A Response to Super Eyepatch Wolf”s The fall of the Simpsons: how it happened
Super Eyepatch Wolf is a YouTuber who has been doing long-form video essays on various subjects for about 2 years now and stands out because of his high-quality videos with fantastic production value, complex and compelling scripts and uncompromising work ethic.
Through his use of complex editing, in-depth script writing and cohesive format he is able to give a convincing and resonant argument In his video essay “The fall of the Simpsons: how it happened.” it’s should be noted that this is a youtube video and that means it has the ability to reach wide audience but it’s subject matter and complex dialog doesn't match the group of people typically associated with the platform. At the same time, youtube is often shunned by academics under the moniker that it’s cheap and unintelligible content designed for children and stupid teenagers, so reaching an audience looking for intellectual content while using youtube as your network seems like a bad idea. But it’s not because neither of those stereotypes is entirely true. Ok, so your audience is youtube intellectuals who have interest in pop culture from the 90’s. This could be kids who grew up watching the Simpsons in reruns on tv or this could be adults who watched the Simpsons as it came out in the 90’s that are now in their 50's to 30's. But why do we care what happened to the simpsons? 
His argument is primarily an argument of evaluation, but it often bridged into definition and fact with some of its supporting evidence. When you get down to it there is no way to judge comedy “A Priori” (based on reason alone). So any argument you make about comedy must come down to an evaluation at some level.
His argument embodies the Socratic argument surprisingly well. He creates a conclusion that is irrefutable if his two major points can be proven true and then creates a hypothesis based on this conclusion that allows him to extrapolate on to the series as a whole. Unlike most Socratic arguments his main points are backed up “A Posteriori” (things that can be observed to be true but can’t be proven by definition), So while his argument may be logical his evidence is based in experience and emotion. Ultimately this is an argument about culture and humor which are areas dominated by the crossroads of logic and emotions. So for example at one point he convinces the audience that one joke is inherently funnier than the other and well he can give you reasons for why the joke may be funnier ultimately the weight of the argument of the falls entirely on if the joke is actually funnier. These arguments ultimately fail on their use of pathos to prove the logical argument layered on top. You can't prove something just through logic but once you have established it is funny then you can begin to prove why it’s funny and how it relates to other things with logos.
This is a break down of his argument for visual aid
Statement: the simpsons was great because of its structure
Point 1: it’s counter culture
Point 2: it’s character driven plot and comedy
Point 3: it’s emotional depth and heart
Point A: because of joke structure
SubPoint 1: complex and layered jokes
SubPoint 1.1: jokes with multiple punchlines
SubPoint 1.2: jokes that build on themselves
SubPoint 1.3: fast pace dynamic and surprising jokes
SubPoint 2: no laugh track
SubPoint 2.1: laugh track do not make for good comedy
SubPoint 2.2: a laugh track would not work for the joke’s structure
Summary: the simpsons style of comedy was creative surprising and hilarious
Point B: the simpsons had great comedy without sacrificing their characters
SubPoint 1: characters are complex with complex character traits (good and bad)
SubPoint 2: characters are always motivated by their personality traits
Point C: the simpsons explored deep ideas with sincerity and without patronizing
Summary: the simpsons was a great show
Statement: the simpsons of today is a shabby shadow of what it once was
Point 1: it changed
Point A: the show shifted away from satirical comedy
SubPoint 1: the narratives became less grounded
Point B: the characters motives began to not match the characters actions
Point C: the narratives became less pointent
Point D: the characters became less consistent
Summary: the writing had become cheap and lost its magic
Point 2: why did it change
Point A: the show was no longer with it original creators
SubPoint 1: the writing staff had mostly changed with only 3 original writers by season 12
Point B: the jokes lost there complexity
SubPoint 1: more through away gags
SubPoint 2: less layers
SubPoint 3: jokes that would work with a laugh track
Point C: the characters are all different
SubPoint 1: the characters are shallow and one dimensional
SubPoint 2: they often act without clear motivation
SubPoint 3: the plot drives the characters instead of the characters driving the plot
SubPoint 4: the plot is progressed only to tell weak one liners
Point D: the simpsons lost is satirical edge
SubPoint 1: the simpsons could no longer be a attack on popular media because it had become popular media.
SubPoint 2: the world that the simpsons had been made to make fun of no longer exists.
Point E: the simpsons response to a changing world to satire
SubPoint 1: the simpsons began to incorporate what originally it was making fun of
Summary: the simpsons began to be a parody of itself
Conclusion: The simpsons was not made for today it was made for the 90’s and would have failed regardless of the bad writing and weak characters it had in the later seasons
Its ok for the simpsons to die and we will always have the fantastic episodes from the earlier seasons
(a link to the video https://youtu.be/KqFNbCcyFkk)
Comments
Post a Comment