Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Homer Simpson Named Greatest TV Character

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the all-my-life-I've-had-one-dream-to-achieve-my-many-goals dept.

Television 142

A survey by Entertainment Weekly has named Homer Simpson the greatest character created for television or film in the past 20 years. Everyone's favorite beer-swilling, donut-eating dad beat out Harry Potter and Buffy the Vampire Slayer for the top spot. From the article: "'People can relate to Homer because we're all secretly propelled by desires we can't admit to,' Groening was quoted as telling Entertainment Weekly. 'Homer is launching himself head-first into every single impulsive thought that occurs to him. His love of whatever ... is a joy to witness.'"

cancel ×

142 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Apropos (2, Funny)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434892)

That Harry Potter & Buffy yelled 'Doh!'

Re:Apropos (0, Redundant)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434998)

And Rachel (from Friends)... uh... actually it's been too long since I've seen that show, I don't remember any clever references to make, so I'll just say I can't believe she's on it.

DISQUALIFY HOMER NOW! (4, Insightful)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435132)

He was created MORE than 20 years ago! Homer is almost 25.

Tracey Ullman aired them on Fox in 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons_shorts [wikipedia.org]

Re:DISQUALIFY HOMER NOW! (1, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435182)

you beat me to it

funny how facts never seem to stop stuff like this

Re:DISQUALIFY HOMER NOW! (1)

Minion of Eris (1574569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435510)

Yes, but it was not a one-off, the show is still being produced, and the character continues not to evolve to this day. Therefor he CAN be considered as "in the last 20 years"

Re:DISQUALIFY HOMER NOW! (3, Interesting)

Rary (566291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435604)

He was created MORE than 20 years ago! Homer is almost 25.

The age of the character was not a selection criteria. The list includes any fictional character who had a lasting impact in pop-culture within the last 20 years, regardless of when they were created.

The Reuters article added the phrase "created for television and film" on their own.

Re:DISQUALIFY HOMER NOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32436602)

He existed as a concurrent character within the past 20 years. Creation date is immaterial and irrelevant.

I saw wierd stuff in that place last night (5, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434948)

Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff.

And I want in.

Re:I saw wierd stuff in that place last night (2, Interesting)

narratorDan (137402) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435928)

/b/ accepts everyone...

Re:I saw wierd stuff in that place last night (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32436782)

Sir, you are in violation of rule #1, the van is waiting outside for you, I suggest you don't make it any harder.

Harry Potter was a TV character? (0, Redundant)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434952)

Really??

Re:Harry Potter was a TV character? (2, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435050)

"Greatest character created for television or film"

Geez, it's bad enough that people can't RTFA, but that was in the summary for heavens sake.....

Re:Harry Potter was a TV character? (3, Insightful)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435086)

Harry Potter was created for books and adapted for film. Still doesn't qualify.

Re:Harry Potter was a TV character? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435220)

Splitting hairs, particularly given the fact that there's a few differences between the book and TV versions of the character.

Re:Harry Potter was a TV character? (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435696)

Not really, as Harry Potter the film character isn't very good at all.

Re:Harry Potter was a TV character? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438394)

In fairness, that's mainly because Radcliffe is a terrible, terrible actor. Also ugly.

Re:Harry Potter was a TV character? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438698)

He is a character in a children's book, what do you expect?

Greatest? (5, Funny)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434966)

If by "great" you mean "iconic", sure. And in TV land the two are probably synonymous. But back in my day, you had to conquer Asia-Minor to be considered "great".

Re:Greatest? (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435394)

So going into space isn't great? travelling through dimensions? I mean, he's no inanimate carbon rod, but who is?

Besides, even Homer isn't stupid enough to get into a land war in Asia.

Re:Greatest? (2, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435502)

Especially if you did it without a flag.

Re:Greatest? (1)

thomst (1640045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435674)

If by "great" you mean "iconic", sure. And in TV land the two are probably synonymous. But back in my day, you had to conquer Asia-Minor to be considered "great".

Your day was 2300-some-odd years ago?

Dude, you're old!

Re:Greatest? (4, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437220)

If by "great" you mean "iconic", sure. And in TV land the two are probably synonymous. But back in my day, you had to conquer Asia-Minor to be considered "great".

Your day was 2300-some-odd years ago?

Dude, you're old!

Indeed. Get out of his hanging gardens!

Re:Greatest? (1)

VincentFreeman (1175087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436216)

HAHAHA- why I laugh?

