The Simpson's Movie Confirmed 334
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.'"
Obligatory. (Score:5, Funny)
My eyes! The goggles do NOTHING!
Re:Obligatory. (Score:5, Funny)
that's unpossible!
Re:Obligatory. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's perfectly cromulent.
Re:Obligatory. (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory. (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe I'll be allowed to go see it after I become a Supreme Court Judge.
"gay" tag? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2, Funny)
pfft...only if you're ponies, er, i mean, gay.
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2)
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2)
Now let's go play a game of smear the queer.
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:4, Insightful)
And using "childish" is derogatory to children; "uncool" is derogatory to those in the tropics...
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you prepared to make the same arguments for "nigger"? i.e. That it's okay to use it in civilized conversation (yeah yeah, I know, but we'll consider Slashdot at +1 to be close enough) because some part of the population likes to use it, and because even some black people use it?
Or would it be better if people do get routinely criticized for using slurs
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2)
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a dyke (one might say, cunning linguist) and the use of the term "gay" as meaning "lame" does not bother me. Plenty of words have more than one meaning. Frankly, it's kind of too bad that "gay" no longer means "happy, spirited," but, well, that seems to be the way the cookie's crumbled.
There's a large contingent of people who believe in a Whorfian fallacy of the sort that ones use of language has a causal link with ones cog
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2)
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2)
It's insulting to gays, rather than to the person who the "insult" was directed at, is the point there.
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry if I offended anyone in the production of this post.
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:5, Funny)
Windows users aren't necessarily gay, you insensitive clod.
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2)
Do you know what an homophobe is?
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2)
Re:"gay" tag? (Score:2)
Wait... (Score:2)
Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2, Informative)
Rugrats!
I would also say Spongebob, but that show actually ended by the time the movie happened.
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Nah, they took a break from the TV show when making the movie, but new eps are being made [wikipedia.org].
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Transformers - The Movie
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:5, Insightful)
And what about South Park The Movie... that was brilliant.
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2, Insightful)
The B&H movie was GREAT. So great, it was never the same....
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:3, Informative)
So the jump itself *is* the crash - at least, so long as we're using Happy Days as a model.
Simpons humor != South Park Humor (Score:2)
Anyway, I don't know if the south park movie was any funnier than the show.
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2, Funny)
Random Fact
This forgotten show is the source of a popular slashdot cliche:
1) [Insert thread topic]
2)
3) Profit!!!
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
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.
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
There. Fixed that for you.
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Seriously, think about it. The trite answer of "you should sober up" really isn't well supported by that episode. And subsequent episodes have him eventually backsliding and returning to his old ways, though to the best of my knowledge this has never been highlighted, just something that happens in the background. Barney has certainly not been a very hopeful social message.
(I find social messages can often be tricky things. I've lost count of the pacifist races portrayed in
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Let's say you have a pacifist civilzation and a non-pacifist civilization, they come into contact. If the Pacifists (P) have anything that the non-pacifists (NP) want, they will be forced into subservience. Raw materials, technology, strategic location, cheap labor - what have you. Nothing P can do about it but plead and hope, and we
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Well, at least in the rather open-ended realm of science fiction, there is always the possibility that P is so much more advanced than NP that P can protect itself using effective yet non-destructive means. No doubt in Star Trek this would involve inpenetrable force fields and the like, but as a more realistic example: if you get into a confrontation with a grizzly bear, you might have no choice but to shoot the bear in order to protect yourself. If your advers
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
That really depends on how you define pacifism. If you consider pacifism as the "opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes", then that would include countries like Switzerland, which is quite capable of defending itself.
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark(OT) (Score:2)
Take a look at Niven's Kzinti stories. It's remarkably close to what you're describing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kzinti [wikipedia.org]
Humans adopt paci
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark(OT) (Score:2)
Of course Niven is a hippy and didn't really like writing about war, so most of the Earth-Kzin stuff is handled by other wri
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark (Score:2)
Fire (Score:2)
Maybe that's where the good writing went (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like Funniest Home Videos?
Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went (Score:2)
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
Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went (Score:2)
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
Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went (Score:4, Insightful)
Which still leaves it one of the best shows on television.
Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went (Score:2)
Ponies? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ponies? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ponies? (Score:4, Funny)
Comic Book Guy: Excuse me, I believe this family already had a horse, and the expense forced Homer to work at the Kwik-E-Mart with hilarious consequences.
Homer: Does anyone care what this guy thinks?
Crowd: No! (CBG sulks away)
Re:Ponies? (Score:2)
Please note (Score:3)
~Will
Re:Please note (Score:2)
Tagging? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tagging? (Score:2)
They're already dealt with. (Score:2)
I suggest sucking it up. At least this way the tag system remains useful. Unpredictability == useless.
Re:Tagging? (Score:2)
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
Re:Tagging? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Tagging? (Score:2)
Well, how about metamoderation of tags. That would make it... *chooses his words carefully* of the same quality as the rest of slashdot.
You're both screwed (Score:2)
Well, (Score:5, Funny)
Movie Traditions (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Movie Traditions (Score:2)
The kids finally age? Marge gets pregnant? They move from Springfield?
Re:Movie Traditions (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Movie Traditions (Score:2)
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
Re:Movie Traditions (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Movie Traditions (Score:2)
Re:Movie Traditions (Score:2)
I, for one, can't wait.
I may actually go see this one in a theatre.
Re:Movie Traditions (Score:3, Funny)
"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)
Movie script idea (Score:2, Funny)
Good News Everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Never mind.
Movie? We don't need no stinkin' movie! (Score:2)
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
16 months (Score:2)
Re:16 months (Score:2)
Simpsons teaser playing at a theatre near you (Score:2, Informative)
Yes this is real (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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
Oblig. Simpson's Quote (Score:2)
A non-cartoon would be interesting, not this! (Score:3, Interesting)
That would sure be more interesting to me than just MORE and MORE of the same, but now as a movie. *yaawn*
Re:OOOOkkkkkaaayyy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory apostrohpic jihad notice. (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory apostrohpic jihad notice. (Score:2)
Re:Simpsons Poll (Score:2)
For a while, there was a few 'Simpsons hour' features a week with 2 extra repeats in addition to the 6pm episode. At one point I think there were more than 10 episodes shown a week.
All the repeats were random
Re:April Fools? (Score:3, Interesting)