MovieChat Forums > The Simpsons (1989) Discussion > Leaving Neverland prompts The Simpsons t...

Leaving Neverland prompts The Simpsons to pull the episode featuring Michael Jackson's voice

posted 5 years ago by TMC-4 (19435)
29 replies | jump to latest

https://www.wsj.com/articles/simpsons-episode-featuring-michael-jacksons-voice-to-be-pulled-11552007802

It was just six months ago that Matt Groening confirmed a long-standing rumor that Jackson lent his voice to The Simpsons' 1991 Season 3 episode "Stark Raving Dad." Now Groening and his fellow producers having decided to pull the episode from circulation following the sexual abuse allegations in HBO's Leaving Neverland. “It feels clearly the only choice to make,” Groening's fellow Simpsons co-creator James L. Brooks told The Wall Street Journal of the joint decision. “The guys I work with — where we spend our lives arguing over jokes — were of one mind on this." Showrunner Al Jean, reached by email, told Variety: “I agree with Jim, nothing else to add.” Jackson voiced the role of Leon Kompowsky, a man whom Homer Simpsons meets in a mental institution who believes he's Michael Jackson. Last August, Groening finally confirmed Jackson's involvement, telling Australia's The Weekly: “We really did have him." Groening added that Jackson called him out of the blue one night and asked for a cameo. Groening said he assumed it was a prank call because he had "a voice that sounds like somebody doing a Michael Jackson bit.”

[–] darkpast (8068) 5 years ago

proved innocent means you are guilty

[–] Threadkiller (2954) 5 years ago

Especially when black. Brings back memories of the good old street lynching mob days.
Guilty upon accusation even years after you're dead.

[–] L1 (1316) 5 years ago

FUCK OFF

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Do you speak to all black people that way L1?

[–] L1 (1316) 5 years ago

Lol

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

Look at Bill Cosby

[–] TMC-4 (19435) 5 years ago

The Simpsons boss thinks Michael Jackson used the show to "groom boys"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-simpsons-boss-al-jean-michael-jackson-used-the-show-to-groom-boys

In a wide-ranging interview with The Daily Beast, longtime Simpsons showrunner Al Jean discusses everything from the Disney merger to satirizing President Trump. Jean also addresses last week's joint decisions by The Simpsons creators and producers to yank the Season 3 "Stark Raving Dad" episode featuring the King of Pop's voice. "Yes. It wasn’t something that makes me happy," Jean says of pulling the episode. "It’s something I agree with completely. What saddens me is, if you watch that (Leaving Neverland) documentary—which I did, and several of us here did—and you watch that episode, honestly, it looks like the episode was used by Michael Jackson for something other than what we’d intended it. It wasn’t just a comedy to him, it was something that was used as a tool. And I strongly believe that. That, to me, is my belief, and it’s why I think removing it is appropriate. I lose a little bit of money financially, it’s not something that’s great personally to lose one of the most successful things I ever did, but I totally think it’s the right move. I don’t believe in going through and making judgments on every guest star and saying 'this one was bad, that one was bad,' but the episode itself has a false purpose, and that’s what I object to about it now." Asked to specify the false purpose, Jean responds: "I think it was part of what he used to groom boys. I really don’t know, and I should be very careful because this is not something I know personally, but as far as what I think, that’s what I think. And that makes me very, very sad."

[–] TMC-4 (19435) 5 years ago

It's a shame that a great episode of The Simpsons was pulled because it features Michael Jackson's voice
https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/the-simpsons-michael-jackson-episode.html

The 1991 season premiere episode that producers pulled from circulation in response to Leaving Neverland is still worth watching, says Jen Chaney. "I understand the impulse, especially given the tenor of the episode and the Jackson-focused nature of it," says Chaney. "But the loss of 'Stark Raving Dad' makes me sad, not just because it’s a great episode of The Simpsons, one that’s funny and genuinely touching, but also because it’s especially interesting to watch in light of Leaving Neverland." Chaney adds: "What’s most fascinating about the episode is that Michael Jackson isn’t really playing Michael Jackson. At the end of the episode, the 'big, fat, white mental patient,' as Bart calls him, admits that he’s actually a bricklayer named Leon Kompowsky and reverts to his gravelly, vaguely New York–ishly accented voice provided by Simpsons regular Hank Azaria...In other words, this imposing, unhappy man seemed kind of scary until he started convincing himself and others that he was Michael Jackson. Because who could be afraid of Michael Jackson? And wouldn’t the world be a better place if everyone could be like him? The way that 'Stark Raving Dad' so casually accepts that as truth is a reflection of how Jackson was regarded at that point. He was considered a gentle man and an odd one, for sure, but still a hero and an icon."

[–] earl237 (1106) 5 years ago

This is just self-righteous virtue signalling. Very disappointing, The Simpsons used to be edgy and subversive, now they've caved to annoying PC and SJW types. Will they pull every episode that has a guest star who has a dark side? There's the Mel Gibson episode, The Rolling Stones episode because Elvis Costello made racial slurs in 1979, the Mr. Bergstrom episode because Dustin Hoffman was accused of sexual harassment, very dubious claims.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Oh god another dittohead snowflake whining and moaning about "PC" and "SJW." Seriously, you bitchy little girls are all over this site, complaining CONSTANTLY.

You guys do something far worse than what you hate (other than constantly complaining), which is tough to state directly because "invirtue" is not a word. So I'll go with vice -- You guys do "Vice Signaling" to each other.

It's amazing the projection you guys engage in. You call others snowflakes to obscure the fact that YOU are the truly reactionary ones constantly complaining. You say "triggered" to obscure the fact that YOU are the ones getting triggered over the tiniest thing you disagree with.