Re:Greatest? (1)

Alien1024 (1742918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436244)

Well, those of you who think Alexander [imdb.com] was such a great movie are lone voices in the wilderness, I am afraid.

Re:Greatest? (1)

Alien1024 (1742918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436476)

Wrong link, sorry; I meant this [imdb.com] film.

woo hoo take that 60 minutes (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32434970)

woo hoo take that 60 minutes

Yup. (-1, Troll)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435008)

A fat, balding, selfish, stupid, bad-skinned, horrible-father-figure is voted as being "great". Welcome to America.

Re:Yup. (1, Interesting)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435092)

He was streaked through with redeeming qualities, yeah, but the Simpsons horse is far past dead. I don't think there are bones left to be kicked - the dust has been blown far and wide, and all that's left is a crazed shell of a creative team that shows itself to be more out of touch with every passing year.

Of course, if you want a really great TV character, look at Dr. Gregory House - the entire show succeeds on his stooped shoulders, and from I've heard the past season or so coasts on his momentum. What about Tony Soprano? Deadwood's Al Swearengen? I don't even watch much TV and those drift to mind with ease because they have depth.

Re:Yup. (3, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435152)

Purely from a variety and skill point of view, I would have to nominate Arnold Rimmer from Red Dwarf. The number of different characters and personality mutations that character (and subsequently the actor) had to go through was ENORMOUS. Each and every one of them were expertly done, they were all done by the same actor, and unlike The Mighty Boosh where one actor plays multiple characters, they were all still technically Rimmer.

Re:Yup. (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436036)

Rimmer IS NOT an "Everyman", he's an effeminate elitist boob with delusions of grandeur. Homer Simpson, on the other hand, is just a boob, but a boob accessible to everyone, and not at all with an air of elitism (excepting the episode where he donned a top hat & gloves and went around as if he were rich. Or the time he had a genius IQ...) Rimmer is easy to not like. Simpson is likable, depending on the circumstances. Very different characters, but I would venture to guess that fewer people find Rimmer an appealing one. Simply because he's versatile doesn't mean anything. Name a job or a circumstance Simpson hasn't done or been in. Its hardly the reason more people have either heard of him or like his personae.

Re:Yup. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32435174)

Hurley from Lost. Newman from Seinfeld. Wesley from TNG.

Re:Yup. (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437068)

Newman from Seinfeld.

No one in any way involved with Seinfeld deserves so much as a dried-out piece of American cheese. That's got to be the most overrated show of all time. No sympathetic characters to speak of. And nothing particularly original. The show wasn't any more a "show about nothing" than any other sitcom on TV for the past 50 years. It was simply a place for Jerry Seinfeld to dump his stand-up humor alongside one-dimensional characters. And if you're going to have one-dimensional characters, that one dimension ought to be likable.

Re:Yup. (1)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437952)

Seinfeld is funny if you understand social convention. Not surprisingly I find that it wasn't a big hit in the software community.

Re:Yup. (2, Interesting)

DrKnark (1536431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438238)

I am probably not a master of social convention, but Kramer makes me LMAO every time. I dont think this "understanding" has to be a requirement to like Seinfeld. And tbh I never met anyone in software who didnt like seinfeld.

Re:Yup. (1)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438302)

You've never worked at my company, then. We have an (American) programmer who swears up and down that he has never heard of Richard Pryor. Not that he doesn't like his humor -- he literally hadn't heard of the man.

Re:Yup. (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438248)

I'm not really part of the "software community", and I do understand social convention. The social observations were interesting, even insightful, at times. But insightful and funny aren't synonymous. Social commentary coming out of the mouths of sociopaths is more sad than amusing.

Re:Yup. (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435186)

Lennie Briscoe. Jean-Luc Picard. Jack Bauer. Red (from Shawshank Redemption). Londo Mollari. It's not that hard to name fictional characters with more depth than Homer Simpson.

Re:Yup. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32435416)

None of those characters were anywhere near as likable as Homer Simpson.

Re:Yup. (1)

Lil'wombat (233322) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436558)

Vir will forever have a place in my heart for this quote:

Ambassador Vir Cotto: I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I want to look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this.
[waves]
Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?

Re:Yup. (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437162)

First, the question isn't depth. It's iconic status. Different animal altogether. Second, Lennie Briscoe might have had some depth, and possibly Red, but Jack Bauer's character was never convincing as anything other than a badass. That's what people remember about him. And 24 itself was so badly written that Jack's most iconic line would have to be, "There's no time!". As for Picard, I don't think you could name anything iconic about the character. Captain Kirk was iconic, but that was off the air by the time the timeframe of the survey.

