Well, I suppose she's considered popular.

And she may be, but only amongst dirty straight men who want to touch her.

Oh, and Lisa's Wedding was superb!

>
Here's my two cents on the evening:


Just one question: Why Zoe Ball? Is she the only presenter considered "Wacky" enough to be associated with the Simpsons?

I don't care much for Zoe Ball, but I suppose it could have been a hell of a lot worse - they could have had Gaby Roslin, God forbid.

The Viewers Vote bit: whoever edited the Tito Puente Afro-Cuban Theme background music should be ashamed of themselves. Worst bit of music editing I've ever heard.

I will say this: the documentary strands were (for the most part) pretty intelligent, and if it did get a bit much using a clip to illustrate every sub-clause of every sentence, at least they didn't go up to minor celebrities for their "fave" Simpsons moments, or to discover the fascinating fact that Homer reminds them of their dads. That's real dumbing-down for you, and fair play, both docs largely avoided that.

The episodes: hadn't seen Lisa's Wedding before, and it was stunning. Is Futurama all like that? (no satellite/cable - not yet, anyway).

Krusty Gets Busted - brilliant even though I can virtually recite the dialogue word for word these days.

No Disgrace Like Home - whoever said the other week that Homer would never enrol his family on a course of therapy and sell the TV was spot on - it would be a Marge character trait (if anybody's). However, it isn't all bad - my favourite bit is when Homer says of God "You're everywhere - you're omnivorous"...

Much Apu About Nothing - another one I hadn't seen, and another winner. I can't believe BBC2 hasn't even screened Who Shot Mr Burns Part 2 yet!

All in all, not a bad theme night really. But at no point did the BBC admit that:
1) They cut all the Simpsons shorts out of The Tracey Ullman Show on their original broadcasts (1986-88)
2) It's only been running on the BBC since November 1996. Just 3 and a half years, then.

And neither did they admit that they turned it down in the first place. I would have liked to hear something along the lines of "Yes we admit it, we're very stupid and useless, and should have snatched Fox Networks hands off when we were offered The Simpsons for free. We will begin screening the last five years worth tomorrow and by Christmas we'll have caught up with America"

Tsk.

Poor, naive little Suiii.

The BBC hates its (rapidly diminishing) viewers.

Just think, if the BBC keeps it as it is, by the time The Simpsons has finished for good it'll take us a good 6 years to see how it all ends.

When Frasier finishes for good, we'll only have to wait 3 weeks.

Something in that tells me that the Beeb should *never* have got the rights to Le Simps.

I can imagine us sitting here, in 10 years time saying "I wondert who *did* shoot Mr Burns?"

"Now on BBC2, to celebrate 30 years of The Simpsons, we're proud to present, for the first time on terrestrial television: 'Who Shot Mr Burns, Part Two..."

Th enight was good. What you are all forgetting is that sky and fox are joined at the hip and sky have an exclusive contract meaning that the bbc buy The Simpsons off sky. And sky impose a 6 year delay. You'll get who shot mr burns part 2 in september. We have new episodes as often as anyone else the difference is we don't get so many repeats in between and we have a 6 year delay.

That's not really the point. The BBC shouldn't strictly be celebrating 10 years of The Simpsons, and making it look as though some of the credit should go to them, when it certainly shouldn't.

And the BBC was apparently offered The Simpsons way back in 1990, so I hate them for turning it down.

The BBC were offered The Simpsons for free by the then fledgling Fox Network. The BBC dismissed it as 'jst a cartoon' and so Sky got it. There is not a 6 year delay clause imposed by Sky on any of its programmes. FFS, if they were going to do this then they would do it to the more popular programmes like ER and Friends. Face the facts, the Beeb rejected The Simpsons, and we mere mortals who only have terrestrial TV are paying for their mistakes.

>That's not really the point. The BBC shouldn't strictly be celebrating 10 years of The Simpsons, and making it look as though some of the credit should go to them, when it certainly shouldn't.
>
Absolutely. The BBC's smugness about all of this (unspeakable Radio Times feature which would almost like to suggest that the BBC MAKES The Simpsons) is barely tolerable. And they still fucking cut the episodes, run them out of order. I loathe the fact the BBC were clueless for different reasons with Seinfeld and Larry Sanders (scheduling them at increasingly ludicrous timeslots). I predict that the final two Seinfeld seasons will be run at highspeed just to get them out of the way as quickly as possible. They are bastards.

>And the BBC was apparently offered The Simpsons way back in 1990, so I hate them for turning it down.

That's what I read - Alan Yentob (BBC2 controller 1988-92) didn't get it, and found it "too American". The BBC turned down Sesame Street in the early 70s for the same reason.

completely agree. 'too American' - the mantra of the middlebrow, middle class moron.
I'll bet there were people in 1867 going ''Voting? For governments? Too American.'
1944: 'D-Day went alright, but too American.' (Actually that last idea was the basis of about 95% of the complaints about Saving Private Ryan.) Yes the Americans have produced some right old bollocks (Murder She Wrote, Sex in the City, the Vietnam War) but The Simpsons is so clearly terrific. Oh well... roll on high speed Seinfeld...

