This is a talk page, where you can send messages and comments about the page for Charles Montgomery Burns.
Burns' and Smithers' relationship
This page and the one for Smithers say that Mr. Burns raised him or took him as a foster son, and I see no evidence of this in the show. All we can glean from season 13's The Blunder Years is that he held Smithers Jr. as an infant when his father went to fix the reactor. In season 3's Homer Defined, Smithers mentions writing to his mother, so we know that his father dying didn't make him an orphan, and that he has a relationship with and presumably grew up with his mother.
For that matter, it's apparent that neither man views their relationship as paternal - Burns viewing Smithers as an employee and companion, and Smithers viewing him as a boss and love interest. 126.96.36.199 10:21, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
I think we should combine this page with "Charles Montgomery Burns," depending on which name we want the article to go by. -- Thai420 15:37, May 27, 2006 (UTC)
According to episode 1304 (http://wtso.net/movie/52-The%20Simpsons%201304%20A%20Hunka%20Hunka%20Burns%20in%20Love.html - at about 8:20), Mr. Burns is 104. -- 188.8.131.52 2:05, May 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but more recent episodes are usually more correct. Dohayecarumbadoh 17:34, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
- It is possible that not even Mr. Burns knows his real age. -- Terry12fins24 (talk) 9:29, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't Burns have alot more siblings than what is list i mean what about the ones in the photo from the episode double double boy in trouble? -- Firelord jay 20:03, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
- Probably but they are unnamed. -- 184.108.40.206 20:09, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
- His native brother is George Burns. When Mr. Burns left his native family with a "loveless billionaire", he had many siblings in his new family, but they all died. This could be the reason why Mr. Burns seems to be the only child in many episodes. By the way, there are already pages for his siblings on the wiki. -- Terry12fins24 (talk) 9:27, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Simpsons fans, I have a dire problem.
The current name of this page is INCORRECT, and I have proof. I have a VHS including several different Simpsons episodes, with one containing the evidence I need. The real name of this character is "Seymour Monty Burns" as listed in one of the episodes on my VHS. I am going to require we edit this page posthaste and things might end up okay. SeymoreMontyBurnsFan5 (talk) 00:38, February 12, 2019 (UTC)
Alright then. Maybe you'd like to present such a VHS to us all so then we can settle if Mr. Burns' first real name is Seymour.
All right then, keep your secrets. sorry couldn't resist. this is something i'll bring up to Al Jean on twitter so he can have a laugh with the rest of the gang. This is like steamed hams material. SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYMOOOOOUR BUUUUURNS! LetsPlayNintendoITA 00:53, February 12, 2019 (UTC)
Since someone had an issue with my edit of Burns's character summary, it seems I have to take the issue here. The description of Burns as the series "Main Antagonist" is by my judgment, shaky at best, for the following reasons:
1. Character Evolution
The descriptor would have had more sticking power during the golden age of the series, when Burns's primary role was to antagonize the town and the Simpsons family. He did, however, have other roles by nature of being the town's richest person and Homer's boss, as seen in Homer at the Bat , Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk, $pringfield (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling), and Homer the Smithers. Now episodes where Burns is not an obstacle to the protagonists are the norm instead of the exception. Episodes like Fraudcast News are outnumbered by A Hunka Hunka Burns in Love , Monty Can't Buy Me Love, and The Fool Monty. Even episodes where he is opposing one or more of the Simpsons in some way, such as The Burns and the Bees and Friends and Family , his antagonism is either less central to the plot, or balanced by a focus on him as his own character. Burns has become more of a joke than an actual threat, and even if he does occasionally qualify as one, it no longer defines his character or role as it once did.
2. Lack of Primacy
The nature of the TV Series as an episodic comedy with a large, rotating cast means that there is less opportunity for any single character to dominate the role of "antagonist." Mr. Burns would not only have to be more consistantly antagonistic, he would have to undisputedly be the most consistant antagonist of the series. For example, where Burns goes back and forth between supporting cast member and antagonist, Sideshow Bob is an antagonist by default.
3. Absolute Implication
Keeping the past two reasons in mind, we go to the wording of "the main antagonist." It is an absolute statement, with connotations of being an unquestionable judgment. To make such a judgement requires not only a preponderance of evidence, but evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as it would simply be better to er on the side of accuracy instead of .ostentatiousness.
"Occasional antagonist" sums up how Burns can be, but is not necessarily, an oppressive influence on the main characters of the series.
I welcome any other perspectives on this matter. Thank you.