9
‘The Simpsons’ Surprise: Apu Is Heard for the First Time in Nearly a Decade, as Sunil Malhotra Takes Over for Hank Azaria (variety.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/tv_film@adultswim.fan
comment fedilink hide all child comments
 

“The Simpsons” has pulled off its own October surprise: Apu Nahasapeemapetilon is back. The fan favorite character finally spoke again for the first time in nearly a decade on Sunday night’s episode, “The Revengening.” Variety has exclusively learned who is behind Apu’s new voice: actor and voice-over vet Sunil Malhotra (“Grey’s Anatomy,” “The Legend of Korra”).

Malhotra’s hiring and the return of Apu — who has been seen, but not heard on “The Simpsons” since the October 2017 episode “The Serfsons” — was a closely guarded secret inside “The Simpsons” universe.

Also heard on Sunday’s episode was the debut of Janina Gavankar (“The Morning Show”) as Apu’s wife, Manjula.

Hank Azaria previously voiced Apu, a character that has been controversial over the years due to its stereotypical portrayal of a South Asian convenience store clerk. The issue of Apu was the centerpiece of the 2017 documentary “The Problem With Apu,” in which comedian Hari Kondabolu discussed the impact the character has had on people of South Asian descent.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
25 comments in c/television@piefed.social view that post
[–] 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

I haven't seen the new episode yet and stopped reading the article once it got into spoiler territory, but I'm looking forward to seeing how Apu is played going forward.

In season 32 Carl (of Lenny and Carl fame) changed voice actors and while it took a little while for the new voice actor (Alex Désert) to figure out the voice and the character nowadays he does a solid job of playing Carl.

Also in season 32 Dr. Hibbert changed voice actors and while the new voice actor Kevin Michael Richardson is an excellent voice actor, he is a terrible Dr. Hibbert. But, he's made the character his own. He's a sillier character. Honestly if he were a new character he'd fit in well, but after 30+ seasons of Dr. Hibbert the new Hibbert just feels odd.

While on the subject, in season 32 Megan Mullally began to voice Sarah Wiggum and portrayed her wildly different from her previous appearances. She didn't have as much of a character historically, but the shift was still odd.

Also in season 36 Pamela Hayden retired and her characters, Milhouse, Jimbo & Rod Flanders all got new voice actors while keeping the same basic character.

The article discusses not wanting Apu to be a stereotype, but I hope he's still Apu. The same Apu we've known for 30+ years. (Same for his wife Manjula.)

Edit: Having seen the episode I would say Apu is still Apu. He sounds different and it's definitely an adjustment, but the character seems to remain true to themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago

    Yea, Apu's character was only sorta' using the classic stereotypes to provide ground for them to work with. IMO, they did a good job making him more than the stereotypes, and did well to make him far more than a punching bag for those stereotypes. That's a pretty good job for a 'raunchy' (remember how churchy types viewed it in the 90s? ha) funny cartoon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 33 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

    The original voice actors were (and are) crazy-talented. I think most of Apu's portrayals were positive and handled well. The only problem is that it's an Indian man being voiced by a white dude. Despite not watching The Simpsons for well over a decade now, I think this is a positive change, and I might even try to figure out how to watch this episode!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    It seems a little discriminatory to say only some people can play some characters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 3 weeks ago* (4 children)

    I can understand the sentiment. It seems weird. Though it's far less about doing art "correctly" and more about actually hiring minorities for roles that are aping off of their uniqueness. Similar to how Warwick Davis was complaining about Disney not using real little people for the real life Snow White. A lot of people misconstrued his complaints, but he just wants little people actors to have jobs and not have to scrounge around and struggle for work and end up exploited.

    Also similar to people complaining about Tom Cruise starring in Digger. Piles of makeup just to make him look old and frumpy. They could've saved millions and not paid scientology and had an actual old frumpy actor do the role, which would've been infinitely better than Cruise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    So I'm not sure the Digger argument really makes sense.

    Without spoiling the film any actor who played the role of Digger was going to have to wear a bunch of makeup to look old and frumpy. The makeup is important to the film, so even someone who was old and frumpy would still wear makeup to look different. It's not a hard requirement, but it would definitely change the film without it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children)

    Are you claiming there are no old and frumpy actors in Hollywood? Really?

