Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

The Simpsons The Movie? 176

Posted by CmdrTaco from the big-screen-doh dept.
rosewood writes "Everyone loves the Simpsons so why not a Simpsons movie? I know I'm not the only one that would look forward for it. " I'm more than a little skeptical, but hell, South Park scaled pretty well to the big screen. Maybe if they could get some of the writers in from the earlier seasons (You listening Conan?) on board, they could do something awesome.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Simpsons The Movie? More

The Simpsons The Movie?

Comments Filter:
  • ... but what the heck. I'd love to watch a Simpsons movie.

    It's really sorta hard to imagine what it'd be like, though... I think part of the beauty of the Simpsons is the simplicity of the plots, buffed by the arcane insanity of the in-between stuff that goes on, often in the background. Dunno if I could handle a full hour and a half of that, but maybe... just maybe ...

    (Here in LA, Fox shows Simpsons 3 times daily... admittedly, there's a lot of repeats, but hey, it's Homer-ific!)

  • A little off topic, but... (Score:5)

    by JustShootMe ( 122551 ) <rmiller@duskglow.com> on Thursday February 17, 2000 @03:42PM (#1263785) Homepage Journal

    You know you're a geek when you refer to something going from TV to the big screen as "scaling".

    That's priceless.

    Referring to a woman who you knew years ago as a pigtailed little girl: Wow, she sure scaled well.

    Amusing.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

  • Other Word From Apsen (Score:5)

    by Chokai ( 10224 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @03:42PM (#1263786)
    Dan Castalaneta (sp) the voice of Homer Simpson stated on the Tom Lykis show (while in Aspen) that a feature film was unlikely during the time the show is in television.

    Apparently the current yearly episode load (something like 22) is about the maximum the show can handle. Apparently it takes 7 months to write, draw, animate and then do the voices for an episode.
  • It seems these days, they are running out of things to do with the simpsons. Perhaps they should kill them off in the movie or something. :) Anyone else notice the abundance of reused jokes and bland storylines?
  • It's kinda like everyone got overdosed on South Park after the movie, I'm kinda wary of something like that happening with the Simpsons.
  • The Simpsons would easily scale into a full length movie...just think of all the episodes that were 2,3,4 parters. You could probably string together the simpsons for literally hours on end and never lose the humor, its just the way that show is.

    And even better is the fact that it would be made specifically as a movie...think of a full scale simpsons plot...without having to wait for the next episode. It'd be awesome.

    Theres a reason the simpsons are the longest running active comedy show. And theres a reason why it also appeals to more than just one demographic group...and Im surprised it hasn't been picked up for a movie yet. Maybe the offers have come, but been refused? ;)
  • ... think about it, she's the sleeper character in the Simpsons.

    If they did it right, they could grow Maggy into a new character that sustains the Simpsons for another couple of seasons.

  • Hey, do you own a comic book shop by any chance?

    Just kidding, but I really liked the episode with the freaks they had on recently.

    "What normal woman would have us? We're freaks! Frrreeeaaakkksss!!!"
    I wonder if the real jockeys got mad at that episode...

  • Information on Simpsons Movie (Score:4)

    by Ford Prefect ( 8777 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @03:49PM (#1263794) Homepage
    Lots of handy information here [snpp.com] - it actually sounds pretty unlikely from what they have said over the years. Ford Prefect
  • Usually, TV series suffer when they make the big screen jump. Maybe it's because it's hard for the producers to find a good way to make the translations, maybe us (me) spectators aren't used to the change, or maybe we've just had bad luck. Still waiting for the tv-series-gone-movie to prove me wrong. If it were to be The Simpsons, I'd be happy as hell! PS: Bring back The Critic!!
  • I don't know about that man. I think that many people are getting OD'd on the new season anyway. I keep parying that it'll be the last season and that they'll go out with some class. But then I watched the "Worst Episode Ever" (their words, the one with Bart as a Jockey) 2 weeks ago and I must admit that it was pretty much true. Actually I think that it may have been worse than some episodes of "Who's the Boss?". Anywho, I still enjoy the midnight reruns or the old (read good or funny) shows.
  • the simpsons do *not* grow
    period

    that is just the way it is

    --
    David

    Homer not function beer well without.
    --Homer Simpson
  • I disagree, having Maggie talk won't be able to keep this grand old Methuselah alive. Remember the episodes with Gill? Nice attampt at a new charachter, but it wasn't enough. Before I go any further, let me say that living in Australia I'm a few seasons behind, so excuse my ignorance on any particulars... I agree with the idea of killing them all off in a movie, if there was going to be one. Maybe Homer could cause a spectacular meltdown or something.
  • No way!! Maggie Makes her statement just with the little suck, suck sound. She is already far and away the best character on the show. Ruining her with a new catch phrase would completely kill the vibe of the show.

  • Who will play homer? (Score:4)

    by jailbrekr2 ( 139577 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @03:57PM (#1263800) Homepage
    The guy would have to be bald. overweight, and rather thick... hmmmmm.....

    William Shatner?

    Doh!

