing it from TV/syndication/streaming, where people can stumble on it without realising, makes sense. In the case of hypothetical future DVD/BD releases (they've annoyingly given up on Simpsons DVDs anyway) the best thing would probably be to include the episode, but only make it accessible through a deliberate menu choice and add a disclaimer explaining why it was pulled.
People who have watched Leaving Neverland and took it as truth should also check all the countering arguments for a balanced view rather than have one-sided view presented to them. Listen, but confirm.
You handled this episode great. I was really curious how you were gonna tackle it and you did great!
I never understood why The Simpsons pulled the episode - no one has suggested pulling Winestein's catalog of movies.
The difference is that Jackson used the episode to boost his image as someone you could trust to leave your kids alone with.
Weinstein is obviously a terrible person, but it's far harder to argue that specific films he worked on were made primarily for the purpose of grooming.
You make a lot of great points and have obviously given this a lot of thought. I would probably pull the episode off syndication but keep it on the Blu-rays, perhaps with a new commentary track
Oh my gosh, I made that exact "Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy" reference today. XD
Huh, somehow I hadn't seen this video. Probably wasn't in my sub box. But I just wanted to commend you for handling the MJ stuff as honestly and maturely as you did. It's a real rough area for a lot of people.
Ikr.
ua-cam.com/play/PLeltLPR4SjLr67tBqTzWC9Hdnh_UURKMx.html
With the conclusion of this video it looks like everything is wrapped up in a neat little package.
I agree with what you said. I honestly had no clue they completely pulled the show from airing & future DVDs. I do agree though. He did a great job, but if he really did do the things he did, I totally get why the creators don’t want that kind of thing to be held over them. I still love this episode though.
I understand your point.
I'm on MJ's side here. He was on the FBI's watch list for almost 15 years and they founf nothing. I think the documentary is in poor taste and talks stuff against someone who can't defend himself. Years after he was proven innocent.
But it is brave to state your opinion. Nad you made it in a respectful way.
@@TonyBustaroni Yeah, It's better to believe a random documentary made on Netflix by people trying to make money on a dead celebrity.
@@TonyBustaroni So the only thing you can say is “he’s famous so it was covered up” without a single piece of evidence to prove it?