Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum Page of 6 Next >>
Topic: The Lessons from THE SIMPSONS (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
Posted: 23 June 2014 at 3:07pm | IP Logged | 1  

THE SIMPSONS recently completed its 25th season, and I
recall when back in 1988, I picked up the 25th
anniversary issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. If someone had
read this issue after years after from the title, they
would discover a Peter Parker who was no longer the same
character from AMAZING FANTASY No. 15. He wasn't a high
school student or even enrolled in college anymore, and
he was married to a model/actress. Definite time had
passed.

Yet Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie remain the same.
During the first 25 years of the FANTASTIC FOUR, Reed and
Sue married and gave birth to a child who visibly aged
and even when they tried to "freeze" Franklin at a
specific, fans complained.

Yet Maggie is still a baby.

THE SIMPSONS has successfully mastered old-school comic
book "continuity": Homer works at the nuclear power
plant. Moe is a bartender. Barney is a drunk. That is
mostly all we need to know. Bad story ideas are ignored.
And recurring characters return without a need to
"rationalize" the repeat appearances.

I also love that the topical references remain frozen:
Grandpa Simpson is still a WWII vet because that best
fits his character. Of course, that would make him close
to a 100 years old, but he still is played as a 70-
something, as he was when first introduced. There was no
episode "retconning" his backstory to fit into the
Vietnam War.

And Homer and Marge are now my age rather than my parents
but they still keep the original backstory without any
attempt to claim they actually met at a Nirvana concert.

THE SIMPSONS has been on the air for 25 years and has a
weekly audience in the millions. Can Spider-Man or Batman
or Superman claim such high audience figures?

Superhero comics once had a large audience and it was one
not obsessed with the minutiae of "continuity." Those
comics weren't designed for a "special club" to reward
the people who read every issue. Instead, like THE
SIMPSONS, it was designed that if you took a few years
off, you could happen upon an installment and meet the
same characters you left. And when it came time to
produce a SIMPSONS movie, there was no question about
"which" version of Bart or Homer would appear on the
screen.

Has THE SIMPSONS had "classic episodes"? Its "Days of
Future Past" or "Killing Joke"? Sure, but the show
doesn't feel the need to constantly reference them -- no
more so than bringing back a popular character, a
distinction that superhero comics seemed to have
forgotten.

Superhero comics knew these lessons but chose to forget
them and their audience continues to shrink.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Jean-Francois Joutel
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 November 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 315
Posted: 23 June 2014 at 4:20pm | IP Logged | 2  

they still keep the original backstory without any attempt to claim they actually met at a Nirvana concert.

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------

Actually there have been some flashback episode that have retconned Homer and Marge's story.

In season 19, an episode aired called "that 90s show" which featured the untold story of how Homer had a grunge band in the 1990s called "Sadgasm" before Bart was born. This does conflict with season 5's superior episode "Homer's Babershop Quartet", which Homer firmly establishes happened in 1985 (which itself conflict with Seaon 4's episode "Lisa's first word" which happens in 1984).

Homer and Marge may never have met Nirvana in "that 90s Show" episode, but Homer does a good parody of them with his song "Shave me".
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Jeff Dyer
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 January 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 143
Posted: 23 June 2014 at 5:01pm | IP Logged | 3  

Hallelujah!  I've used THE SIMPSONS as an example for years for how some comics should be produced.  Iconic characters like Superman, Spider-Man, etc. are like The Simpsons, and you're absolutely right.  You can still tell great stories without changing who the characters are, at their core.  This is my argument why Dick Grayson should have always been the one and only Robin, or why the Lois/Clark/Superman love triangle is key to the longevity of the book.  Some iconic characters have been so twisted they are no longer the same character!  If THE SIMPSONS can do it and be hugely successful, why can't comics?  Great points!!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8515
Posted: 23 June 2014 at 6:07pm | IP Logged | 4  

The Simpsons employ what comics used to, back before soap-opera and crossover continuity took over: Premise. 

The premise of the show is set. The characters are all in place and well-defined. At that point, you can tell almost any story you want.

When numbing, tedious, soul-ravening Continuity comes into play, however, each and every one of those stories that once flowed so freely must now be crammed and stuffed into a supposedly-seamless linear progression of events that must, Must, NO, LISTEN TO ME, GODAMMIT, MUST be perfect in every respect, well, everything worthwhile is lost.

The only thing worse than Continuity we've learned is Retroactive Continuity in which we are told that what happened somewhere along the line was WRONG!! At that point, everything crashes to a dead stop as the comic and all its stories are taken back into the shop and endlessly, tediously reworked until they are CORRECT. Then we get to- (ya-a-awww-nn) explore every mind-deadening aspect of how those changes have effected other changes, and how those in turn, have... Zzzzzz....

Premise, folks. It's what works! Batman can discover that there was an "Original Batman" who pre-dated his tenure and meet the guy, who turns out to be an old, washed-up costumed wrestler. He can then a few years later find out his dad was the "Original Batman" at a costume party in which he forever earns the enmity of a mob boss. Years later, he can discover that the Native Americans had an "Original Batman" all their own, an ancestral legacy handed down from father to son to defend the world against a living Bat-God. And it's all okay. 

