Why do people understand the satire behind The Itchy & Scratchy

chucks sneed and jew

Because it'd be like Roy actually staying on the show as a main character

>>79945291
Because The Principal And the Pauper is from a season people hate.

>>79945291
Underageb& are not intelligent enough to understand this episode even though it practically winks at you every five minutes.

>>79945291
Because Matt Groening himself disowned The Principal and the Pauper?

>>79945291
Because people have disdain for the story of the latter, but not the former.

>>79946049
Groening is a hack who owes his entire fortune to Sam Simon.

>>79945291

There reaches a point when satire becomes too subtle and it's indistinguishable from what it was satirizing.

There's a nifty buzzword for the phenomenon.

They're not satirising the same thing.

>>79946139
Yeah, but Groening is the Simpsons producer that people remember, if they remember anyone at all.

If the episode was more absurd it would have worked.

>>79945291
Because after The Principal and the Pauper the show never goes back to the classic feel of the show. Season 9 continues the trend it establishes.

Had it been shown in the middle of season 7 or 8 it would be more highly regarded and recognised as satire.

>>79945291
Do we hate Armond Tanzarian or Frank Grimes' son more?

>>79945354
Apart from one or two throwaway gags, Armin Tamzarian never appears, and certainly not as a main character.

>>79946369
Well yeah the mayor expressly forbids it.

>>79945291
I always got the impression that The Principal and the Pauper was an idea they genuinely began writing, but as the episode progressed they realized it wasn't working and added some self-deprecating/satirical jokes as a sort of apology to the audience.

The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show felt like it was a satirical idea from the get-go.

This is just my take and I could be wrong, but I feel vindicated by Groening's comments regarding the Principal and the Pauper