
Why did the golden age of the Simpsons end? - nathcun
http://www.nathancunn.com/2018-10-21-simpsons-writers/
======
bliblah
Nothing lasts forever. Plain and simple.

I really dislike TV/Anime that _never_ ends, seems to be the modus operandi
for pretty much every mainstream show despite how bad the quality gets after
2-3 seasons.

Simpsons is a great showcase of the homogenization that every sitcom will go
through given enough time. It starts out as a comedy with some wholesome
family moments to bring it together but eventually every character is
distilled to their most basic formula Homer -> Idiot who causes events to
happen Bart -> Same as above Marge -> Straight man / Voice of reason or Satire
of moralistic conservative adults depending on the situation Lisa -> same as
marge but liberal piñata

Old episodes had genuine moments where you saw them become closer as family,
now every episode is a hodgepodge of nonstop comedy.

Family Guy also went through this, especially after they got revived. The
early episodes focused on the trials of the family with some goofy humor
peppered throughout (Peter getting fired, Louis dealing with being a bored
housewife) but now its just nonstop comedy.

Once you get syndicated it's not about making good episodes just churning out
26 more a year and cashing in that paycheck.

Even Steven Universe which has a very straightforward story with an end
planned feels bloated with a bunch of filler episodes and lazy character
development.

~~~
dmortin
> I really dislike TV/Anime that never ends, seems to be the modus operandi
> for pretty much every mainstream show despite how bad the quality gets after
> 2-3 seasons.

Isn't this an American thing where TV/movie things are primarily for money
making?

I mean the British Office had 2 seasons and 12 episodes. The US version had 9
seasons and 200 episodes.

I didn't watch The Office, so I don't know if the US version got worse towards
the end, but in general in the US they keep making episodes while the series
is profitable, regardless of quality and in the end they usually drive it to
the ground.

They just can't stop until there is no money in it. Most of the time they
can't end a TV series on a high note.

~~~
monetus
Maybe not British, but it is very much a Japanese tendecy, ime. If I see a
good anime/comic, I try to appreciate what I saw and expect no resolution. I'm
curious how often they even have resolution in the outline.

~~~
delecti
Every year has a slew of animes which wrap up in 13 or 26 episodes. A sparse
few go to 52. An even sparser few fit the mold you describe, but even many of
those end eventually with a planned conclusion (Bleach and Dragon Ball
<Suffix>).

~~~
monetus
Sorry, I wasn't speaking in absolutes. I'm not a pollster or statistician, so
I was relaying my anecdote. I think your comment's sibling, and one of mine,
elucidate why I have that anecdote.

------
stupidbird
There are a lot of shifts that changed The Simpsons, but the biggest one for
me was the shift to being almost constantly satirical.

Classic Simpsons would occasionally get a bit satirical or referential (like
when Bush Sr made a guest appearance), but modern Simpsons seems more
satirical than not. Episodes like the one featuring the "MyPod" with "Steve
Mobs" basically had my eyes rolling into the back of my head. That's such low-
hanging fruit that they're picking it up off the ground. It's not even good
enough to be considered sophomoric.

I want to watch The Simpsons and be entertained about ridiculous situations in
_their_ world, and sure, throw in a wink to reality now and then. I don't
really care for the family-friendly The Onion-light treatment.

~~~
bradleyankrom
> Classic Simpsons would occasionally get a bit satirical or referential (like
> when Bush Sr made a guest appearance), but modern Simpsons seems more
> satirical than not. Episodes like the one featuring the "MyPod" with "Steve
> Mobs" basically had my eyes rolling into the back of my head. That's such
> low-hanging fruit that they're picking it up off the ground. It's not even
> good enough to be considered sophomoric.

And the Futurama take on this was just as bad (and I love Futurama). IMO,
South Park is the best at doing this kind of satire... I can't point to
exactly why, though. Being on cable allows them to push edgier jokes, but I'm
sure it's more than that.

