We all know that The Simpsons paved the way for many more animated shows on TV, reviving a genre that had been considered dead in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But what if the show had flopped for one reason or another? What would the entertainment industry look like today?
WI - The Simpsons Flops
- Thread starter Pokemon Master
- Start date
Maybe Matt Groening pumps Futurama instead and that fills the void... albeit with less cultural influence?
It depends on how you define "flop." Some of the veteran animators and directors have said that they figured that The Simpsons would last for maybe 13 episodes, so I could see Fox pulling the plug at the end of the first season, but it might still possible gain cult status among animation buffs.
This is actually surprisingly easy to do depending on your definition of flop. The intended first episode was not the Christmas Special, it was "Some Enchanted Evening." But when the Korean Animation studio sent the episode back, the animation was horrible. Yes I know purists would say the animation on the show was always bad, but this was another level. It was so bad that, had the other episodes on the docket arrived in the same dreadful quality, Groening and company were going to pull the plug entirely. So the animation studio screws up, Fox cancels production.
Aside from less animated shows like it, this would be a world in which the prevalence of satire would be sharply reduced, though the cynicism of the 1990's may encourage that growth anyway.
The first episode of the Simpsons, as many Simpson's fans nonetheless know, aired on December 17th, 1989 and was rather, well, primitive.
Having watched the original first season a while back when I first got hooked on the show (in my pre-teen years), it's clear that the first season left much to be desired and was somewhat primitive, although less so, then when it first aired in 1989 on the Tracy Ullman Show.
one of my favorite season one episodes, admittedly, was the episode entitled "Bart The General," which was one of the first episodes that I had seen growing up. I also have a certain soft spot for the much later episode "The Springfield Files" esp. after having watched most of the original X-Files series with my family on Netflix.
Compared to later seasons, season one wasn't the best and "Bart The General" if I remember correctly only managed a few meager laughs for me at least. So I see why some suspected that the show would tank and be cancelled after only a dozen-or-so episodes.
Its surprising then that it lasted as long as it did, totaling over twenty seasons spanning the entirety of the 1990's and much of the 2000's.
Otherwise society would move on and, assuming that the show only lasted one season, it would be remembered ATL as a noteworthy show that unfortunately was stopped short by Fox and thus wouldn't make much of an imprint onto American society as IOTL.
Having watched the original first season a while back when I first got hooked on the show (in my pre-teen years), it's clear that the first season left much to be desired and was somewhat primitive, although less so, then when it first aired in 1989 on the Tracy Ullman Show.
one of my favorite season one episodes, admittedly, was the episode entitled "Bart The General," which was one of the first episodes that I had seen growing up. I also have a certain soft spot for the much later episode "The Springfield Files" esp. after having watched most of the original X-Files series with my family on Netflix.
Compared to later seasons, season one wasn't the best and "Bart The General" if I remember correctly only managed a few meager laughs for me at least. So I see why some suspected that the show would tank and be cancelled after only a dozen-or-so episodes.
Its surprising then that it lasted as long as it did, totaling over twenty seasons spanning the entirety of the 1990's and much of the 2000's.
Besides the obvious IMHO lack of general pop-culture terms such as "doh!" and "aye caramba," or "eat my shorts" etc. which have entered American (if not world) society as easily recognizable phrases by many (even non-Simpsons fans), shows like South Park, Family Guy, and other animated cartoons wouldn't have been made or would've been significantly different in the absence of the Simpsons assuming that the show is cancelled during or after its first season.
Otherwise society would move on and, assuming that the show only lasted one season, it would be remembered ATL as a noteworthy show that unfortunately was stopped short by Fox and thus wouldn't make much of an imprint onto American society as IOTL.
One path for Fox is to go down the path of Married... With Children, and make more and more live-action dysfunctional family sitcoms.
Some of those sitcoms could conceivably be live-action analogues of OTL animated shows.
The problem is most of those inevitably just came out as ripoffs of 'Married...With Children' ('Unhappily Ever After'). If it's a case of Fox setting up their whole network like that, I don't see it doing well. I would posit that it would oversaturate the market and eventually collapse, taking down 'Married...With Children' and the network with it. Fox has always tried that kind of "we're the sleazier network" thing and put out dysfunctional shows all the time as it is. And it has a track record for constantly having it's shows fail (as well as killing off those that have a shot rather than waiting for ratings to pick up).
