The Simpsons, as of this writing, has existed for 37 seasons across 36 years—adding up to nearly 800 episodes, making it the longest-running animated sitcom.

It’s brought us some of the most influential scripted comedy ever, particularly during its early days, when the writers, animators, and voice actors seemed to defy some TV norm in every other episode. They were on fire back then. And they established one particularly unique tradition during Season Two: the Halloween-timed “Treehouse of Horror” episode, which adds a macabre twist to their regular style.

These have never been mere throwaway filler installments. In some ways, the format allows the writers to be even more ambitious, exploring their love of beloved horror/sci-fi anthology series like The Twilight Zone. They also exist in their own (mostly) self-contained universes—therefore not beholden to the canon of the actual show—bending reality while often spoofing classic film and TV staples. It’s become a fan-favorite concept, churning up some legitimately creepy moments.

Just ahead of Halloween, here are six unsettling Simpsons segments that diehards say have stuck with them:

6. “Life’s a Glitch, Then You Die” (1999)

(written by Ron Hauge, directed by Pete Michels)

Ah, the Y2K scare. It’s easy now to look back on this time of tech paranoia with an eye roll, but it was a somewhat disconcerting experience to live through. Everybody tried to brush aside the dire predictions of computer catastrophe, but many of us probably still grimaced when the New Year came, assuming there was indeed a small chance our digital systems would collapse.

This bleakly comic segment expertly plays on that very fear, with Homer Simpson—the “Y2K compliance officer” at the nuclear power plant—forgetting to “debug” the computers. “You did fix them, right, dad?” Lisa asks her bumbling father. “Because even a single faulty unit could corrupt every other computer in the world!”

Homer’s screw-up leads to a hilarious global disaster—though those laughs are laced with disturbing tension. “[T]hat was one of the first episodes I watched,” one Redditor wrote. “Nelson getting stuck in the copy machine creeped me out.” Another added, “[W]atching as a kid, I remember feeling the ending to the Y2K one was funny but also dark and [eerie] just because of the palpable Y2K anxiety among people back then, worrying what was gonna happen to computers everywhere on January 1, 2000.”

5. “Bart Sells His Soul” (1995)

(written by Greg Daniels, directed by Wes Archer)

OK, we’re slightly cheating here—this Season Seven classic is a regular standalone episode, not connected to the “Treehouse” series. But it had to make the cut. When one thread posed the question, “What are genuinely creepy Simpsons episodes?” this was the clear top pick, earning praise for its darkly psychological story.

Bart, enduring a punishment at his church, agrees to sell his soul to pal Milhouse—a decision he later comes to regret. For those of us who search for bad omens and/or torment ourselves over past screw-ups, this scenario may hit close to home.

“That episode is very odd,” one person commented on Reddit, while someone else compared it to The Twilight Zone. It definitely sticks with you.

4. “The Thing and I” (1996)

(written by Ken Keeler, directed by Mike B. Anderson)

Bart and Lisa, bothered by some strange sounds in their house, discover a monster living in the attic. But it’s a special kind of creature—Bart’s evil twin, Hugo, whom their parents have chained away in an effort to keep him away from the public.

Despite the dark storyline, so much of the characters’ behavior is mundane, and that contrast, according to one Redditor, is what makes the segment “extra unsettling.” “The family [acts] SO much like they do in the normal show,” they wrote. “Homer driving around in the rain instead of going to the car wash, Homer’s unsold autobiography, Lisa putting baby booties on the cat, the kids pestering Homer about what happens to nosy kids—just tons of completely typical Simpsons jokes happening around this story about Homer and Marge keeping a secret fourth child chained up in the attic.”

No argument there.

3. “Terror at 5 1/2 Feet” (1993)

(written by Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein, directed by David Silverman)

An overt homage to the classic Twilight Zone episode “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet,” this early segment finds Bart disturbed by a gremlin that seems intent on killing him and his fellow classmates on their school bus. The problem is that, just like with William Shatner’s Twilight Zone character on board a plane, no one else can see this supernatural creature. The tone here is just perfect, balancing the humor of its parody and the genuinely creepy nature of what’s happening on screen.