    Jailbrekr
  • The simpsons is tired. i can't remember the last time a new episode was good all the way through. in the classic episodes, the whole story would work together and the freaky side stuff would somehow all relate. the new episodes are just a bunch of jokes the writers thought up, just strewn together. sort of like that futurama crap. if they do a movie, i hope they use it to end the simpsons for good. quit before you suck, like they did with seinfeld. ed

  • Um, I'm Not So Sure (Score:4)

    by Syn.Terra ( 96398 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @04:05PM (#1263803) Homepage Journal

    The reason South Park "scaled" so well is because the producers took a new attitude towards the movie. It wasn't just another episode of South Park: it was a sick, twisted extravaganza which actually spent 1/5 of its total production time in the Censors office, trying to get whittled down from an NC-17 rating.

    But here are some reasons why I think the Simpson's can't manage a full-length movie:

    • This latest season has been a steady downhill ride from their usual stuff. Blantant comments by the writers? Killing of major characters? People's severed legs flying off and kicking footballs in? Does this sound like the series is on its last legs (nopunintended) to anyone else?
    • One major feature of a Simpson's episode is to spend the first 5 solid minutes leading up to the main plot. This idea is a real show-seller for the series, and it certainly wouldn't transfer well to a 90 minute film.
    • Just how many times can Homer say "do'h" in a 90 minute period before it gets passe? Double digits, easily, but still...
    • It takes months to make a single episode (as another Slashdotter pointed out) and the time it would take to make a movie 3 times as long as an episode would be much too long to do while the seeason is going on.

    I hate to be pessimistic, but I'd hate a bad Simpson's movie even more. I mean, 10 years... to end with a crappy film would be just plain shameful.


    ------------

  • more info at www.nypost.com (Score:3)

    by thal ( 33211 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @04:06PM (#1263804) Homepage

    i happened to find a new york post on the subway on the way to school and read an article about the simpsons movie which can be found here: http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/1251 .htm [nypost.com].

    in any case, i'd love a simpsons movie. this is the last season, so it's a good time for it, etc, etc. i'm quite disappointed with how fox is giving futurama the timeslot shaft for malcolm in the middle.

  • The feature legnth movie, imho should be reserved until after a show dies. A Simpsons movie 'extravaganza' would be a great excuse to bring everyone back together, but it would also dilute a series that's currently ongoing. (don't you think?)

  • Bring back the writers (Score:4)

    by 348 ( 124012 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @04:08PM (#1263806) Homepage
    If they make this movie with the writing staff they had this year it's going to suck big time. This season, the show has was lame and it's dedicated followers even dropped off. If they want to make a big splash and possible revive the series to its former glory they need to bring back the magic that Conan O'Brien, James L. Brooks, David Mirkin, and a bunch of the writers who left the show who left to work on Futurama last year. Futurama is funny this year and the Simsons just went to the dogs.
  • PS: Bring back The Critic!!

    I second that. Good thing you can catch the Critic on Cartoon Network (or is it comedy central? I only watch 2 channels of TV...) once in a while... It'd sure be nice to have some new episodes, though.

  • Did you see last Sunday's episdode? (2/17/2000)? It may have been a re-run, but I've never seen it before. Anyway, basically they killed off Maude Flanders. Just like that, out of the blue. I totally wasn't expecting it. It was crazy. Anyway, besides that fact, the rest of the episode was totally funny, I was laughing out loud many many times, which I usually don't do on a 'typical' simpsons. if this is a newer episode, than they're still good for me (unless this was a freak good show, or something)...
  • Shortly before Futurama first aired, there was an interview with Matt Groening in Wired.

    In the article he mentioned that he felt that Futurama had a better potential for movie development and that he personally thought the Simpsons were too limiting to expand into a feature film.
  • From what I've heard (and I don't remember the source, but I think it may have been a radio interview with one of the show's writers or producers or something, but basically don't quote me on this) : the show was decided to be NC-17. So basically Matt and Trey figured why not make it even more over-the-top, so they added some pretty twisted stuff to it. Then, shortly before it hit the theaters, somehow it was reduced to R, which really shocked them, but they obviously didn't fight it.
  • Um, Maggie has spoken. Not going to take the time to look it up, but it was a much hyped episode probably during the 4th/5th season timespan. Bette Midler did the voice, IIRC.

    Here's the unofficial repository of all that is Simpson's if someone hasn't already mentioned it:

    http://www.snpp.com/ [snpp.com]

  • Re:This Would Rock (Score:4)

    by Yardley ( 135408 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @04:23PM (#1263815) Homepage
    Right now Simpsons are going to be on the big screen ala IMAX, but it won't be a full-length feature; the tree-house of horror halloween episode instead.

    http://www.snpp.com/news.html#imax [snpp.com]

    If you're lazy:

    Simpsons to the Big Screen By Jouni Paakkinen (jouni@snpp.com) - January 27, 2000

    Several studios have teamed up with IMAX to bring famous animated charactes, including The Simpsons, to the company's giant screens in a compilation film called "Cyberworld." "Cyberworld", which is to be comprised of eight animated sequences, will ultimately include the computer-generated "Homer3" segment from "Treehouse of Horror VI," in which Homer is sucked into the third dimension. Also to be included are scenes from DreamWorks' "Antz," Sony's "Monkey Brain Sushi," and a new Pet Shop Boys video. Dharma & Greg's Jenna Elfman will provide the voice of Phig, cyber-hostess of the film, which takes place in a futuristic museum. "Cyberworld" will be released to IMAX theaters worldwide in October of 2000.

