undefined | Better HN

0 pointsRC_ITR3y ago0 comments

Here’s something crazy.

Rewatching early Simpsons episodes as someone who first saw Flanders post Flanderization: He’s a less compelling satire because it’s so nuanced, complex, and narrow.

He’s not the obvious bad person that Marcy D’Arcy is, but he’s also not the aspirational zen master that Wilson from Home Improvement is either. He’s just kind of a normal-ish OK guy who’s not a compelling foil to Homer.

Take his funniest characteristic (calling reverend Lovejoy at night) and make him a broad vehicle to satirize American Protestantism, and he’s actually a compelling character.

On the other hand, Lisa’s evolution kind of sucks.

0 comments

Bakary3y ago

Early Simpsons did satirize Christianity a bit but didn't go full blast with it because they already had their hands full with just satirizing the idea of a "normal", wholesome American family that ironically corresponded less and less to the way people were living their lives at the time. We now see satire of American Protestantism as a desirable thing, but it wasn't as desirable as it is now in the early 90's even though people obviously wanted to see some of it.

Flanders looks like a poor foil because we no longer see Homer's family as scandalous. He is indeed a good 'straight man' (in the comedic sense) but early Homer is no longer as goofy so we fail to see it.

RC_ITROP3y ago

I would disagree. Both of the examples of other characters that I gave were coincident with the Simpsons original run, and those characters feel more relevant today than the Ned does in Dead Putters Society.

He still is shitty to Tod, so it’s not like he’s a satirically perfect dad; he lives in a roughly equally sized home to Homer, so it’s not like some inequality comment. Everything is just a little off all in. Even within the context of Bush’s America.

vlunkr3y ago

> He’s just kind of a normal-ish OK guy who’s not a compelling foil to Homer.

I’ve heard that the idea behind Flanders was to invert the “wacky neighbor” trope (think Kramer) that was prevalent in sitcoms at the time.

Being a normal and competent father is what makes him a foil to homer. I think both versions of the character are good.

RC_ITROP3y ago

But he’s not that good of a father. Dead Putters Society Ned is a villain for doing the exact same thing to Tod as Homer does to Bart.

I’m not saying it’s bad, it’s just a little off and somewhat muddy, because the character is still so undeveloped.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsRC_ITR3y ago0 comments

Here’s something crazy.

Rewatching early Simpsons episodes as someone who first saw Flanders post Flanderization: He’s a less compelling satire because it’s so nuanced, complex, and narrow.

Take his funniest characteristic (calling reverend Lovejoy at night) and make him a broad vehicle to satirize American Protestantism, and he’s actually a compelling character.

On the other hand, Lisa’s evolution kind of sucks.

0 comments

Bakary3y ago

RC_ITROP3y ago

vlunkr3y ago

> He’s just kind of a normal-ish OK guy who’s not a compelling foil to Homer.

I’ve heard that the idea behind Flanders was to invert the “wacky neighbor” trope (think Kramer) that was prevalent in sitcoms at the time.

Being a normal and competent father is what makes him a foil to homer. I think both versions of the character are good.

RC_ITROP3y ago

But he’s not that good of a father. Dead Putters Society Ned is a villain for doing the exact same thing to Tod as Homer does to Bart.

I’m not saying it’s bad, it’s just a little off and somewhat muddy, because the character is still so undeveloped.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse