-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
WSJ: ‘Simpsons’ Episode Featuring Michael Jackson’s Voice to Be Pulled From Circulation
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
The episode idolizes MJ as well. It's not just about the voice (though it likely wouldn't have been pulled without that voice over)
I wasn't under that impression. But if it is, then I'm all for stop airing it elsewhere as well then.
Nobody is screaming, holding up posters in celebration of a proofreader. A proofreader isn't the one whose face and voice are plastered everywhere as cultural icons. This analogy is way off target.
It's MJ himself, his image, his actions, his influence that are the things being held accountable for the damage he had done. This episode is so entirely focused on featuring and celebrating Michael Jackson. This isn't a cameo he did for 5 seconds. He's the fucking sales pitch for the episode. and the crux of the narrative.
Last edited:
Not only that but the reason the episode exists at all was that MJ was a big fan of the Simpsons (especially Bart....) And wanted to do a collaboration.
Thank you for explaining. It's given me pause, and I agree with what you're saying. It's a very difficult subject to navigate. But you're right to point out the distinction between this decision and censorship. I would prefer it if they'd looked at recording a new VA and replacing the MJ references, though timely and intrinsic to the episode I'm sure there are creative solutions. Perhaps the story could be re-told in a new season ep, whilst retaining parts of the original script sans MJ references.
And there are enough DVD's in circulation for an individual to watch the original episode any time they want.
Despite all of the outrage, protests and the fact these aren't the first allegations against Jackson, everyone who's actually watched this documentary seems incredibly convinced. I'll try and watch it this evening
As a kid I always found it a bit funny how a couple of seasons after this episode, they had a joke about how Bart thinks MJ is a lie to scare kids
As a kid I always found it a bit funny how a couple of seasons after this episode, they had a joke about how Bart thinks MJ is a lie to scare kids
Glad I have the original dvds, I'm fine with taking it off tv but don't take it away from people who want the whole collection.
There may be some historical cultural value to look back at the themes represented in old cartoons. There is no such justification for continuing to show a cartoon that contains a pedophile front and centre.
Jesus Christ. Someone should teach ERA a class on making analogies and comparisons... Unless making a flawed analogy to support your argument was the point? Not saying I'm not guilty of making shitty analogies myself but...
Fair enough, my analogy was wrong, did come up with a more fitting one later. I still think it's a piece of art and media that was "okay" at the time, and should be kept around as that: something that was fine for those times, something that has to be preserved but with the right context (eg. a banner at the start of the episode or something like that). The current climate and the current showrunners' don't have those views and ideas anymore and they don't approve of MJ's actions (rightfully so), this is what should be noted by them clearly instead of trying to erase something that exists and will exist everywhere. I mean, come on, it will still appear on Wikipedia, IMDB, the clips (if not the full episode) will be a billion times over on YouTube and other websites... it's something tens if not hundreds of millions of people are aware of already, how do you erase that? You can't, and imho you don't.
The show has a lot of political episodes as well - not all of them aged well and not all of them reflect the current climate, but those aren't changed retroactively either, nor they should do so. Likewise, I hope they don't retroactively cancel Apu off the show: it was a sign of the times, for better or worse, and that's about it. Again, don't get me wrong: the show disassociating themselves from MJ is a good thing, but pretending he wasn't involved with the show is not going to make them better people or make the show "safer". I am for the preservation of art as is (I'm fine with remasters/remakes/re-editions as long as the original material isn't lost forever as a result), and Michael Jackson's presence in The Simpsons was a sign of the times, just like how them parodying Apple or having Thanos in the couch gag were the signs of other time periods.
Things change, and I am for change. We should look at the past and call out what's okay and what isn't, to make sure we do better in the future. I'm not for altering the past. Deleting a nearly 30 years old episode off a show because it contains a pervert is changing the past, not the future, and I don't think it's a good idea. You can also erase all those fascist LVCE news segments made for Mussolini's Fascist Italy between the '20s and '40s because they don't reflect the current climate, the current knowledge, the current rights and laws. But they are aired and shown. Why's that? Because context is explained, people know that they are looking at a product of a different time and climate, and it isn't to be taken as an "as is" document, but as something that sure is outdated, but something that is also historically relevant.
This episode is TV history, an important stepstone in the medium's decades long path. Erasing it is not going to change the fact the show worked with a known pervert, but they could use this episode as a heads-up, so that the next time they're looking for cameos they look at the characters a little bit better, considering that at the time there were already scandals around the guy (the pedophilia charges came later, to be fair). They could have deleted this episode just about any time in the past two plus decades if they weren't okay with who MJ was - hell, the mere fact he claims to sleep children should have been a red flag already. The show trying to nuke said episode out of oblivion now means they are really just trying to not get caught up in the shistorm that is currently brewing, as past accusations, scandals and gaffes were not enough to do anything about it.
And I don't see them erasing their depictions of Italy as a mafia country, France being mainly known for effeminate guys, the word "gay" being used in the show as a pejorative, or that famous episode in which they depicted Brazil as some sort of chaotic jungle. Those things are not "okay", but they are staying - rightfully so. Likewise, I'm not a fan of the fact they erased the WTC references from reruns of the NYC episode, including a joke about people in Tower One. It was 1997, 4 years before 9/11, they sure as hell weren't trying to offend victims of something they didn't know was going to happen a couple years later. Again, a sign of those times, and I would have left it like that.
The lengthy post I wrote above wasn't directed at you, but I'm addressing the analogy too, that's why I'm quoting you too.
Well thats dumb...
Put a disclaimer before the episode or something. Don't pretend it didn't happen.
Put a disclaimer before the episode or something. Don't pretend it didn't happen.
Micheal Jackson's actual voice is almost the least of the problems with that episode.
The whole town of Springfield turns up with signs to see Micheal Jackson and is disappointed. The episode as a whole entire thing is like a celebration of the mythos of Micheal Jackson at the time.
If they're now uncomfortable with Micheal Jackson and think Micheal Jackson is an unthinkable monster, that episode is nearly impossible to save no matter who voices the character.
Mr. Brooks said he, along with Matt Groening and Al Jean, the other two masterminds of the long-running Fox cartoon, came to the conclusion after watching the HBO documentary "Leaving Neverland."
...
Mr. Brooks said pulling the episode was important because of the need to show compassion for Mr. Jackson's alleged victims.
...
Mr. Brooks acknowledged the potential for criticism from fans of Mr. Jackson, as well as from people who love that particular episode.
"I'm against book burning of any kind. But this is our book, and we're allowed to take out a chapter," he said.
I watched the documentary. I can't disagree at all with the creators themselves coming to a decision like that.
Perhaps I might feel differently if I didn't have the season 3 DVDs sitting on my shelf for probably over a decade.
I will watch the documentary. Just one honest question: I read that the people being interviewed are the same people that - under oath - admitted that everything was fabricated. Is this true?
Going to quote myself and suggest those who are thinking that cancel means total erasure to go and listen to this podcast episode. Jenna Worthman and Wesley Morris do an incredible job of putting this all into context. They discuss what it was like growing up on MJ, experiecing his death, and now looking back on his legacy from a cultural impact be it professional or influencial.
It's an excellent dive into cancel culture and how some people just can't be "cancelled" as their cultural impact will already be felt. BUT it's possible to prevent their continued financial benefit through things like this or de-emphasized Spotify/Pandora/Apple algorithms.
It's an excellent dive into cancel culture and how some people just can't be "cancelled" as their cultural impact will already be felt. BUT it's possible to prevent their continued financial benefit through things like this or de-emphasized Spotify/Pandora/Apple algorithms.
I think putting a disclaimer before and maybe after the episode would be better.
Sometime it's better to teach than remove.
For example I love HP Lovecrafts books but he was a straight out racist even back then, by having that knowledge when I read the books it's much easier to study how they were written which can make a book more interesting.
Sometime it's better to teach than remove.
For example I love HP Lovecrafts books but he was a straight out racist even back then, by having that knowledge when I read the books it's much easier to study how they were written which can make a book more interesting.
Watch the documentary and especially Oprah's after show. This is brought up and directly addressed, they did not hide the fact they previously testified in support of Micheal Jackson. They explained in their own words why someone groomed as child would have trouble truthfully telling what happened to them.
Oprah herself mentions it took until she was age 42 to realize the abuse that happened to her as a child wasn't her fault.
If you still want to 'learn' from that episode it's not going to be hard to track down. The Simpsons contributors don't want their names all over a show which was made with a pedophile. At least show a little bit of understanding.
Ofcourse they can decide whatever they want, it's their show. I'm not talking about censorship, I am talking about what I think would be better for everyone around the world.
The world will be better when everyone wakes up to what Jackson did, it's slowly happening, and moves like this give credence to the testimonies of the victims. Then, we can have a serious look at what occured and try to stop something like this ever happening again right under our noses.
What is the status of the Silver Spoons episode, where young Carlton Banks lies to all his friends saying he knew Michael Jackson, then hired a MJ impersonator?
Streaming platforms are pretty much the same thing in this day and age which is why it has been removed from Simpsons World and will likely be removed from other digital release hubs in short order.
As for future boxed sets, I'm with you on that point of contention. Physical media will be all about preservation going forward so I would prefer that they go the disclaimer route in that case should we actually get such a thing post-Disney deal.
Didn't they say that one of the conditions for Jackson to do the voiceover was that the character had to spend the night in Bart's room? I think maybe it was the DVD commentary where they said that.
Streaming is purely on-demand, though. Properly disclaimered, there's no reason to bar people from seeing it who want to do so. I say this as somebody who's not especially in love with the episode or with Jackson as an artist.
I posted some article in that other thread about Radio stations not playing his music anymore prior to this happening. So it's not the first, but it is a trend that will hopefully continue as this documentary hits more eyeballs and people understand what kind of monster MJ really was.
It's so bizarre that all of a sudden in 2019 we've decided to shun Michael Jackson from society when the deeds occurred over 20 years ago.