They have every right to celebrate 10 years of the simpsons.<--- look at that a full stop. Also there is some sort of time delay. The simpsons, pull people in, the bbc show episodes when they can. There IS A delay, trust me i've talked to people in the know. The BBC show them in order other than delaying the Tree House of horrors so it appears close to Oct 31st and showing Much Apu About Nothing, which they managed to sneak from sky. The BBC may have turned it down and I bet they regret it now, don't hate them, hate sky.

Also sky make far more cuts than the BBC. Go to yahoo and searh for the snipsons and you should find a site telling you all about it.

>Also sky make far more cuts than the BBC. Go to yahoo and searh for the snipsons and you should find a site telling you all about it.

This is very true. Last nights 'Lisa's Wedding' had never been shown uncut on Sky. The cut bits: "We saved your ass in WW2, you know." "Well, we saved yours in WW3.", "Quimby, get your ass down to the Convention Centre.", "You know, Fox turned into a hardcore porn channel so gradually, I never noticed." and something else about porn.

Lets all hope the BBC show Trash of the Titans uncut when they finally get around to showing it in 2004. Mr Burns says 'Wanker'.

For the last time, the maximum time delay that Sky has on any of its imports is 6 months. That's the maximum. And the Beeb do not have 'the right' to celebrate 10 years of The Simpsons any more than ITV have 'the right' to celebrate PCBHs 20th Anniversary. Do you see??

>This is very true. Last nights 'Lisa's Wedding' had never been shown uncut on Sky.

Has "Lisa's Wedding" ever been shown on Sky across the 9pm watershed, though? I think we finally have our answer as to where The Simpsons should now be screened on the BBC - 6pm could remain for the 'U'-certificate episodes, while 'PG'/12-cert episodes could be shown later.

What are they waiting for? (That goes for Sky too.)

Remember a couple of years back when BBC2 started showing The Simpsons at 9pm on Thursdays? It didn't prove too popular in that time slot, but that's possibly more to do with lack of promotion, and also not giving it a chance (it was pulled after about 5 weeks).

Oh, and while we're on about the BBC's hypocrisy, last November's Doctor Who Night was also a little rich.

Make some new episodes...then celebrate the fact it's been running for 37 years.

Bastards.

>Remember a couple of years back when BBC2 started showing The Simpsons at 9pm on Thursdays?

It was in July - August 1998.

It didn't prove too popular in that time slot, but that's possibly more to do with lack of promotion, and also not giving it a chance (it was pulled after about 5 weeks).

Actually, it got a pretty big audience, considering it was probably designed as a spoiler for Babes In The Wood (the first 9pm ITV sitcom in years). But that was the right slot, undoubtedly.

Let's have those, rather than Buzzcocks repeats...

Let's have The Simpsons instead of Buzzcocks full stop.

And let's face it...if *anyone* watched Babes in the Wood rather than The Simpsons, they seriously need to re-evaluate their lives.

>Has "Lisa's Wedding" ever been shown on Sky across the 9pm watershed, though?

Not as far as I know. Last year Sky One did do a brief strand of shows at 11pm called 'Too Hot For Daytime' or something, but stupidly just showed old episodes of South Park, Married With Children* and any Simpsons episodes with references to sex (which were still cut, and which had already been shown at 6pm Sundays anyway). They didn't even show 'The Cartridge Family', the infamous 'banned' Simpsons episode (which was pushed out on a rip-off video, and carried a PG rating).

*MWC on Sky - you could fill a whole website with a list of the cuts made by Sky on that show. Given that about 40% of the jokes were about sex, putting it on at 6pm weekdays and having to remove all sexual references is a bit STUPID.

They may not have shown it for ten years but they were celebrating 10 years of it being in existance and a bit late. But anyway would you rather they not have done a night eh eh?

Well, now that you come to mention it, yes Mich, yes.

Or, put out a message at the beginning saying 'The BBC is useless, but we're still going to shamelessly celebrate The Simpsons, a programme which we have had absolutely no involvement with in terms of its creation or progress'

What annoyed me about the docus was that they cut bits of the original Simpsons shorts in between (mostly pointless) interviews with the cast. Why couldn't they have respected the viewer enough to show some of them in their entirety? I'm assuming that they were longer than the 10-second snippets actually shown.
I can just see some BBC producer looking at the shorts and saying "the audience won't get these - too American etc.".

I'm not sure about many of the points raised as I dont have sky and therefore only have half the story but ,Mich, the bbc definately dont show them in order, they usually put one repeat and one new one when its a two episode night. I suppose it *is* in order if you only look at when each episode is first aired but it seems like there is only one new episode for every 3 repeats!! are they rationing them?

I thought the two documentaries were very good , although the second one covered some stuff that the first had done already. I liked the clips that were interspersed with them, and as someone mentioned, the lack of C list celebs gushing about their favorite bits was a blessing. and John! not all straight men fancy Zoe B, she looks far too much like her dad!