    The point is they wouldn't have had to go as far and spend as much and gotten a better result. Both on and off screen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    No, not at all. My point is that even if the film had starred an old and frumpy actor, then would have still needed to apply a bunch of makeup. The character being in makeup is part of the character.

    Spoilers for DiggerTom Cruise is playing a character named "Curtis Markson" in the film. That character is in a satirical stage play where he plays "Digger Rockwell". The reveal that the film is actually a stage play is a surprise that occurs about 20 minutes into the film.

    There are a number of hints in the first 20 minutes. For example the opening of the film has a "curtains rise" that in the moment feels like a stylistic choice. Another is an obviously robotic cat. Another is when we're seeing characters move about the house and enter the scene the building layout doesn't really make sense with characters playing with doorways. And finally the fact that Tom Cruise is heavily done up in makeup.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago

    OK? That's still only one of three points. Do you think it's totally fine to pay a scientologist? Do you think it's totally fine to give even more money to an extremely popular and wealthy star instead of literally anyone else capable of the job?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    That's not how discrimination works. Anyone can play Apu (it's obviously not illegal or banned by the company or anything), but it could be problematic. Think of an impressionable young South Asian kid watching the Simpsons and listening to a white dude with a thick fake accent pretending to "represent" him. And if you're okay with that, what's wrong with looking the part in filmed TV/movies? Then it's blackface again with white men used to exclude and stereotype other races and nationalities...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    Okay, but still not gonna watch this zombie show.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    This is like going back to the village where you grew up and everyone is still there but puffy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    It totally made sense at the beginning of The Simpsons to have ~8 people doing dozen of voices each.

    They probably could have gotten around paying the core group as much if they had split the voice into more actors so they didn't have such power to demand hundreds of thousands an episode. Greed though is how Hollywood works.

    They should have done this sooner but probably thought it wouldn't look bad by waiting a decade so people don't have a recent comparison.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    Nah, they've replaced other characters' voices with much less down time. I think it's more of just the world moving past the whole cancel culture crap some people were getting way too into. Certain groups were hating on Apu hard, and the only semi-valid critique they had was he's voiced by a now famous white guy doing a cliche voice.

    Also, don't some of the unions stipulate that minorities should be voiced by the appropriate minority? Not for cancel culture BS, but because they're sick of having roles go to established famous people instead of the thousands of more than qualified individuals. (and then King of the Hill hired Ronny Chieng to voice Kahn Souphanousinphone which was quite the whiplash lol)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    and then King of the Hill hired Ronny Chieng to voice Kahn Souphanousinphone

    Which is interesting because Ronny Chieng was born in Malaysia and per Wikipedia was born into a Malaysian Chinese family. However Kahn is famously Laotian. Is Ronny Chieng the appropriate minority? Should a Laotian voice actor be playing the role?

    Also let's look at the recent Lanterns TV show where Aaron Pierre, a British actor, plays John Stewart who is from America. Should British actors play Americans?

    Or what about when John Lithgow, from upstate New York, played British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in The Crown. Should American actors play British?

    I think it's a complex subject.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    It is a complex subject, though I think they have a decent place right now: Try to force Hollywood to stop white-washing everything and stop paying only famous majorities for minority roles.

    US vs UK is a bit silly of an argument, because what problem would you be solving by banning crossover there? There are huge actors from both places, and "crossing the pond" is kinda' a legitimate physical limitation vs simply not hiring minorities that are already in Hollywood.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    To start, I want to be clear I have zero issues with the characters Aaron Pierre has played. He's a talented actor and from the interviews I've seen a wonderful person.

    Aaron Pierre, per Wikipedia, was born in London. His mother is from Jamaica, and he has Curaçaoan and Sierra Leonean heritage on his father’s side.

    His acting history includes playing Malcolm X and in the case of Lanterns John Stewart who's character history and in the show Lanterns deals with being a black American. Aaron Pierre is not a black American, should a black American have played those roles? A black American and a black Briton are both black and both minorities, but they're not interchangeable.

    To extend further, can someone who is Chinese play a Japanese character, or a Korean character because they're all Asian?

