User talk:Tremelo

David Mirkin

I don't really understand your point. I'm aware Mirkin receives the sole "Created by" credit, but both he and Brown were credited as writers and producers, so what is wrong with that? The way you put relegates Brown's role to merely the star, which she wasn't. The show was only made because she and Mirkin decided to make it. Gran² 18:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Mirkin created and sold the show to Fox without Brown. NBC then asked him to do it there and add Brown." Do you have a source for this? Because all the ones used in the article say that Brown and Mirkin created The Julie Brown Show for NBC; NBC then asked "them" to write The Edge, which "they" then took to Fox. "Brown and her writing partner were no more involved than the other writers. Singling her out is unfair to the other writers on the show." Again, do you have a source for this? Every source I've found focuses pretty much solely on Brown so I don't think singling her out is unfair. It certainly is unfair to include Jennifer Aniston in the lead and not Tom Kenny or Wayne Knight, yet you seem to have no problem with that. Gran² 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I still fail to understand your argument, but if you continue to not respond then so be it. It is too minor an issue for me to really care about it. However, I have removed mention of Jennifer Aniston from the lead, for the reason I explained above. Gran² 19:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding "Homer the Great", but I have partially reverted your other edits. 1. "advisory capacity" is a description of his role, which is more informative that whatever his credit is; yes he is a producer, that's pretty meaningless. 2. The Ortved quote remains a valid summary of Mirkin's era, I've added a note about Homer's Barbershop Quartet, but despite that factual inaccuracy it is probably the most accurate description of how Mirkin is perceived that exists in a reliable source 3. If you are quoting Scott "in full" then I suggest you use quote marks so as not to plagarise; I've added the "wild inventiveness part". If you have problems with this version please post them here so we can discuss them fully, the edit summary is not the best place for a discussion. Thanks, Gran² 08:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than aware of what a producer does. This comes from this source written by Bill Oakley, where he states "Other than the episodes he showran, Dave consulted one day per week on Season Seven, usually on the day of the table reading. He would help with the rewrite and pitch new jokes. He also spent some time helping Josh and myself learn the technical side (editing, mixing, etc.) of the job. He was incredibly fun to have around and a very valuable part of the show." Mirkin does not work full-time, "advisory capacity" summarises his job and is far more informative, the word "producer" is not mentioned in any of the sources used relating to this matter. I really would appreciate it if you engaged in a discussion here so we can resolve this issue. Gran² 18:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

1. 'Advisory' is your word and therefore is an opinion which distorts and downgrades Mirkin's contribution. 'Advisory' is vague and could mean anything to anybody where 'writer' and 'producer' have clearer meaning, are understood within the industry and easily researched by others. Oakley says Mirkin wrote on the show which is what a producer does in television. Rewriting and pitching new jokes is not advising, it is writing. Writing is what Oakley mentions. He never uses the word 'advisory'. Mirkin's credits as producer are available on the Simpsons DVDs as well as IMDB and I will happily include these sources relating to this matter if you wish. WGA credits are far from meaningless. They are important and carefully governed. 2. Ortved's quote has a huge factual error in it which destroys his own premise. If Reiss and Jean did a show as reality bending as Mirkin's, then the change he speaks of happened before Mirkin took over. In fact, Reiss and Jean also did "Marge VS The Monorail" which has a similar tone. It is a deeply flawed quote from a deeply flawed book. Surely there must be a better article or book to quote from in such a prominent space. 3. Added the quotes as you suggested. Thanks. Tremelo (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for entering into a discussion. 1. I fail to see how the word 'advisory' downgrades Mirkin's role, seeing as that's clearly what Oakley says he did. He helped and advised them on the technical aspects of showrunning. If any WGA role should be used, surely it should be "consultant" as that is what Oakley describes. He helped with the re-writes, but he was not a full-time staff writer. I don't honestly see what the big deal is about this, but if it is such an issue then I suggest simply removing it all together and saying "and remains on the show". 