Fox has always had a terrible business model of shove out shows, generally make them sleazier than the other networks, and if they aren't immediately successful, cancel them and do it again and again. No attempts to foster a show into success if it isn't immediately a success. And there have often been network mistakes that cut the legs out from under shows. Yes, I miss 'Firefly'.
What that model has meant is that, rather than having a well rounded and prosperous lil' garden of shows that it can water and bring to success, canceling those that don't manage to make it after giving a chance to them, Fox instead buoys itself on a handful of hits, surrounded by constant failures (the fault of the show's themselves and the network as well), jumping from hit to hit for life support. That was the case with 'Married...With Children'. It was and continues to be the case with 'The Simpsons'. It was the case with 'Malcolm in the Middle'. And it has been the case with it's other animated shows, which is now mostly 'Family Guy' it's stable of assorted Seth MacFarlane spinoffs.
Without 'The Simpsons', firstly you don't have Fox going into adult animated series (which it did because of the aforementioned business model). Fox therefore continues to rely on 'Married...With Children' wholesale, and the problem with that is that Fox did that in the OTL, keeping that show on the air for eons. The difference between this and an alternate timeline is that in our timeline, Fox had 'The Simpsons' as the other half of the networks success, it had opened up 'King of the Hill', it and 'The Simpsons' had helped the network get enough success on the whole, and so Fox could afford to cancel 'Married...With Children'.
In this reality, I can't see what Fox can do. 'The Simpsons' was a 1 in a million phenomenon. It was like Beatlemania or when Batman came out in '89. It was a huge cultural event, and it finished the work 'Married..With Children' did of making Fox. Fox didn't start off as anything. You couldn't even get 'Married...With Children' in early seasons outside of limited markets, and if you jiggled the antenna just right. That should give you an idea of what Fox crawled out of with two major hits. Fox is not going to find anything else like that. At least not likely. It'll buoy itself with 'Married...With Children' for as long as it can, centering the network around it, and maybe doing the spinoffs that never came to fruition in the OTL. I don't know how long that can last or how successful Fox can be living off of those.
The Simpsons ends after it's first season, and the Fox TV Network ends in 1994 approx.
A new network would be required.
A new network would be required.
It depends. Like I said, Fox has a terrible business model. What it all boils down to with Fox is that it got lucky in almost inconceivable ways. It's almost ASB. It has frequently gone dry spells, but it'll get that one show every few years that is a hit, and it will cling onto that for life and suck the life out of it, then throw it away, pray for the next hit, and then cling to it when it comes along. It's like a slacker who bullshits his way through high school, never being prepared but always managing to pull it out of his butt at the last minute to do a good enough job.
If you remove 'The Simpsons', you remove a major stroke of needed luck, all the while keeping Fox with it's terrible business model. So, as said, they will lean on 'Married...With Children', and throw everything show can out there to see if they work. Given their track record, most of them won't.
One thing I forgot to mention is that Fox, very shortly after 'The Simpsons' started, got into the Black and Hispanic demographic with shows about Black people or with mostly Black cast members. It put on shows like 'In Living Color' and 'Martin', and there's more but I can't recall them at the moment. Fox did very, very well with the Black and Hispanic viewership because of those shows, meaning the other networks did not do well with that viewership at all, and that viewership made Fox competitive with the other networks. I forgot about that, but Fox will find a great deal of strength in that if it goes like the OTL. I could easily see this Fox expand on that, with more Black demographic shows, possibly more Urban youth demographic shows, and possibly Hispanic shows. That could make that trend continue into today; Fox having dropped that effort many, many, many years ago, relying instead on being sleazier; something that hearkens back to 'Married...With Children'. Fox today could be somewhat of a network BET.
That would get coupled with 'Married...With Children', spinoffs and knock offs of 'Married...With Children', and whatever else Fox may try. Fox would have a much harder time with 'The Simpsons', as it was a major phenomenon which brought in a major, instant viewership which then permeated the network as a whole. It could still survive and succeed, albeit most likely different.
