The Simpson's Movie Confirmed

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.'"

Comments

Obligatory.

[Silverlancer]

The Simpsons. In a movie?

My eyes! The goggles do NOTHING!

Re:Obligatory.

[h8god]

Bart! Butter your bacon!!

Re:Obligatory.

[professorhojo]

> The Simpsons. In a movie?

that's unpossible!

Re:Obligatory.

[MarkRose]

Maybe these ones will work better?

Re:Obligatory.

[Dashing Leech]

"The Simpsons. In a movie?"

Maybe I'll be allowed to go see it after I become a Supreme Court Judge.

Re:Obligatory.

[castoridae]

> that's unpossible!

It's perfectly cromulent.

Re:Obligatory.

[Foobar of Borg]

MMmmmm.... Chief Justice Warren Burger....

"gay" tag?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

What's with the "gay" tag? I thought this place was intolerant of homophobes.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Bill_Royle]

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?

[Nasarius]

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.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Copy, Paste, Repeat]

People keep talking about them, but why am I not seeing these tags anywhere? Am I the only one?

Re:"gay" tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

that is why we should follow moviecomics lead, and for this instance spell it "ghey"

Re:"gay" tag?

[noisyfont]

According to wikipedia this is 'victim' of April fool's day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1%2C_2006#Event s_mistaken_as_April_Fool.27s_Day_hoaxes

Re:"gay" tag?

[Dante Shamest]

I thought this place was intolerant of homophobes.

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

Re:"gay" tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure most people don't even notice that using "lame" is itself non-PC, by those standards. It is derogatory to the "differently abled"; yet no one seems to have problems with using "lame".
And using "childish" is derogatory to children; "uncool" is derogatory to those in the tropics...

Re:"gay" tag?

[4ndys]

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

Feel free to mod me as flamebait, but I seem to be missing the point. Would that not be the intention?

Re:"gay" tag?

[gaskell]

http://slashdot.org/faq/tags.shtml

Re:"gay" tag?

[moochfish]

Tags sure become a big joke when people start spamming "ponies" "gay" and "straight" on every god damn post.

Re:"gay" tag?

[welcher]

As you point out, gay has come to mean uncool or crap (or whatever) because it means homosexual. Gay still means homosexual. So you are asking people to accept that a word which denotes their sexuality also denotes general crappiness. It seems very much like how, as a child, we would use "jew" as a derogatory term: to jew money etc. I had no idea what jew meant in a broader sense, but when I found out, I realised how insulting it was to a people to use the word in that way. I think the use of gay to generally denigrate something is similarly insulting. That you know some gay people who use this term doesn't make it acceptable.

Re:"gay" tag?

[evilviper]

Congratulations. You've shown you have absolutely no clue what tags are, and how they work. Read the FAQ and be enlightened.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Aranth Brainfire]

Generic as in calling an event or object or something 'gay'. You (probably) don't mean to offend random people who happen to be nearby when you do it.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Rhinobird]

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.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Jeremi]

Get off your high-horse and just deal with the fact that "gay" has been accepted, by a large part of the population, as a synonym for "uncool" or "lame".

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 like this, so that at some point the terms fall out of popular use and we can have a society where entire minority groups aren't automatically considered "uncool" or "lame"?

Re:"gay" tag?

[rbarreira]

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

Do you know what an homophobe is?

Re:"gay" tag?

[Nasarius]

Come on guys, don't mod me overrated. I'm going for +5, Troll!

Re:"gay" tag?

[hdparm]

Isn't slashcode gay? I bet <brokeback></brokeback> is what's missing there.

Re:"gay" tag?

[chrispycreeme]

Yea it had a meaning. According to the m-w.com dictionary it means:

1 a : having a body part and especially a limb so disabled as to impair freedom of movement b : marked by stiffness and soreness
2 : lacking needful or desirable substance : WEAK, INEFFECTUAL
3 slang : not being in the know : SQUARE

I think when you call someone lame you might be using the second or perhaps the third definition. So stop being so lame and gay.

P.S. I am tagging everything "Bisexual" when i see the gay and straight tags..

Re:"gay" tag?

[XaXXon]

Yeah, dude. That's soooo gay.

Now let's go play a game of smear the queer.

Re:"gay" tag?

[moonbender]

Nigger is not an analogous example. Gay has three word meanings that are vastly different, nigger has just one meaning with various connotations, most of them negative. If parts of my social circle -- which is all that matters with respects to my own language usage -- consistently used nigger to refer to something unrelated like, say, read a book, then yeah, I'd probably use it. I don't see that coming, though, and nigger really isn't even part of my active vocabulary.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Walzmyn]

I thought this place was just intolerant of everybody

Re:"gay" tag?

[ruskibanger]

Funny, bashing maturity of someone as you debate a freakin cartoon.

Re:"gay" tag?

[zootm]

It's insulting to gays, rather than to the person who the "insult" was directed at, is the point there.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Illbay]

...using "gay" as a generic derogatory is pretty fucking childish and insulting.

Not to mention hilarious.

Re:"gay" tag?

[mqduck]

It's also worth mentioning that some people in the South claim that nigger was just their normal word for black people, that they didn't mean it derogatively. I think that strengthens your analogy.

Re:"gay" tag?

[GnomeChompsky]

K, this is one of those things that really gets me. I am very, very tired of it.

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 cognition. But I don't really think that their views are justified in this case. No one is saying that this article has sexual relations with articles of the same gender, nor are they judging it for doing so.

In fact, the people in my life who use the term "gay" to mean lame are, themselves, queer people. And even when teenage boys (the other large demographic of lame-"gay" utterers) use the term that way, it does not bother me. Maybe it's ignorant, but I think I and the "community" are strong enough to deal.

What I do object to, with regards to the term "gay" is when it is used in the substantive -- as in, "Those gays are always out to recruit your children." It's an adjective. It should be used to describe people, not to define them.

Re:"gay" tag?

[karnal]

In this day and age, the word "ant" would probably offend some people.
Sorry if I offended anyone in the production of this post.

Re:"gay" tag?

[pommiekiwifruit]

You are either heterosexual or homosexual.

You don't go to racy enough parties :-)

Re:"gay" tag?

[Dante Shamest]

Oops. I may have misquoted somebody.

Re:"gay" tag?

[just_another_sean]

Well this is a bit off topic, so let me see if I can steer these comments back on track...

If I promise not to say "tagging is teh gay" can I still say "that Smithers, he is so gay!"?

Re:"gay" tag?

[ROBOKATZ]

I hope this means they get rid of the whole ridiculous tagging system. What purpose does it serve? You can't browse articles by tag, for example. All it does it let people label articles dumb things (like 'gay') that everyone has to see on the front page.

Re:"gay" tag?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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

Yeah. I hate it when people act all gay like that.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Catbeller]

Bingo. I've spent some time down there -- hell, hit any north shore suburb of Chicago, too -- and "nigger" is used for blacks constantly. More importantly, it means "low", "poor", "vile". It's just a matter of who's using it. If it's a white person, it's an uplifting experience for them, because no matter how low they think themselves to be on the food chain, there's always the "niggers" to revile. Talking about how sick "niggers" are is dinner conversation in even the nicest families I wandered into. It's just part of the culture. Hate and class and status, oh my.

Oh yes, if you're black, you know damned well what they mean when they call you "nigger". Ditto "gay".

Insults like that are primarly the favorites of the young and "rebellious". Like "gay", they think they are using the word "nigger" to spite the face of PC liberal communists. It's a mark of pride. In stupiditym I guess. Adults stop using such epithets because as they move into the real world, they find that they are no longer surrounded by like-minded people, and won't exactly move up in their field of employment. And they'll get their face kicked in by a serious teacher of manners.