~~~
lostgame
I think it's because South Park has always been a vehicle to comment, usually
specifically, on current events and popular culture. The world of South Park
is really a sandbox for Trey and Matt to caricature whatever they're choosing
to ream on that particular week.

The Simpsons, Futurama, when they address these kinds of issues, they feel
like they're 'reaching' for it. Or, worse, just 'not trying'.

Someone else here mentioned The Simpsons, and the Family Guy, were much better
at the time that they focused on the struggles of the families themselves.

I believe that this is because unlike South Park, where, even from the name,
the _town_ itself seems to be the focus. Which allows it to be moreso whatever
they want it to be.

'The Simpsons' and the 'Family Guy', are meant to satirize, or at least
revolve around, the daily struggles of the 'American Middle Class Family'.

When they don't, and they reach for 'current' events, which often usually feel
dated by the episode release due to the extended 6-9 month production period,
they seem stale and unfunny. South Park's 6-day production period, awesomely
described in the fantastic documentary 'Six Days to Air', allows South Park to
comment literally on things that happened _the day before_. It's incredibly
hard to make that feel 'stale.' Really, worst-case scenario, South Park just
doesn't seem 'funny' enough sometimes (this season hasn't been great), but
definitely never 'irrelevant'.

The early seasons and episodes of the Simpsons are timeless. Many of them
could've happened any time over the last three or four decades.

• 'Homer's Enemy' (S08E23) - A new employee at work gets jealous of Homer's
'easy' life.

• 'Mr. Plow' (S04E09) - Hijinks occur when Homer and Barney start competing
snow removal businesses.

• 'Homer the Heretic' (S04E03) - Homer decides he doesn't need to attend
church any more, and Marge doesn't like the example that demonstrates for the
kids.

• 'You Only Move Twice' (S08E02) - Homer is offered a new work opportunity in
a 'perfect' town. This episode does involve satire, but James Bond is such an
old trope, and the films are still coming out, therefore it doesn't seem
'stale'.

None of these classic and fan favourite episodes rely on tropes of the era.
They're still as funny today as when they were released. (Especially 'You Only
Move Twice'. What a gem. Oh, Scorpio.)

Futurama, as well, does best when it focuses on it's sci-fi premise. It's
_supposed_ to be the future. We don't need comments about Apple products in
there, we want the mind-bending 'Rick and Morty'-level plots of 'Roswell that
Ends Well', or the genuine moments of emotion like Fry's dog at the end of
'Jurassic Bark'.

Again, it seems like early seasons of these cartoon sitcoms have a habit of
sticking to their initial premise, and maybe perhaps the creator's visions.
There's tons of reasons for this, but in 'The Simpsons' case, the death of
Phil Hartman in 1998 drastically affected the show as a whole. I think a lot
of the spirit was lost along with him. RIP, Troy McClure.

~~~
bradleyankrom
missed your reply a couple of weeks ago but really appreciate this.

------
patorjk
One possible problem with this - I listened to the Simpsons commentary tracks
a long time ago and one comment the writers gave was that episodes were hashed
out in the writers room, and everyone contributed jokes. Once an episode was
hashed out, one or two people would then be assigned to put it together. This
would mean an episode could be listed as written by a specific person, but the
best jokes in that episode could have been written by someone else. One of the
writers mentioned they'd often get comments about how funny their episodes
were, but then the person they were talking to would bring up jokes that were
written by the other writers.

However, the graph at the end kind of shows this, the earlier people had the
best episodes. It may have been that they had better chemistry.

~~~
netsharc
Futurama got cancelled and they made 3 straight to DVD movies which was
supposed to be 26 episodes worth of content, and IIRC you could see it, each
"movie" had 4 stories. The bad thing was, the humor got so so bad, with
predictable lame one liners (Big Bang Theory-level lame). I wonder what sort
of groupthink thought those jokes were funny, and what sort of dynamics the
early Simpsons/Futurama writers group had to be able to output high quality
humor...

~~~
Bartweiss
I wonder how much of that was a format issue, though?

The Futurama movies were definitely weaker than the episodes, but I remember
the Comedy Central revival being better than most or all of the movies. Maybe
not up to their Season Four heights, but definitely enough better to make me
think the movie style was causing them problems in either writing or editing.

