Was this the first Simpsons episode that fans truly hated?

Was this the first Simpsons episode that fans truly hated?

If it wasn’t for it, would S9 be considered good like S1-8?

Attached: E9447E9F-03BA-489E-9F6F-A2A9910C50ED.png (235x176, 69K)

There’s literally nothing wrong with this episode. Stop attacking the writers for taking risks.

>There’s literally nothing wrong with this episode.

Except for the premise you mean.
I will allow that the episode had some good jokes, and it's not an awful episode by any means. But the basic premise, you have to admit, is really fucking stupid

Taking risks would be aging the characters up. This is as safe as any other episode premise.

what episode is this

>Stop attacking the writers for taking risks.

What's the risk here? They forced a status quo back in, in the same episode.

The principle and the pauper

Problem Principal 2

thanks

sameposting - why are people upset about this episode? the wiki is not being clear about that. i quite liked it when i first saw it. Skinner has a lot of character development

But you can never see Skinner and his mom the same way again after that episode.

>Skinner has a lot of character development

He did...too bad they kicked him out of town at the end and gave his name back to Tamzarian

No, that would be the first clip show, back in season 4.

>Simpsons
>mah continuity!!11
choose one.

fans who grew up to be comic book guy without the ability to run a moderately self sustaining retail business.

>mah continuity!!11
Apu has a family now, Milhouse’s parents got divorced, and Maude Flanders is dead.

Are there really people out there who think that shows like the Simpsons and sponge-bob have any continuity between episodes?

Attached: 1543120100473.jpg (500x745, 46K)

the Yea Forumsntrarians have arrived !

Yes, because it clearly does. There's , Sideshow Bob's appearances, multi-episode plots like Seymour and Crabapple, thousands of individual references, etc. It's only mostly inconsistent, not entirely.

I dont remember much hate for the episode at the time.

Now, this was 1997 so the internet was in its youth, social media was Usenet. But there was an active Simpsons usenet group and I don't remember this episode being dragged across the coals. Maybe I'm just forgetting.

In a later episode we see a flashback of Skinner’s pregnant with “Armin,” in a different episode they call Skinner “Armin”

These directly conflict with each other, so we can easily see that Simpsons continuity is fluid.

*Skinner’s mom

When I saw reruns of this as a kid I thought it was from the same era as Season 7-8, with episodes like When you Dish Upon a Star being the start of "nu simpsons".

>Skinner is Armenian
>Doesn't look Armenian at all
This was fucking stupid, why not make him a slav instead of a group that doesn't look European

By technicallity, it is considering that this was a leftover from Season 8, where they really play along with fucking with the concept of continuity and status quo and why the characters are what they are. I consider this a failed experiment, but season 8 really does push those boundaries, whether it's revealing that Flanders is crazy or breaking up or hooking up side characters.

>If it wasn’t for it, would S9 be considered good like S1-8?
Yes. PatP was a S8 holdover anyway.

I don't think I saw this episode until a few years after it premiered and the only thing that stuck with me was

>Up your's children

Though as said, it is a pretty dumb premise with a conclusion that they repeated again with Fat Tony and maybe someone else.

HAS GOT IT GOING ON

>taking risks

Attached: 8175208150.png (485x486, 251K)

>There’s literally nothing wrong with this episode. Stop attacking the writers for making surreal, cartoony plots

ftfy

You know what the word "risk" means? It means thing might go badly and "taking risks" means implicitly accepting the possible negative consequences. Like decades of fanbase bitching, for example.

Fans on Usenet hated Last Exit to Springfield, of all things. Does anyone have those screencaps?