Re:"gay" tag?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

It seems very much like how, as a child, we would use "jew" as a derogatory term: to jew money etc. I had no idea what jew meant in a broader sense,

I have a somewhat similar story, but the word in question was 'cunt'.

I swear to gods, I had no idea what that word really meant until I was probably fifteen. I just used it in a general derogatrory sense, and often as a form of informal chastisement. I'm reasonably certain I used it when conversing with females on more than one occassion.

When I was finally told what it actually meant,... well, let's just say it was a rather mortifiying epiphany.

Re:"gay" tag?

[popeguilty]

Whorf and Sapir fail, imo, because they're looking for a one-way street. Thinking less of queer people leads to saying "gay", which reinforces the lack of respect for queer people. which leads to saying "gay" for lame... I'll see your anecdotal group of queer friends who use "gay" for lame and raise you an anecdotal campus full of homophobes who think the words are synonymous.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Foobar of Borg]

"gay" has been accepted, by a large part of the population, as a synonym for "uncool" or "lame". While it's roots are homophobic it's time to get past that.

Odd, I thought "gay" simply meant you were happy and easy going...

Re:"gay" tag?

[popeguilty]

What, and can we also say "nigger" as long as we spell it "nhiggehr?"

Re:"gay" tag?

[Trillian_1138]

"...I don't know any sensible, level-headed gay men or lesbians who are offended when others do, so long as the intent, the meaning behind those words isn't meant to put-down gays."

Well, I do, so I guess all that proves is anectodal evidence is useless.

More to the point, I can't accept that the intent behind a word can be completely seperated from the word's definition or connotation. Have you ever had to suffer through one of those work-mandated " lets learn about harrasment" sessions? I recently had to and the one thing that I came out with which I believe is valuable is that harrasment (or, in this case, the use of offensive language) is in the eye of the beholder. If I'm in my group of friends and we're comfortable making what would generally be considered racist or sexist jokes (and we are), that is an appropriate behavior and use of language. However, if I'm in a situation where someone *might* be offended by casual slang (such as Slashdot) it's rude to use it with the assumption everyone is okay with that language.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating that political correctness be held above all other thoughts when trying to say something, or that a public forum such as Sashdot should become a bland, vanilla discussion where no one speaks out for fear of offending someone else. But as someone who identifies as queer and has openly gay friends, to *ME* using 'gay' as a synonem (sp?) for 'lame' or 'stupid' is directly saying "This idea/object/activity/etc is stupid and lame, like those gay people are." It doesn't matter if that's how it was intended or not, but because (to my understanding) the ussage of "gay" in that context stems from a negative perception of deviant sexuality in U.S. culture, that's how I'll see it. (Well, fine. I suppose on some level it does matter if the intent was to offend or not, but the point is my feelings will be hurt either way.)

Once again, I am not saying we should try to avoid hurting feelings at all costs, or that people should refrain from speaking merely because they might hurt someone else. But when you know a substantial portion of the population finds something offensive, and there's no good reason (that I can see) to use the word anyway, why do it?

Please feel free to disagree. I'm interested in responses.

-Trillian

Re:"gay" tag?

[Trillian_1138]

"Gay has three word meanings that are vastly different, nigger has just one meaning with various connotations, most of them negative."

I'm guessing you mean the three definitions are 1) homosexual, 2) happy or lighthearted, and 3) a derogatory term (as being discussed in this thread). Likewise, the only definition (with various connotations) of nigger is 'a black person.' I'll respond with that assumption, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

"If parts of my social circle -- which is all that matters with respects to my own language usage -- consistently used nigger to refer to something unrelated like, say, read a book, then yeah, I'd probably use it."

Okay. I see the key difference here being "parts of my social circle." As I said in another post, my close group of friends makes what would generally be considered racist and sexist jokes. Since we are also self-depricating and are all comfortable with the level of 'offensive' content we use, I don't see a problem with that. But when you begin to use that language outside your social circle, you run the risk of offending others. When we're with people we don't know well, my friends and I tone down our humor.

So while you're welcome to use 'nigger' to mean 'book' within your social group without my complaint (altough if I hear you do it I'll probably ask you not to do it around me) when you take that slang outside your social group you run into people like myself (and the GP, apparently) who are A) going to think you're a racist (or homophobic, or sexist, or whatever-the-term-is-ist) and B) call you on it.

I have another big problem with your analogy. A book is an inherently (I hope...) non-judgemental label. Sure, there are subjectively "good" and "bad" books, but unless your social circle has an inside joke in which calling someone a "book" is either praise or offensive, saying you'll use 'nigger' to mean 'book' is not a fair analogy to 'gay' and 'lame.'

Finally, you say "Nigger is not an analogous example (because) Gay has three word meanings that are vastly different." Gay has those three different meanings because being racist has been, at least for a couple decades, officially unacceptable. Sure, people are obviously still racist, but you'll at the very least have difficulty forming a political platform by openly stating "We should round up the niggers and sterilize them to prevent breeding." The reason 'gay' has become synonemous with lame in the first place is because being homophobic is still socially acceptable to the point where casual slang like that is not being stopped. To paraphrase, you're saying "Nigger is not an analogous example because people aren't allowed to be officially racist, so there's only one definition of nigger and nigger never entered popular slang to mean 'bad' or 'stupid.' But 'gay' is different because it did.' The principal is not different, only the specifics.

Feel free to disagree,
-Trillian

Re:"gay" tag?

[Scrameustache]

intolerant of homophobes

That is so ghey!

But seriously, I think a "gay tag" might actually apply to the Simpsons at this point. How many episodes have there been by now where Homer learns to overcome his prejudice against homosexuals? Three? Four?

There was the one where he's affraid Bart is turning gay, the one where he goes off to live with gay men... and I'm pretty sure there were others. Not to mention all the Smithers stuff.
Frankly, the Simpsons have lapsed into a redudent series of run of the mill politically correct episodes, where once they were edgy. If they could make a goodbye movie, I wouldn't mind. They've had their fun, it's time to let go.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Scrameustache]

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)

"There's black people, and then there's niggers. Black people hate niggers too!"
-Chris Rock

Re:"gay" tag?

[Scrameustache]

As you point out, gay has come to mean uncool or crap (or whatever) because it means homosexual. Gay still means homosexual. So you are asking people to accept that a word which denotes their sexuality also denotes general crappiness.

Gay means happy!

So you are asking people to accept that a word which denotes their mood also denotes their sexual preference.

That you know some gay people who use this term doesn't make it acceptable.

Yeah.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Scrameustache]

I am a dyke (one might say, cunning linguist)

Since you mention it so eloquently... I've been wondering: How did dike come to mean carpet muncher?

I get queer, and gay... euphemisms... but how to you go from "an artificial watercourse" to a woman who likes women?

Re:"gay" tag?

[moonbender]

Just a few things - first of all, thanks for the insightful reply!

When I referred to my social circle, I probably didn't use a good term. I didn't mean my close friends, I actually meant people I talk to in general, including, for instance, people on Slashdot and even people who just talk to me like via televsion or radio. If they consistently adapt a style of language, chances are I will pick it up, unless I'm violently opposed to it. That's just how language and language change work. (In fact, close social circles are not very open to change, weak social ties are much more innovative; that is a small village will often preserve "archaic" parts of language, with innovation coming in through relatively loose ties such as TV - at least that's one theory.)

You are of course correct in your assessment that I am more likely to use problematic terms such as gay in its pejorative meaning within my close social circle, simply as a part of less formal speech. Actually, that's not even limited to the negative meaning, since I'm not very likely to discuss matters of sexuality with any of my professors...