~~~
lostgame
I have the opposite experience. I find the Comedy Central reboot episodes, for
the most part, to feel strange and 'off'. I can't even put my finger on it.
Even the animation seems wonky to me.

Eh, to be honest, the movies weren't great, either. Seasons 1-4 really were
kind of 'Futurama's run, I guess.

------
saganus
There's a very interesting YouTube video that has a bit more of an explanation
on why The Simpsons had a decline.

I liked how they analyze the show and IMO it does a great job explaining why
lots of people loved the show up until season 9-10.

Personally I think I enjoyed up to season 12 or so, but definitely after 10 I
noticed the shift in style/quality/whathaveyou.

Could never put it into words why it felt like that, until I watched this. [0]

[0] [https://youtu.be/KqFNbCcyFkk](https://youtu.be/KqFNbCcyFkk)

~~~
ashrk
See also: Dead Homer Society, if you prefer reading.

[https://deadhomersociety.com/zombiesimpsons/](https://deadhomersociety.com/zombiesimpsons/)

Pretty compelling argument for the end of the golden age being season 9, maybe
11 or 12 if you're being very generous, including analysis of writer and other
personnel changes, and an attempt at explaining what exactly is different
about the earlier seasons compared with the later ones.

Seems like the video's making similar points.

~~~
saganus
Actually, while re-watching the video, I realized that they reference the Dead
Homer Society in minute 16:03!

------
m23khan
Maybe it is just me but in older episodes of Simpsons, there was a lot more
music for different situations and at times, classic or what I would term
'wholesome' music was played to highlight cathartic situations or
trials/tribulations of human lives.

These are things that to me play a major part as a viewer. To me, a TV serial
is not about 30 min episode, it is a mini-play or chapter in a play.

Think back to days of Tom and Jerry (the ones before mid-1960s) as well as the
older Mickey Mouse & Co (up till 1970s) and you will see the recurring pattern
-- music was just great and played a huge part in involving the user.

That and also, there is something about the super-sharp, ultra modern type of
animation modern day Simpsons have. I understand it is high-tech and latest
stuff, but it does take away from the art and appreciation of what the viewer
experiences. If you don't believe me, watch an episode of 1940s/1950s Mickey
Mouse or Tom & Jerry and compare with their modern day renditions.

------
lostgame
Nobody here seems to be mentioning the death of Phil Hartman[1] in 1998. The
article, as well, staggeringly, doesn't mention his name.

There's a video[2], 'The Fall of the Simpsons', which is one of my favourite
videos on the internet. It explains and describes with utmost clarity the
issues that led to the series 'demise', which, ultimately, boils down to 'bad
writing'.

However, in interviews, and comments from the showrunners and staff, it seems
like Phil Hartman's death, who voiced the characters of Troy McCleur, and
Lionel Hutz, as well as the voice of Lyle Lanley, from the fantastic classic
episode 'Marge vs. the Monorail'.

When Hartman died, they retired Troy's character. His absence alone is
strongly felt when viewing the first several seasons against the others. His
voice is certainly missed. Said Groening of Hartman: "[I] took [Hartman] for
granted because he nailed the joke every time," and that his voice acting
could produce "the maximum amount of humor" with any line he was given.

I mean, this was 1998. Most folks consider season 8-9 to have some of the last
'great' episodes of the series, or at least the last 'great' seasons. There's
absolutely no way this is a coincidence, and the affect of his death on the
series has been verified by countless staff.

I often think of Hartman's death as equivalent to Brian Epstein's death in
'67\. Similar to the Simpsons, there are a million reasons why the Beatles
went to shit (even if their output for three years after that was still
phenomenal), but if you have to look at the thing that really 'started' it,
Epstein's or Hartman's deaths are good places to start looking, and it's easy
to see how things went downhill from there in both cases.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hartman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hartman)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk)

------
cabaalis
How much of this is not attributable to quality but instead to streaming
options?

