The Simpsons.com
By Jeff Roberts
I am a serious fan of The Simpsons. Many others are serious fans
of The
Simpsons. It's a comedy writer's show, which, though the actors do
play a
large part, depends less on them than other sitcoms (or, one could
alternately say, The Simpsons depends more on the writers than other
sitcoms). This show, because of its solid fan base and its independence
from the constraints of live-action TV, might seem a terrific candidate
for
translation into other media. Interestingly enough, however, it has
yet to
be successfully translated into film, and the only successful audio
content
it has produced is original music from the show. It has stayed relatively
solid on television and hasn't really gone anywhere else. The Simpsons.com,
the official Simpsons fan site, is the closest approximation to an
internet-based presentation of the show. And in my opinion, as a fan,
it's
pretty poor.
Probably the best part of the site is the most functional part; on
the
start-up page, there is a short synopsis of what the next episode
will be.
There's also the basic information about the show, including bios
of the
creators and, interestingly, the characters. One of the neat things
about
the site is that it provides free internet service. This is similar
to Juno
in that the user doesn't have to pay to connect but has to look at
pop-up
ads instead. My friend actually signed up for this, largely because
it
seemed cool to have an e-mail address ending with "@thesimpsons.com".
Yet
another part of the site is a message board, on which a handful of
hardcore
fans post questions and answers about the show and engage in other
discourse
typical of internet message boards (you probably know what I'm talking
about).
There are a few things on the site which may be considered original
content.
Drawing from an episode where Homer Simpson, taking the pseudonym
"Mr. X",
puts up a web site on which he exposes the dirty secrets of other
Springfield personalities, there's a "Mr. X: All the Muck That's
Fit To
Rake" section. However, the items on it are either taken directly
from the
show or are uninspired and dull. There's also an offshoot, Quimby2000.com,
the homepage for Springfield Mayor "Diamond" Joe Quimby's
campaign for
President (which, I suppose, should now be over, but it's not). Again,
an
interesting idea, but the jokes are obvious, largely uninspired and
involve
regurgitation of content from the show.
Thinking about this in relation to other more successful transmedia
experiments, it may seem that this site has the potential of drawing
in a
good number of Simpsons viewers. But in this case, it's difficult
to make a
clear association between what's on the page and what's in the show.
It
could just be because the content and the quality of the web design
are
poor, and it would be more believable if there were better writers
and
designers working on it. However, it may also be the case that The
Simpsons
has been so clearly established within the confines of the television
set
that any content coming through another medium just doesn't seem authentic.
To me, The Simpsons presents a highly satirical and caricaturized
view of
the world, and therefore it is difficult to treat it as if it were
real.
The odd temporal nature of the show, where many events have occurred
over
eleven years yet no one has aged, automatically disconnects it from
reality,
as do inconsistencies among story lines and stereotyped character
traits.
Reading character bios, as well as Reading Mayor Quimby's campaign
platform,
just doesn't work because we can't think of these characters as real
people.
The apparent failure of this site to reach a potential audience raises
a few
questions about the idea of media convergence. What makes some shows
difficult to translate across different media? How will we be able
to tell
what content is meant for film, TV, the internet, or some combination
of
different media? While I've said that The Simpsons seems able to exist
only
as a TV show, I don't think I've entirely figured out why. This is
the type
of question creators will have to try to answer when choosing what
medium
(or media) on which to present their content.