  • Why not? Because... (Score:4)

    by jeremy f ( 48588 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @04:24PM (#1263816) Homepage
    One of the former writers from The Simpsons, Mike Reiss, recently came and spoke to our University. One of the questions asked of him was "What exactly does Matt Groenig do on the show?". His response was "if you want to know what Matt Groening did on The Simpsons, ask yourself what Walt Disney did on Toy Story."

    Someone else asked why a Simpsons Movie has not yet been created. His answer was simple: if a Simpsons movie WAS to be created, Matt Groenig would be the one to write, produce, and direct it.

    And that's why there hasn't been a Simpsons movie yet.



    _____________________
    .sig Instructions
    step one: place .sig here
  • I don't know how much Conan writes into his show, but he has some of THE most off the wall humor that sets it apart.

    He showed two commercials that air in Houston. Now, mind you, his show airs at 2:10 am there and in between, have these two awful locally produced commercials. one was a wacko going nuts selling chainsaws, the other sold furniture for some company. They held a contest for best commercial, and chainsaw guy won.

    Then here comes the magic. COnan said "here's the response we got when we told him that he won". Then they looped the chainsaw guy who was swingin' a saw around going "oh oh oh !" over and over. That simple video edit was hilarious. The losing contestant got a $500 GC to, the place he advertised for. heh.

    and don't get me started with the infamous staring contests. too bad andy's leaving
  • I doubt that we'd see a simpsons movie until the series ends. Then ppl will be more desperate for fresh material. But it sounds feasable. I mean, they'll probably make one later on... may as well milk the simpsons for all that they're worth :)
  • Here you go. 4th season/8th episode. Maggie says... (you'll have to check it out yourself)

    http://www.snpp.com/episodes/9F08.html [snpp.com]
  • Oh, and I was wrong. Elizabeth Taylor is the special guest voice for Maggie.

  • State of the Yellow Address (Score:3)

    by President Clinton ( 152727 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @04:37PM (#1263824)
    My fellow Americans, it is an honor and a privelege to speak regarding this momentous occasion. Only in America could a spirited cartoonist, fifteen minutes before needing to present a new concept, simply drew crude scribbles based on members of his own American family, and now, fifteen years later, it is soon to be hitting our American silver screens across this grand nation. Only in America could this concept, fueled by the unending labors of underpaid Korean animators, could this be the pop phenomenon fueling our way into the new millennium.

    My fellow Americans, this is a momentous occasion indeed, and I wish the best of luck to our own Mr. Groenigs future.

    And speaking of future, have you watched his other show, Futurama? It is a wonderful portrayal of our great nation's spirit and ingenuity for this millennium, and the millenniums to come.

    Thanks to Mr. Groenig, we can keep our hope alive for the next two thousand years.

    Thank you, and God bless.

  • Re:quit before you suck (semi-spoiler) (Score:4)

    by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @04:41PM (#1263825) Homepage Journal
    yes, this was a new episode, and yes, it did rock. Homer on the bed of pearls? Hilarious. A lot of people seem to be badmouthing this season, but i think it has been one of their best seasons in a long time, its just that people expect so much from the simpsons, that when it isnt the funniest thing they have seen in their entire lives, they're dissapointed. If you look at this season objectively, it has been very good, none of the episodes sucked, and none of them got too preachy ( like Ziggy, foul temptress) The simpsons still are just as funny as they were in the beginning, its just peoples expectations of how funny they should be have changed. Just enjoy the show people, dont compare it to all the other shows.

  • Simpsons too confining? (Score:3)

    by Ford Prefect ( 8777 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @04:43PM (#1263827) Homepage
    I'm under the impression that Matt Groening and many of the other Simpsons people found the Simpsons universe almost a little too confining in a way. Only so many things can happen to an average American family, after all (well, without the beetle-browed denizens of alt.tv.simpsons complaining too much...)

    Some of my favourite parts of the Simpsons are when the writers go utterly and totally nuts; a lot of my favourite Simpsons moments are like this (Homer in Space? Homer^3? Itchy and Scratchy Land?) The Halloween episodes are a good example of this - the writers basically get a chance to let anything happen, and play with the consequences.

    In a way, Futurama is the logical extension. Want a planet filled with human-hating robots? Suicide booths? A homicidal Father Christmas? Coin-operated prostitution droids? A Matrix comprised of senile pensioners? Civilisation-building parasites? Easy. And it doesn't even have to be Halloween either. :-)

    I've seen the latest Simpsons and Futurama (despite being in the UK, don't ask) and the Futurama ('I have a plan so devious...') knocked spots off the Simpsons (character killed off for no apparent reason - D'oh!) Oh, and any cartoon that can make P vs NP and 2001 jokes wins points from me.

    A Simpsons film could be excellent; it could also be a terrible disappointment. If it was a success, it would be a nice way of making them go out with a bang instead of a whimper.

    BTW, a third Futurama season (with 22 episodes) has been confirmed. There's an interesting interview here [frcr.com], along with loads of other cool stuff. :-)

    Ford Prefect
  • Oops. Too late.
    Forget the movie... it should have been done 3-4 years ago. If there is a movie, it should come after the series is ended.
    And whatever happens -- NO LIVE ACTION!
    ---

  • For this movie to succeed... (Score:4)

    by hank ( 294 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @04:49PM (#1263833)
    ...they're going to need to introduce new material. While any diehard Simpsons fan will go to see the movie, it'll quickly lose interest unless they introduce a new character, or a major new thing to the show.

