LogFAQs > #884550230

Entity13 posted...

Someone who lets the chain go for so long isn't a great rider, because, as anyone with half a brain that rides a bike might be able to tell you, there gets to be a point when you can identify when a chain is no longer working as intended. Therefore, any experienced or developed cyclist could say "Hey, maybe I should clean and lube up the chain, or if that's not enough maybe I should replace the chain BEFORE it causes any major issues down the line."

While all of that is true, the problem remains that it assumes the cyclist is competent enough to fix the problem, or is capable of doing so.

To drop out of metaphor, one might even say that "Someone who lets behind the scenes problems continue to grow aren't a great show producer/writer/showrunner/etc, because there gets to be a point when you can identify when a show is no longer working as intended... therefore, any skilled show creator could say "Hey, maybe I should fix these issues BEFORE they cause any major issues down the line."

But the people working on The Simpsons DIDN'T do that... which would argue that they perhaps WEREN'T capable or skilled enough to notice that their metaphorical chain was becoming a problem.



Entity13 posted...

Hell, on the flipside, look at Doctor Who.

But like I already said, not only is that an extremely unusual example, and one that doesn't really translate all that well to other shows, it might actually be unique in its ability to transcend bad periods by essentially reinventing itself on every level.

It basically has a built-in mechanism that allows it to jettison the entirety of its staff and cast and go off in entirely different directions to "reset" and refresh itself. Almost no other show in the history of entertainment has that option.

The closest we really come is when dealing with a given franchise rebooting - so, say, Tim Burton's take on Batman doesn't prevent Nolan's alternate take on Batman, or the DCAU version of Batman, or the Arkham games version of Batman, and so on. But those don't exist within the confines of a single show.



Entity13 posted...

Back to The Simpsons, they had capable writers who spent the first season figuring the show out. They figured out what worked and what didn't, and they ran with a great thing for so many years until that great thing started getting tired and they went to try newer things.

But you've just described the beginnings of nearly every long-running show that was once good but later stumbled and fell, including all of the ones that were ultimately unable to right their own descent and merely continued on their downward course until eventual cancellation (or eternal purgatory of endless crapitude).

Having a skilled team capable of getting a good show off the ground to start with doesn't guarantee those same people (or their replacements) will be capable of maintaining that course, or more importantly, of finding a way to keep the boat afloat once it starts to sink.

There's nothing to suggest they could have salvaged things with Hartman still around, and plenty of reasons to assume they probably couldn't have.



Entity13 posted...

Hartman was a huge asset to the quality of the show. While they sought out new things to run with, they lost him.

Yeah, but there's no guarantee that they would have found anything for him to do that would somehow miraculously solve every problem and make every episode better regardless of whether or not they were trying to.

And arguably, he might not even have been that great an asset regardless, considering they were already considering spinning him off into a separate show.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family