“For me, it’s the part where the gremlin first sees Bart in the window and smiles,” one Redditor wrote. “Just thinking about it makes me shiver to this day…It’s more about the fact that that’s where you can tell that it isn’t just an animal mindlessly destroying things. It’s intelligent, and it’s enjoying tormenting people and causing fear and pain.”

Another Redditor zeroed in on the scene where the gremlin (spoiler alert) holds onto Ned’s severed head. “I was at least used to some kind of funny closure on the Treehouse of Horror segments,” they wrote. “But that one still stands out for its scariness.”

2. “Nightmare on Evergreen Terrace” (1995)

(written by Steve Tompkins, directed by Bob Anderson)

This Season 7 piece reads like pure nightmare fuel on paper. Logical, given that it’s a parody of A Nightmare on Elm Street, with the reliably hostile Groundskeeper Willie serving as proxy for the diabolical “Freddy” Krueger terrorizing the children of Springfield in their dreams (and, eventually, beyond).

“For me it is the Nightmare on Elm Street parody,” one Redditor wrote, adding that a scene with a “burning Willie” genuinely haunts them. “When Willie catches on fire,” another user confessed. “The black burning skeleton is pretty frightening.”

1. “Nightmare Cafeteria” (1994)

(written by David X. Cohen, directed by Jim Reardon)

So many “Treehouse of Horror” segments could appear on this list, but one seems to earn praise most consistently.

“Nightmare Cafeteria,” a standout from Season Six, has a wildly creepy premise: In an effort to solve two distinct problems—poor-quality cafeteria food and too many troublemakers—Principal Skinner decided that any kid sent to detention shall be…cooked and eaten. The climactic scene, featuring a gruesome musical number, left some fans especially weirded out.

“I found this very disturbing the first time I saw it as a kid,” someone wrote on Reddit. “I don’t necessarily consider it creepy, but it is by far the grossest thing I’ve seen in the show,” another argued. “It still gets me, especially how the blood and viscera fly off as they’re dancing.” Someone else went even deeper: “[I] feels so much like a nightmare a kid would actually have—something horrible is happening slowly at school, it’s coming for them, and their parents just… won’t get involved? And everyone is really doomed? Great stuff.”

  • Woman documents her nephew’s late night culinary quests as the viral ‘Midnight Chef’
    Photo credit: @midnightchef_amir on InstagramAmir Jackson's late night cooking is going viral.
    ,

    Woman documents her nephew’s late night culinary quests as the viral ‘Midnight Chef’

    A 15-year-old cooking late night snacks is inspiring the Internet.

    One night in Apple Valley, California, Morgan Graham rose in the middle of the night. A smell had woken her up. It was pleasant, but at 11:28 p.m. she wasn’t expecting to smell delicious cooking. She went down into the kitchen to see her 15-year-old nephew, Amir Jackson, baking cookies.

    This was the first of several viral videos of Graham’s nephew cooking up a storm late at night. Jackson, who has been staying with his aunt during the summer, is taking advantage of her kitchen to whip up some sumptuous snacks.

    Birth of a Midnight Chef

    Nearly every night, Graham wakes up around midnight to the smell of cookies, cornbread, tacos, or whatever her nephew wants to prepare.

    “I don’t care,” said Graham in the initial video. “He’s very responsible. He’s not gonna burn the house down, so therefore, cook whatever you want.”

    Graham further explained in the video that Jackson looks at recipes daily. He also rummages through her pantry during the day to search for ingredients for his nightly cooking fest. 

    “In his world, he’s having the time of his life. In my world, I just want to stop waking up close to midnight to the smell of food,” Graham joked.

    Graham’s videos featuring her nephew have racked up millions of views on TikTok and Instagram. The commenters soon bestowed the nickname “Midnight Chef” upon Jackson, to general delight. In another video, Jackson explained he liked the peace and quiet of the night while preparing his dishes.