I disagree with your final paragraph. First of all, nigger currently is not analogous to gay. Nigger in nearly all cases refers to somebody of African descent, and in the vast majority of cases in a negative way. There is just no way for me to use the word in a meaningful fashion without explicitly intending to be offensive towards black people. Gay, on the other hand, I can, and do (unfortunately) use without intending offense towards gay people. They are of course free to take offense, but rest assured none is intended. Now my point was that to be analogous, the word nigger would need to have a seperate meaning - but it doesn't, and I don't see it having one in my lifetime.

The etymology of gay or nigger really doesn't play into the argument, although you're right with some things you say. I don't think that the usage of gay is considered more legitimate because homosexuality is still considered taboo or wrong, simply because I haven't met anyone who thinks so in a very long time, certainly nobody I know in my age. Of course I don't know the whole language community (and of course my real language community isn't even the relevant here, because I primarily speak German), and prejudice against gays might still be present in it and vaguely present in many people without them even realising it. But I really don't want to get into that, because, like I said, it's not that relevant to my argument that the two words aren't analogous in a meaningful sense in this discussion. A perhaps more appropriate and amusing example is the one others have brought up, lame, which is of course used in a pejorative sense without anybody taking offsense -- and why would they, none is intended.

Re:"gay" tag?

[icroak]

Seems here the person that would actually need to correct something would be you. On one hand you have a person using a word (again which has more than one meaning) in a non-discriminative way. On the other hand you have a person taking a word obviously used in a non-discriminative context and making it discriminative, simply because they feel like it. Worst of all, the discrimination wouldn't even apply to them. A professional environment (such as the one your session is presenting) is completely different from a public environment (such as slashdot). If a person can't go out in public without being offended at one thing or another then that person has some deeper issues to work out.

To add my bit of anecdotal evidence, none of the homosexual people I know are offended by me calling something gay. I would go so far as to say I'm pretty sure the majority of them wouldn't either. The ones that do are probably still struggling to feel comfortable with the fact that they are homosexual, and again that's their problem to work out.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Trillian_1138]

I'm not entirely sure I understand some of your reply, so correct me if I'm getting something wrong. I want to make sure I know what you mean.

On one hand you have a person using a word (again which has more than one meaning) in a non-discriminative way.

I assume by this you mean "gay" in this context to mean "lame" which (you hold) is meant in a non-discrimanatory way.

On the other hand you have a person taking a word obviously used in a non-discriminative context and making it discriminative, simply because they feel like it.

I'm just not sure what you mean here. Do you mean my 'translation' of "This idea/object/activity/etc is stupid and lame, like those gay people are."? I think you do (I'm not sure what else I said could be taken that way) but correct me if I'm wrong.

With those assumptions....

First, I want to argue with you when you say "a non-discriminative way." I am willing to accept "in a way not intended to be discriminatory," but what I'm saying is that it is discriminatory, whether or not it is intended to be. Likewise, I very much disagree that my 'translation' of how I interprut the use of gay to mean 'lame' is taking a word "obviously used" in a non-discriminatory way and making it discriminatory. Again, I'm saying it's inherently discriminatory, because of the etymology of the word 'gay,' as well as the ussage of 'gay' to mean 'homosexual.'

Worst of all, the discrimination wouldn't even apply to them.

I'm honestly just not sure what you mean by that.

A professional environment (such as the one your session is presenting) is completely different from a public environment (such as slashdot). If a person can't go out in public without being offended at one thing or another then that person has some deeper issues to work out.

I agree that we should not always have to think about every little thing we say, for fear of offending someone. However, in my original post, I said "If I'm in a situation where someone *might* be offended by casual slang (such as Slashdot) it's rude to use it with the assumption everyone is okay with that language." So first, I'm very specifically including Slashdot as a place where I think it's reasonable to keep in mind the possibility that you may offend someone. You're welcome to disagree, but don't brush off my argument by saying "it only applies to the office," since intentionally included public forums for discussion, such as Slashdot, when making my point.

More importantly, you create a strawman by saying a person should be able to go out in public "without being offended at one thing or another." I'm not talking about "one thing or another," I'm very specifically talking about the use of 'gay' in a derogatory fashion, to mean 'lame' or 'stupid' or somesuch. I agree we live in a very "P.C." society, and that a lot of te time people should have thicker skin and not complain about percieved insults where none exist. But, I would argue, the etymology of the word 'gay' and the use of 'gay' to mean something bad creates a very real insult. If you want to disagree and do so anyway, go ahead. But people like myself are going to call you on it to try and make you justify yourself.

The ones that do are probably still struggling to feel comfortable with the fact that they are homosexual, and again that's their problem to work out.

That's another great strawman, and one that's a bit more out there. If you really don't have a problem with the use of 'gay' with negative connotations, that's fine. I disagree with you, but that's fine. Don't go pretending that any gay person who disagrees with you has some sort of problem with themself to work out...

Again, feel free to respond.

Trillian

Re:"gay" tag?

[Trillian_1138]

Likewise, thanks for taking the time to respond. *Gasp* A discussion on Slashdot about something of substance?

When I referred to my social circle, I probably didn't use a good term. I didn't mean my close friends, I actually meant people I talk to in general, including, for instance, people on Slashdot and even people who just talk to me like via televsion or radio. If they consistently adapt a style of language, chances are I will pick it up, unless I'm violently opposed to it. That's just how language and language change work. (In fact, close social circles are not very open to change, weak social ties are much more innovative; that is a small village will often preserve "archaic" parts of language, with innovation coming in through relatively loose ties such as TV - at least that's one theory.)

You are of course correct in your assessment that I am more likely to use problematic terms such as gay in its pejorative meaning within my close social circle, simply as a part of less formal speech. Actually, that's not even limited to the negative meaning, since I'm not very likely to discuss matters of sexuality with any of my professors...

I agree with all that (language changing, the evolution of language, etc). But because I (and at least some others) view the transformation of 'gay' to mean something negative as a bad thing, I'm trying to fight it. It may be a downhill battle, but I don't think that's true. We know language changes, and I'm arguing that (because I feel this specific lanaguage shift is a bad thing) it's reasonable to call people on their use of 'gay' to mean something negative and that it is possible to use the public perception of a word to alter its meaning.

Concerning the use of nigger...

I think I understand your point on the difference between explicitly intending offence (i.e. using 'nigger') and not intending offense (i.e. 'gay' in a negative sense). But whether or not you intend to offend, you do offend at least some people. And I guess I just don't see 'gay' (again, in its negative use) as a culturally important enough word to be worth perserving. There are words like 'lame' and 'stupid' which (I think) serve just fine, so I don't see why 'gay' should be considered okay.

Concerning 'gay' and its acceptance in terms of the cultural attitude toward homosexuality, I have to disagree with you. This is, of course, an argument without academic backing and merely one of those "it feels true" kind of things, so I may be completely off-base (I'd love to see data either way!). You said "I don't think that the usage of gay is considered more legitimate because homosexuality is still considered taboo or wrong, simply because I haven't met anyone who thinks so in a very long time, certainly nobody I know in my age." I'm not sure if you're in the USA (you said your primary language is German) so I can't speak for attitudes in Europe, but at least in the United States it's still taboo or wrong to a huge number of people, and I think that has influenced the use of 'gay' to mean something negative. I just can't imagine (for example) a teacher ever allowing the same transformation to happen to "black" or "mexican" (two random examples) because those are groups which we are not 'officially allowed' to dislike.

