This episode's actually pretty funny.

This episode's actually pretty funny. I get why people are bothered by Skinner being an impostor only to pretend it never happened, it's a line of careless character writing that the show had never crossed before. But I can't see this episode as the disaster everyone says, I would rather watch this than anything from the HD era

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I would rather watch this than anything from the HD era
    that's not the compliment you want it to be. And this really goes to show how far the series has fallen when a generally funny episode is still considered one of the duds.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I agree but you still see people say this is one of the worst episodes of all time. When if it's better than anything from the HD era it's not even in the bottom 100

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The puzzling thing about the reaction to the episode is that really nothing has changed about Skinner except that maybe he originally had a different name and maybe his mother only adopted him. It’s not like he was lying about being in Vietnam or something that would really have violated his character history. He’s the same man, he just changed his name.

    I don’t think the episode is very good, it overlaps too much with the episode where Skinner gets fired and the other Oakley/Weinstein episodes about realistic people who don’t fit in the world of Springfield (George Bush, Frank Grimes, and now the real Skinner), and the meta point it’s trying to make isn’t very interesting.

    But ironically the Mike Scully era got blamed for this episode unfairly and ended up doing a lot of things that violated the reality of the show a lot more, but with less backlash.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Agreed, it's a fun episode and like said the negative reaction to it doesn't even make sense from the perspective that it "ruined" Skinner. It has zero impact on the character we all came to know.

      The criticism that it's a harbinger of things to come, while valid, does nothing to detract from the episode itself.

      I disagree with the idea that there's no good HD era episodes that OP and

      >I would rather watch this than anything from the HD era
      that's not the compliment you want it to be. And this really goes to show how far the series has fallen when a generally funny episode is still considered one of the duds.

      and for almost the same exact reason as your impetus for making this thread. The HD era is over-hated and, often, by people that haven't even watched any episodes from it. Your broad criticism of the era is as misguided as the people you condemn for disparaging this episode.

      I'm not saying the HD era is as good as the Golden era. I'm not saying they're even consistent... but there are hidden gems that rise to at least the equivalent of the average Golden Age episode. Principal and the Pauper is good, not amazing and there are good episodes in the HD era.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It has zero impact on the character we all came to know.

        it does though. They talk about it in the commentary some but regardless if this was just a gag show with little consequences in general it was something people spent years of their life with so to learn that the character was all this time a lie does have a negative effect on people and if nothing else is a prime example of how flippant the staff was becoming with their portrayal which would lead to all other problems.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The episode explicitly shows that every aspect of Seymour Skinner that we had come to know was Armin Tamzarian, and that the actual Seymour Skinner bore almost no resemblance. The only lie was to Agnes, and that was in the past. The man we knew was unchanged and the show continued on with no change to Skinner. It was treated as callously as the earlier season implying that Agnes was dead (a la Pyscho) until they needed her. It had as much impact on the show as making Martin into a rebel in one episode and then never again in the next.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The episode explicitly shows that every aspect of Seymour Skinner that we had come to know was Armin Tamzarian

            The show straight up show that his entire personality was fake, Armin was a punk and only tried to be what we know as Skinner to honor what he thought the real Skinner considered important.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              ...and over time his idea of what Skinner was became his own personality. By the time the show started from a narrative perspective, the character we all knew as Skinner was Skinner. When the truth was revealed his personality, demeanor, etc. was unchanged... if he suddenly started being an butthole then it would be a legitimate complaint. He was who he was at that point, there was no lie anymore. He wasn't pretending, he wasn't acting, he was just being.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                His entire current personality was made up from day one, it wans't developed, it didn't grow, he simply got so used at it that he was having hard time finding out who he really was and before he could people pressured him into going back to the larping.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But the episode makes it pretty clear that it wasn’t a lie except his name. Even his being dominated by his mother is exactly the same, there’s just more of an explanation why he lets her push him around (guilt + gratitude).