    “I was like, ‘Man, I could go for some cookies right now.’ I saw they had cookie dough, so I started just making them, just randomly,” Jackson told TODAY. “I was trying to make sure nobody was up. My thought process was just like, ‘Man, why not?’”

    Graham is encouraging her nephew to keep cooking even though it wakes her. In fact, Graham set up Jackson’s own Midnight Chef Instagram page for him to post his latest recipes.

    “I just want to experiment while I still got the chance to experiment. I’ll maybe like branch into different fields,” said Jackson. “Explore what I can do while I still got time to.”

    Why do we indulge in late night snacking?

    Jackson’s popularity has brought up a commonly asked question: Why do we crave food randomly in the middle of the night?

    Well, there’s actually a bit of science behind it. Turns out that late night snacking is a result of our circadian rhythm system. As part of our now-defunct survival mechanism, our ancestors would eat large meals at night to store energy in times of famine. This is also why most midnight snackers crave foods higher in fat, salt, and sugar compared to what they’d usually eat during the day. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with late night snacking, it could curb certain health goals if a person is trying to trim down.

    If you find yourself getting up in the middle of the night with a hankering for a snack, it may be worth taking a peek at Jackson’s videos. Who knows what kind of late night cooking it can inspire? Perhaps you’ll become a Midnight Chef yourself.

  • European Union enforces ban on destroying unsold fast-fashion clothing by major companies
    Photo credit: CanvaThe European Union hopes to reduce fast-fashion waste.

    A new rule adopted by the European Union is intended to reduce landfill waste while holding major clothing manufacturers accountable.

    Starting July 19, the EU prohibits large companies from destroying unsold clothing, accessories, and shoes under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). The regulations will expand to cover medium-sized companies in 2030.

    Fast fashion has become a major environmental concern. As retailers rapidly cycle through trends, unsold clothing often ends up in landfills or is destroyed to make room for new inventory. Many garments are made from synthetic fibers that can release greenhouse gases as they break down and shed microplastics that may contaminate soil and waterways.

    What’s the ban’s purpose?

    The ban is intended to reduce the amount of unsold clothing that large manufacturers dispose of. According to the European Environment Agency, between 264,000 and 594,000 tonnes of unused textiles are destroyed across Europe each year.

    Instead of destroying unsold clothing, companies will need to find other ways to keep those products in use. That could mean selling excess inventory at a discount, donating it to charities or social enterprises, or preparing it for reuse through repair, refurbishment, or remanufacturing. When those options aren’t feasible, the materials can be recycled.

    While the regulation is primarily focused on reducing the fashion industry’s environmental impact, the EU also hopes it will strengthen the economy by encouraging more sustainable business practices. The ban incentivizes companies to design products that are more resource-efficient, durable, reusable, and easier to repair or recycle. In turn, consumers should benefit from higher-quality products that last longer and generate less waste.

    Companies may destroy unsold clothing and footwear only in limited circumstances, such as when the items are damaged, unsafe, counterfeit, infringe intellectual property rights, or have been rejected by charitable organizations. Businesses relying on these exemptions must provide supporting documentation, such as test results or other records, to justify the destruction. Even then, they must follow the EU’s waste hierarchy, which prioritizes reuse and recycling over disposal. Companies are also required to publish annual reports detailing the unsold products they have discarded.

    National authorities will enforce the ban and may impose fines on companies that violate its requirements, including failing to maintain records for at least five years to support inspections. To help reduce the administrative burden, businesses may use existing customs and logistics codes when reporting the products they discard.

    Why recycling isn’t enough

    Recycling clothing can be a complicated and labor-intensive process. It often involves separating fabrics, dyes, synthetic fibers, and natural textile materials before they can be reused. That’s not to say it isn’t worthwhile. Instead of ending up in a landfill, recycled textiles can be turned into new clothing, home insulation, carpet padding, and other products.

    Still, recycling isn’t a cure-all. The EU hopes the new ban will encourage companies to keep usable clothing in circulation for as long as possible through resale, donation, reuse, or refurbishment before recycling becomes necessary. In doing so, the regulation aims to create a more circular economy rather than allowing piles of unused clothing to continue growing.