Look at the media frenzy over Mass. allowing gay marriage, Bush promoting an amendment outlawing gay marriage, the fact it took a Supreme Court ruling to legalize consentual sodomy in Texas, or Jerry Falwell blaming September 11, 2001 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way" (in fact, just look at the whole Wikipedia article on societal attitudes towar homosexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_to wards_homosexuality )

I know you said you weren't as intere

Re:"gay" tag?

[Trillian_1138]

From Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_(lesbian) (where else)

The word dike appeared in 1710 in British newspaper stories about cross-dressing pirates Anne Bonny and Mary Read. One editorial ephemistically referred to their cross dressing with a French word, dike, which refers to men's clothing.

In the 1920s the terms "bulldyker" and "bulldyking" were popular in the sub-culture of Harlem Renaissance. In his 1928 novel, "Home to Harlem", Claude McKay wrote:

        "[Lesbians are] what we calls bulldyker in Harlem. ... I don't understan' ... a bulldyking woman."

From the context of the novel, the word was considered crude and pejorative at the time. "Dyke" is a later abbreviation of bulldyke.

There are several theories of the origin of "bulldyker" One is that it arose as an abbreviation of "morphadike", a dialect variant of "hermaphrodite", a common term for homosexuals in the early twentieth century. This in turn may be related the late nineteenth century use of "dyke" (meaning "ditch") as slang for the vulva. [1] "Bull" is also a common expression for "masculine" or "aggressive" (as in "bullish"), so bulldyke may have implied "masculine woman". According to another theory, bulldyker was a term used for bulls whose purpose it was to impregnate cows. Just as the word "stud" was first used for such a purpose and was later used for men who used it to brag about themselves or for others in reference to a man who was successful with women, the terms "bulldyker" and "bulldagger" were also taken from their original context and used for the same purpose. A man who was a great lover or successful with women was called a "bulldyker." "Bulldyking woman" and "bulldyker" became terms for women who looked like a "bulldyker", a male stud, and were assumed to perform the role, as well.

Not surprisingly, this is without citation, so take with a grain of salt...anyone who can speak french and confirm/deny 'dike' would be appreciated.

Trillian

Re:"gay" tag?

[icroak]

"...but what I'm saying is that it is discriminatory, whether or not it is intended to be."
I think this is gonna be pretty much where we don't see eye to eye. I just simply believe a words importance comes from its context. If you want to bring up etymology, the fact that it originally meant merry, or happy proves that etymology does not really matter when you look at the context.

"I'm honestly just not sure what you mean by that."
Maybe I am only assuming you are not gay but I just meant that from your own translation of the usage of gay, it would not actually be offensive to you since you are not gay yourself.

"...people should have thicker skin and not complain about perceived insults where none exist"
I suppose this is too much of an idealistic thought but I actually believe people should have thicker skin about insults even when they do actually exist. Being a minority I encounter tons of discriminatory statements that I happen to overhear made about my race. I'll even occasionally counter some at work where I actually believe they simply forget I am of that race. I am comfortable with who I am though, and that lets me brush these comments off easily. In the end I know none of these comment will actually affect what I make out of my own life.

I hope nobody interprets anything I say as me actually condoning bigotry. It's just a fact that there are truly ignorant people out there who are simply afraid of anything different from themselves, but it is up to the rest of us to diminish their significance.

Re:"gay" tag?

[moonbender]

Just a few things - and this time around, I mean it. ;)

I do live in Germany, and I'm sure the attitudes towards homosexuality are a bit different over here. Though like I said, chances are I'm overestimating it -- I'd be very surprised if any of my acquaintances had a backwards attitude, but most of my acquaintances are university students; I'd expect people at US universities to be more relaxed about it than average. I'm very happy to see Germany scores well according to that Wikipedia page -- finally something that's going right. Although I'm sure it won't make the evening news alongside demographic trends and unemployment. ;)

With respects to stopping the trend of gay's third and most recent meaning, I wish you well. You'll have to count me as a loss, though, at least for the moment. Of course it's not me you have to convince - I'll promise I'll stop using the word if you native speakers do. :) But influencing language change is really hard -- ask the French, though your best bet is to hire somebody in the PR industry, but really those energies would be better spend convincing people that homosexuality isn't a dangerous disease. I think you'll see that even in a world where someone being gay is perfectly fine, something being gay can still be lame.

Re:"gay" tag?

[icroak]

I'll even occasionally counter some at work
oops that was encounter.

Re:"gay" tag?

[isorox]

What's with the tags? I dont see them (and they are enabled in my preferences, last time I checked. Just checked and I get "You are unable to read tags at this time.")

Re:"gay" tag?

[Jeremi]

I just simply believe a words importance comes from its context.

You're absolutely right about that, but what you are missing is that in a conversation, the context is provided by all the people participating, not just the speaker. If you're among a group of close friends, you can reasonably assume that all of them know you are not really implying "gays are bad" when you use the word "gay" to mean "bad". But when you're speaking in public or to people you don't know, you can't safely make such assumptions. Certainly in the context I (and most Americans) live in, there is enough homosexual-bashing going on that it is quite reasonable to assume that someone who uses "gay" as a derogative is indeed implying that gays are to be looked down upon (whether that was his primary intent, or not).

Re:"gay" tag?

[Jeremi]

I get queer, and gay... euphemisms... but how to you go from "an artificial watercourse" to a woman who likes women?

I always thought it was a reference to the story about the kid who saves the town from flooding by plugging up the leaky dyke (aka dam) with his finger. i.e. a lesbian is a woman who gets lots of fingers stuck in her.

But I could be wrong.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Jeremi]

The more we act like certain words are taboo, like calling things "gay," the more power we give them.

I'm not claiming it's taboo ("you are forbidden to say that!"), only that it makes the speaker look childish and ignorant ("you keep using that word. You do not appear to know what it means"). Politely correcting someone's incorrect word usage is not the same thing as "freaking out and screaming you can't say that", and really isn't much different from the posts that we commonly see correcting peoples' misuse of apostrophes.

Re:"gay" tag?

[bill_mcgonigle]

After all, if gay can go from meaning "happy" to "homosexual", why can't it go from "homosexual" to "lame"?

Maybe it went from "happy" to "lame" as in divergent evolution. After all, watching 50's TV reruns, people who said "gay" were so "gay".

Re:"gay" tag?

[Scrameustache]

anyone who can speak french and confirm/deny 'dike' would be appreciated.

I do, and deny.

I did think about it and guessed "there are girls who like dicks, and girls who like dykes", but that's just an easy pun, so I gots nuthin'.

Re:"gay" tag?

[jZnat]

Some Java programmers might be offended when you mention ant, but I guess they just didn't have a good experience with it after all. :P

Re:"gay" tag?

[jZnat]

Well, tags literally are public, for instance anyone can see your's. Same goes for that new Ajax-free del.icio.us thing called bookmarks they're trying out.

Re:"gay" tag?

[ROBOKATZ]

Yeah, except the ones on the front page are completely useless. You can't even turn them off if you don't want to see them.

Re:"gay" tag?

[Lord Kano]

Do you know what an homophobe is?

Someone who hates it when two words sound the same?

LK

Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Hao Wu]

... is to make a movie. Especially for cartoons. (Recall how suddenly Bevis & Butthead crashed?)

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Anonymous Coward]

The Beavis and Butthead movie was a success both financially and critically (for a beavis and butthead movie anyways- it was regarded as well done by fans). Beavis and Butthead declined as a result of "someone think of the children" activism after some kind started a fire and blamed it on beavis.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Pinefresh]

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.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Aqua OS X]

What are you talking about? Fans gobbled that stuff up.

And what about South Park The Movie... that was brilliant.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[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!!!

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Hao Wu]

And I can't think of any other animated TV shows that have been made into a movie,

Rugrats!