    Another great way to follow through with the movie would be to incorporate the ending of the movie in with some of the television episodes about a month or a month and a half after the release of the movie. How do you all feel?

    Anyone know if South Park incorporated the ending of their movie into some of their new episodes?

  • You know you're a geek when you refer to something going from TV to the big screen as "scaling". That's priceless. Referring to a woman who you knew years ago as a pigtailed little girl: Wow, she sure scaled well. Amusing.


    Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
    NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
    www.npsis.com [npsis.com]
  • This may seem a trifle contrived, but as I see it, there won't be a feature film now, simply because it hasn't happened yet, ie. if it was ever going to happen it would have happened _way_ earlier.

    What makes me say this? Well, first of all I would have thought the pressure to do a Simpsons movie would have been pretty massive earlier in it's history, when the hype etc. about it was MASSIVE, say after season 3 maybe. That's when everybody, and their dog, and their dog's friends, would have gone to see it.

    I'm not saying lots wouldn't go see it now, I'm just saying that it seems a little late in the day for a full-length feature to come out.

    To generalize a little (and open myself up to flaming), other cartoon feature films, such as Beavis and Butthead, and South Park, have been released pretty early on as well. This could be related to the fact that they don't have the staying power and broad appeal of The Simpsons, but is still related.

    And yes, I know it's early days for South Park (compared to The Simpsons), and it may still be around in 10 years, but it definitely doesn't have the whole from 4 year olds to grandparents appeal of The Simpsons.

    Cheers.
  • http://www.jinxworld.com/bonus.htm

    Found by typing 'simpsons "pulp fiction"' into Google, then pressing 'I'm feeling lucky'.

    I'm going to have to redraw and colourise that Apu picture...

    God, I love Google. :-)

    Ford Prefect
  • Here it is in all its glory -- Pulp Simpsons!.

    http://www.jinxworld.com/bonus.htm [jinxworld.com]
  • If you are looking for the Microsoft open source thread it can be found here [slashdot.org]

    Kurt, Your DB move failed again.

  • South Park scaled well to the big screen?...well, personally there at least, I beg to differ! Obviously some out there disagree with me, but I thought most of the things that worked well for South Park as a half hour TV show just weren't there as part of a full 90(?) minute movie. Many of the effects of the show that make it funny are due to the fact that it is a TV show and it is only half an hour. And I think the same would apply to The Simpsons.

    Also, someone mentioned that it would work due to all those 2 and 3 part episodes. Well, I disagree here too. First, those worked so well, again, because they were different episodes: cliffhangers were left, season finales worked into season premieres, etc. String them together and a lot of the excitement is lost. Additionally, a half-hour TV show minus commercials and opening equates down to approximately 24 minutes. At that rate, we're talking the equivalent of FOUR Simpsons episodes back to back, not just 2 or so.

    So could it be done?...maybe if done carefully. Sould it be done?...I am not sure, because I am not sure those that do will do it carefully enough. If they can, do I hope it will be done?...definitely!

  • If they make a movie, it had better be far superior to the idiotic comic strip.

    -Legion

  • I think the Simpsons themselves are a lot like the "Attack of the 50-Foot Eyesores" segment in one of the Halloween episodes. The only way they're going away is if people stop watching, which they touched upon in another episode...

    They're just cartoon characters! It's not like they get older, or can't change personalities for the better at the drop of a hat. How many people like the "Sad Lisa" or "Bad Bart" phases of the show?

    I think the staff has their finger on the pulse of the fan base, and could keep the show going for another ten years with the blessings of Fox and its voice talent.

    --

  • Silly kiddies. Long before the series, the Simpsons were a series of animated shorts that appeared in theatres.
  • Dunno. I don't remember the specific order in that they do product with. He described it but I wasn't paying superb attention. I think they did a read through early before any drawing is done and then after all the animation is done they do it again to make any necessary corrections.

  • Re:Bring back the writers (Score:4)

    by Nagash ( 6945 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @05:30PM (#1263850)
    Perhaps I am in a vast minority here, but I don't think the show has really been as bad as people seem to think. I've seen every episode this year (except the flying football limb thing - damn!) and I've been laughing the whole time.

    The show is a different flavour of goofy. I've seen the old ones a zillion times and yes, when Conon was a producer/writer, it was downright wacky. It still is. I'll be quite honest in saying that I'm glad the show is not exactly the same as it was in the 3-4-5 seasons. That gets tiresome.

    People said the episode where Maude dies wasn't funny. I must have missed something - that eulogy was hilarious! Plus, the fact she was killed by t-shirt cannons. That's just silly. Also, the other week the episode with the horse and the Comic Book Guy wearing the "Worst Episode Ever" t-shirt. Classic.

    I don't know. I think everyone who says "This season sucks!" after every season since number 5 (or 6) just doesn't get it, but it is totally subjective, after all. Oh well - I think you're missing out. Of course, that happens with lots of TV shows and the writers of The Simpsons know it. You can tell in the way they do things now, by making total fun of the entire process of their art. In all honesty, the show is crazier now than it was when it started. Sometimes, they do anti-Simpsons episodes - just 'cause. That's why it's funny. Maybe they are trying to make the "This season sucks!" people mad. I find it very amusing.

