Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
The Simpsons. In a movie?
My eyes! The goggles do NOTHING!
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.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
What we all want to know is will there be ponies?
What are you talking about? Fans gobbled that stuff up.
And what about South Park The Movie... that was brilliant.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
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.
un burrito me trampeó.
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.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
I, for one, welcome the possibility of new Simpsons cliches.
In Soviet Russia, backwards is everything.
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?
Windows users aren't necessarily gay, you insensitive clod.
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...
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 )
My Thoughts, Kyndig
Oops. Wrong Matt Groening show.
Never mind.
Isn't slashcode gay? I bet <brokeback></brokeback> is what's missing there.