Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

The Simpson's Movie Confirmed 334

Posted by Zonk
from the not-a-joke dept.
bagsc writes "BBC News reports Twentieth Centruy Fox confirms The Simpsons are going to the movies! Should hit theatres in 2007." From the article: "A 25-second trailer for the film has been shown to US audiences at screenings of Ice Age: The Meltdown, promising to introduce 'the greatest hero in American history'. It then cut to Homer Simpson, wearing only his underwear, who admitted: 'I forgot what I was supposed to say.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Simpson's Movie Confirmed

Comments Filter:
  • Obligatory. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Silverlancer (786390) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @01:39AM (#15044343)
    The Simpsons. In a movie?

    My eyes! The goggles do NOTHING!
  • "gay" tag? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @01:40AM (#15044345) Homepage Journal
    What's with the "gay" tag? I thought this place was intolerant of homophobes.
    • Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Bill_Royle (639563)
      As long as they add a GNAA tag too, I'll know it is all in good fun. After all, it is April 1st - everything's funny if today's posts are any indicators.
    • Re:"gay" tag? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nasarius (593729) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @02:12AM (#15044423)
      It just goes to show the mentality of some people here. For those over the age of 12, using "gay" as a generic derogatory is pretty fucking childish and insulting.
      • by Rhinobird (151521)

        For those over the age of 12, using "gay" as a generic derogatory is pretty fucking childish

        pfft...only if you're ponies, er, i mean, gay.
      • Come on guys, don't mod me overrated. I'm going for +5, Troll!
      • Yeah, dude. That's soooo gay.

        Now let's go play a game of smear the queer.
    • by Dante Shamest (813622) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @02:56AM (#15044521)
      I thought this place was intolerant of homophobes.

      Windows users aren't necessarily gay, you insensitive clod.

    • Tags sure become a big joke when people start spamming "ponies" "gay" and "straight" on every god damn post.
    • we're supposed to be homophobaphobic?
  • by Hao Wu (652581) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @01:40AM (#15044347) Homepage
    ... is to make a movie. Especially for cartoons. (Recall how suddenly Bevis & Butthead crashed?)

    • family guy seems to be doing pretty good. And I can't think of any other animated TV shows that have been made into a movie, so I'd have to say it's about a 50/50 chance.
    • by Aqua OS X (458522) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @01:58AM (#15044394)
      What are you talking about? Fans gobbled that stuff up.

      And what about South Park The Movie... that was brilliant.
      • Because technically, "the Jump" itself is the glorious moment (ie. the movie) -- and the "crash" happens AFTER the jump.

        The B&H movie was GREAT. So great, it was never the same....

        • "Jumping the shark" originates in the show Happy Days when the Foz is waterskiing. He's not looking where he's going, and all of a sudden a shark is in his path. Next, in what was intended as a serious moment (the gang is all looking scared), the Foz hits a ramp and... jumps the shark. It was absolutely ridiculous, but the show tried to portray it as a scary and dramatic moment.

          So the jump itself *is* the crash - at least, so long as we're using Happy Days as a model.

      • TV limits South Park, in some ways becasue of south park's style of "shock" humor. That is not true for the simpson's.

        Anyway, I don't know if the south park movie was any funnier than the show.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, the same thing happened to this old cartoon "South Park". I don't remember what happened to the show...

      Random Fact
      This forgotten show is the source of a popular slashdot cliche:

      1) [Insert thread topic]
      2) ...
      3) Profit!!!
    • by BewireNomali (618969) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @02:00AM (#15044400)
      the simpsons jumped the shark a long time ago. it's a stalwart lynchpin in the Fox lineup, so they'll milk the cow until she's dry.

      it's funny: my nephew's ten, and a huge fan of family guy. he thinks the simpsons are a poor imitation of the former - not funny, and not worth watching.

      they'll do a movie and cash out of the franchise before its fan base and ratings erode significantly. It's good business.

      In other words, the decision to do a film is a signal from Fox that they believe the swan song soon cometh.
      • my nephew's ten, and a huge fan of family guy. he thinks the simpsons are a poor imitation of the former - not funny, and not worth watching.

        I'm 29 and, except that I know Simpsoms came first, I agree. I'd like to see a movie version of the Simpsons mainly because it would be a great way to wrap up the series. The brand of satire that the Simpsons has went out with the 90's.

    • Uhhm...in case you haven't watched an episode in the past oh I don't know eight years, thats about how long its been since the Simpsons jumped the shark. It's been ages since the show has been consistently funny. Now it's just...sad. Kind of like seeing David Schwimmer in an off-Broadway play.
      • Now it's just...sad. Kind of like seeing David Schwimmer.

        There. Fixed that for you.

    • Right, and just look at how quickly South Park fell down the tubes and got cancelled..oh..wait...nvm.
    • Beavis and Butthead jumped the shark WELL before the movie. In fact, the movie largely SUCKED.
  • by PapayaSF (721268) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @01:46AM (#15044363) Journal
    Because in the last couple of years the quality of writing on The Simpsons has taken a noticable drop. Too often the jokes are merely silly and almost random, and lack the inspired cleverness and connection to the characters and plots that made me a big fan of the show in the first place.

    Yes, I know people have been complaining about a drop in quality for many years, but I felt that was arguable. The 2004-2005 season, though, really was pretty weak.
    • I have to agree with you, alot of the jokes are not nearly the quality of previous seasons. However, even in some of the later episodes, a really good joke will be seen every once in a while. But yes, the overall quality has sadly dropped. I still watch them though.
    • True dat. The Simpsons has jumped the shark. It's over. Nothing lasts forever.

      What I'm waiting for is the next one, the show that only people with bittorrent and their friends actually know about at first, but which gets so popular so quickly that the traditional media organizations find themselves reporting about it without actually understanding it. I think Lost had that kind of potential, but it wasn't quite the right time.

      What the world needs is maybe a participatory TV show, that people can co

      • by LordLucless (582312) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @04:11AM (#15044684)
        What the world needs is maybe a participatory TV show, that people can consume and maybe even play a part in creating

        You mean like Funniest Home Videos?
      • What the world needs is maybe a participatory TV show, that people can consume and maybe even play a part in creating, without need for the big networks. The first one of those we see will be revolutionary. And then we'll see more and more. It's getting easier for people to create their own content, and distributing it worldwide is now trivially simple and free. If you're the CEO of a big media corporation, this is terrifying. If you're a random human with a few friends and a net connection, it's a good ti

    • The easiest way to cure the "low quality" of The Simpsons is this: Have fox announce that production on new episodes is officially over, and that the simpsons timeslot will be filled with Simpsons reruns. Then, just keep making new episodes and slipping them into the rotation. BAM! Instant positive reviews about "how great the simpsons used to be."

      I gave up on watching new episodes of the series years ago. There just wasn't much consistently good stuff to keep me interested. But I'll sit through a re-run wi
    • by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @07:53AM (#15045104) Homepage
      Because in the last couple of years the quality of writing on The Simpsons has taken a noticable drop

      Which still leaves it one of the best shows on television.

    • My reaction has been similar, but with one big difference. I thought the show was moving steadily downhill up until 2003-2004. At that point it went from walking downhill to running, then finding the bottom, and then proceeding to dig even farther. But I rather liked a lot of 2005, and I thought this season has actually been really good. Easily to the point where I watch it the same day as my dvr records it.
  • Ponies? (Score:5, Funny)

    by phalse phace (454635) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @01:52AM (#15044381)
    What we all want to know is will there be ponies?
  • by zerocool^ (112121) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @01:54AM (#15044386) Homepage Journal
    ...Technically posted April 2nd.

