If the general consensus of a series is that 80%, if not more, of its episodes are shit then the series is shit. It doesn't matter how many episodes it has or how high its peaks were. That just makes it a shitty series with good moments.
The first eight or so seasons of The Simpsons are great, who cares about what it turned into?
>>152576358No, that just makes you retarded.
>>152576358That’s stupid.
>>152576358The general consensus outside of here now is that Golden Age Simpsons is from Season 1-18 and Silver Age SImpsons is Season 33-37 so your post no longer applies, OP
>>152576358Actually, none of this show is good.
>>152576377>The first eight or so seasons of The Simpsons are greatEight seasons of thirty-seven, 22% (rounded up). My point stands firm.
>>152576377This. The whole Modern/Zombie Simpsons delineation is a shared coping strategy to numb the trauma of a show that once had:>intelligent, unpretentious writers>high quality animation>proof that underground artists could find their own success in niche circles>intricate, continuity-laden stories that demanded you pay attention>no stylistic similarities to any American sitcom before or since>loveable characters who never strayed out of character>a deep-seated hatred for every corner of popular culture>no interest promoting its own network>complete creative immunity from executive interference>a duty to refuse selling out in any way, shape or formrapidly turn into the exact opposite.
Is a show made by different people the same show? Is an episode written by Vitti in the same universe as one written by Swartzwelder? Are Radio Bart in season 3 and Bart's Birthday in season 36 really the same show? It's sort of like saying the Steamboat Willie short and House of Mouse are from the same show.
>>152577016>>a deep-seated hatred for every corner of popular cultureAs cynical as they were, they still took the time to give celebrity cameos, which influenced other shows like Family Guy and South Park to flood their episodes with dated references and petty jabs that are only cool "in the moment."
>>152576571Nope, you contrarian homo
>>152577016the show's staff all claim it's still Season 5 quality Yeardley did a q&a on Reddit a while ago and was surprised when anyone suggested it had gone downhill so you tell me
>>152576358Speaking of "if a good show has a majority of episodes that are bad, then it's bad", Qualitipedia is this stupid website.Here's their Ed, Edd n Eddy page.They say the show is good, but they list a lot of episodes as bad.That would mean it's a mid or bad show.
>>152577295>they list a lot of episodes as bad>That would mean it's a mid or bad showNo it wouldn't. That's 18 segments, or 9 full episodes worth of content at the absolute most. There are 69 full episodes, or 130 segments total if you just take a quick look at any resource. 18 out of 130 or 9 out of 69 is still a very small amount.
>>152577295That just looks like autism.
>>152577016>The whole Modern/Zombie Simpsons delineation is a shared coping strategy>rapidly turn into the exact opposite.>"They're coping by saying it's a bad show now, when it's only...a bad show now!"Wow, an actual clinical retard in the wild.>>152577127>Is a show made by different people the same show?Yes, because the meaning of (Tv) "show" isn't defined by the artists behind it, just by the medium and the format.Steamboat Willie is not from the same show as House of Mouse because Steamboat Willie wasn't a show.As for OP, yes, you're right, if the Cramp Twins or Squirrel Boy had one or two really, really good episodes, while all else remained the same, it wouldn't make them good shows. Better ones yes, but there'd be too much shit in there for them to be considered even remotely good.The reason some people here can't accept such a simple truth is because (and this isn't discussed enough given how much space the Simpsons still occupies in cartoon discussions) the show is a huge, huge magnet for autists. I'm talking on the level of Thomas and Tiny Toons, slightly below Sonic but above Invader Zim. Just completely disfunctional people who still watch it, still make fan-content for it (ie Lisa fanart) and still buy every bullshit merch that comes out.At its peak it wasn't easy to tell, the audience for Golden Age Simpsons was massive and worldwide after all, but now only the stimmers remain, and they're absolutely unable to let it go.
>>152577295A lot of those criticisms are just "I don't like it when a show is too mean."
>>152577491>Yes, because the meaning of (Tv) "show" isn't defined by the artists behind it, just by the medium and the format.>Steamboat Willie is not from the same show as House of Mouse because Steamboat Willie wasn't a show.I see the point you're making here. I think it's a poor point that makes you a schizo, but I see it.