We never have to deal with the asinine prospect of some wunderkind putting them all together into one time-lost team to go battle Nekron and the Mortality Mitten or somesuch... We never have to hear Batman tediously recount how many predecessors have patrolled the night before he came along and follow along as their "legacy" replacements all take up the mantle and join the Titans and Young Justice and the Outsiders and the... Whatevers. 

Best of all, we never have to have the bookmobile carrying all these stories grind to a brake-squealing stop, and back... up... over all of them (making that godawful maddening "beep-beep-beep..." sound the whole time) as someone tries to "fix" the "problem" of there being simply Too Many Earlier Batmen. 

"No, no, the wrestler fought under a different name, you understand. The, um, Big Bad Cat. Yes, that's nice. And the Native American was dressed as a... um, wolf. Yes, that's it. A wolf. Because the Demon-God manifested itself as a wolf. Not a bat. So, the wrestler's daughter then becomes Ms. Big Bad Cat, and her criminal brother who also feels he's entitled to the family name is Bad Big Cat... You're all making these corrections in your back issues as I tell you this, aren't you? You're not? Oh, never mind, we'll write it all down for you in new comics and you can buy those, all right? Good. Now, the Native American's great-great-grandson who's currently fighting alongside the Legion is now, and all has been, called Wolf-Lad, or no, wait, their codename system changed last month... He's always been called Ravenus, the Blood-Stalker. Yes...."

None of that happens if you simply apply Premise and set aside Continuity.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
Posted: 24 June 2014 at 4:28am | IP Logged | 5  

I don't feel I can add anything to that initial GREAT post which should be printed off and nailed to the walls of DC and Marvel.

It's not the same, but I feel there's less of an anal mindset over continuity when it comes to Bond and Sherlock Holmes. I know a passionate Bond fan (he reads the novels, sees the films) and I've never heard him say anything like, "How can Bond still be active, why hasn't he aged?" Same with Holmes.

As has been discussed on this forum before, every story takes place NOW. You accept topical references. You accept a 1980s reprint will feature Superman talking to Ronald Reagan whilst a modern story will have Superman talking to Barack Obama. Every story does take place "now". One just enjoys the ride.
Back to Top profile | search
 
David Ferguson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 6782
Posted: 24 June 2014 at 6:10am | IP Logged | 6  

Actually there have been some flashback episode that have retconned Homer and Marge's story.

****

Over and over and over again.

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
Posted: 24 June 2014 at 7:00am | IP Logged | 7  

I have often invoked THE SIMPSONS when the age-in-real-time argument rears its ugly head. The response is invariably "But the Simpsons are just cartoons! They are not realistic!"

Sure, because a kid who was bitten by a radioactive spider, and from this gained the abilities of said spider --- well, that's a f**king documentary, right?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian O'Neill
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 November 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 1964
Posted: 24 June 2014 at 9:33am | IP Logged | 8  

Those fans' misuse of the word "cartoons" is one of those 'The word doesn't mean what you think it means' situations.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
Posted: 24 June 2014 at 11:47am | IP Logged | 9  

I think fans easily forget how Stan and Jack had Johnny reading Incredible Hulk #1 in the pages of the FF's own comic, the running Yancy Street Gang vs Ben Grimm gag, Impossible Man, etc. It was so much more interesting when you had creators that had the skill and fearlessness to mix drama, tragedy, adventure and comedy into the same story without any of it feeling forced. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Schulman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2473
Posted: 24 June 2014 at 12:05pm | IP Logged | 10  

"Those fans' misuse of the word "cartoons" is one of those 'The word doesn't mean what you think it means' situations."

Right. Translation: THE SIMPSONS are deliberately drawn in an unrealistic style, while Marvel and DC superhero comics are drawn in a more-or-less realistic style; hence, the latter are "more realistic."

I guess one could add: THE SIMPSONS is a comedy series, so no rules apply except being funny; Marvel and DC superhero comics are dramatic, action-adventure series, so they're inherently "more realistic."

Arguable. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
Posted: 24 June 2014 at 1:37pm | IP Logged | 11  

Altho the Simpsons' adventures are ofter absurd, they are by several factors more "realistic" than ANY superhero.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12708
Posted: 24 June 2014 at 2:46pm | IP Logged | 12  

As I recall, the earliest seasons of "The Simpsons" were quite realistic, excepting the Halloween specials. I think many of those early episodes could easily have been live-action.

TV shows, like comicooks used to be, were all generally pretty casual about the passage of time. Not just in, for example, "M*A*S*H," where it was a necessary fiction that the Korean War be only as long as it was and all other characters had to fit and re-fit and re-re-fit as the series lasted well over a decade. Seems to me that most shows, even where its "time" passed in real time, didn't much bother to acknowledge that. NOW is really the only important time, and everything else was just vaguely before. Did "Seinfeld" make a big fuss over time passing? Did "E.R."? Did -- keeping with NBC, I guess -- even "Friends," which featured changes in relationships over the series, and certainly could be easily marked by changes in fashion and hairstyles, bother with marking time? Fundamentally a New York City show, it still to my thinking wisely resisted the sentiment to openly discuss 9/11. 

Was "The Honeymooners" time-conscious? Was "I Love Lucy"? Was this, that, the other? Sure, some series, in the long history of television were keyed into time. But for most it was: there was a before, but please, viewers, pay attention to NOW NOW NOW. 

And still with that modus, the characters were THE SAME, essentially.
Back to Top profile | search
 

Page of 6 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login