    ~Will
  • Tagging? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer (648696) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @02:17AM (#15044434) Homepage
    Ok, so it looks like a naughty monkey finally got into the tagging system. Taco...how exactly do you plan on dealing with "tag trolls" (I'm hereby coining this phrase!) who put in tags like "gay" and other childish things that no longer apply to post-April Fools stories?

    • I'd do the same thing that DailyKos has just started doing: ban anyone who abuses the tags.
    • We have the so caleld "tag trolls" taken care of for the rest of time in two [i]predictable[/i] and generally irrelevant tags.

      I suggest sucking it up. At least this way the tag system remains useful. Unpredictability == useless.

    • tags like "gay" and other childish things that no longer apply to post-April Fools stories?

      Unless I missed something, "gay" didn't apply to the April Fools stories either. The whole "I use the word gay to mean stupid/contemptible" habit is really grating; it reminds me of the kid in my elementary school who used the word "Jewish" the exact same way (as in "dude, the 49ers are so Jewish. I can't believe they fumbled five times yesterday"). It's the same old tired prejudice, they've just moved on to a new

      • Hey, I'm a self-depricating Jew you insensitive clod!

        But to respond to your point...the reason I say that the "gay" tag was applicable to April Fools stories versus normal ones was that there was a definite lack of seriousness in those stories, so I guess it just seemed a bit more "appropriate", I mean, since those stories were useless, I didn't mind the tags for them being useless as well.

    • Ok, so it looks like a naughty monkey finally got into the tagging system. Taco...how exactly do you plan on dealing with "tag trolls" (I'm hereby coining this phrase!) who put in tags like "gay" and other childish things that no longer apply to post-April Fools stories?

      Well, how about metamoderation of tags. That would make it... *chooses his words carefully* of the same quality as the rest of slashdot.
  • Well, (Score:5, Funny)

    by ScaryFroMan (901163) <scaryfroman@h[ ]ail.com ['otm' in gap]> on Sunday April 02, 2006 @02:18AM (#15044436)
    I, for one, welcome the possibility of new Simpsons cliches.
  • Movie Traditions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jerf (17166) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @02:38AM (#15044485) Journal
    Traditionally, a television series made into a movie is an opportunity to do two things: To tell a Really Big story that just wouldn't fit in one episode, and to spend more money on special effects than you could on one episode.

    The second really isn't a problem. But what story is too big for a Simpsons episode? Given the unreality of the series, what premise could carry a movie that shouldn't simply be an episode?

    About the only storyline not used several times is the death of one of the major characters (and I mean a Simpson, not Mrs. Flanders). Which would make for a pretty disappointing movie, I think, not to mention some very out-of-character writing in all likelihood. I mean, what are they going to do, have Homer heroically sacrifice himself to save Springfield? (Not to mention they've basically done that a number of times, minus actual death...)

    Oh well. It's quite likely that it will be at least average, given the state of movies lately, and what more can you ask for?
    • I mean, what are they going to do

      The kids finally age? Marge gets pregnant? They move from Springfield?

      • by Jerf (17166)
        The kids finally age?

        Done that, several times. As flash-forwards, yes, but story-wise it doesn't matter.

        Marge gets pregnant?

        Even if you age the kids, family-baby interactions have basically been mined with Maggie.

        They move from Springfield?

        Also been done, several times, plus every "vacation" episode is basically "The Simpsons Not In Springfield". May not be "permanent" but that's a flexible idea with cartoons.

        I actually did try to come up with something before my post; if I came up with a good one I would h
    • Re:Movie Traditions (Score:3, Interesting)

      by evilviper (135110)

      To tell a Really Big story that just wouldn't fit in one episode, and to spend more money on special effects than you could on one episode.

      Bah! This is what you would call a vast over-generalization, being poorly applied.

      Really, the reason to have a movie, is because the studio makes a lot more money that way. It has to be BETTER than any old TV show to do that, of course, but there's no reason it can only be made because of time or special effects constraints.