    This movement hopes to encourage clothing manufacturers to produce higher-quality products and reshape the industry as a whole. Making clothing from higher-grade materials with durable stitching that’s easier to repair can help reduce waste. While critics argue that doing so could reduce the number of garments sold each year, many say better-made clothing is worth the higher price—especially if consumers end up buying fewer replacement items over time.

    What can you do with old clothing?

    There are plenty of things you can do with old clothing around your home. If an item is too damaged to donate, its fabric can be repurposed for crafts or used as cleaning rags. And if you’re handy with a needle, there are countless ways to upcycle old clothes into new outfits, accessories, or other useful items with a little inspiration from the Internet.

    Giant corporations and everyday people alike can do their best to make the most of the materials they have, helping save money and reduce waste.

  • European Broadcasting Union offers guide to reduce sexualizing camera angles of Olympic women athletes
    Photo credit: CanvaA new guide has been introduced on how to respectfully broadcast woman athletes.

    Being an athlete is tough, especially if you’re an Olympian. They sacrifice their time and bodies in order to achieve peak physical condition. There is also the mental pressure to compete against the best. The last thing they should worry about is being objectified and sexualized online. 

    With this in mind, the European Broadcasting Union wants to help. They offered a booklet to broadcasters titled Raising the Bar: Guidelines for respectful media coverage in women’s athletics. The 23-page guide shows how camera placement choices and editing could potentially compromise an athlete. It also offers broadcasters guidelines for how to set up camera shots and show slow-motion replays that won’t sexualize or present athletes in undignified poses. 

    athletes, infographic, olympians, guide
    Screenshot

    Focusing on the sport, reducing harassment

    These guidelines come as multiple stories about women athletes being harassed online have surfaced. Many misogynistic posts about athletes have come from slow motion footage focused on certain parts of the athlete’s body. 

    “The sexualization of women athletes through selective camera angles and editing choices continues to be a significant concern across many sports broadcasts,” wrote Glen Killane, executive director of EBU Sport in the booklet. “Lingering shots on bodies, low-angle cameras that capture revealing views, and excessive slow-motion replays that serve no technical or storytelling purpose are among the issues observed in the media coverage of women’s athletics competitions today.”

    These new broadcast guidelines and suggestions are backed by Serbian long jumper Ivana Španović, British Olympic pole vaulter Holly Bradshaw, and Croatian high jumper Blanka Vlašić. Vlašić has spoken out regarding the equal visibility of women’s sports. Bradshaw has spoken out against the discomfort and sexualization of Olympic women athletes due to their tight-fitting uniforms.

    “I first-hand have received social media abuse and witnessed inappropriate videos online of myself and colleagues when slow motion content of us competing is captured,” wrote Bradshaw in the guide. “Athletes want to enjoy themselves doing the sport they love without feeling uncomfortable or anxious about the footage being shown live. Many athletes, myself included, have been in competitive scenarios where they are more focused on the cameras instead of their own performance.”

    What the guide provides

    The guide provides visual aids for broadcasters along with insights from the athletes to explain why certain shots would be preferred. Broadcasters are requested to avoid tight shots from the back of athletes. They’re also asked to avoid low camera angles from underneath. They recommend shots above the pelvis or ones that don’t linger onto commonly sexualized areas of the body. They recommend wider shots so the audience can see the technical ability being displayed by the athlete. Overall, the point is to focus on the athletic performance rather than close-ups of the athlete.

    Currently, there is no enforcement of these guidelines or penalties if a sports broadcast doesn’t adhere to them. However, there is value in knowing which broadcasts will focus on the athletic contests rather than an athlete’s appearance. This will help the competitors focus on how they do rather than how they look when the cameras are on.

Explore More Culture Stories

Fashion

European Union enforces ban on destroying unsold fast-fashion clothing by major companies

Film & TV

European Broadcasting Union offers guide to reduce sexualizing camera angles of Olympic women athletes

Culture

The summer concert state rankings: Which states pack more festivals, shows, and tours in 2026

Internet

The church fathers of early Christianity are showing their swag – on TikTok