    To bring everything full circle, Hank Azaria was born in Queens, NYC. Per Wikipedia, "his paternal grandparents were Sephardic Jews from Salonika and Smyrna. His paternal grandfather... came from Salonika which was then in the Ottoman Empire, today the Greek city of Thessaloniki in Greek Macedonia. His paternal grandmother... was born in Bergama, modern-day Turkey (Izmir Province)."

    Hank Azaria previously voiced Apu, Carl, Lou, Bumblebee Man, & Doctor Nick. Hank Azaria continues to voice Italian characters Luigi, Legs and Johnny Tightlips. Hank Azaria is not Italian. Should he continue to voice those characters?

    Voice actors and traditional actors can and do play a wide variety of roles. I think expanding who has access to roles is a positive thing. At the same time I think we should give actors the freedom to act, even if they don't "fit" the role.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    You are really trying to hate on this idea...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I'm really not trying to hate.

    I'm just trying to look at it as a complex issue. I don't think there are simple lines to be drawn. I'm also not asking you for a definitive answer, so I apologize if that's how it feels, that's not my intention. I'm asking questions that I think are worth considering, and I could reasonably argue both for and against.

    And I think voice acting is extra interesting. You don't have to put prosthetics or makeup to change your voice. Bart Simpson is voiced by a woman. On Bob's Burgers Tina Belcher is voiced by a man. The late great James Earl Jones voiced Darth Vader. The titular character of Samurai Jack, a Japanese samurai, is voiced by Phil LaMarr a black American.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    Yea, I think whatever is totally fine in voice acting, so long as they are not being weird and just hiring a bunch of big names to get them on the poster board. I know I know, it happens a lot, and it's not exactly something you could write a law over (without collateral damage anyways). It's just super lame when they do it, IMO.

    Would still definitely prefer native people of certain ethnicities to represent the character, like Apu, but that's because I'd rather they get paid for the representation on screen, and I'd rather media contain accurate things and not go back to shitty fake accents.

    If it's a situation like Tina and the mom, I'd say that's more of a creative choice than a representation thing. I'd rather IRL minorities get a job for a normal character than some big name person that doesn't need the job.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] -2 points 3 weeks ago

    Too little, too late.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    8 comments in c/thesimpsons@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 37 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    The Simpsons is full of characters based on stereotypes:

    Fat Tony and Luigi Risotto - Italians

    Groundskeeper Willie - Scottish

    Bumblebee Man - Spanish

    Akira - Japanese

    Cookie Kwan - Asian

    Üter Zörker - German

    Dr. Julius Hibbert and Lou - African American

    Cletus Spuckler - Rural white American

    Yet out all of these, people just decided to get mad over Apu for no reason even though he's been a beloved character for decades and Hank Azaria being a very well liked and respected voice actor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago

    people just decided to get mad over Apu for no reason

    He was presented as hard working, smarter than the average character.

    • He graduated first in his class out of seven million students at the Calcutta Institute of Technology (Caltech) before moving to the United States.

    • Doctorate Institution: He earned his Ph.D. from the Springfield Heights Institute of Technology.

    • Thesis Project: His doctoral dissertation took nine years to complete and consisted of 200,000 precisely ordered punch cards that ran the world's first computer program for tic-tac-toe.

    Some assholes tried to cancel Azaria.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    Did "people" get mad over Apu for no reason or did the producers get mad over Apu for no reason

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago

    Some failed comedian made a "documentary" called 'The Trouble with Apu'. Basically a bunch of people whining that they got goofed on when they were kids with 'Thank you, come again". It's always a failed comedian, isn't it? Stay tuned for my doc on Lucky Charms cereal. Gonna get my 15 min from General Mills, baby!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Porque no los dos?

    You know how those rich and powerful goons cowtow to the slightest whining that they think might result in less money for them. Just look at all that BS that came from those Aussie religious conservative nuts making a bunch of threats to corporations about smutty games... Tiny but NOISY, and rich spineless greedy fucks gave in with minimal effort.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Well put. Also nice to see fedinsfw is federating properly now, is that new or have I had my head under a rock?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    No idea. IIRC, things don't federate automatically. People from the instance have to sub to things from other instances for them to actually send posts over and stuff. Though chat and other things always work if they're not defederated?

    So, maybe it's that people from other instances subbed to nsfw comms, and vice-versa by now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •