In an essay at Salon, Matt Zoller Seitz wonders if future generations will be able to appreciate The Simpsons after his son asks him, “Dad, why is that funny?” Trying to explain one innocuous joke means referencing dozens of fated cultural touchstones. He concludes:
They referred to things that were current or that felt that way, thanks to syndication or shared childhood viewing experiences. Circa 2011 that’s no longer the case. “Krusty Gets Kancelled” is one of the greatest of all “Simpsons” episodes, but if it were a poem, it would need to have nearly as many footnotes as “The Waste Land” — and the further away from its original air date we get, the truer that’s going to be.
Seitz goes on to argue that this isn’t unique to The Simpsons. Many of today’s comedies, in particular animated sitcoms, rely on Academic Decathlon-level knowledge of pop culture, both current and old. Will the classic shows of our childhood be gibberish to future generations?
I believe that The Simpsons has enough narrative cohesion (at least in the earlier seasons) that it will make sense to people in the future. As a kid I managed to enjoy early Warner Brothers cartoons which were filled with contemporary satire that was over my head. I still loved it. Something like Family Guy, on the other hand, is almost sure to lose relevance. Thoughts?
90% of Seinfeld plots could be resolved 2 minutes into the show if they just had cell phones.
@ Chris, I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR YEARS.
@ Jacob, Who cares? They will have their own Simpsons if they’re lucky. You (and I) won’t get it, but then we’ll be dead shortly after. The same thing happened to our parents, their parents, etc. – why the hand-wringing over whether the next generation will truly “get” our culture? It looks like the only thing we’ve “got” from our parents is a Boomer’s narcissism for the pristine uniqueness and value of our own generation’s cultural contributions.
Also, shame on you for mixing Billy Madison references in to a Simpsons post. The Quizmaster would have been a decent reference.
I’ve been watching the Simpsons since I was eight years old and the show has been full of references since it began. I was too young to get a lot of those jokes back then, and as a grown adult I appreciate them on a different level now. The Simpsons has enough general timeless humor, and doesn’t hit you over the head with the references like certain other animated shows, that kids are always going to find it funny, though it make their parents making them watch it.
*though it MAY TAKE their parents making them watch it. That was a contraction.
The smart shows will last. It was much harder back in my day (harumph) to make sense of Jack Benny, Ray Miland and Humphrey Bogart references in Warner Bros. cartoons. So I let it wash over me until I was less dumb enough to study the references and make some sense of it. Internet access will probably sustain Family Guy much longer than it deserves.
I’m just tickled this cartoon’s still as fresh as it was 17 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px5njG8ikvo
Am I right?
And this has always been the case with all art, all history.
Either those who come after you will care, or they won’t. You can encourage them to care, and either they’ll listen or they won’t.
Screw the future. I want mine right now!
The actual problem is that the Simpsons aren’t funny anymore.
Family Guy is relevant?
The majority of South Park episodes should age pretty well, others that are time sensitive will be irrelevant. Family Guy is terrible now I can only imagine what it will look like in 10 years. Comedy seems to age rather fast no matter what the program, Monty Python is a rare example of a show that might outlive us.