You are everything you hate... Except far worse. You don't even have a platform, you've just become an "anti," controlled by negativity.

Good job there, bucko. Keep it up.

[–] abigolcwock (517) 5 years ago

?

He's just annoyed that today's culture can't separate the art from the artist. Especially in a scenario like this where MJ didn't even create the episode. He's just a voice in it. If he actually was a predator, I got nothing against people not playing his music in public places (although I don't really care for it anyway).

But this is one of Simpson's best episodes and it's wrong on so many levels to pull it. A dangerous precedent set being one of them.

[–] strntz (10882) 5 years ago

But this is one of Simpson's best episodes and it's wrong on so many levels to pull it. A dangerous precedent set being one of them.

Snowflakes have no compunction about censoring anything that is hateful (that means anything they don't agree with or don't like because it triggers them). Censorship is the hallmark of the left.

[–] TheEngineer (199) 5 years ago

You are a very sad little ball of neuroses. Projecting your zealotry onto others will not absolve you of it.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Blah blah blah joke account posting randomness.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

I wish I had written this. Good on you ! Sincerely.

[–] strntz (10882) 5 years ago

Cheezus H Rice.

It never freaking ends.

Earl above has it dead on right. This is virtue signalling at it's worst. Liberals falling over themselves trying to prove their enlightenment while all they're doing is proving is that they are intolerant.

Was Jackson a perv? Maybe. Even probably. But even if he was, they want to expunge every tiny bit of his existence? What's next I wonder? Are brown shirts going to be smashing your iphone if you're listening to Michael Jackson in public?

Still, Hollyweird has no issue with Roman Polanski, a KNOWN and PROVEN child rapist. Why don't we ban any and all showings of his films?

I really wish they would just cancel the show and end it's misery.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Simpsons has always leaned toward liberal values and socially conscious issues.

Simpsons producers have no control over the various rights to Polanski films.

Hollywood is not a single minded thing nor is it centralized.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

Roman Polanski? I'll bet half the people here don't even know who RP is and have never seen any of his movies. Just 'cause some underage chick wanted to have sex with him - and he was a lot younger back then - we have to keep bringing him up? How about Richard III? Killed his nephews. Lets boil that kettle now, huh?

[–] BillySlater (4108) 5 years ago

He was a 43 year old man who sodomized a 13 year old. Him being "a lot younger back then" doesn´t make what he did any less abhorrent. Where does it say anywhere that this chick "wanted to have sex with him"? Pretty sure she has said she was coerced and repeatedly said no, in any case there is a reason for the age of consent existing. The reason RP is consistently brought up is to exemplify the blatant hypocrisy in Hollywood.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

I never took the time to learn the details and i don't think about it now. I think this is for people with an agenda to follow. It's extremely convenient to keep bringing this up when it suits your purpose. For everyone else it's very old news and not many see RP's personal life as something to aspire to. But if you enjoy pondering sex between a 43 yo and a 13 yo, I guess that's your thing.

[–] BillySlater (4108) 5 years ago

So if you don´t know the facts, why even bother commenting instead of making yourself look like an ignoramus? Knowing facts about a very-well known case doesn´t mean I enjoy pondering paedophilia. I already made it clear, how abhorrent I thought his crime was. That´s like saying you fantasize about genocide because you know about the holocaust. What idiotic logic.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

Sorry, but you want to obsess over something that happened forever ago just to make some oblique comment about Hollywood, and this ignoramus doesn't. Thanks for the props, bro. I'll remove you from my Rolodex.

[–] BillySlater (4108) 5 years ago

Yes Im obsessed because I know something about Polanski in a thread about alleged paedophilia. What an obsession! smh

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

They now need to retrieve every copy of "Do the Bartman", the hit MTV-nominated song, that was ever sold and burn them all in a public bonfire. That's the only way we can be 100% sure that the people behind The Simpsons are not condoning child sex abuse.

[–] strntz (10882) 5 years ago

I agree with you (that's a first!).

I would feel **much** better if every hard and digital copy was destroyed, plus Songs In the Key Of Springfield (which featured a Jackson penned song). Since the song, video, and album were also sold, every penny that the owners of the Simpson brand made should be returned to those that request a refund with the balance of the unclaimed monies going to charity.

Every penny.

[–] sut6432 (2835) 5 years ago

Thankfully I have the episode on DVD, and can watch it whenever I want.

It's a slippery slope when you start banning episodes because someone involved possibly has a dark past.

With all of the Simpsons guest voices over the years who turned out to be creeps, I guess they'll be banning a hell of a lot more episodes in the future.

Seasons 1-8 are all I need of The Simpsons. I think most people agree the show is unfortunately terrible now, and has been for a long time.

Also, I hate to say this, because he was my favorite when I was a little kid, but I think Michael Jackson is guilty as it gets after watching that documentary. I still don't think the episode should be banned though.

[–] TMC-4 (19435) 5 years ago

The Mel Gibson episode is one that comes to mind! In that episode, he's looked at as this amazing person, and not too long after would that whole ball of bigotry would be unraveled.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FunnyAneurysmMoment/TheSimpsons

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

I don't condone bigotry in any way, and I don't even like Mel G all that much, but sometimes I feel it's unfair his career was somewhat derailed by a stupid traffic stop and some drunken rant. Hell, his best movies were made with Danny Glover. Maybe his problem was with Jews, I don't remember, but he was probably stoned and talking shit. People are allowed to have personal feelings, am I wrong?

[–] Furienna (3322) 5 years ago

Also, I hate to say this, because he was my favorite when I was a little kid, but I think Michael Jackson is guilty as it gets after watching that documentary.

Seriously, why? Those guys are just filthy liars, who have spent years trying to scam money from MJ's estate.