> “It feels clearly the only choice to make,” Simpsons executive producer James L. Brooks told The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the news.

No, it's not the "only choice to make". It's an easy BS choice to avoid some BS posts on social media feigning moral outrage for a couple of weeks.

Whether MJ has a pedophile or not, and I'm pretty convinced he was, taking down a piece of work that featured him is BS.

This is not a criminal episode. It's just an episode that happens to have a criminal (not even actually confirmed by a court, but let's brush that aside, even that: presumption of innocence is important too).

What is this moral panic BS? Are we to take down all art made by criminals or people who hurt others, stole, killed, raped, etc? Does what MJ did makes "Bad" or this episode of Simpsons any less good? Tons of great works have been created by less than savory, all the way to downright criminal, people. What does that have to do with the value of the work? Especially if dozens of other people contributed to the same work?

Company executives should grow some balls and stop caving to the first BS demands of angry twitter mobs...

> If you're not well versed in the technical side of filmmaking it can severely distract from the story. That's how I feel about bad stabilization.

That's because you're "well versed in the technical side of filmmaking".

Few regular viewers will even notice anything wrong, or care...

Which no viewer will ever care about since the subject and the content is great -- besides no one will even notice...

Basically both videos (the generic announcement and the one about video/n-log) look very crudely and cheaply made. Terrible direction, bad acting, cheap overused 3D graphics, etc. Very poor quality stuff...

Yes

> They all look pretty digital

A, the old wives tale that will not die...