    But that's just me...

    Woz
    gzw@home.com
  • No way! Monorail ep is a classic...
  • MPAA member Fox would release it, So I won't be seeing any Simpsons movies, Untill the DeCSS lawsuits are dropped.
  • I'm inclined to keep watching my favorite show on TV. Beyond the satisfaction of hearing Bart and Homer swear, I can't think of any other reason that a movie version would be better.
  • <i>I think part of the beauty of the Simpsons is the simplicity of the plots</i>

    I disagree. I think the best parts of the Simpsons are the continuous satires and parodies of real-life, and the fact that Simpsons show that even the most dysfunctional family can live and love together. I admit, the work that Matt Groening puts into the background is unbelievable and among some of the high points of the series (my favorites being the statue of Jebediah Springfield giving the finger as Little Richard sings during the "Do whatever you want" festival (which is a huge change from the "Do as we say so" festival brought over by German settlers in 1946) and the karate fighter kicking the other karate fighter in the balls as Bart goes to learn karate).

    As well, the music of the show is phenomenal(sp?). Alf Clausen is a pure genius when it comes to creating music that is so tongue in cheek, but so catchy and hilarious you have to hear it again.

    In closing, as long as the music in the movie is half as good as the music of the show, and the movie is poking fun at real-life, I am there in the theatres.
  • First off, I'm not particularly impressed with this last season of the Simpsons. I think they're trying too hard to be more crude, but in a semi-smart way, to take back the viewership that South Park stole. And it just isn't working.

    A lot of the writing, IMO, for the past season, has been horrible. I think the series run has been great, but stop beating a dead horse. The show is over. Let it continue in reruns. Let us enjoy the fond memories. But it's over. The longer they drag the series on, the more viewers they're going to loose.

    That said. The movie is a horrible idea. It can only get worse. Half-hour TV shows don't move to the big screen well. There hasn't be a successful move yet. And don't anyone try to bring up the Transformers as a counter to that.

    I say, let this be the last season, then, if they must, do a final farewell movie.

    But if the show must stoop to the level of killing of a second-rate character and hype it up JUST to get people interested... well that should be a signal to us all.

    -
    "There is no off position on the genius switch." --Dave Letterman
    -

  • Not quite. It was a series of animated shorts which appeared during the Tracey Ullman show.
    ---
    "'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
  • Oh forget it, it's just too easy. :)
  • I think that a lot of people are being too harsh on this season, and also too harsh on futurama (which IMHO is awesome!). this season hasn't been *that* bad... but there is no doubt that it is paling in comparison to the days when Conan, John Schwartzwelder, and Sam Simon were all writing together. if they could get all three together and write a movie in the same vein as Homer Goes to College and Rosebud (the episode with Bobo, Mr. Burn's bear), i would be first in line. hell, if they could get it HALF as funny, i'd be first in line! even if the simpsons goes off the air soon, it will never REALLY go off the air (what with syndication and occasional references on futurama). i just hope that if the movie is made it isn't live action or hastily thrown together. there's my .02...
  • I like the idea of a simpsons movie, but if I recall correctly its already been thought about. At one point after "3d homer" I read something about plans for a "live action simpsons" movie. Thats all i read, and never heard anything about it again.
    On a side note...
    Admittedly my sources aren't very solid, but lately a friend of mine who, "talks to a simpsons illustrator" has been saying that this is the last season of the show. Anyone else heard anything like this?
    If it is true, it makes me wonder about the current Maude Flanders contract negotiation failure, and the increased pay and contract extension of other voices on the show.
  • While it's not my favourite episode, I would LOVE to see a movie, if they do one, with the Stonecutters in it. Of course you'd HAVE to have Patrick Stewart back to do the voice of the lead Stonecutter. Maybe I'm just sold on it due to the Stonecutters song. "Who holds the back the electric car... Who made Steve Guttenberg a STAR!" Classic. And The Simpsons has gone down hill lately, but not anywhere near as bad as it got at 1 point 2 seasons ago.

    And for the record, I get 2 hours of The Simpsons a day. An hour on Fox, an episode on the CBC, and another one later on a local channel. And I still sit and watch whenever I can.

  • I Just Have 2 things to say

    1) MAGIC POWERS!!!

    2) Wedding after Wedding after Wedding!!!!

  • Here in NM we used to get the Simpsons twice a day. The only problem was, the station would show the same episodes over and over ... they had something like two seasons of episodes, which they would play in sequence. They did this for years, and if you were good enough you could accurately predict which episode would play on a given day. Needless to say I got tired of seeing 1/5 of all the possible Simpsons episodes.

    Does anyone know why the stations do this? Is it because they only purchase seasons in blocks, or something? Or is it just because our station in Albuquerque is messed-up or cheap?

  • Style isn't right (Score:3)

    by Shaheen ( 313 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @06:58PM (#1263869) Homepage
    I am an avid fan of The Simpsons - I have seen every episode and have my own library of approximately half the existent episodes.

    However, I don't believe that The Simpsons would "scale" well to the big screen. Why? Well, look at most Simpsons episodes - they are mainly slap-stick comedy, with the very well placed satire and parody embedded in the script and visual gags.

    Would that work on the big screen? Or should I say, would it work for more than an hour? Or even close to an hour and a half?