I would also say Spongebob, but that show actually ended by the time the movie happened.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[BewireNomali]

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.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Hao Wu]

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....

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[halo1982]

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.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Hao Wu]

For me, the last good episode was when Barney sobered up. That was a sure sign that they took themselves far too seriously, sending this "social message" at the price of a prominent character.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[tansey]

Right, and just look at how quickly South Park fell down the tubes and got cancelled..oh..wait...nvm.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Jerf]

What social message would that be?

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 science fiction as morally superior; Stargate SG-1 alone has had at least 4. But somehow, the forces of the story always seem to wipe them out, seriously undermining the surface-level "pacifism is superior" message. Stargate's at 2 for 4, with a third currently facing a major threat (and the forth seems to have simply disappeared off-stage since the first season oh-so-many years ago). I've always wondered how much of this is deliberate, or if authors really so rarely notice that their putative social message is directly contradicted by the story itself if they look more closely at it...)

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[commodoresloat]

Now it's just...sad. Kind of like seeing David Schwimmer.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[MagicDude]

And I can't think of any other animated TV shows that have been made into a movie

Transformers - The Movie

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Beavis and Butthead jumped the shark WELL before the movie. In fact, the movie largely SUCKED.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Queer Boy]

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.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[MrNougat]

... somehow, the forces of the story always seem to wipe them [pacifist societies] out, seriously undermining the surface-level "pacifism is superior" message.Tangent alert.

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 know how far that'll get you when you're looking at the business end of a weapon.

Feel free to substitute P and NP for two civilizations (or nations, frankly) of which neither is pacifist, and where one has a substantial military superiority. Same result.

The only way for the weak not to be the bitches of the strong is for the weak to not have anything the strong want (or hide it very very well), and thereby become ignored. However, being able to hide your labor force and economy requires that you not trade at all with any other groups, and so you must be able to produce everything you want or need internally. Think pre-Nixon China, though China was not then nor is now pacifist or weak.

So basically, if all the nations on Earth would finally get their shit together and we somehow became a single pacifist society, that would work great. Until we met the aliens. Then we'd have to defend ourselves. That means we'd have to continue developing weapons in preparation for dealing with an unknown future external threat, or play a pretty big game of catch-up.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Jeremi]

Nothing P can do about it but plead and hope

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 adversary is a lowly wasp, on the other hand, you have the option of capturing it under a beer mug and removing it from the room, without harming the wasp.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[JNighthawk]

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....

Wow. That is very, very true. Both the Beavis and Butthead and Southpark movies were great, but the show was never as good for me after them.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Nasarius]

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

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

[Alien Being]

The "jump" is not a moment of glory. The jump is the moment when it becomes painfully clear to the viewer that the show has become lame. It's the nadir, not the peak.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[lukas84]

Switzerland wouldn't survive an all out war against the US, or even Italy or France.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[jb.hl.com]

Yeah, I can really see those countries invading Switzerland. Probably some kind of war for chocolate and cuckoo clocks.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[lukas84]

We do have nuclear power. That might be reason enough for some of the listed countries.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[jb.hl.com]

France, Germany and the US aren't very likely to want any more nuclear power than they've already got. If you're talking about weapons, the US and France are hardly in a position to quibble.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[lukas84]

You're aware what's happening in Iran, are you?

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Parham]

Family guy STILL is funny... didn't you watch the milkshake clip? It's floating around the Internet pretty fast. Just ONE week after it was shown, google has 602,000 for "family guy milkshake". And that's just one very recent example.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[jb.hl.com]

Yes, and it's fairly obvious that Iran wants weapons. Not that I support an invasion, just that there's an obvious reason which is going to be given for one.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Txiasaeia]

"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.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[ferrisb312]

I did watch the clip. It's not funny. Sorry.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[LordSnooty]

I would also say Spongebob, but that show actually ended by the time the movie happened.

Nah, they took a break from the TV show when making the movie, but new eps are being made.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Bloke down the pub]

The only way for the weak not to be the bitches of the strong is for the weak to not have anything the strong want (or hide it very very well), and thereby become ignored.

Doesn't necessarily follow. There's a chance that the strong might also be nice. Ok, it's an outside chance, but it's there.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[garett_spencley]

It's funny because everything you said about Family Guy I think of the Simpsons the last few years.

The jokes got stupid, obvious and very corny.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[The One and Only]

FACT: Ten year olds have horrible taste.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[jbplou]

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.

Has is occured to you that the Simpsons main audience may be older. Go to a college and you will find no shortage of Simpsons fans.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[damsa]

Recess was also made into a movie.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[colinrichardday]

The Flintstones? Though the movies were live action instead of cartoons.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[ElOttoGrande]

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.

Yeah, it's never been done before...

Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (1996)
The Rugrats Movie (1998)
Pokémon: The First Movie (1999)
South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut (1999)

HELLO??? Who the hell modded this up to +3 insightful??

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Aqua OS X]

That's not what "jump the shark" means at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_the_shark

When Fonzie jumped the shark is was -not- a glorious moment of television. It was the lame pinnacle of a horrible Happy Days episode. The jump itself is always bad.

Moreover, the Jump almost always happens after something has already been fairly lame for quite some time. In many cases, the jump affirms that anything that may be good is officially dead.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[Hatta]

It's the nadir, not the peak.

The opposite of nadir is zenith.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[LunaticTippy]

The opposite of nadir is zenith.

Well, according to Mirriam Webster the 2nd definition of nadir means "the lowest point."

I'm afraid GP is correct in his usage.

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark

[xtracto]

I am sure you must be white or less than 15 (or both of them). Do not ask me why =o)

Darn, I had not seen that video before, not only is it not funny it is pretty stupid.
I have seen just one or two of the Family Guy episodes and personally I do not find where is the "fun" in there. Of course I also dislike those TV series where the audience laughs at every stupid thing people does (Friends? Malcolm? whatever).

OTOH I like the simpsons very much, I have seen them since I was a kid and although I dislike the fact that the producers have tried to make homer look *more* and *more* stupid it still makes me laugh sometimes.

I do not know, maybe this Family Guy is what current americans laugh at, and the overall "intellience" in the audience is just droping more this generations

Maybe that's where the good writing went

[PapayaSF]

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.

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[DarkNemesis618]

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.

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[quokkapox]

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 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 time to yank our culture back and return it to the hands of the people who create it.

But I still like to watch M*A*S*H re-runs occasionally. They're funny.

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[Darth_brooks]

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 without changing the channel. Every once in a while I see a great episode and at the end realize "Hey, that came out in '03, man that wasn't a bad episode."

It's not that the simpsons is deader than dead. It's not Saturday Night Live, a show where the writers/cast are out of touch, unfunny, and putting out a painfully awful show. It's that the current crop of writers can't match the expectations of the audience. We the viewers desperatly want the show to be funny. We want to laugh out loud at something sharp and witty. But it's just not there anymore. The fire's out, and we both just need to move on.

Heck we're so desperate that we worship a knock-off show like "Family Guy" (which is fantastic in it's own right, but would not exist without the Simpson's) even when they run show after show of ripped Simpsons plots (which were in turn rips of various Movies, TV shows, plays, popular culture, etc.)

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[LordLucless]

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?

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[LordNightwalker]

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 time to yank our culture back and return it to the hands of the people who create it.

Yeah, 'coz we all know youtube is literaly bursting with masterpieces of contemporary culture.

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[harlows_monkeys]

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.

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[Joe Tie.]

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.

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[LilBlackDemon]

Well, at least there is writing on The Simpsons. That alone means its one of the best prime-time shows on network TV.

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[The Good Reverend]

Because in the last couple of years the quality of writing on The Simpsons has taken a noticable drop.