I watched The Simpsons for most of my childhood, up until college when I was
too busy working and studying--most of my TV time then went to Stargate SG-1
and other Sci-fi.

Futurama and Family Guy were in the mix as well up until that time. However, I
HAVE still watched Futurama and Family Guy in adulthood, because they were
available to stream online! If there are good Simpsons options to stream,
without picking up another monthly charge, I'd probably still watch them.

~~~
drb91
I would not. The Simpsons seem inherently antiquated now. (To me! This is an
opinion, not an assertion!) It’s hard to put my finger on why I feel like
this, but I think a large part is that it only recognizes the stresses and
anxieties we had leaving the reagan era.

This is not to say, by any means, that the humor doesn’t hold up. It does! But
it doesn’t help soothe living in a capitalist-realist society the way, say,
Futurama or Idiocracy do. It seems to more address the anxiety of trying to
meet the impossible standards of society.

EDIT: meanwhile, someone in another thread introduced me to Max Headroom. That
still holds up today.

~~~
this_user
The Simpsons were pushing the envelope when the show came out, doing things
that were considered almost radical at the time. But they are just stuck in
time, following their formula while subsequent animated shows (e.g. South
Park) have gone much farther than the Simpsons ever did.

The show often also feels like the writers are just rehashing old ideas, and
there seem to be a few archetypes of stories that just keep popping up over
and over again: "Homer is an incompetent idiot, but comes through for his
family when needed", "Lisa feels alienated, because she's much smarter than
the rest of the family", "Bart is a bad student and gets into trouble", "Marge
is bored with her existence as a housewife and tries to break out of the
monotony". At some point you should just admit that you have done everything
you would with a concept and call it a day instead of dragging things out.

~~~
ghaff
That's true of a lot of long-running shows. Even if they don't become worse in
the sense that individual episodes are worse taken in isolation, they're often
just repetitious and, as you say, stuck in time.

You see this elsewhere too. In comic strips, for example, Dilbert is mostly
stuck in some 90s version of cubicle life at a big company like Pac Bell.
Don't really reaad it any longer but even when nothing is wrong with a given
strip I've probably seen some version of it 10 times before.

~~~
gaius
_Dilbert is mostly stuck in some 90s version of cubicle life at a big company
like Pac Bell_

And Garfield. The cat hates Mondays and loves lasagna, we get it...

------
w-m
Later episodes are rated lower, thus writers who mainly wrote later episodes
have contributed to episodes with lower rating. This seems like circular
reasoning, and doesn't say anything about an individual writers' contribution
to the quality of the show.

~~~
nathcun
While I admit the logic is somewhat tautologous, that's not quite the
conclusion I'm drawing. I, first of all, look at the average rating of the
writers involved in the show, and then look at how the make-up of the show's
writers is substantially different in the early years vs the later years.

~~~
ggggtez
The only thing this experiment could show is that if the ratings changed, but
the writers didn't, then the writers are not responsible. It can't show the
reverse.

Everything in the article is just properties of arithmatic averages in sorted
sequences.

------
michaelbuckbee
I listened to the DVD commentaries of many of the early seasons and the
writers/showrunners complained about how the episode length was slowly cut
back (though I'm having a hard time finding good data online about how much)
and this directly impacted the quality of the show.

They specifically called out the inability to write compelling "B" stories
within the episode, which often are what gave episodes some greater depth.

------
duxup
Whenever we talk about Simpsons decline it always occurs to me that even in
decline... the Simpsons is still pretty good.

Perhaps that says more about its high points than the "decline".

~~~
jplayer01
I think the decline is largely bullshit nostalgia. I still watch Simpsons and
I still think it's great.