    I doubt it. Sure, it would be a great moneymaker - it'd be like Star Wars, people knew it sucked compared to the hype, but they went and saw it anyway because everyone else was doing it.

    However, I truly believe Matt Groening isn't as interested in money as the network producers are. He has always been keen on placing rich satire about life into a comedic, cartoony sense.

    In an interview, I read that Groening sold Futurama to FOX by saying "Here's another show by me - the guy who created The Simpsons! And it's just as good as The Simpsons!" Of course, FOX saw dollar signs. Though, that's not what Groening created the show for, and it shows in the show's unique style that is Groening.

    In any case, that's just why I think there hasn't, and won't be, a Simpsons movie coming any time soon.
  • You know, this kind of rant goes on with every show that has been on for numerous seasons.

    Yeah, The Simpsons may not be as great as they were, but it's still one of the better shows on TV. And while they may not hit the mark as often as they did (or we would now like, since expectations are higher), it still rarely fails to create LOL humor.

    As for the hype of killing Maude, I believe it was sweeps week, and all the networks were hyping their shows. Nothing draws viewers like sensationalism! How else could that other crap on Fox air? (Who wants to Marry...?)

    Besides, it was just 2 seasons ago which produced the chili cook-off episode...a true classic and one of the best of all time. After 10 years, ideas just don't seem as original as our expectations for brilliance are too high.

    A movie could work...although I'd rather see another season than a movie...

  • The animation process (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17, 2000 @07:14PM (#1263874)
    Once the script has been completed and approved, an artist is assigned the task of creating a storyboard of that script. The storyboard consists of rough sketches that portray the action of the story, often resembling a comic strip. Beneath each sketch is a short description of the action, any camera movements, and any dialog.

    Dialog and the musical score are recorded. This process does not occur until later in the production of a movie, but for an animated movie, the dialog and music must first be recorded so that the artists can synchronize their drawings to it.

    A layout artist works in conjunction with the director to determine what will be in each scene, how each character will look, and how the story can best be broken into scenes. Once this process is complete, the layout artists prepare drawings to guide the background artists and animators.

    The background artists are responsible for drawing all of the backgrounds found in the animated movie. A background is considered anything in the scene except for the characters and anything else that those characters might interact with (for example, if a character picks up a book from a table, that book is not part of the background).

    The animators are responsible for drawing each character's movements on seperate drawings. It takes 24 of these drawings to make one second of film. Usually, different animators are assigned to different characters. The animators work from a timing chart. The timing chart indicates the number of frames, or seperate pictures, needed for the particular character to express each word of previously recorded dialog. For example, the timing chart may show that the character has to say the word "hello" in 8 frames. The animators then make 8 seperate drawings in which the character's mouth moves to form the word "hello."

    Because the animators are responsible for drawing up to a million different drawings, the idea of key-framing has been introduced. In the key-framing, the lead animator draws the character in its key-frame position. A key-frame position may occur two or three times every 24 frames (or one second). A key frame means that frame contains the essential action of the scene. A junior animator must then draw all of the drawings necessary in-between the key frames.

    Once the animators have completed their drawings, another group of artists traces them onto sheets of transparent celluloid, called cels, with ink. These cels are then sent to the painting department. At the painting department, a painter paints the proper colors onto the reverse side of the cels.

    The completed cels are then sorted into their proper sequence. The cels and backgrounds are sent to the camera department. At the camera department, the camera operator has an exposure sheet which tells him/her which cels belong with which backgrounds. The appropriate cels are properly layered over the appropriate backgrounds, as they are filmed one frame at a time.

    The sound track is added to the film and the picture is ready for release.

  • "Bart! Don't ask stupid questions. Is there nudity?"
  • Well, you all should check out a new slash-based site which has all this kinda stuff! X-Men, Spiderman the movie etc..
    uMoo! [umoo.com]
    http://www.uMoo.com/ [umoo.com]


    [Disclaimer: My friend started it a couple of days ago, so I'm kinda biased]
  • ...and a talking alien named Osmodiar that only Homer can see!

    "Damn straight, Troy, my man!"
  • In an interview with about South Park it was said that every time one of the censors made a comment about a scene they made it even worse. They kept doing this and eventually the movie got a R rating for some bizzare reason. Or it might have just been along the lines of a publicity stunt to sell the movie more. "Hey, we tricked the censors by just making worse and worse! After a while they couldn't take it and gave it a R!" And the more I think about it the more sense it makes. (So I'm a little off topic)


  • Blame Springfield

    Don't you mean Blame Shelbyville?

    What Would Troy McClure Do?

    How about: What Would Waylon Smithers Do?

    Bart's Mom's a Big Fat Bitch

    More like Ralph's mom. Bart's mom is hot! (God, did I just type that? Oh well -- I could be worse [geocities.com].)

  • If you'll remember, this is Taco's site, and he can post whatever the hell he feels like posting. Otherwise, it would be "Hotgrits- Stuff for anonymous cowards." If you don't like it, then leave. We certainly could have done without your comment.

  • would they stick to the series' storyline? Would Maude Flanders be able to show up in the movie? Either way, I'd rather see another season than a movie...

  • Re:Maybe not a good idea.. (Score:3)

    by Hrunting ( 2191 ) on Thursday February 17, 2000 @08:31PM (#1263882) Homepage
    X-Files.