>>152577756The point is based on how "Tv show" is conventionally defined (something corroborated by Wikipedia, for example). You're of course free to provide contradictory sources, but I doubt any would help you in supporting your original argument, due to the fact it was idiotic and based on empty rhetoric.Could've been a consequence of you being a cretin I think.
Only the first 10 seasons exist and they are the best TV ever made.
>>152577874The former part is wrong
>>152577850Wikipedia? The one compromised by Israel? Imagine the progress we could make as a people if there won't folks that think the way you do. I hope some day you can perceive how retarded you've carried yourself.
>>152578188what does this have to do with the definition of a tv show
>>152578188>DA JOOOOSI'm not surprised that someone who throws around "schizo" so easily is ironically in dire need of meds and a long vacation in a pysch ward.But like I said, feel free to provide any other source that might disprove that definition and support your argument. You know, when you're done with your psychotic break.
>>152576358your argument would only apply if the number of good episodes was negligible in absolute terms which it isn't. the most conservative estimate of the original run, you had at least 5 seasons of high quality content. there is no truly bad show in history that was able to produce multiple seasons of elite content.
>>152578451>your argument would only apply if the number of good episodes was negligible in absolute terms which it isn'tIt also doesn't matter if you want to actually evaluate something on its artistic merits and not how much it entertained you way back when.If you want to judge a book or a movie (in a proper, critical way, not in the 4chan way) you read/watch it all the way through, you don't just look at some scenes or chapters on the web and judge how good the whole thing is on those alone.The topic here isn't if the Simpsons didn't entertain or move you some time in the past, it's about evaluating the show, and to do that you need to look at it whole, not only the best parts. The Simpsons doesn't have 5 seasons, or 10 or 15, as of now it has 37. And 2/3 of those, AT BEST, are utter dogshit. Not "decent", not "mediocre", absolute fucking shit.Nobody is telling you to retroactively think early Simpsons were crap, just to admit that the (yet unfinished) product is, as of now, bad, with almost no chances of improving.
Post Golden Age Simpsons isn’t even awful it’s just ok.
>>152578523the simpsons within a reasonable framework was a success. it produced 5-7 seasons of great quality. judging it in terms of a corporate contrivance after the fact is pointless. you can just chalk it up to embarrassing meddling and enjoy the actual show.
>>152578555>judging it in terms of a corporate contrivance after the fact is pointlessIt's also the only objective metric we have to judge the series, which is why people still argue when GA Simpsons ended. You say 7, someone might say up to 8 or 9 or even further. You even have morons that will defend some episodes of Zombie Simpsons ("The new Treehouse is good guys, for reals!").At that point it truly becomes pointless, because there's no shared agreement on what GA Simpsons actually IS in the first place.Any argument about the quality of the series needs to evaluate it as a whole, or at the very least as far as one could endure before dropping it, otherwise there's no discussion to be had in the first place.Unless you want to discuss single episodes by themselves, but then,,, how many times do people need to affirm that "Bart gets an F" is great?
>>152578665the only worthwhile metric to judge a show is within a reasonable framework of success. the simpsons objectively had a good core that supported a typical series lifecycle. >executives kept a show running long after its first sustained decline and natural lifelarge majority of creative endeavors would fail under this condition, it doesn't say anything interesting in particular about the simpsons. >You say 7, someone might say up to 8 or 9 or even furtherdisagree. there is consensus around roughly 3-8, some exceptions on the border don't negate that.
they need to stop this shit before they kill Julie Kavner. seriously.
>>152578784seasons 3-8 equaling 6 seasons, sometimes with 2 being thrown in, sometimes 8 excluded.
>Come on if you stay here a while, I'll let you hold my hand...
>>152576358>If the general consensus of a series is that 80%,Who says this? No seriously even if I agreed with this who said the 80% rule for judging a series? Why not 50%, why not 90%?
>>152578784>there is consensus around roughly 3-8By whom?Who decided when The Simpsons' natural life ended? Why it became "the consensus", if it is that at all?
>>152576358you have not watched 640 simpsons episodes you fucking liar
>>152578835what a mf will do just to feel a woman's touch
>>152578892I doubt anyone has.
>>152579868then by OP's definition nobody can prove the Simpsons went bad
>>152578801You should also be worrying about Harry Shearer
>>152579868NTA but I did watch something around 700 episodes or more last year because I was super bored.