~~~
poisonarena
This is wrong based off the wealth of Simpsons Instagram Meme accounts there
are.. I am talking thousands of memes... Zero of them based off content past
season 9 .. Why is that?

~~~
ConceptJunkie
Because most people who saw the first 9 seasons over and over and over, thanks
to syndication and DVDs, etc., haven't seen the seasons past 9 nearly as much.
That's certainly true for me. I haven't seen most episodes in the past 5 years
more than once or twice.

Also, the first 9 seasons were just that much better.

~~~
poisonarena
Thats a good point, but I have tried to watch the the show every year or two,
just to see if it got funny again.. And the jokes are all bad, all satirical,
homer is too stupid now.. also the characters voices are starting to sound
weird and old..

------
gmjoe
This analysis doesn't demonstrate anything, unfortunately, except that ratings
declined over time and that writers changed over time.

 _Any_ factor could have caused the show's decline (like less time given for
script writing, less collaboration or rewrites, management directives to
change aspects of the show, etc.) -- and it would show the same result.

~~~
jonathankoren
Did you know, there’s a direct correlation between the decline in the
perceived quality of the show, and the decline in Spirograph? Think about it!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IYaftepO-s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IYaftepO-s)

------
drchiu
Purely anecdotal, but as a Simpsons fans many years ago (and not really
following the show anymore), I think there are many of us who grew up with the
Simpsons who simply don't have the time (as we've gotten older and have other
chores and priorities to take care of first) to follow the show anymore.

~~~
nathcun
I still watch the old episodes on an almost daily basis, so I don't know if
that's true for everyone.

------
s_kilk
My theory is that the show started to decline after about eight or nine years
on the air, which is just about enough time for young fans to grow up, go to
college, start their career in writing, and then end up on the Simpsons team.

The last person you want writing on a show like that is a life-long super-fan.

~~~
probably_wrong
I cannot say whether your theory is correct or not, but your theory resonates
with something director Hayao Miyazaki said[1]: that the Japanese animation
industry is suffering because the staff of a modern studio is full of people
who grew up watching anime rather than looking at real people.

[1] [https://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131872-Hayao-
Miya...](https://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131872-Hayao-Miyazaki-
Anime-Suffers-Because-the-Industry-is-Full-of-Otaku)

------
j45
This reminds me of this video which attributes the decline of the Simpsons to
the changes in writers and how the type of comedy itself changed.

I still catch episodes when possible, the old ones definitely have a different
depth than the current ones.

The fall of the Simpsons: How it happened:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFNbCcyFkk)

------
josephv
I ravenously consumed The Simpsons for most of my youth and loved it. I watch
it now whenever I get the chance and love it, but life happened. I don't like
my kids to watch it so they don't grow up Fd in the brain like me. Having a
bad kid as a role model I think does impact children.

It's also not the only game in town. Cartoon network quality has gone way way
up. I used to watch 3-hour cartoons on Saturday morning, and the simpsons et.
al on Sunday night. That was it for cartoons on TV. Grandparents broke out VHS
tapes occasionally as well. We didn't have a lot of options so The Simpsons
was mind blowing. Not so much anymore.

~~~
xfitm3
What about the simpsons is unhealthy for kids?

~~~
ip26
_Having a bad kid as a role model I think does impact children._

I.e., Bart.

Edit: I'm not sure people realize I'm not the grandparent, or that I was
directly quoting him to answer the question?

~~~
justtopost
So, all cartoons then?