Yeah, I think the same. Now, everybody shun MJ with thinks that we know years ago. Let him rest in peace...
I hope Michael Jackson is rotting in hell. His victims are the ones you should be concerned with finding their peace, not the monster who raped them as children. I assume you think we should just let Hitler and Dahlmer and Gacy just rest in peace as well. Just let the symbols of the Third Reich fly high because it's been long enough and he deserves his peace, right? What kind of person do you have to be to side with a piece of human filth like Michael Jackson?
Sad to see how many people here support the sexual abuse of young children. Kind of feel like it might be time for mods to start getting involved here, or are we just going to let this site devolve into 8chan?
Oh wow. That was one of the great episodes of the SImpsons, and IIRC, it was always a mystery whether that was truly Michael Jackson or not voicing the role. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jackson have it in his contract that he wouldn't be credited with doing the voice?
The inside-baseball backround of it was that it was Jackson voicing the role, but they didn't credit him at the time, right... Or, they were tongue in cheek about it? I can't remember.
It's not bizarre.
What's bizarre is that Michael Jackson has this ardent defense force that goes against everything else that we've learned as a society over the last 5 years of coming around to believe victims.
I used to be really skeptical of Jackson, I always thought "Where there's smoke, there's fire," but whenever I'd share that opinion I was so frequently dogpiled on for being unfair to Michael Jackson, or for believing known liars, or for some other ridiculous claims... Like people used to get accused of being racists for implying that Jackson did untoward things to children. So, I learned to just stop talking about it because it was an argument that, on the internet, wasn't worth... because his fans were so invested in defending him, and as someone who is basically ambivalent to Jackson, it wasn't worth getting into internet fights with people really invested in defending him.
But now, we're in this era where we're supposed to believe victims, and where there's supposed to be ramifications for sexual crimes. But, with Jackson, there still seem to be two sets of rules for a lot of people. I get why people might be driven to defend Jackson, he was abused as a child himself, he was tortured by fame, he seems to have suffered from mental illness, he seems to have been addicted to drugs, he had bad people influencing him... But while those things can explain why an abused person may become an abuser themselves, they shouldn't prevent someone from being held accountable as an abuser. If Jackson was an abuser, which he seems to have been, he was never held accountable while he was alive. It's not bizarre for people to think they should hold him accountable today, even in death.
The inside-baseball backround of it was that it was Jackson voicing the role, but they didn't credit him at the time, right... Or, they were tongue in cheek about it? I can't remember.
It's not bizarre.
What's bizarre is that Michael Jackson has this ardent defense force that goes against everything else that we've learned as a society over the last 5 years of coming around to believe victims.
I used to be really skeptical of Jackson, I always thought "Where there's smoke, there's fire," but whenever I'd share that opinion I was so frequently dogpiled on for being unfair to Michael Jackson, or for believing known liars, or for some other ridiculous claims... Like people used to get accused of being racists for implying that Jackson did untoward things to children. So, I learned to just stop talking about it because it was an argument that, on the internet, wasn't worth... because his fans were so invested in defending him, and as someone who is basically ambivalent to Jackson, it wasn't worth getting into internet fights with people really invested in defending him.
But now, we're in this era where we're supposed to believe victims, and where there's supposed to be ramifications for sexual crimes. But, with Jackson, there still seem to be two sets of rules for a lot of people. I get why people might be driven to defend Jackson, he was abused as a child himself, he was tortured by fame, he seems to have suffered from mental illness, he seems to have been addicted to drugs, he had bad people influencing him... But while those things can explain why an abused person may become an abuser themselves, they shouldn't prevent someone from being held accountable as an abuser. If Jackson was an abuser, which he seems to have been, he was never held accountable while he was alive. It's not bizarre for people to think they should hold him accountable today, even in death.
Last edited:
When was the last time you saw Silver Spoons....anywhere but Youtube?
For the record, I'm not supporting nor defending Michael Jackson, I was just observing how strange it is that society has finally taken a stand on this matter when we knew of its existence so long ago. What took so long?
The victims came forth and publicly told their first hand accounts of what happened. It took so long because of the abuse they suffered as children made it difficult for them to tell this story in such a candid way. Victims of sexual abuse at that age go through a lot of self-blame and insecurity and depression, and on top of that you have these people out there defending a child predator threatening and harassing these people for coming out and telling the truth of what happened. That's what took so long. MJ completely ruining these kids in a way we couldn't have possibly understood is what took so long.
Keep calm, man, I think the abused people should complain when the "predators" are alive, just like the Weinstein cases. Because before MJ died, the two abused kids/adults should talk about it more aggressive..put MJ in jail. That's the case.
(sorry for my bad English)
Bitching about the creators no longer wanting this aired is like bitching about Jello no longer airing Bill Cosby ads.
This makes no sense. If we play it that way, then there is lotsof ART ( movies, books, paintings, etc ) material we shouldn't consider anymore...
Just one example : why not stopping airing ANY John Wayne movie on TV, that guy was a racist and white supremacist.
Just one example : why not stopping airing ANY John Wayne movie on TV, that guy was a racist and white supremacist.