Re:Yup. (1)

DrKnark (1536431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438256)

Jack Bauer had depth? No offense, I just never saw it. To me it was just "badguy wants to hurt me/my friends/my family/my country, ill go kill him".

Re:Yup. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436942)

Simpsons may be dead now, but House was always a mediocre show with an excellent actor dragging the whole scene, despite the multiple clichés, the vast amounts of incongruity, the stretching of "dramatic" moments for half a season. Seriously, it was never more than watchable.

If you want to talk about good characters in drama series, Dexter is much better than House.

And of course Homer doesn't have "depth", it's a comedy, not a drama. It follows completely different rules.

Re:Yup. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438352)

I'll consider the Simpsons truly dead the day it stops being funnier than the three shows that follow it combined. Although if you like fart jokes, Seth MacFarlane has to be hard to beat.

Re:Yup. (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437090)

Of course, if you want a really great TV character, look at Dr. Gregory House

So you haven't realized yet that it is the same show over and over and over again?
Ok, that is an exaggeration, but it is just too formulaic for me.

Re:Yup. (1)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437314)

I realized a few years ago that I was watching the show to see House specifically. Not coincidentally, that's around the time I stopped. :) As I said, he carried the entire thing on his shoulders - take away Hugh Laurie, and you have some well-sketched characters played by capable actors who aren't given anything to do that you haven't seen before.

Nope. (5, Insightful)

XiaoMing (1574363) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435164)

A fat, balding, selfish, stupid, bad-skinned, horrible-father-figure is voted as being "great". Welcome to America.

You have to realize, the reason he's great is _because_ he embodies those "fat, balding, selfish... etc. (I'm going to add irreverent to this)" qualities on so many levels.
Not only is he as lazy and ignorant as we all at least on SOME occasions have wanted to be, but he's also the embodiment of irony and self-deprecating humor in that respect too.
There's a reason why other countries that hate America still love the Simpsons and love Homer. And no it's not because they're stupid enough to think that character actually represents America (maybe Hank Hill from King of the Hill, though =P). Sure America might take many (too many? most?) of those qualities too far, especially in how stubbornly we present ourselves politically to the rest of the world. But The Simpsons, in its decades long run, is our attempt to not just revel in that attitude, but also constantly remind everyone in the world, including and _especially_ ourselves that we are nowhere near as perfect as we claim to be.

If anything, the Simpsons has been a great lesson in finding the good with the bad, a little bit of the bad in the good, and a lot of funny in everything.

Re:Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438264)

Good choice - although those like Grimey might not agree...

'What's this? "Extremely High Voltage"? Well, I don't need safety gloves, because I'm Homer Simp--'

Re:Yup. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435306)

I think Homer survives because the Simpsons are frozen in time - if you witnessed live actors he'd lose touch with the age group or just seem like a retard who hasn't changed in 20 years. Instead he's still the classic middle aged dad who can keep going for many more seasons, while Harry Potter has changed from a kid to teen to adult now in the closing movies. The only reason I can think of why Buffy rates so high is Sarah Michelle Gellar, the role itself is hardly that awe-inspiring.

Re:Yup. (1)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436864)

Buffy rates so high because of the narrative style. That show set a role model for stories about empowered women, and simultaneously marked a high point in comedic banter that has yet to be rivaled. The character of Buffy by itself isn't inspiring, but the ensemble cast behind her was. Every supernatural show since, from Charmed to Torchwood, owes a debt to the narrative formula that was perfected with Buffy.

The real wildcard in the list, IMHO, is Edward Scissorhands. Did that movie really leave that much of an impression? I'd rather see Jack the Pumpkin King in that slot, to fill the same role, and even then I'm not sure it's worthy of the top ten.

Re:Yup. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435308)

If you think that is what Homer Simpson is about, then you are pretty dim. So, how is Alabama these days?

Re:Yup. (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435474)

My point was that out of all the intelligent, deep, and stimulating characters we have had in TV and film in this country, what gets voted as the greatest is one who brings nothing but the average person to the table. That, to me, is awfully self-centered...just like our country. We don't aspire to greatness, but merely the a comfortable, head-in-the-sand lifestyle.