    X-Files made a pretty decent movie for a television series that both drew from the history of the show and stood on its own as an excellent plot. When they returned to the series, not only did they do a great job of integrating the movie back into the plotline without too much dependency, but it almost seemed to give the series a new vibrancy.

    But then again, X-Files is a very different type of television show that is almost more suited for the big screen than it is for the small screen.
  • "Introducing new material" sounds dangerously like when they tried to introduce "Poochy" to Itchy and Scratchy.....life imitating art? On another note, as far as I can tell south park tv has had nothing to do with the movie, although with some exceptions the episdoes have nothing to do with each other anyway so it is not really such a great example.
  • Actually it was the studio who wanted to bring the movie down from NC-17 and Matt and Trey wanted R or worse. In an interview in Details magazine they explained how they wanted to do everythnig that they couldn't do on TV. They wanted to go all out and put every sick twisted idea they had into film. They fought for the R rating
  • Thinking back to a documentary on "How a Simpsons Episode was made".... I'm not sure if this is still the case but the raw cell/frames are sent over to Korea to be painstakingly painted one by one before getting shipped back for review. This process is repeated untill everything is deemed acceptable.
  • My expectations of how funny the show should be haven't changed; it's the show that's changing, and changing significantly for the worse. When I watch the syndicated episodes, they are consistently funny, whereas this season's episodes are just terrible. I think I laughed a grand total of three times while watching the last two episodes.

    The problem seems to be that the writers are emphasizing cheap gags at the expense of intelligent humor and consistent characterization. When Ned Flanders can give up God and then go back in the span of two minutes, something is seriously wrong. In the space of one episode, the writers destroyed a character that had been consistently defined in the 10 years of episodes leading up to now. And for what point?

    The writers seem to have lost all sense of subtlety as well; someone should let them know that meta humor is not funny when you hit the audience over the head with it (e.g. "this episode written by Ian Maxtone-Graham"). As much as I hate to say it, the show is degenerating into the type of material that the Simpsons used to make fun of. And that is just sad.

  • um yeah, i got bored of the simpsons like 7 years ago. i wish they would wither away into the ethos. im ready to give a good whuppin' to anybody who so much as mentions them in my presence.


    Thank You,
    Troll King
  • If music's what you want: here's some sizzlin' unreleased tracks [webalias.com] in .mp3 format courtesy of Yellow Album.
  • Let's face it - the Simpsons have been far from funny for the past three to four years. I am a huge Simpsons fan, and am a big fan of the syndication, but I find myself changing the channel midway through the new episodes.

    I don't know why the new ones suck, I've always assumed the good writers left and moved on. For example Conan O'Brien, author of a couple of great episodes (Marge vs. the Monorail, for example), obviously left to go do his own thing. Also, I suspect Groening has little to do with the Simpsons since moving on to Futurama.

    In any case, I think a Simpsons movie would be great, but only if they brought back the great writers from earlier seasons. Otherwise, I think the movie would be a waste of time and money.

  • A movie isn't going to fix what ails the show. Here's the problem in a nutshell:

    In the Critic-Simpsons crossover, they make fun of "Football in the Groin."

    A few weeks ago, on the Simpsons ski trip episode, they devoted 20 seconds of screen time to Homer being hit in the groin.

    When you become what you used to parody, it's time to call it quits.

    -jon
  • Beyond the satisfaction of hearing Bart and Homer swear, I can't think of any other reason that a movie version would be better

    Full frontal nudity of Marge.

  • Yeah, that's right.

    Slashdot
    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters. Things that interest only me.

    Wouldn't that be an interesting site? Just take it for granted you won't want to read everything.

  • For routine parts?
  • FIRST OFF, we learned in grammar school that when we make statements, we back them up with specific evidence, or at LEAST a reason for stating our comments. Nice try, though!

    Anyways, how could you possibly dislike Conan's work on the Simpsons? Several hilarious jokes and visual gags of his style are evident in many episodes, not to mention that one of his two solo Simpsons episodes is "Marge Vs. the Monorail"; That is EASILY one of the greatest episodes of the series, slightly below "In Marge We Trust". Mr. Sparkle is the MAN...

    Afro Ryan

  • I hope they don't make a simpsons movie in the same way they did the southpark one... Some things don't stay funny longer than a half hour show.

    (Southpark was one of the few films I have walked out on before the end... Did they *have* to have everyone bursting into song every 30 seconds? And do Americans really hate Canadians that much?)
  • Here's [demon.co.uk] my redraw/color of the 'At Last!' shot. Bit of a rush job, I'm afraid.
  • What do you call a comment like this? -1, Leech? I think that's it. Anyone who would stoop so low as to repost someone else's Funny comment as their own needs to be dragged out back and have some sense beat into them. This is pathetic [slashdot.org]
    Hmm, probably shouldn't have even responded to this..what a waste of effort.


    --------
  • The Simpsons have shaped our generation. It has evolved from a show that was about a punk kid named Bart to a hilarious satirical poke at North American life.

    One of the beauties of the Simpsons that contributes to its longevity is that the characters simply don't age. This has been the downfall of many a live action sitcom.

