4 ms·

I guess me and all of my friends were sporting hipster affectations when we were 12 years old because we all noticed the change around 1999-2000 and correspondi

I guess me and all of my friends were sporting hipster affectations when we were 12 years old because we all noticed the change around 1999-2000 and correspondingly stopped watching. Interesting that I also had my VHS tapes of earlier seasons on repeat from that time until I learned how to pirate copies with XDCC on IRC. The burden is on you to prove that the show hasn't changed. If TV shows didn't change they wouldn't be cancelled. Writers change, plot lines get exhausted, the network demands for a cash cow vs a dynamic new comedy influence the style. That's not even mentioning the famous quote by Mike Scully (show runner, conincedentially taking control right at the moment of supposed quality dip): "When asked in 2007 how the series' longevity is sustained, Scully joked, "Lower your quality standards. Once you've done that you can go on forever." I almost regret putting so much effort responding to a comment that contains troll bait like "the simpsons sucks, because it has always sucks" but the simpsons is a truly special show and what it was deserves to be recognized.

vor_ 12y ago
> The burden is on you to prove that the show hasn't changed. I've never been a regular viewer of the Simpsons, so I have no position on this issue, but that is an odd statement. The burden of proof in this case is on those asserting that the show has declined. The default position, until presented with more information, is to have no belief.
- Ollinson 12y ago
  Your comment claimed that the quality of the show hasn't declined, that any decline is actually the result of the fallibility of human memory. Even during the "golden years" of the simpsons the show changed, it just wasn't necessarily severe or negative. You seem to be shoe horning some lifestyle philosophy you believe (mistrust of the "good old days") into how people receive a television series, which undeniably does change, especially one on TV as long as the simpsons.
- wodenokoto 12y ago
  I actually think the default assumption is that shows will decline after a few seasons. I think that South park is a show that really improved with time, and to some degree Family Guy had a revival, but other than that, I can't really think of a show that has gone on with a high, constant level of quality.
  - spb 12y ago
    > and to some degree Family Guy had a revival "Some degree?" Family Guy came back after being cancelled for two years. That's pretty much the hardest degree a revival can have.

vor_ 12y ago

> The burden is on you to prove that the show hasn't changed. I've never been a regular viewer of the Simpsons, so I have no position on this issue, but that is an odd statement. The burden of proof in this case is on those asserting that the show has declined. The default position, until presented with more information, is to have no belief.

Ollinson 12y ago
Your comment claimed that the quality of the show hasn't declined, that any decline is actually the result of the fallibility of human memory. Even during the "golden years" of the simpsons the show changed, it just wasn't necessarily severe or negative. You seem to be shoe horning some lifestyle philosophy you believe (mistrust of the "good old days") into how people receive a television series, which undeniably does change, especially one on TV as long as the simpsons.
wodenokoto 12y ago
I actually think the default assumption is that shows will decline after a few seasons. I think that South park is a show that really improved with time, and to some degree Family Guy had a revival, but other than that, I can't really think of a show that has gone on with a high, constant level of quality.
- spb 12y ago
  > and to some degree Family Guy had a revival "Some degree?" Family Guy came back after being cancelled for two years. That's pretty much the hardest degree a revival can have.