For the record, I live about 20 minutes outside of DC. Forgive me if my views are cynical, but living around here will do that to you -_-;;

Re:Yup. (3, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435724)

Yeah and your counterexamples were Red Dwarf and Mighty Boosh.
You probably don't understand my point. Everyone else does.
Nobody watches Red Dwarf. It's not bad, but it's not exactly good. Mighty Boosh is just bad.
But hey that's your call. Go keep talking down widely-popular bits of culture and talk up your inconsequential and little-cared-for interests, eventually it'll make you look more worldly and sophisticated than others. Maybe. Probably not, most people have actually seen both of those shows and are well aware they're nowhere near the quality in both production and entertainment value as The Simpsons.

Re:Yup. (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435850)

Probably not, most people have actually seen both of those shows and are well aware they're nowhere near the quality in both production and entertainment value as The Simpsons.

Whoa whoa whoa. I never said the Simpsons weren't good entertainment...I simply said Homer, in my opinion, is far from being the greatest character out there.

I threw out Arnold Rimmer from Red Dwarf as an example, not as a suggestion for the top spot. Me personally, looking strictly from an intelligence, growth, and interesting point of view, I would likely choose either Dexter Morgan or Omar from The Wire.

Re:Yup. (4, Funny)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436910)

Yeah and your counterexamples were Red Dwarf and Mighty Boosh. You probably don't understand my point. Everyone else does. Nobody watches Red Dwarf. It's not bad, but it's not exactly good. Mighty Boosh is just bad.

You're wrong. I watch Red Dwarf. And I find The Mighty Boosh mind-blowing. QED, smeghead.

Go keep talking down widely-popular bits of culture and talk up your inconsequential and little-cared-for interests, eventually it'll make you look more worldly and sophisticated than others. Maybe. Probably not, most people have actually seen both of those shows and are well aware they're nowhere near the quality in both production and entertainment value as The Simpsons.

Oooh, I get it! You're just spoofing the Comic Book Store Guy, right?

Marge: Homer! Where are you? (1)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435052)

Homer: Uh, I'm somewhere where I don't know where I am.
Marge: Do you see towels? If you see towels, you're probably in the linen closet again.
Homer: Just a second...no, it's a place I've never been before.
Selma: Hmm. The shower. [laughs]

Except he was created in 1989. (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435090)

Whoops.

Re:Except he was created in 1989. (2, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435160)

Actually he was created in 1987 for the Tracey Ullman Show, which makes this choice just that much more ridiculous.

Re:Except he was created in 1989. (2, Informative)

oddTodd123 (1806894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435176)

That's the least of their problems. Number 2 (Harry Potter) was created for a book. Number 5 (Joker) was created for comics in the 1960s. Numbers 8 (Hannibal Lecter) and 9 (Carrie Bradshaw) were originally created for books as well. So this is really the list of the top characters appearing in television or film in the last 20 years.

And the Joker was created in 1940. (1)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435294)

Just sayin'. Otherwise, you're spot-on.

Re:Except he was created in 1989. (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435324)

television or film.

Learn to read.

Re:Except he was created in 1989. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32435338)

The joker was created in the 1930's, not the 60's.

Re:Except he was created in 1989. (5, Informative)

Rary (566291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435428)

That's the least of their problems. Number 2 (Harry Potter) was created for a book. Number 5 (Joker) was created for comics in the 1960s. Numbers 8 (Hannibal Lecter) and 9 (Carrie Bradshaw) were originally created for books as well. So this is really the list of the top characters appearing in television or film in the last 20 years.

Actually, everyone is quoting TFA and TFS, but if you actually go to the source [ew.com] , it doesn't actually use the words "created" or "TV". It's simply "The 100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years". They specifically refer to the "100 greatest characters in pop-culture" and state "(w)hether the fictional women, men, ogres, muppets, babies, and cartoon rockers who made our list were initially created before 1990 didn’t matter so long as they made a lasting impact in the culture after 1990."

Re:Except he was created in 1989. (1)

oddTodd123 (1806894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438548)

everyone is quoting TFA and TFS

Never thought I'd see the day on Slashdot where RTFA was not even good enough!

And man, I had forgotten how old Batman is.

Re:Except he was created in 1989. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435744)

> So this is really the list of the top characters appearing in television or
> film in the last 20 years.

Well, sure. This is about tv and movies. Start demanding creativity and you'll have nothing.

Re:Except he was created in 1989. (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436680)

That's the least of their problems. Number 2 (Harry Potter) was created for a book. Number 5 (Joker) was created for comics in the 1960s.

Others have pointed out the main flaw in your argument. Also, the Joker was in Batman #1 in 1940.