I remember having this conversation on Slashdot for many of the last 6 or 7 years.

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[ConceptJunkie]

Too often the jokes are merely silly and almost random,

Actually, I'm findinf the show to be more and more predictable in the past season or two. The first 3 or 4 times they used the Crazy Cat Lady as a gag it qwas funny. Now it's just sad.

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[The One and Only]

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.

Battlestar Galactica?

Re:Maybe that's where the good writing went

[zopf]

Yikes, I think the same happened with Family Guy. Everything after the third season feels so contrived.

Oblig.

[gardyloo]

Eeeehxcellennnnt.

Ponies?

[phalse phace]

What we all want to know is will there be ponies?

Re:Ponies?

[Gadgetfreak]

Lisa: "Here, Clip Clop! Seriously, make with the pony."

Re:Ponies?

[PoitNarf]

Marge: Should the Simpsons get a horse?
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) /and I'm friggin sick of that Pony BS too

Re:Ponies?

[popeguilty]

You restrict foolishness and merriment to a single day each year? Wow. I'm glad I don't know you.

Re:Ponies?

[PoitNarf]

You actually thought those "jokes" were entertaining? I'm glad I don't know you!

Re:Ponies?

[popeguilty]

I don't want to know you, and you don't want to know me! We have so much in common, we should hang out!

Please note

[zerocool^]

...Technically posted April 2nd.

~Will

Re:Please note

[dtfinch]

It's still the 1st where I am. And tomorrow's my birthday (no joke).

Obligatory apostrohpic jihad notice.

[Masque]

The Simpson is Movie, Zonk?

Apostrophes are for possessives and contractions. Pluralization does not allow an apostrophe.

Re:Obligatory apostrohpic jihad notice.

[Phroggy]

Did you mean "aspostrophic"? Please double-check your own spelling when criticizing someone else's grammar. ;-)

Re:Obligatory apostrohpic jihad notice.

[mabinogi]

The Simpson apparently ;)

Re:Obligatory apostrohpic jihad notice.

[Peyna]

What are you talking about? "Aspostrophic" is not a word. "Apostrophic" is, but that would be the wrong part of speech for the parent's usage of the word. He spelled "apostrophe" correctly.

Re:Obligatory apostrohpic jihad notice.

[Peyna]

Oh, the subject line. Who reads those?

Re:Obligatory apostrohpic jihad notice.

[Phroggy]

Damn it.

It was bound to happen. I knew I made some kind of error in there somewhere, I just couldn't find it.

Fire

[neoshroom]

Fire. Heh. Cool.

Re:OOOOkkkkkaaayyy!

[neoform]

Really? I think you should go tell everyone about every story that you don't care about. No wait, even better, everytime you see something you don't care about, tell people about it, and not only that, expect them to care about you not caring.

Tagging?

[Lord_Dweomer]

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?

Re:Tagging?

[Nasarius]

I'd do the same thing that DailyKos has just started doing: ban anyone who abuses the tags.

Re:Tagging?

[Anonymous Coward]

On a related note, I'm waiting for the tag spamming. I'm surprised that neither of these has become a real problem yet.

Oh wait, maybe I shouldn't post this but instead create a new company that focuses on the latter.

Re:Tagging?

[adtifyj]

"tag trolls" (I'm hereby coining this phrase!)

You're actually going to coin it?? Heaven forbid!!

I'll race you to the trademark office...

Re:Tagging?

[Jeremi]

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 group of persecutees.

(Note: I'm not accusing the parent poster of doing this; I'm just venting)

Re:Tagging?

[Lord_Dweomer]

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.

Re:Tagging?

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Tagging?

[ecesar]

A solution is already emerging. Did you notice how people are tagging with !gay? As soon as Taco picks that up and starts using "!tag" to cancel "tag", we're back on track. An by the way, I think "gay" was due to the pink scheme, but that's just me being a homophobe, I think.

Well,

[ScaryFroMan]

I, for one, welcome the possibility of new Simpsons cliches.

Re:Well,

[Mandrel]

I, for one, welcome the possibility of new* Simpsons cliches.

* 53% new footage

ZE PAIN

[mOOzilla]

ztop ze pain!

Movie Traditions

[Jerf]

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?

Re:Movie Traditions

[Queer Boy]

I mean, what are they going to do

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

Re:Movie Traditions

[Jerf]

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 have posted that instead.

Re:Movie Traditions

[evilviper]

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 across multiple episodes quite easily. In-fact, that's pretty much the model of many recent TV shows, from Lexx, to Lost.

Money doesn't just apply to special effects. It applies to writing as well. And The Simpsons could sure as hell use some very good writing right now (actually, they could have used it 2 years ago, but I digress).

Re:Movie Traditions

[SamSim]

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

[keith_nt4]

I remember a story from several years ago, not sure when exactly when it was (might have even been late 90s), that talked about a Simpsons movie. In particular it mentioned the whole cast aging and Bart losing his virginity as major events in th movie. Perhaps that script has been thrown out in the intervening bad writing seasons. Any body else remember a story like that?

Re:Movie Traditions

[Lispy]

Yup, like the one with the Tomaccos! Actually this was one of the funnier while totally crazed episodes.

Re:Movie Traditions

[Jerf]

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 me count the number of times I've heard that... well, maybe once for Serenity.

Re:Movie Traditions

[just_another_sean]

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.

Re:Movie Traditions

[mpaque]

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"

Re:Movie Traditions

[Scrameustache]

"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..."

"Magic powers! A small green alien that only Homer can see! Marriage after marriage after marriage!"
-Troy McLure, episode 138 (paraphrased from memory)

Re:Movie Traditions

[damsa]

They do move, when the trash becomes too much, they move to new Springfield.

DOH!!

[gaanagaa]

DOH!!!

Re:DOH!!

[just_another_sean]

Subject DOH!!!, Post DOH!!! ?

-1, Redundent.

They're already dealt with.

[physicsphairy]

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.

Re:Third option

[adtifyj]

make a lot more money.

Preview was a dud

[kyndig]

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 )

Re:Preview was a dud

[Scrameustache]

The preview stated The Simpsons Movie would be out July 27th 2007 ( almost a year away!..one heck of a trailer )

That's a teaser.
A trailer is when they have some material from the actual movie to show and they give you the gist of the story.

[/nitpick]

Movie script idea

[xamomike]

I think Homer and Peter from Family guy should get together on a bender. That alone would make a hella movie. :)

Re:Movie script idea

[slothman32]

First, what good would it do for Homer and Peter to get on top of Bender from Futureama?
Unless they will do something we can't see, or at least will ever see in person on /..
Second, Peter is actually a clone of a clone,etc of Homer.
He arose from the cloning hamock(sp), possibly bought in the hammoc district.

Re:Not a prank.

[Skroggtar]

Stop calling me surely!

Re:Simpsons Poll

[jamesh]

I'm watching them right now. Currently, in Australia, simpsons repeats are on at 6pm 7 nights a week, futurama repeats are on two (i think - they keep changing them) nights a week, new simpsons are on at 7:30 one night a week. Additional simspons repeats often sneak in at 7:30 and/or 8:00 on weeknights.

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 randomly selected from any of the entire history of the simpsons, except I hardly ever get to see the very early episode I really liked where they get lost in the bush and Homer ends up catapulting a rabbit over the horizon.

Apparantly channel Ten loves the simpsons as much as I do. My wife however despises the fact that my daughter and I can watch repeats over and over again without getting bored of them :)

You're both screwed

[Rhinobird]

because only the government is allowed to coin.

Re:Simpsons Poll

[joemite]

The Tivo says I must watch it. I... must... obey...