Bart is the archtype for screwing up amd learning your lesson. Omitting that
seems worse parenting.

~~~
josephv
My kids have had no trouble screwing up and I try to help them learn lessons.
There are many other shows that teach that same lesson without a cartoon cat
and mouse filleting each other, dad drinking and bumbling around and choking
their kids out.

I love The Simpsons; honestly I like Bob's Burgers more, but both shows live
on a line between acceptable and unacceptable, like all adult cartoons do.
They will find things that do the same and I won't know about it. But I don't
spoon feed it to them.

I already give them all the vidya games in the world so they aren't starved
for crude content. Also just living with me is all the crude TV-MA content
they can handle. Mom and Dad are sort of fun to hang around (at least for Mom
and Dad).

------
NoNameHaveI
There are 2 reasons a show are cancelled: #1, and the reason in the majority
of cases: not enough people watch. It doesn't matter if you think the current
season of The Simpsons is good, terrible, or whatever. It only matters that
you watch. If few enough people watch, it WILL be cancelled. This is NOT
public access or PBS. #2, the artist's discretion. Rare, but occasionally an
artist decides to "go out on top". Jackie Gleason and "The Honeymooners" comes
to mind. Seinfeld too. I'm sure there are others you will point out.

Point is, keep watching and they'll keep pumping out crap.

------
reaperducer
Because the humor went from funny and light-hearted to mean and angry in order
to seem "edgy" and "current."

See also: Saturday Night Live

See also: Comedy Central

~~~
eloisant
I think it was always edgy, a bit shocking, and what was edgy and shocking
when they started became normal later on so they had to push the envelope a
bit further.

------
richardboegli
Skim read the article and I would suggest watching these videos on YouTube.

The Fall of The Simpsons: How it Happened
[https://youtu.be/KqFNbCcyFkk](https://youtu.be/KqFNbCcyFkk)

The Day The Simpsons Died
[https://youtu.be/I-TS-92KVDA](https://youtu.be/I-TS-92KVDA)

------
thrower123
If you'd like to see something really terrible, try watching the fantasy
Simpsons/Futurama-esque mess that is Disenchanted on Netflix.

~~~
nathcun
Some of the top writers I picked out (Bill Oakley, Josh Weinstein, David X/S
Cohen) are involved in it, but I agree it's not great.

~~~
ConceptJunkie
It started out pretty weak, but I think it's fair to admit it got a lot better
by the last 3 episodes or so when it got a little more invested in the
characters.

But the real test has been the fact that I haven't bothered to watch it again.
I'd rather watch "The Simpsons" or "Futurama" for the N plus 1th time.

------
kentbrew
Also graphed and discussed by diffuseprior some time ago, here:
[https://diffuseprior.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/kalkalash-
pinp...](https://diffuseprior.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/kalkalash-pinpointing-
the-moments-the-simpsons-became-less-cromulent/)

------
ggggtez
It's a bit confusing. The author starts with the assumption the show got
worse, and assumed a causal relation with an random piece of data. This is not
proper Bayesian statistics.

The author claims there is no principled way, but there is. Confidence bounds
are the way to measure what affect a variable had on an outcome.

~~~
nathcun
I didn't assume a causal relationship. In the last line I state that a change
in writers may not have caused a decline in quality, but the change in the
make-up of the writing team around the team most people agree the show went
downhill would lend some credibility to the idea.

What about that article suggested I was attempting to do proper Bayesian
statistics? It's an exploratory analysis, I'm just looking at the data.

And where did I claim there was no principled way of doing this analysis?

~~~
ggggtez
To be fair, you said "There’s not really a principled way of doing this" but
you were referring to cleaning up the data, not the analysis itself. My bad.

That said, you started with the following prior: Simpson ratings went down
over time. Then you looked at 1 variable: The writing staff. You noticed: Aha,
if we assign each writer a rating, then we see that later writers have lower
ratings than writers that only worked on early episodes!

However that's a tautology. Of course the writers that worked on later
episodes have lower scores than those that worked on earlier episodes. The
fact the ratings went down over time was the prior we started with! This is
the _natural result_ of taking averages. The experimental setup was wrong from
the beginning.

As for why I think you would want to do proper statistics, the reason is
simple: I assume that people who publish these things are well intentioned,
and they want to show off actual statistical correlations.

------
ilamont
A built a framework called Lean Media for producing entertainment and
informational media works (linked in my sig, for those who are interested) and
did quite a bit of research on _The Simpson 's_ early years as well as other
creative groups and solo creators.

While I didn't look into these media team's later development, I think the
catalysts which helped them get early success may point the way to why their
later output is not so consistently impressive.