2. I see your point, but disagree. Ortved is merely relaying the view, near universally agreed by fans, that the Mirkin era of seasons five and six was wackier - that's all he is saying. Yes, Mirkin did not personally produce Homer's Barbershop Quartet and yes in that context "under him" is poor wording on Ortved's part. But it is part of his era, and Ortved's overall point is clear and representative. I see no deep flaw and I see no deep flaw with the book itself; the only people I have ever heard who have a real problem with it are Brooks and Jean. I think the note is adequate. If not, then I think using ellipses to remove mention of HBQ would also work. If neither suffices then a discussion will have to set up on the article talk page to agree wider consensus (and at the same time ruining the article's GAN but whatever). I have found no other sources which do the job of the quote, as I said before, nobody has bothered writing about this show in any official capacity. Perhaps you could find something? Gran² 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Ortved quote is a good addition to the article and does a good job at describing what fans think of Mirkin's tenure. The quote is in no way negative either. But I think we should removed the mention of "Homer's Barbershop Quartet" instead of including a note. As for his current role at The Simpsons, what is he listed as in the closing credits of the new episodes? IMDb says producer so if that's the case then I think we should stick to that. Unless there are any "recent" sources that explain his job? Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but it saddens me that such a poorly written/researched book would be used so prominently. Is Bart getting famous really "bigger" than Homer getting famous and winning a Grammy? It wasn't the story ideas themselves that were more surreal or darker under Mirkin but the moment to moment style in which they were told. I much prefer the quote you found from A.O.Scott who is a much more prominent journalist and reviewer for the New York Times but I think you already have the quote in the perfect place. Just to be clear, it is not poor wording from Ortved, it is a completely inaccurate statement (there are many in the book). Mirkin had nothing to do with "Homer's Barbershop Quartet" even though it aired in season 5. They are 2 different eras. Mirkin's begins with "Rosebud". In a similar way, Season 7 begins with 2 Mirkin episodes so those 2 episodes are part of his era as well. I realize some people use seasons and eras interchangeably but that doesn't make it accurate and we should be striving for accuracy here. Again from Oakley's quote, he never uses the word "advisory". That is your interpretation of what he said and I strongly disagree. Oakley says Mirkin wrote on the show. The amount of time the writer spends on a show is not open to your interpretation of their value to that show. A one-day-a-week writer is often paid almost a full week's salary for that single day simply because they add so much to the show - especially on a table read day because that is usually when the biggest rewrite happens. That one-day-a-week writer can wind up having more material in that episode than the credited writer so there is absolutely no reason not to call that person a writer. The word "advisory" sounds to me, and I'm sure would to others, that he could have made a phone call with some suggestions instead of working a 14 hour day in the writers room. You ask what the big deal about this is. Writer/Producers I know would prefer to be called writers and producers rather than advisors. The Writers Guild of America wants them to be called writers and producers as well no matter how many days they work on a show. Anything less than the credit they have earned is insulting. I think the actual quote from Oakley is lovely and could be used outside the lead to further explain things if you think that would help. Tremelo (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I get the sense you have some authority in this area. Do you work on the show, or know Mirkin? Either way, I don't really get your problem with Ortved's book, unless you know it to be "poorly written/researched" from experiance. When I read it, nothing jumped out as being controversial or really anything I didn't already know and suspect. It has many basic print and factual errors, but a lot of books do. Also, it's really the only source that properly conveys just how much most fans hate what the show has become. You say it is "not poor wording", but how do you know? Surely that's just your interpretation? Mine is the opposite. As said, the overall point he is making is sound, even if as you say his examples are poor and it was more the humour style. This is not a negative quote. I'm not going to re-add it unless there is clear consensus in favour, but I strongly support its inclusion. As said, if you can find something better, please do. As for the advisor issue, I truly don't see the problem with this, it is just my understanding of what Oakley said. I am not trying to belittle anyone's work. If this is such a big deal, and I see that care about proper WGA crediting, then I'm not going to fight it anymore, but let me stress, I see no problem with