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.

[professorhojo]

> The Simpsons. In a movie?

that's unpossible!

Re:Obligatory.

[castoridae]

> that's unpossible!

It's perfectly cromulent.

"gay" tag?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[hdparm]

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

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?

[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?

[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

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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

Please note

[zerocool^]

...Technically posted April 2nd.

~Will

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?

Well,

[ScaryFroMan]

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

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

[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

[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"

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 )

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. :)

Good News Everyone!

[R3d M3rcury]

Oops. Wrong Matt Groening show.

Never mind.

Re:April Fools?

[scum-e-bag]

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

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.

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.

!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 /.

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*