I should add, ALL the fox animated shows are guilty of this.

Hmm. Kinda. the difference is that Disney aim for *super fluid* motion. The Simpsons is stiff character design mixed with stiff motion, so its the worst of both worlds

I try not to - its horrible!

FYI: in addition to simpsons tide, The other 3 Al Jean and Mike Reiss showran after leaving their fulltime showrunner posts are: lisas sax (S9), the mary poppins parody (S8), and the x files one (S8). After this Reiss stayed on as a 1-day-a-week consultant, while Jean rejoined the writers staff fulltime until S13…

Gotta take issue with that "theres not as much to bart" line in the review. They seemed to have no problem making solid bart character episodes in the first 9 years.

I wasnt even *really* thinking about it and thats how I felt

I still find it unfathomable anyone ever wanted to see Bob kill Bart. I'm aware many did but I still find it odd since Bart was, for years, a very likable and well rounded character who we rooted for. True, the Bart being killed here is the mediocre thing he's been written as the past dozen of so years, but it didn't…

noted.

I completely agree. They lost track of Bart entirely around this time. He really doesn't have much of a presence for the next few seasons either - becoming either Homer's straight man sidekick, or a little jerkass with no emotional life. Its not any better in recent years either, when they just write him as an evil…

"…how little investment the show seems to have in Bart’s emotional life these days"

I have no problem with them dropping a previous story point for the sake of a new episode. It was just the two conflated concepts in your example that I disagreed with. I agree (moreorless) with the heart of your argument though. They are in a bit of catch 22 situation, but while think the show's current standard is…

Yes. I can't be bothered to look up all of them but theres one where they go to Branson and Marge wants to gamble, and the season 11 horse racing one brings it up. David Mirkin, in the the DVD commentary for the episode inwhich she first gets a gambling addiction, notes its still a background thing in her character

Theres a difference between calling back to a stand alone joke and calling back to a recurring character trait