The three early catalysts are:

1\. Early audience feedback loops to help guide and validate media prototypes

2\. Minimal business interference

3\. Really strong creative core

In the case of _The Simpsons_ , it wasn't Matt Groening (who had previously
been a cartoonist, not an animator) who single-handedly made the show.
Director James L. Brooks and showrunner Sam Simon built out the team of
animators and writers. They had early audience feedback from the early
animated shorts that appeared in the middle of the _Tracey Ullman Show_ from
1987-1989. These shorts were bundled into 20-minute reels that were shown to
Ullman's live studio audiences while there were set changes, and they laughter
and cheering helped validate the idea of doing the Simpsons as a standalone
half-hour show. Importantly, once The Simpsons was launched in 1989, Brooks
protected the writing crew from Fox TV executives' attempt at interference.

Similarly, for the band Led Zeppelin, the same three catalysts were in place
from the start. Early creative feedback came during their first Scandinavian
tour in September 1968, which directly shaped the arrangements and songs that
made it onto _Led Zeppelin I_. They didn't even have a record company when
they recorded the album with Glyn Johns that October, so the leader -- Jimmy
Page -- could really follow his own production instincts.

Later on, what happened with these two teams? Certainly, they continued to
make great media, but things weren't quite the same. The Simpsons team broke
up -- there was a lot of tension between Simon and Groening, and Simon left
after three or four seasons. Other writers went on to different shows. Fox
also started to exercise more control over the production, which became more
corporate.

Led Zeppelin's team remained intact, but over time productions became more
bloated (LZ1 recorded in 10 days, _Physical Grafitti_ in 18 months) and I
think like many 70s hard rock groups they lost touch with their audiences.
After 1977 they did not tour much, and albums like _In Through The Out Door_
and _Presence_ are more musically experimental and influenced by the Plant and
Jones than Page and Bonham.

------
Quanttek
It would've been interesting to run a regression on the results, seeing if the
writers were actually the largest contributing factor. Additionally, that
graph with the average expected ratings should have the actual ratings in
there for comparisons

------
RickJWagner
I'm not a regular watcher any more, but I'll surely be watching at least one
episode soon.

The annual 'TreeHouse of Horrors' Simpson Halloween special is must-see tv.

------
JoeAltmaier
When Conan quit writing

~~~
daotoad
What is best in life? To crush your comedy, to see played out before you, and
to hear the felicitations of your patrons.

------
rs23296008n1
Cutbacks on writers, simplistic plot story arcs, worshipping celebrity... I
probably missed a few. Simpson's ended in season 8 as far as I'm concerned.

------
turdnagel
Great analysis - but I also wonder if IMDb ratings have a bit (or more than a
bit) of selection bias, where people rating the episodes are the "hardcore
fans" who've already established the narrative the idea that the show was in
decline past season 10, 11, 13 - and so since the data has potentially already
been shaped by bias around a narrative, it can't reveal anything more than
hardcore Simpsons fans prevailing attitudes.

In other words, you're asking a bunch of people who are obsessed with The
Simpsons for their episode ratings; of course you're going to see a decline.

------
sireat
Curious how much longer/shorter the code would have been had Python been used
instead of R.

~~~
nathcun
Or if I'd just used R correctly. The code surely isn't best practice in R,
just kind of hashed together. I had actually started doing this in Python, but
my limited knowledge of Python meant I was resorting to two different
libraries to scrape the two data tables.

------
HillaryBriss
> _I gathered the average rating across all episodes by writers contributing
> more than ten episodes._

why 10? why not 12 or 8 or 5 ... ?

~~~
nathcun
Our number system is base 10. The choice was arbitrary, I just wanted enough
episodes to reduce the noise in the average ratings.

~~~
HillaryBriss
thanks for your reply! When I learned that Conan O'Brien had only 4 writing
credits, I wondered if perhaps 3 would be an appropriate threshold. More
generally, I was wondering how the results vary with different choices for
this threshold.

------
jason46
It hasn't ended, still by far one of the best shows on cable TV.