      Any story, no matter how big, can be spread a

      • Really, the reason to have a movie, is because the studio makes a lot more money that way.

        I kind of figured that goes without saying. I'm talking about the reasons why we would want to go see a movie. You can't just throw a television episode up on the silver screen and hope that people go to see it. Even if they do, that's another huge hunk of reputation you just blew, and Hollywood is rapidly running out.

        "Hey, man, we gotta go see that Simpsons movie, or the studios might not recoup their investment!" Let
    • by SamSim (630795)

      Telling longer stories is *precisely* where the show needs to go to get out of its current rut. Essentially every story that can be reasonably fit into 25 minutes - without altering the status quo significantly - has been thoroughly explored. The result is the writers try to fit increasingly convoluted storylines into the timeframe and we get episodes that are rushed and crazy. I hope they build from this and start doing more two-part episodes, season-length story arcs...

    • It will most likely just be a 1 hour 45 minute version of a typical episode. Probably not worth reading too much into it.

      I, for one, can't wait. :-)

      I may actually go see this one in a theatre.
    • But what story is too big for a Simpsons episode?

      "Like, Marge becomes a robot, maybe Moe gets a cell phone,
      Has Bart ever owned a bear or, How 'bout a crazy wedding?
      Where something happens, and doo doo doo doo, doo..."
      -- SONG: They'll Never Stop The Simpsons, DABF12 "Gump Roast"
  • Preview was a dud (Score:5, Informative)

    by kyndig (579355) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @03:37AM (#15044603) Homepage
    I just went and watched Ice Age 2. It had a preview for The Simpsons. The preview was of a SuperMan shield scrolling up, and then an image of Homer sitting on a couch. The preview stated The Simpsons Movie would be out July 27th 2007 ( almost a year away!..one heck of a trailer )
  • I think Homer and Peter from Family guy should get together on a bender. That alone would make a hella movie. :)
  • by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @04:48AM (#15044755) Journal
    Oops. Wrong Matt Groening show.

    Never mind.
  • At the risk of sounding trollish here, I have to ask what's the point of making a Simpsons movie?

    Well, from the studio's POV, the answer is clear: $$$. However, I cannot understand why FANS would want a movie. As a fan myself, I would MUCH rather have advertisers pay for 3 half-hour segments I can Tivo and watch at my leisure than one 1.5 hour "diluted episode" where I must pay $10+parking+food=$20+. Not to mention the psychological stress induced from just setting foot in theater drenched in sticky cr

  • Took my kid to see Ice Age (only the squirrel scenes are good) and we saw the trailer, which said the movie would hit (I think) on July 27, 2007. That's almost 16 months! What possible value is there in advertising a movie this far in advance?
  • i work at a movie theatre. we've been running the teaser in fron of Ice Age 2 since friday morning.
  • Yes this is real (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BobSutan (467781) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @09:21AM (#15045292)
    Just saw the ad last night. It starts out like a Superman trailer and then zooms out being Homer's shirt, with him sitting on the couch. Then he says he forgot his line.

    The trailer says it should be July 2007. So, is this the last season of the Simpsons on Fox? They previously stated that the movie would be after the show ends.
  • !gay, !ponies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SCoil (948507) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @09:22AM (#15045293)
    Upon closer inspection of the tags you will come to realize that this isn't a late april fools joke.
    See the tags "!gay" and "!ponies"? I'm not the greatest code monkey ever, but if my memory serves me I believe that little ! says something important.

    Dont be so quick on the draw /.
  • Homer: WOOHOO!!!!!
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Sunday April 02, 2006 @11:27AM (#15045653) Journal
    It would actually be interesting to see the whole thing as a movie, with all characters and their personalities, acted in the real world, and not as a cartoon. Here's a bit how it could look like, from the trailer [youtube.com] for the latest Simpsons series season.

    That would sure be more interesting to me than just MORE and MORE of the same, but now as a movie. *yaawn*

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...