was there before. Gran² 23:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I do know quite a few writers and have heard Mirkin and other writers speak at several events. I think Ortved giving Mirkin credit for an episode he had nothing to do with is a factual mistake and not simply poor wording. I beleive Ortved thinks "Barbershop" was a Mirkin episode even though with a tiny amount of research he would have found it was not. I find that sloppy and lazy. It also sinks his own argument since he cannot see a difference, story-wise, between a Mirkin and a Reiss & Jean show. There are many other mistakes like that in the book and, where there are that many, I find it hard to really trust anything else in the book. It seems much more full of these errors than similar books I have read but maybe that is just the direction of things quality control-wise. The average Simpsons blogger or website user seems to have greater knowledge and is held to a higher standard. If they were to credit an episode to the wrong showrunner they would have 20 people correcting them within an hour. It's not just me that feels this way about the book - Here are some comments from Amazon: Denise "Du" (Illinois) - "Ortved (and/or his editors) make some pretty glaring mistakes: names of characters are wrong (not just spelling, as in the case of Karl, voiced by Harvey Fierstein in the episode "Simpson and Delilah") but Waylon Smithers is called "Wayland." He doesn't know his Patty from his Selma, and at one point a hilarious spellcheck error occurs where "parody" is the intended word but "parity" is the word used. (I plan to show this one to my students as another reason why they shouldn't place all their trust in spellcheck.) With all these errors, it's hard to trust the author. These mistakes have damaged his credibility, making the fact that there is no context for most of his quotes even harder to take and specious. He places quotes (with no questions and usually no dates attached) in a particular order and manner as if to create conflict and argument between "speakers" when such differing of opinion may or may not exist. For all the reader knows, the words could have been uttered by the speakers ten minutes or ten years apart. For all the reader knows, the quotes were unsolicited rants or grudging responses to leading questions. There is no way to know." Samuel Louis "raisindot" (Natick, MA USA): "Ortved's book is a slapdash, shallow piece of fanboy drivel that demonstrates *why* he's unauthorized. None of the important cast members or producers would talk to him, so he had to rely on magazine and Internet quotes. He does very little to factually reconcile the often conflicting, self-serving credit-snatching and blame-tossing the show's producers and FOX executives serve up in heaping piles. His choice of interview subjects is questionable (why do we care about hearing from production assistance who are grabbing for their little bit of attention? Why do we need Jennifer Tilly, ex-wife of Sam Simon?) The editing is atrocious. The fact-checking is non-existing. The errors are so frequent and outrageous that you have to laugh." I'll wrap this all up with a final rather large Ortved error: He writes "For the first 4 or 5 seasons, Sam Simon's writers room...created the best episodes of the Simpsons..." The fact is Reiss and Jean ran the show for season 4 and Mirkin ran the show for season 5. Simon had completely left the show at the end of Season 4. Ortved then goes on to list Jace Richdale as one of the writers of the original Simpsons room. Jace didn't join the show till season 5 - hired by Mirkin who brought him over from "Get a Life" and "The Edge". Ortved is only 4 years off there. I could go on but you get the idea. When these simple facts, which could so easily be checked by anyone with a nine year olds' computer skills, are so badly mangled, it makes me shudder to think what Ortved must have done with the more nuanced facts and quotes in this book. This, to me, is not a remotely acceptable level of accuracy in a professionally published book that we are asked to pay hard earned money for. I hope a good one comes out in the future. Thanks for your understanding and all your hard work on this article, Gran. Tremelo (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of the article and because of the concern (which I disagree with, but understand, and understand how others could be mislead) you have raised over the quote, I will not add it back and consider this the end of the matter. For the record, while I am not denying the clear mistakes in the book I disagree with your overall assessment and believe overall the book to be reliable; this is my personal view, developed from reading the book, the issues around it, and a conversation with one of Ortved's interviewees. I am glad we could resolve this matter in a fair minded way, which often does not happen here. I hope you stick around and help out with the work we are doing here. Gran² 12:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad too, Gran. Thanks again. Tremelo (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)