One of the oldest dedicated Simpsons and Futurama fanfic and fanart sites on the internet, here you can find high qulaity art and fiction from a diverse collection of creators. Your one-stop shop for Futurama, The Simpsons and all such related topics. https://simpworks.com/forums/
I haven't seen the episode, so I'm not going to comment on that, but I like how the article Missy linked ends with him explaining that the show's short-lived foray into "kill off characters to awaken the viewers' flagging interest" was a bad idea. I could have told you as much, bro.
Re: REVIEW: [SABF16] Simpsorama
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:19 pm
by missy_misery
The strangest part of the entire situation is how oddly they handled the whole range of deaths that occurred. We've had everything from decently-written deaths that least impacted the plots of certain episodes (Bleeding Gums Murphy; Rabbi Krustoffsky); deaths that happened for silly petty reasons that should never have occurred (Maude Flanders; Mona Simpson - I'll forever be bitter over both) and horribly underwritten deaths with unmined potential (Edna's).
Re: REVIEW: [SABF16] Simpsorama
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:52 pm
by c_nordlander
I was just talking about the last season with its much-trumpeted "someone is going to be killed off for real!" advertising. Deaths like those of Bleeding Gums Murphy and Maude happened too long ago for me to consider them in this context. (And back then it was like, what, three characters dying in ten seasons? Hardly a problem, even if some of the deaths could have been handled a lot better.)
You're not the only one annoyed by Mona Simpson's death. I can't think of any reason they did that, other than a cheap bid for the audience's emotions.
Re: REVIEW: [SABF16] Simpsorama
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:54 pm
by Enhas
I liked this episode a lot more than "The Simpsons Guy", and I don't know how some reviewers rated this lower. My only real complaint is that it just wasn't long enough... too much happened too quickly, but I'm thankful for what we did get.
Re: REVIEW: [SABF16] Simpsorama
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:30 pm
by Nidotamer
Not too on-topic but really, why did that article want to paint Kang and Kodos as a couple when they even mentioned that the two were referred as siblings? Ew.
(for the record, I kinda think that both of them might just have both male and female characteristics, they do seem to be not even remotely dimorphic in any way...)
And I can't really blame the writers for underwriting Edna's death for the same reasons I can't with Troy and Lionel's disappearances.
Re: REVIEW: [SABF16] Simpsorama
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:13 pm
by c_nordlander
I agree with May. The Kang and Kodos thing just seems dumb to me.
Re: REVIEW: [SABF16] Simpsorama
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:14 am
by missy_misery
@Chris- Oops, I thought we were talking about the general trend of how the show handles deaths versus the choices they made with the Krustoffsky death.
@May: It's less about the way they wrote Edna out versus the way they've scripted character reaction. We got one quick scene of Ned mourning, when they could easily explore Skinner's feelings about the subject, or how Bart would react to the loss of one of his greater nemesis, versus everyone just glossing over it and having Skinner replace Edna in the classroom scenes.
And at both of you: the article painted them that way because I suppose the writer read it that way
Re: REVIEW: [SABF16] Simpsorama
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:14 am
by c_nordlander
Kang and Kodos being multigender makes more sense and just seems generally better to me.