Good News Everyone!

[R3d M3rcury]

Oops. Wrong Matt Groening show.

Never mind.

Wait...

[Rhinobird]

we're supposed to be homophobaphobic?

WORST APOSTROPHE EVER

[Anonymous Coward]

Simpson's

You know, sometimes it's OK to end a word with the letter s without involving an apostrophe. Filthy, filthy apostrophe, why must you taunt me so?

gay tag? the game of tag for homosexuals.

[80 85 83 83 89 33]

ok, what's with the fucking "ponies" tag?

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark(OT)

[RsG]

"So basically, if all the nations on Earth would finally get their shit together and we somehow became a single pacifist society, that would work great. Until we met the aliens. Then we'd have to defend ourselves. That means we'd have to continue developing weapons in preparation for dealing with an unknown future external threat, or play a pretty big game of catch-up."

Take a look at Niven's Kzinti stories. It's remarkably close to what you're describing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kzinti

Humans adopt pacifism (to the point where they revise their written history to cover up earlier wars). Humans meet aliens, who are not pacifist. Humans relearn how to fight awfully fast, to avoid getting eaten.

What's funny is how the humans win - mankind relies on STL ships, and these ships use reaction drives (essentially thermonuclear rockets). A reaction drive is effective as a weapon in direct proportion to it's mass effeciency as a drive, which was the whole point of the first story in which kzinti appeared.

Re:April Fools?

[scum-e-bag]

that is the clip with *real live* actors. its not the cartoon... before anyone wastes bandwidth.

Movie? We don't need no stinkin' movie!

[xPsi]

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 crap, chatty middle-aged know-nothings, and creepy teenage residues of every sort. In the case of some TV shows like Star Trek, you main gain some leverage going to the big screen because the special effects will be beefed up. This might offset some theater-vs.-home issues...

Ok, perhaps I need to get out more. But my question remains...

Re:Odd BBC Reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're talking about the wrong story. This is a trailer for The Simpsons Movie. Not the live-action thing that Sky TV made to promote the fact that there are some new episodes airing

16 months

[lseltzer]

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?

Re:16 months

[Lispy]

Hype?

Re:16 months

[Scrameustache]

Took my kid to see Ice Age (only the squirrel scenes are good)

As I have foreseen, so it has been wrought!

16 months! What possible value is there in advertising a movie this far in advance?

1. This here free hype.
2. Know now that you must watch the next season if you want to get the inside jokes!

Re:16 months

[Duds]

The first trailer for Cars was seen with the Incredibles. That's going to be damn near 2 years.

Simpsons teaser playing at a theatre near you

[twentyflights]

i work at a movie theatre. we've been running the teaser in fron of Ice Age 2 since friday morning.

Lenny Leonard Re:Obligatory.

[SlashSquatch]

My eye. The doctor said I wasn't supposed to get pudding in it!

Just a bit of trivia...

[Nikoth]

According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamp_Krusty#Trivia/, one of the early Simpsons episodes (Kamp Krusty) was considered as a story for a Simpsons film, but the writers couldn't figure out how to increase it to feature length proportions. If the 'classic' Simpsons writers couldn't come up with a film script that long ago, then I fail to see how the new ones will be able to.

Yes this is real

[BobSutan]

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.

Re:Yes this is real

[PixelScuba]

From the sound of things, the Simpsons has been renewed till at least 2008. http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/8403.html

Re:Yes this is real

[complete loony]

But then it didn't look like the show was going to end, so they started planning the movie anyway. Some of the voice actors were doing some promotions around here and they said something like that.

!gay, !ponies

[SCoil]

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 /.

Re:Not a prank.

[Gryle]

He probably was serious, and calling him Shirely isn't helping matters.

Oblig. Simpson's Quote

[Khyber]

Homer: WOOHOO!!!!!

Re:Quickest way to Jump the Shark(OT)

[jandrese]

More than that, the first encounter had the humans using a light based drive (basically a giant laser attached to the tail end). They made it a laser so it could be modulated to send messages back to Earth. During the first encounter with the Kzin, the one "nearly insane" crewmember (because he had occasional violent thoughts) was the one that realized it could be used as a weapon.

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 writers.

straight!

[Josh teh Jenius]

See that guys? They changed it!

Can we all stop worrying about how we should use our genetalia now?

Ya know, for a bunch of geeks who claim not to "get any", this certainly raised quite the ruckus. If homosexual geeks are just as unlucky as the rest of us, I'd argue "the gamers" deserve this word fair and square around these parts.

P.S. Not a gamer, not a homosexual, just sick of the debate.

Season Seven

[Josh teh Jenius]

After season six...but to be fair- what could possibly be better than season six?

...except maybe Futurama...

Re:OOOOkkkkkaaayyy!

[Josh teh Jenius]

I don't care that you don't care.

I figured you'd want to know.

A non-cartoon would be interesting, not this!

[Jugalator]

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 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*

Re:A non-cartoon would be interesting, not this!

[just_another_sean]

Yeah because that worked so well for the Flinstones and Scooby Doo.

Seeing the episode where Homer enters the "Third Dimension" was enough for me... Short, to the point, hilarious.

Re:A non-cartoon would be interesting, not this!

[Scrameustache]

It would actually be interesting to see the whole thing as a movie, with all characters and their personalities, acted in the real world

You mean a movie where Marge, 29 y/o Bart, Lisa (27) and Maggie (21) remember that sad day when Homer fell to his death in Springfield Gorge?

I think that would suck.

Or do you mean like the Flinstones movie? Because that would suck even more!

Re:A non-cartoon would be interesting, not this!

[complete loony]

For the love of God, no.

The worst movie adaptations I've ever seen try to fit real people into an existing universe. Somebody gave my son a thomas movie (hey, he was 2 and would sit though episode after episode), God that was awful.

I think the simpons could handle a larger story line, somthing with a few plot twists. Think who shot mr burns. Or follow more characters at once and tell more than one story.

Remember Garfield?

[tepples]

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.

Be careful what you wish for. Garfield and Friends got turned into a live action movie. Only 13% of reviewers liked the Garfield movie.

Simpons humor != South Park Humor

[walterbyrd]

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.

Re:Simpons humor != South Park Humor

[walterbyrd]

Too young? At 47, I appeciate that.

But, in the south park movie, they could say MFer, and show dildos, etc. That sort of thing makes sense with the south park style of humor.

I don't think that sort of thing will make sense with the simpson's style of humor.

I suppose the simpson's movie will be just like the simpson's only longer.

Milkshake = Dodgeball rip-off

[walterbyrd]

That "fat guy doing the milkshake" is beyond old. I've seen the gag played a few times. I think it was first done at the end of dodgeball.

Re:April Fools?

[Whyte Panther]

That clip was actually used as the intro to last week's episode of the Simpsons as well.

Either "cromulent" or "craptacular", whatever

[wsanders]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neologisms_on _The_Simpsons

Re:Re Here is an opening scene! :-) VIDEO LINK

[Mozk]

That's not the opening scene. That's the opening sequence for the new television show that's being produced.

Re:Re Here is an opening scene! :-) VIDEO LINK

[Why Login]

If you notice there is a little smiley face in the title => I was just joking.

Possible plot. of the Simpsons Movie.

[cjellibebi]

>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?