Re:Except he was created in 1989. (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435484)

Who cares when a character was created? The poll should be read as "the greatest character from the past 20 years who was created specifically for television/film".

This reply smells like feet. (4, Funny)

magusxxx (751600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435362)

I would have said Al Bundy. *shrug* Peg: Miss me? Al: With every bullet so far.

Re:This reply smells like feet. (1)

mlawrence (1094477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435686)

I agree with you, but ask any teenager today who Al Bundy was, and you will get a blank stare. Simpsons spans the generations.

Re:This reply smells like feet. (1)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437366)

Married with Children is on syndication an awful lot... I'd expect most teenagers to be passingly familiar, but it was past its prime for years before it went off the air in 1997. The Simpsons spans the generations because it's been on the air for over a generation, and because its early and loyal fanbase have turned it into a nigh-immortal Great Wyrm of prime time television.

On the bright side, Ed O'Neill finally stopped being typecast.

Re:This reply smells like feet. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32435712)

I like Peg: So what I'm a stay home mom, let the men work its only going to kill them sooner

Re:This reply smells like feet. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438504)

Seconded. Nothing beats Al Bundy.
The amount of epic quotes and facial expressions alone is endless.
(Sorry, I only saw the German version. So the translations may not be the exact ones you knew.)

  • They aren’t fat. They only have a cream filling!
  • Today a fat woman came to the shoe store. She was so fat, that three smaller women revolved around her!
  • Al: Son? What is the family credo? Bud: Hooters, hooters, yum, yum, yum! Al: No, the other one!
  • (Bud is in a Mexican shoe factory / sweat shop, and writes “Help! Budro!” on a box. Later, Peggy actually gets the box, takes out the shoes, doesn’t look at the huge writing, and throws the box aside.)
  • The ten commandments of Iron Head Haynes(?) [youtube.com] : Rule two: It is wrong to be French!
  • Psycho Dad! Psycho Dad! Psycho Daaad! He’s quick with the gun! And his job ain’t done! Killed his wife at twenty-one! Psycho Daaaaaad! [youtube.com] (Yes, there were different versions. Yes I know them all. ;)
  • And best of all: After the taxes, your mother and you both, I”m left with exactly one cent. ... (Later)... Waitaminute... One cent?... (rubs chin)... ONE cent? ...Why am I working then??

Oh: PLEASE, if you have a site that can show me how the original quotes were in English, do post the link! :)

I vote (0)

Nayr Dnal (1810056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435448)

David Duchovny

Re:I vote (2, Funny)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435620)

Sorry but walking around naked raving about aliens is no way to go though life.

Re:I vote (1)

bFusion (1433853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436016)

It's pitiful that that's all I remember about that movie as well.

Re:I vote (1)

Nayr Dnal (1810056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436050)

It's also a pitty that you haven't seen more of his later work. How old are you two anyways? ;o)

Re:I vote (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437376)

Don't knock it before you try it.

Everyman (5, Insightful)

Yungoe (415568) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435490)

The reason Homer is so appealing to us is because he is Everyman, at his worst. Whenever he does something I either have done it, thought about doing it or know someone who did it.

Re:Everyman (4, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435762)

Simultaneously, at least during the golden years of the series, Homer, while not very bright, was portrayed as being a loving father who wanted to do the right by his family, even if he didn't always know how to. "And Maggie Makes Three" is the absolute perfect example of this (and is one of my favorite episodes of the series as a consequence), but there are a many others.

As such, we can related to him on multiple levels, as he exemplifies both the best and the worst of people.

Re:Everyman (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438628)

That is actually a good and interesting point. That it was once about the struggle about a far from perfect man, to do the best he can... and even when it’s usually more a catastrophe that is then averted, I can still understand (it makes sense in the story universe) why Marge loves him. :)

Re:Everyman (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435788)

Yes! Bring on the ob. Simpsons references!

Re:Everyman (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436140)

The reason Homer is so appealing to us is because he is Everyman, at his worst. Whenever he does something I either have done it, thought about doing it or know someone who did it.

So appalling to us, I hope you mean. As a fat IT guy, I bore more than a passing resemblance to Michael Moore which I did not mind but I also looked a bit like Peter Griffin which I found disturbing. I like Moore's politics but hate Peter's stupidity. If there's any Family Guy character I'd rather be called similar to, it would be Brian! Getting told I looked like Peter was the final straw and I started going to the gym. Down 51 lbs now. Now I don't look like either of 'em. Now people say I look like the slimmer Ricky Gervais which is an improvement I hope! Just say to Mt. Dew and yes to sweating your arse off.