As for the "10 years" thing: Even us backward non sky people appreciate that its a huge phenomena that started 10 years ago and has little/nothing to do with the bbc.
A few grovelling apologies for being so far behind and cancelling it everytime a sports event is on would have been nice. They could also have explained all the other mysteries that have appeared in this thread like "do sky impose a six yr wait?" and "when were the bbc first offered it?" "how many cuts?" etc. but they were just too old n stuffy.

and I've not seen these who shot mr. burns episodes yet. has pt1 been on bbc yet?
(i remember much talking about it among sky watching friends ages ago)

I suppose the only way to see uncut simpsons is to take advantage of HMV's two for a tenner offer.

'Who Shot Mr Burns Pt 1' was the last 'new' ep. shown on BBC2.

And the next one will probably be 'Lisa The Iconoclast' or something, just to keep with the BBC's tradition of messing up everything they touch.

First Simpsons to be shown on the BBC was "Bart The Genius" (BBC1, 23 November 1996, Saturday teatime) from the first season, but they then went to the second season for "Bart The Daredevil". Which gives you some idea about how er, chronological, their coverage has been. That said, I think Seasons 4 & 5 (1993-94, 94-95) have been shown more or less in order.

Who Shot Burns Part 2 should be on in September. If we're lucky.

When the BBC show a new series, they show the new ones on Monday and, on Friday show repeats, sorry to state the obvious but it makes my second point. When showing a new series they show it it IN ORDER, except ocasioallay shuffling Tree House of Horrors. They will show WSMB Part 2, first in spetember, then the rest of the series will follow.

I'm pretty sure the first Simpsons the BBC broadcast was There's No Disgrace Like Home.

Presumably because they thought it made a good introduction to the family.

How wrong they were.

The first one they broadcast (don't knosw the titles) was when the went to Mr. Burns house, and Homer was embaressed by his family, and saw them as devils, while another family were angels, who went to heaven. Is that the right one.
I'm positive this was the first episode they showed. I'd never seen it before (although i'd heard of it), and was intereasted in the show, especially since it was on BBC 1

Yeah that's the one, No Disgrace like Home.

Yes.

Erm.

Keep it up!

Yes, you were all right, and I was utterly wrong! Sorry! I knew it was a very early one, but I didn't remember it was "Disgrace". Is that why it got hammered in the ratings by Sabrina The Teenage Witch on ITV? Mind you, having Jim Davidson's Generation Game straight after can't have helped its chances...

Yeah...Jim Davidson is good for nothing.

I thought The Simpsons had done quite well in its Saturday teatime slot, at least to start with. What were the figures?

>Yeah...Jim Davidson is good for nothing.
>
>I thought The Simpsons had done quite well in its Saturday teatime slot, at least to start with. What were the figures?

I think it started at about 6 million, but Sabrina was getting about 8 million. Probably had something to do with the fact that a lot of the potential audience had seen the early ones God knows how many times on Sky 1, but also because I was having to persuade certain Simpsons virgins that it wasn't just some kids' cartoon, but the funniest thing on TV. And some weren't convinced enough to watch. Aah well, most have admitted they're wrong now anyway.

Incidentally, I have discovered the only person who claims that The Simpsons lost it after the first season - someone I work with, but then again, I think he has a problem with the violence in Itchy & Scratchy.

Any other sceptics out there?

well not me, but i'm very worried that A LOT of people are saying the last year or so on sky has not been up to standard? something about cramming inane jokes in at the expense of story and wry observation and everything else. is this true?

I've seen several of the recent Simpsons and they were belting - especially the one set in Japan. I think this 'The Simpsons' isn't as good as it used to be' is a load of fake backlash bollocks. Like L&H's 'Surprise people with your interesting opinions'; viz: 'Ahhh. I think the Simpsons is no good. I much prefer Family Guy. Ahhh.'

BBC SIMPSONS NEWS
The 7th Season will show on BBC with repeats of the 6th season at the end of July. Also they will show the 8th in November, following on from the 7th. Also they can't repeat anymore of the 4th until they buy the rights again because they have used all the repeats up.

Surely it's the same deal as with Seinfeld and Sanders? ie: If the BBC gets the sort of viewing figures that Sky get off its imports, and those imports become the cornerstones of its programming (as C4 does with Friends) then questions get asked about the licence fee. It's clearly in the beeb's interest to keep its import ratings at a low or cult level, so they chop and change, cancel and move, shift and shuffle. See the way they treat the X Files and Taxi - driving the audience away by switching times and channels so the true fans get more and more isolated and confused when their show gets finally dropped.

Trust me, for all their celebration of the Simpsons, they'd be much happier if there was the same following for something they'd funded themselves. Then they'd look good.

yes - up to a point, but as a public broadcaster surely the BBCs job is to present the best imports as well as home grown stuff? After all it can't entirely fill its schedules with its own stuff.