Here's a possible plot. In nearly all movies, there's usually some sort of love interest. So what happens in Springfield is that there is all of a sudden a mass outbreak of Cooties. Everyone in the film falls in love with someone - with the exception of Bart who is perpetually going through his "girls are icky" phase. Either there could be simple two-way relationships (like Willie and the female-version of Willie from Shelbyville, or Maggie and Baby-Gerald can make peace and fall in love), or there could be triangles (eg. Millhouse -> Lisa -> Nelson), and there culd be a few 'suprises' (eg. Smithers pairs off with whichever one of the Bouvier-sisters is a lesbian). Marge and Homer are going through a period of marital difficulties, but are in the end overcome by the cooties, and the film ends just as they are about to 'snuggle'. One thing we're sure to see is an absolutely cute quote from a very heart-broken Ralph Wiggum that somehow sums up in a nutshell what love is all about and will be quoteed for years to come.

Other things to look out for include:

• The opening-sequence music gets expanded into a theatrical masterpiece (duh!).
• Bart's lines on the chalkboard at the start could be "my phone number does not begin with 555".
• The film uses the entire set of known Simpsons cliches. Right after the closing credits, the screen goes black. You can hear Comic-Book guy saying "Excuse me, I think you'll find that there is one cliche that has not made it into this film". Then, Homer will reply with "DOH!!!", and Comic-Book guy will say "Thankyou".

Re:Possible plot. of the Simpsons Movie.

[Jerf]

Not bad. Not bad at all. Involve Kodos and/or Kang in the love triangles and I daresay you've got the beginning of a good script there.

I think that's probably the way to go. Realize that you jumped the shark ten years ago, and just go for wacky hijinks. Maybe everybody should die in the end, muHAI, why not, with the drama and the pathos and the dying, glaven.

Is there a spot for Tracy Ullman?

[filesiteguy]

I wonder if they'll have a spot for Tracy to guest star on the movie.... ....well, maybe not.

isn't one of the running jokes of the simpsons

[petermgreen]

that no matter how fucked up things are at the end of one episode it will be fine at the start of the next one?

Cool.

[robyannetta]

I want to see a Simpsons movie.

I want to see a truly R-rated Family Guy movie even more than a Simpsons movie. (The Stewie DVD was bleeped; Why?)

Re:Cool.

[Danzigism]

yours was bleeped?? mine's full-on uncensored.. then again, i downloaded it before it was released in the us.. where'd ya buy it??

Re:Cool.

[damsa]

Its bleeped by default, you can turn on the uncensured versions using the audio setup.

Re:Cool.

[Duds]

It wasn't bleeped on the UK release.

Still watch it, it's still great

[snowwrestler]

IME most of the people whining about the death of the humor are those who stopped watching it years ago. In other words they have little actual current data to base their opinions on...they're just repeating the meme that the Simpsons is washed up.

I still watch it and think it's great. It's not as funny to me as the classic episodes, but then again, they weren't that funny the first time I saw them either. It takes at least two repetitions for all the jokes to sink in in my experience, and repetition enhances many of the "classic" jokes...anticipation of the joke adds to the humor, as does social reinforcement (i.e. all the cliches that get thrown around).

The Simpsons is still one of the funniest character-driven shows on TV right now, along with Earl and The Office. The Family Guy and South Park are gag-driven humor, more like animated Saturday Night Live sketches, or the movie Airplane. They make absolutely no attempt to make you care about the characters, who are simply broad caricatures for the gags to play out against. When it's funny, it's really funny. But that's all they have, and as a result each show has a lot of awkward misses (just like SNL).

The Simpsons on the other hand can swing dramatic and ratchet up the tension, which then allows for comic relief and added comedic release. The best example is the death of Maude, which was both an emotional and hilarious episode.

It's a real TV show as opposed to a collection of silly bits...I find it much more rewarding to watch on a regular basis. The Family Guy on the other hand I can drop in and out of whenever I want and there never seems to be any difference.

Re:In this house, I make the rules...

[wed128]

My Heart Hurts...

Anecdote (apocryphal?)

[colinrichardday]

I've heard of a conversation between a ranking German official and a ranking Swiss official during WWII. The German asked the Swiss how many men the Swiss could mobilize if Switzerland were invaded, and the Swiss replied one million. The German countered by saying that Germany could send two million soldiers against Switzerland, to which the Swiss official responded "In that case, each of our men would have to shoot twice.".

Besides, who'd be crazy enough to invade a country that has their secret bank accounts?

Calendar Pedant

[colinrichardday]

Isn't that more than a year away?

Re:Wow, feeling sexist today?

[ROBOKATZ]

Nice moderation idiot. Try thinking for a change.

I can understand if they had just said Homer. More antics do revolve around him than any other character. But why mention Bart, at the exclusion of the rest of the family? No more of the show is about him than Lisa or Marge (Maggie does very rarely play a major role). Obviously the author did not consider them as important. If he had, he would have mentioned them, or just generalized to "his family", or only talked about Homer. Why wouldn't he consider them as relevant as Bart? What is the ONLY thing that sets them apart, other than their gender?

And finally, how is MY message a troll? I didn't expect anyone to respond. You can accept or reject my conclusion at your discretion. If you have a logical argument against it I would love to hear it but I don't see what it could be. A troll is written with obvious logical and factual flaws in an inciteful way as to provoke as many responses as possible.

In conclusion, fuck you.

Yes. Simpsons. Arcades. NES.

[HishamMuhammad]

Remember the NES Simpsons game, what was it called, "Bart vs the Space Mutants"? And then there was the 4-player arcade machine. That was classic.

Whoa, that was so long ago. Surely, the movie will be the swan song of the series. The classic cartoon style where nothing ever changes in the universe (or hardly changes, at least) made it hard for the Simpsons to remain interesting over the years. When Groening branched out to Futurama (and hell, that was 5 years ago already!) it was a clear sign that the Simpsons weren't interesting enough anymore even to its creator.

I hope the movie will coincide with the ending of the series, and will allow them to break free of the format's restrictions. It will either be entirely forgettable, or a masterpiece. Here's hoping for the latter, for old times' sake.

Old news

[Belgand]

Quite frankly this is pretty old news. They've been mentioning this on the commentaries for the DVDs for a while now and we've all known that they've been working on a movie off and on for years, but finally in earnest.

The same teaser, of course, also aired on Fox during the commercials for the Simpsons this past Sunday.

Confirmed broadcast

[wift]

I saw the promo on tonight. Funniest part - Coming July 2007. Homer's voice: "Oh, we better start working on it"

The end ....

[LookoutforChris]

I guess they've had a long time to consider this, they're comming up on 20 years. I remember reading somewhere, probably on SNPP, that the producers would only consider doing a movie at the end of the shows run. Not sure why, maybe the work of putting out a quality movie would require all their resources and would conflict with putting the show out regularly. Anyway, if this is still true, I wonder if this means the show is in it's final season(s). Last I knew they were siged up to season 19. Personally I think the producers should have ended the show around season 10 and then taken their sweet time with a good movie. I'd like to think they wanted to end it but Fox probably drove a dump truck full of money up to Matt Groenings house, he's not made of stone!

What, next to the Ice Age 2 previews you mean?

[ianscot]

I just went and watched Ice Age 2.

Meaning no offense, but your critical judgment has just fallen about six rungs in my estimation.

Those Ice Age movies... ugh. Even on cable as background noise while ironing, they're painfully "zany" without being funny at all.

A Movie!

[Vinnie_333]

So, this is what they've been saving all their good writing for the last few seasons!

Re:fool!

[BewireNomali]

Then sir, your newphew is an idiot.

Lol. Are you sure he's the one who's an idiot? He's only ten, so he can fix it. What about you? Lol. Loser.

I'm underwhelmed.

[Great Beyond]

This is FANTASTIC news! Now instead of not being funny on television for free, I can pay 10 dollars for the Simpsons to not be funny! I am so getting in line now!

Re:nth post?

[SpaceballsTheUserNam]

i agree