Re:Everyman (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436274)

That was the case, back in the 90s. Then they ran out of normal stuff for Homer to do and sent him on all sorts of wacky adventures.

Re:Everyman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32436484)

You punched former president Bush? Awesome...l

Re:Everyman (1)

14erCleaner (745600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437114)

Yes, I too have often thought about climbing the Murderhorn and sledding down on the frozen body of the guy my Grandpa cannibalized. Gee, I thought it was just me...

Re:Everyman (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438332)

The reason Homer is so appealing to us is because he is Everyman, at his worst.

Yes exactly! I think also because although he does let his desires lead him, his love for his family conquers all.

Re:Everyman (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438598)

So your point is, that you like him, because he shows you how much of an epic failure you are? ;)

I haven’t done all that dumb stuff. I’m proud of it. And yes, that makes me better than Homer.
(Now please keep down the crab mentality. It is not right to hate people who did not fail. Any you are not entitled to a part of their success. It’s right though, to hate people who want to take and not give something back. Like for example those who want others to give them something of their success without offering any value.)

Unfair for the rest (1)

adeft (1805910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435700)

Upon haphazardly compiling a potential list for this I thought: "All right, brain, I don't like you and you don't like me - so let's just do this and I'll get back to killing you with beer."

DOH! (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32435900)

Homer: Ohhhh! Why Me?
Marge: Homey, it's a great accomplishment.
Homer: Will I get donuts? mmmmmmm Donuts mmmmmmmmmm
Marge: No, but you're more entertaining than Peter Griffen.
Homer: Whoo Hoo!

Bollocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32435974)

Surveys are meaningless. The greatest TV character is obviously Dr. Who.

I find Homer's character to be... (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436028)

I find Homer's character to be too two dimensional... He lacks depth.

But seriously, I have mixed feelings about that choice. Let me say that I could see Homer being the tops of many notable lists; he is *a* great character. He's a little bit Everyman, and a little bit of satire of the "Everyotherman" (if I may be allowed to invent a word here... It's perfectly cromulent!)

However, It just seems a bit superficial to me to say the greatest character of TV or Film in 20 years. There are so many great characters from TV and film that really do have tremendous depth of character, but just aren't as ubiquitous as Homer. Perhaps I just don't know how I feel about the designation of "Greatest".

But on the other hand... I am just merely questioning it, not outright disputing it. I really don't know how I feel about it.

... which makes a perfect occasion... (1)

Alien1024 (1742918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436266)

... to celebrate with beer, naturally. *Heading for the fridge*

I don't get it. (1)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436420)

I have tried to watch the Simpsons twice. It was so mind-numbingly stupid I couldn't stand to watch more then ten minutes combined. I am willing to admit that perhaps I chose the wrong ten minutes to watch, but one scene (back within the first 3 seasons) had Bart being rude in school, and the other had Homer chasing something (a doughnut??) through traffic.

IMHO Bugs Bunny had more wit and style.

What is the best episode to watch that might convince me it is worth the effort?

Re:I don't get it. (1)

Gabrosin (1688194) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436696)

Monorail.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436884)

ok thanks. I'll give it a try.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

mycroft822 (822167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437312)

I really like some of the Treehouse of Horror episodes. Episodes 5 and 7 are probably my favorites, because of "The Shinning" and "Citizen Kang".

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32437542)

Yes, you are SO cool. You hate what everyone else like. Yea you.

Harry Potter was not created for film anyway (1)

Goodgerster (904325) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436662)

Look, kids --- I have here the amazing piece of technology for which Harry Potter was created. It's like an ebook, but it's made of paper!

Special Agent Dale Cooper (1)

HairyNevus (992803) | more than 4 years ago | (#32436794)

As much as I grew up with The Simpson's, Twin Peaks' main character is by far greater than Homer Jay Simpson. Unless there's a secret contingent of David Lynch fans around, I've an impossible battle to win trying to convince anyone...so I won't try more than just bitching that Agent Dale Cooper is the best character every made, and Harry Potter and Buffy shouldn't even be mentioned as runner-ups in such a list.

Re:Special Agent Dale Cooper (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437046)

Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_8z7zLxk1g [youtube.com]

I've just started watching Twin Peaks, but the few other Lynch works I know are excellent. Loved Mulholland Dr.

It's Funny Because It's True (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32437568)

Never play a game you can't win, son.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?