    I've been predicting a Simpsons movie to end the series. The Simpsons is the most successful primetime animated series, and will possibly become the longest running sitcom. It turned 10 last year. This only leaves shows like M*A*S*H and Cheers to compete with. A Simpsons movie would, IMHO be an excellent way to end the series.

  • ...but since this reminded me; when I first saw the poster for the 'Tigger' movie, I thought it was for a Calvin and Hobbes film. I was actually excited. I wondered, then, about the possibility of seeing other strips/animation make it to the movies. Like Bloom County. I'm curious if others feel the same way...
  • Beavis & Butthead Do America was the beginning of the end for B&B. Sure, it was at least in part due to Mike Judge starting up King of the Hill (how many B&B characters, or at least voices do you hear in there? I see a lot), but I think the movie was too much. Had it been done earlier in the lifetime of the show, maybe it would have been better. But by the time the movie came out, the show had already been "toned down" from the good ol' days and the movie never played to the sick (but damn funny) level the older episodes did.
  • I agree that the show seems to be on it's last leg. Actually, it's looked like it has been that way for a few years now.

    I recall looking at the show about 3 or 4 years ago and thinking that they were running out of ideas. The reason I thought this was because I was watching an episode where the writing had certainly gone "insane". Rather, instead of the typical humorous Simpsons writing, it had gone to something completely "out there". I liked it, but it was a style of writing they had not touched before, so some proverbial can was pulled off the shelf that had never been considered before.

    This last season has been funny, but I think the last truely great season was about two years ago. I love the Simpsons, but I think its time to put it to rest and let it live on in syndication heaven.

    --

  • However, I don't believe that The Simpsons would "scale" well to the big screen. Why? Well, look at most Simpsons episodes - they are mainly slap-stick comedy, with the very well placed satire and parody embedded in the script and visual gags.

    Would that work on the big screen? Or should I say, would it work for more than an hour? Or even close to an hour and a half?

    Two words: Farrelly Brothers. You've basically just described Dumb & Dumber, Something About Mary, etc.. They didn't do too shabby at the box office.

  • Wow! I thought I was the only one who noticed the P and NP joke!

    Cool.

    I'm not just some psycho-pimp droid out of my mind but just a psycho-pimp droid with my mind on the plan!

    (Hmm that last part didn't make sense... sigh)
  • Everyone keeps talking about a Simpsons movie....as a regular in alt.tv.simpsons I am REALLY starting to get sick of hearing about it. Do you know why there WON'T be a Simpsons movie?? It's because there have been too many good TV shows that have be skewered into TERRIBLE movies (think The Flintstones, The Brady Bunch---which was much more appreciated before the movie, even the JETSONS), and now the first thing that anybody thinks of when they see these shows is the movie spinoff! The writers and producers do NOT want this to happen to their show; they would only release a movie is they KNEW it would get a VERY overly positive response, and with the condition that the show has been in for the last 2.5 years (although season 11 HAS been an improvement over the last two), they aren't going to take any risks. South Park was the exception to the rule becasue the South Park movie didn't FOLLOW the rule -- the movie was what the creators intended the TV show to be, but in the land of the free(?) there's still stupid censorship on television.

    Also, MOST of the many people that go into making this show are TOO busy to start a large project like that. If there ever WAS a movie, it wouldn't be until after the show got cancelled.

    Oh, and before you recommend "hey, how about a live action movie?", consider that most of the actors look NOTHING like their characters, so imagine a Homer Simpson with a Dennis Franz voice! And remember that most of the actors (with an exception of Yeardly Smith, who has only played Lisa, Mrs Winfield, Maggie in "Bart vs Thanksgiving" and a couple of chorus extras) play multiple characters, so it would be IMPOSSIBLE to keep all of the voices the same.

    Read http://www.snpp.com/guides/movie.html [snpp.com] for a collection of official quotes from the Simpsons staff on the movie

    oh, and if you see ANYTHING about the Simpsons Movie on imdb, remember that this is the same site that once accepted a submission about the Futurama movie, starring Mr T as Fry and French Stewart as Bender!

  • Conan O'Brien wrote for Simpsons? I never knew that! That kicks ass! I love that guy!

    Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
  • Forget about a movie ... does anyone know why the TV series is still only available on video and not on DVD?

    Regards, Ralph
  • Agreed! I think the Simpson are still going strong. In a world of instant pop-culture, backstreet boys, britney spears, yoyos and pokemon, it's good to see something familiar still kicking ass. Simpsons is a cultural icon. I think Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy (the earlier episodes especially), and That 70s Show are the few redeeming things left on tv.

    Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
  • Not if the movie ends up anything like the comic strip.

    How the comic strip based on a cartoon based on the inspired "Life in Hell" strip can suck so bad is beyond me.


    Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
    Mitsubishi ad
  • I heard Matt Groening on NPR's "Fresh Air" before the release of Futurama and he said a Simpsons movie was unlikely largely due to the contract he has with FOX. He said that if he were to make a Simpsons movie, FOX would make a bundle and he wouldn't take home jack. In fact, it sounded like one of the major reasons he started Futurama was to have a show where he was more in control of the product licensing and was getting a bigger piece of the pie.
  • It seems that the saying is true:

    Sarcasm IS wasted on the stupid
  • yes, we do.
  • Danny Elfman wrote the theme song, but Alf Clausen does all the muusic during the episode, the 5 second clips that start and end each scene.

Slashdot Top Deals

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

Close