Episode of "The Simpsons" featuring Michael Jackson pulled from circulation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maxirad

Guest
To be honest, I can’t say that the overall decision doesn’t bother me. It would admittedly be a good idea to remove the episode from public broadcast considering what’s going on right now, but…
 
Since it’s been around since 1991, anyone who wants to see it will have zero trouble finding a video of it, even if it’s a bootleg video.

There’s also a good chance that the fans will raise such a fuss about this that they’ll at least allow it to remain on the DVD and Blu-ray.

I frankly find this sort of thing ridiculous, especially when it’s an almost 30-year-old episode of a cartoon and the man involved in the controversy has been in his grave for years.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Since it’s been around since 1991, anyone who wants to see it will have zero trouble finding a video of it, even if it’s a bootleg video.

There’s also a good chance that the fans will raise such a fuss about this that they’ll at least allow it to remain on the DVD and Blu-ray.

I frankly find this sort of thing ridiculous, especially when it’s an almost 30-year-old episode of a cartoon and the man involved in the controversy has been in his grave for years.
Click to expand...
I don’t find it ridiculous so much as chilling. Particularly given the fact that everyone suspected Michael Jackson of this sort of behavior for years.
 
Last edited:
I watched part of the documentary before realizing how “big” it was supposed to be. From what I saw, it didn’t introduce much (if anything) that we didn’t already know, so I don’t understand this mad rush to distance from Michael Jackson. If people weren’t doing it before, what changed?
 
How is it chilling when you know you’re going to be able to see it someplace anyway? It’s not like the government is going to throw you in prison for having a copy of a Simpsons episode featuring MJ. Many copies of the episode already exist out there and will continue to exist.

Simpsons has withdrawn an episode before (the one featuring the World Trade Center), only to put it back in circulation some years later when all the fuss had died down. I know this is probably terrible of me, but I don’t really see the Simpsons as being particularly important. It’s a humorous record of pop culture; in terms of edgy stuff, there are far worse things in “Family Guy” and “South Park” that will never get pulled because those shows are all about being edgy.
Thom18 said:
I watched part of the documentary before realizing how “big” it was supposed to be. From what I saw, it didn’t introduce much (if anything) that we didn’t already know, so I don’t understand this mad rush to distance from Michael Jackson. If people weren’t doing it before, what changed?
Click to expand...
Nothing changed, and in fact there are other people who apparently spent time with MJ as children who claim that the alleged victim is making stuff up and has been doing so for years in an attempt to get money. Unfortunately with MJ dead we will now never get to the bottom of this.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Simpsons has withdrawn an episode before (the one featuring the World Trade Center), only to put it back in circulation some years later when all the fuss had died down.
Click to expand...
Listen to what Eric Bischoff says during the first two minutes and 40 seconds of this video. This video is also worth checking out even though it contains a bit of rough language.
 
It’s about time. I’m so tired of the hypocrisy of modern culture. Especially when it comes to sex abuse. The Church deserves every bit of criticism and recoil it gets. But no double standard please. I don’t care if you are a cardinal a prince if the Church or the king of pop. It’s all troublesome!
 
40.png
Slate article "It’s Too Late to Cancel Michael Jackson" Casual Discussion
 
Networks have been pulling episodes for decades. Censorship was a lot worse fifty years ago. Heck, the Star Trek episode where Kirk and Uruha kissed caused such concern that it wasn’t even aired on some Southern affiliate networks. I think at the moment it’s more about not wanting to offend a lot of people. Jackson, post-posthumously, is suffering the same fate that Cosby has, and I can’t say it is ill-deserved. Like Cosby and Weinstein, Jackson’s behavior was suspected for a long time, but he died before vast wealth ceased to be an impenetrable wall against accountability. Anyone who was still a Jackson fan after the revelations began pouring in had their blinders on, and it’s about time those blinders were taken off.

The fact is that rape and child molestation are viewed in our society as some of the most heinous of crimes, and when it is done by an artist, there’s the double taint of the public life being completely destroyed as the vile private acts are revealed. But I remember when the revelations first came to light, Cher put it pretty plainly that a grown man sleeping with young boys was perverse, regardless of whether anything happened or not.
 
The saddest part of the whole business was that the boys’ parents were letting their young boys go sleep over at a grown man’s house, to spend time with the man - not a sleepover with the man’s children, but the man himself. Regardless of whether anything happened, it doesn’t take a weatherman to know this is a red flag situation. The parents clearly did it because they hoped it would result in some kind of benefit for their family.

As for Cher, I won’t repeat gossip on a Catholic forum, but simply mention pots and kettles.
 
He was never an idol to me, like as a person. Or as a musician even though I never skip an MJ song. But I remember sobbing in bed because my parents didn’t let me go to his “Dangerous” concert in Bucharest. They said people go crazy at these concerts and it’s not for the love of his music that the hysteria is going wild. I got so sad. So I was sitting in the dark listening to his album or the concert, I can’t remember exactly, and sobbing. Then, later on in life I was not a fan but like I was saying if I heard one of his songs at parties or radio I never ignored it.
Poor MJ never grew up himself. Imho his father was a monster. He worked his kids to insanity. They got success but … at what price? I hope he gets forgiven by God in the end. I just do.
 
My problem is not so much the removal of the episode from circulation on television–networks remove things from circulation temporarily or permanently for all kinds of reasons–but the apparent decision to remove it entirely from even the DVDs being sold.
 
JSRG said:
My problem is not so much the removal of the episode from circulation on television–networks remove things from circulation temporarily or permanently for all kinds of reasons–but the apparent decision to remove it entirely from even the DVDs being sold.
Click to expand...
Like Tis_Bearself said, the producers of The Simpsons might release “Stark Raving Dad” (the episode in question) on physical media in the future if fans raise too much of a ruckus. You might want to check out this video.
 
Yeah when I heard about the latest backlash against MJ it made me wonder what is the point of the “punishments from the court of public opinion” ?

If it is to punish the celebrity, or deter other celebrities from doing the same thing, then why would we be trying to punish a dead man?

Is it so that we avoid co-operating in the celebrity’s “crimes”? The secular world needs a lesson in the Catholic ideas about “remote material co-operation with evil”

Or is it an emotional reaction? We find anything to do with the celebrity to be “icky” and just want to save ourselves from being reminded of them?
 
Last edited:
Flopfoot said:
Or is it an emotional reaction? We find anything to do with the celebrity to be “icky” and just want to save ourselves from being reminded of them?
Click to expand...
It’s this, and also the fact that advertisers don’t want to be associated with the “icky” celebrity. In fact, I would think that advertisers are the major driver because they’re a main source of revenue.
 
Flopfoot said:
Yeah when I heard about the latest backlash against MJ it made me wonder what is the point of the “punishments from the court of public opinion” ?

If it is to punish the celebrity, or deter other celebrities from doing the same thing, then why would we be trying to punish a dead man?

Is it so that we avoid co-operating in the celebrity’s “crimes”? The secular world needs a lesson in the Catholic ideas about “remote material co-operation with evil”

Or is it an emotional reaction? We find anything to do with the celebrity to be “icky” and just want to save ourselves from being reminded of them?
Click to expand...
I think it’s an attempt to erase someone from history (yes I know you can probably find the episode if you try hard enough - but the impulse is the same) as a punishment for alleged crimes against propriety and that’s why I find it sinister.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top