Another factor of course is that adult oriented animation programming does not, very likely, come about. That would have a major effect on everything because that has become a major thing. I would posit it would also have an effect on younger-than-adults animation, because that has become increasingly and refreshingly less uptight about being open. I remember when I reached about 12 I couldn't stand cartoons anymore because they just would not stop pulling punches and were increasingly getting PC, "we don't wanna hurt the children" silly; that's when I went over to live-action programming. I find shows like 'Spongebob Square Pants', 'Adventure Time', and 'Regular Show' very refreshing because they're shows that work on layers for every age and do appeal to teenagers and adults. I would go out on a limb and say that those shows were allowed to do that because you have 'Family Guy' on the air which younger people and kids do watch as much as adults, so that trend of "this may start a school shooting", "woah, let's not offend anyone" silliness in cartoon programming has been reversed. It took a while, and it wasn't done by 'The Simpsons', but 'The Simpsons' started it (you wouldn't have 'Family Guy' with it). And without 'The Simpsons' it may actually have gotten worse.
EDIT: Fox would also very much benefit from having it's affiliates pick up first-run syndicated shows, such as 'Arsenio Hall' and 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'.
"The Simpsons" is my all time favorite animation show.
I'm from Mongolia. So if Simpsons cancelled after 1st season i wouldn't have been known the Homer, Bart, Marge, Liza and my lovely Maggie. That would be sad.
We have a member from Mongolia?
Last edited:
The past tense isn't appropriate; it's still going now (finished its 24th season in May I believe). But, yeah, it should have ended around season 10.
Without The Simpsons, they'd probably be no Family Guy, South Park, American Dad etc. As others have said Groening might still have created Futurama, but it wouldn't have had the same impact. The Flintstones would probably still be viewed as the greatest primetime animated series.
That the Simpsons survived at FOX is still a world mystery ...
The Simpson start a support act in the Tracey Ullman Show (run from 1987 to 1990, until Fox shot it down)
do it popularity in that show, the Simpsons got a own series in 1989.
Original they wanted Groening "Life in Hell" as animation in Tracey Ullman Show
but Groening improvised in 15 minute that yellow dysfunctional family.
original look of the Simpsons in 1987
today looks.
this "Ugliness" could have it Doom, because the Fox Network could decided to switch The Simpsons' time slot, over and over again.
see how FOX murder Futurama...
The Simpson start a support act in the Tracey Ullman Show (run from 1987 to 1990, until Fox shot it down)
do it popularity in that show, the Simpsons got a own series in 1989.
Original they wanted Groening "Life in Hell" as animation in Tracey Ullman Show
but Groening improvised in 15 minute that yellow dysfunctional family.
Were first reaction by my friends and family as they seen the first episode of the Simpsons.
original look of the Simpsons in 1987
today looks.
this "Ugliness" could have it Doom, because the Fox Network could decided to switch The Simpsons' time slot, over and over again.
see how FOX murder Futurama...
Something would take its place. It filled a hole.
And Last Exit to Springfield is my favourite
And Last Exit to Springfield is my favourite
I disagree. South Park is way edgier than The Simpsons. The Simpsons has a ten year old who talks back to his parents. South Park literally has a talking piece of shit. There is absolutely no way South Park gets on the air in anything like it current form with The Simpsons to pave the way.
The problem with that would be that as the majority of The Simpsons is set away from the home, it would be very expensive to film. Think of all the times the family goes on day trips and holidays. If it was live action, think of the number of sets you'd need. Off the top of my head: the kitchen, lounge, bedroom, basement, Moe's Tavern, the Kwik E Mart, Bart's classroom, Lisa's classroom, Principle Skinner's office, the town square, the town hall, Flanders' house, the retirement home, Android's Dungeon....
There's no way you could do anything like The Simpsons in live action - not without spending obscene amounts of money, anyway.
The early episodes of The Simpsons seem dated and crude to us now, but like most things that last a long time, it's evolved as it's grown and as time has moved on. Maybe that could be the way to make it flop. Keep having the same tired plot lines and less special guests (or worse,the same ones over and over again) and eventually people just get sick of it and stop watching.
True, with animation shows it's easy (and cost-effective) to keep adding characters - especially if they're voiced by the same core cast of half-a-dozen actors - and that's before you get to the wild stunts & situations that would be practically impossible to film in real life.
But there's nothing stopping Fox from doing bizarro live-action sitcoms with a core cast of about the same size, it just needs some inventive writing to differentiate it from the traditional family or workplace sitcoms of the pre-Seinfeld, pre-Friends late '80s.