          It might have been a stronger meta episode if they had actually changed the character, because the point of the episode seems to be that people hate change and want the status quo restored… except Skinner is exactly the same person with no changes to his actual characterization, so it’s really just another “character quits then comes back” episode.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if it doesn't change anything then why do it? it retroactively ruins skinner's relationship with his mother not to mention all the references to agnes raising him are suddenly retconned/make no sense. it was just a cheap "frick the audience" joke that pisses off diehard fans and benefits nobody.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > diehard fans
        Their mistake was taking canon seriously in a show where the city shifts geography in every episode. Frick them.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          blame the writers for throwing so many sappy endings and getting people to care about the characters

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The audience is just supposed to empathize with the characters, they're not supposed to apply and rigidly enforce a canon upon them. None of the Simpsons stands up to any scrutiny, it was never intended to.

            The kids have never aged, they've celebrated 33 Christmases, graduated a few times and gone on Summer holiday but NEVER shown to be in a different grade.

            Agnes Skinner was implied to be dead, existing only in Skinner's mind a la Psycho. Nobody cared when they later changed this. Carl grew up in Iceland... but also spent his childhood with Homer. Moe was childhood friends with Homer... but also met him in camp and was a number of years older than Homer.

            Let's not even try to explain the timeline...

            The real diehard fans understand that this isn't a documentary, it's a cartoon. The characters, geography and time are whatever the plot needs them to be.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think there's a difference between accepting a recurring gag of the series especially one that adds to the character of Springfield and being put off by a cheap plot device that sort of does the exact opposite. "Where Springfield is doesn't matter" isn't the same as "Who Skinner is doesn't matter"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Who Skinner was before we met him isn't important.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Sure it does

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It absolutely is. The episode even tries to lampshade this bit in a scene om the quick e mart where when Skinner says he's the same person he was last week Marge quite correctly replies
              > Not to use you're not. How would you feel if next week you found out Ned Flanders was an imposter.
              It's a breaking of trust between the writer and the viewer.

              >Carl grew up in Iceland... but also spent his childhood with Homer. Moe was childhood friends with Homer... but also met him in camp and was a number of years older than Homer.

              People call those episodes out all the time. People call out Sadgasm. Shows like the Simpsons don't need an absolute iron clad continuity, but there's breaking it as a mater of the sliding time line and need for stories and then there's flagrantly going against what you established while calling attention to it.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    True

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's obvious that it was written around the same time as Homer's Enemy and the Poochie ep. They have the same deconstructive/meta approach.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I hate this episode because the entire reason the episode where Lisa kept killing cats seemed to be specifically made was to poke fun at this.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I get why people are bothered by Skinner being an impostor only to pretend it never happened, it's a line of careless character writing that the show had never crossed before.
    The episode existed to make fun of dweebs obsessed with lore and continuity in a show that barely had any of the former and none of the latter. In fact, with so much autism related to cartoons it's a more relevant episode now than ever.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This episode wouldn’t be so hated if it ended with a “it was only a dream” kind of thing.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I’ve never seen anybody argue in favor of the old hackneyed “all a dream” slop writing. If they went that route the episode wouldn’t be hated… it’d be forgotten.

      It’s hated by the very morons it was intending to offend.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It has almost no humor in it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But it has one of the best gags.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But it has one of the best gags.

      Up yours children is one of my favorite skinner moments in the series.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The relationship between Skinner and his mother was already very weird, making it extremely weird in a new uncomfortable and less funny way was a stupid idea.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dunno, I simply remember the episode having no funny jokes at all and the pacing being a real slog, it was almost like it was intentionally bad, the only joke was a frick you to anyone who cared for continuity which honestly even Teen Titans Go writers can do that nor was a new thing at the time.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The reason this episode is on everyone's worst list is because it is such a lead balloon of an episode. a complete "Well, that happened" punchline. Did it affect Skinner's function on the show? No. Did it affect people's perception of Skinner? Yes. Not even in a "they ruined him" vibe, just in a "that episode was fricking dumb" vibe.
    It is a mid episode that got over like a fart in church at best.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Didnt you see that video essay about how it literally killed the show? 4 million views. Can't argue with those numbers.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *