This is topic The Simpsons are headed to the big screen... in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002960

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 02-13-2004, 11:14 AM:
 
In an interview with DVDFanatic.com, Simpsons producer Mike Reiss confirmed that work on The Simpsons Movie has started.

Reiss said the following on the movie:

"It’s been 13 years of wanting to do “The Simpsons” Movie. Finally FOX said, “Let’s just do it!” We never had the greatest idea that was compelling but FOX said, 'Maybe if we start paying you, you’ll get inspired.' And sure enough it worked! We’ve got a very good and interesting idea and it’s different from the show. You know, it’s like the “South Park” movie where it’s just a bigger, longer, amplified version of the show. I can’t tell you anything specific about it. My wife doesn’t even know the secret."

Reiss said the following regarding when it will come out:

I will say two years from this summer. I think it’s going to be Summer 2006 or maybe Christmas 2006. It’s a reality after being just sort of this phantom idea. I think it is really gonna happen.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-13-2004, 02:23 PM:
 
This is what we (in the biz) used to call a "say something/say nothing" announcement. It also fits into the "premature ejaculation" category.

But let's just see what was really said:

1. There was no movie all this time because the ideas sucked.
2. Fox has decided that enough time has passed without a movie; at this stage even a substandard idea would be worth paying for.
3. No storyline worth mentioning. No details at all.
4. It'll be "like South Park" so I suppose it will have to be banned here.
5. No release date.

Unbelievably vague!

Couldn't they have waited another week and made a proper announcement?
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 02-13-2004, 03:14 PM:
 
I think that it would be safe to say that this isn't any kind of "official" announcement. One of the producers (and there are many many different producers), was probably just asked by this website if there were any truth to the rumor and he confirmed it and they reported it. I am sure that if and when they finally do some kind of press release, that it will be in more detail than this blurb.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-13-2004, 04:12 PM:
 
The unfortunate part of this is that in 2006 it will have been 16 years too late.

Also wasn't Matt Groening the one that was always against any previous attempts of Fox' making a Simpsons feature?

Had they made the Simpsons movie (assuming it is going to be animated- God forbid they try to translate this to 'live action' ) in 1990 when the show was at the peak of its popularity it could have been one of the biggest grossing motion pictures of all time.

Don't forget there is the one Simpsons short from 1989 and the THX trailer as well.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 02-13-2004, 06:00 PM:
 
Doh!
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-13-2004, 06:06 PM:
 
There are at least two Simpsons shorts that predated the TV show. They were part of at least one animation festival ("Animation Celebration II" from Expanded Entertainment). The characters are drawn somewhat differently than they are in the TV show, but they're undoubtedly the same characters.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-13-2004, 06:27 PM:
 
Part of a Halloween episode was converted to Imax 3D for a segment in Cyberworld as well. It's the one where Homer gets lost in the third dimension while trying to hide from Marge's sisters.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-13-2004, 06:30 PM:
 
Was one of those the one where they are at the Doctors office and Bart puts a whole bowl of mints in his mouth. I remember running that one on something years ago. I am thinking weekend at bernies but that could have been a Bean short that ran on there.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-13-2004, 06:40 PM:
 
Was the South Park movie banned here?
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 02-13-2004, 09:03 PM:
 
The Simpsons sucked in 1990, they'll suck in 2006 as well. Any movie by their creator or production staff will be lame-ass at best. The tradition of South Park and Beavis & Butthead lives on . . . unfortunately.

Oh yeah, BTW, everything that has ever premiered on Fox or has yet to come on Fox sucks.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-13-2004, 09:17 PM:
 
Yes one orf the shorts was the one with Bart and the mints in the counselors office. It was attached to prints of 'War Of The Roses'...

No, MIchael 'South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut' was not banned here.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 02-14-2004, 10:49 AM:
 
meh....i'd rather see the "Family Guy" made into a movie
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-14-2004, 11:22 AM:
 

quote:

---

You know, it’s like the “South Park” movie where it’s just a bigger, longer, amplified version of the show.

---

quote:

---

The tradition of South Park and Beavis & Butthead lives on . . . unfortunately

---

quote:

---

You obviously have not watched all of these shows. The three have nothing in common.

---

You're right, except that they're all pretty much lame in my opinion. I'm not going to sit here and belittle each episode of each show to prove some miniscule point. The fact is each on of these appealed to its own seperate audience, but in the end the same audience. Basically this means teens coming of age in the 1990's who accepted bathroom humor, low-caliber annimation, and lame situational plots. I sorry if this offends anyone - its not meant to. I just don't like adult cartoons. I don't even care much for most of the programs on network television in general.
 

---

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 02-15-2004, 12:58 AM:
 
The Simpsons is sure sucking quite a bit. I'd rather have "Family Guy" as a feature film.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-15-2004, 02:21 AM:
 
I wouldn't say that the simpsons suck but it is very clear that they are running out of ideas.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-15-2004, 01:55 PM:
 
I'd rather see a Seinfeld Movie!
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 02-15-2004, 02:21 PM:
 

quote:

---

The Simpsons sucked in 1990, they'll suck in 2006 as well. Any movie by their creator or production staff will be lame-ass at best. The tradition of South Park and Beavis & Butthead lives on . . . unfortunately.

Oh yeah, BTW, everything that has ever premiered on Fox or has yet to come on Fox sucks.

---

quote:

---

I'm not going to sit here and belittle each episode of each show to prove some miniscule point. The fact is each on of these appealed to its own seperate audience, but in the end the same audience. Basically this means teens coming of age in the 1990's who accepted bathroom humor, low-caliber annimation, and lame situational plots. I sorry if this offends anyone - its not meant to. I just don't like adult cartoons. I don't even care much for most of the programs on network television in general.

---

It's real easy to just make a substandard argument as to why it sucks, and never point out why, just that it does. The mere fact that you don't like adult cartoons decries that no one should ever take what you say on the subject seriously, as you are prebiased to hate it.

For instance, if I were to render a decision on japanese animation, which I cannot stand, and expect anyone to take me seriously, well of course I would be self deluded.

I am not saying that you have to be a fan to be taken seriously, but to be an anti-fan, is just as biased.

I will admit that the simpsons have gotten a bit stale over the last few years, but it is groundbreaking in that it is one of the longest running prime time non news or informational shows in history. It is an iconic part of our society and history now, such as I love lucy or MASH. Those shows got stale after a while too. Yet they live on in our memories and history, as will the Simpsons twenty years after it leaves the prime time airwaves.

Will a Simpsons movie make it big? Yes it will. It will probably gross half a billion dollars worldwide. Why? Because it is an icon in entertainment around the world, and because it is still on the air. South Park the movie failed because the phenomenon was fairly new and while huge, did not have the adult fan base needed to support a rated R movie worldwide. The simpsons will be a different story, as the purpose of the show is not to push the envelope of what you can do on screen, but rather to attempt to humorize the daily life of a standard mid ranged american family. it will appeal to the family set as well as the adult set as well. It has a fan base that is worldwide and will go to see it for that reason alone that it exists.

The future of more movies hinges solely on how well the first one is recieved. The performance of the TV show at this point will have no bearing on how the movie will perform.

So ciao to all, have a great Daytona 500, and long live homer.

Dave
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-15-2004, 06:24 PM:
 
Someone needs to learn how "here" and "there" work.

Mike -- The "South Park" movie was banned here...in The Bahamas...where I live

Actually, theatres could not show the movie but it is freely available to anyone who wants to see it on video, cable and satellite.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-15-2004, 07:02 PM:
 
I agree with Chris... they ran outta ideas years ago... they suck!

Ummm.... strange, but I still like the replays of B&B!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 02-15-2004, 07:06 PM:
 
I SECOND...and CHERISH... Aaron Mehocic's opinion regarding the Simpsons and other garbage like that crap!

Homer Simpson and Bart as role models ...no wonder why our society is all ed up! Unfortunately "characters" like these have too much influence over our society, which is in a shambles!

Good for you, Aaron!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-15-2004, 07:14 PM:
 
I agree Will! I vote for Janet and Justin as our "wholesome" role-models! Oh...and NOT Jenna!

Mark: Have you ever seen the HBO series "Curve Your Enthusiasm"? It is hilarious!

It is produced and stars Larry David…the guy behind the Seinfeld show. It's about "nothing"...

This week's show revolves around how he picked up a hooker just so he could drive in the "car-pool lane" to get to a Dodger baseball game on time and avoid all the traffic. Funny, daily life taken to the extreme!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 02-15-2004, 08:50 PM:
 
Ya'll are old farts

The Simpsons is the best show on televeision. I've been watching since 1989 and have seen nearly episode, have an amazing trivia base in my mind and have the first 3 seasons on DVD as well as the Playstation games, Game Boy Game and PC Games.

It doesn't have to be realisitc to be funny. I just like it. Don't ask me why, it is funny to me. I do have a life away from the show. I have met the creators and voice actors one. Very cool Experience.

I really don't like real life comedy shows like Sex and the City, Curb your Enthusiasiam (sp?) I just like The Simpsons because I find it funny, that is all that matters. If I like it, I will watch, If a certain episode bores me, I wont watch. Simple as that.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-15-2004, 09:35 PM:
 
I just have one favor to ask:

Will someone PLEASE tell me one long lasting negative affect that beavis and butthead, southpark, the simpsons, wyle E. coyote or any other cartoon has had on our society today?

I find comments like "these shows are why society is what it is" a total cop out. Please start looking at the REAL issues instead of trying to blame it on TV shows.

I'm not trying to argue and say that everyone has to love the simpsons, but to make a general statement about the show being at fault for the downfall of society is a little disturbing.

The real problem is when parents let the TV become babysitters and don't actively participate in raising their children. The shows are just shows that are forgotten about soon after they are over. I dont see many 25 yr olds sitting around still saying "huh hu thats cool and stuff. huh hu you said wiener."
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-15-2004, 10:53 PM:
 
You said "wiener".

I agree. The lack of parenting (and lack of parents beating their kids) is why many kids are out of control, not television in general. I believe we have discussed this several times.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-16-2004, 10:30 AM:
 
There is something wrong when an adult needs to resort to violence when dealing with a child. Furthermore, a child that is beaten will learn that violence solves problems. Generally speaking, I do not condone beating as being very useful as a disciplinary measures; for the most part, I think it can create more problems than it solves.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-16-2004, 06:04 PM:
 
Oh, like "time outs" teach kids that there are consequences to their actions.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-16-2004, 06:37 PM:
 
Adam, you ignorant slut!

I take care of my nieces and nephews quite a bit and I try to explain to them why it's bad to do [whatever] and that works well for kids that are old enough to understand what's being said to them (around age 4+).

If they insist on doing stupid stuff then, yeah, taking freedom away from them can work. The technique is sound and will work if applied correctly and consistently.

I'll admit that spanking works with very young kids who can't understand "words." I had to spank my nephew once or twice to curb his inquisitiveness regarding an electrical outlet or from playing too close to the stove. I figured a little pain from me was better than severe pain in those instances. He wasn't speaking age yet, so there was no "reasoning" with him.

Parents who find it necessary to resort to "beatings" and "whuppings" have more than likely failed to establish a sense of discipline earlier...or else they're just taking what seems like a shortcut.

When a big kid beats up a little kid, don't we call that bullying? It's no different when parents do it to their kid(s). That kind of nonsense creates a sense that the parent is an enemy, which is entirely the wrong message to send.

I've heard parents say stupid things like: "My dad kicked the shit out of me twice a week and I turned out all right." These people turn into parents who discipline with violence. It's nothing less than a frat-house "hazing" mentality, if you ask me: They did it to me and I'll get my turn to do it to the next guy. It's sick and stupid. By the way, that same ignorant logic motivates (non-Jewish) parents to circumcize their baby boys.

Interesting contradiction: I am in favor of corporeal punishment in schools, but only to an extent.

On the one hand, teachers are working with large numbers of kids and, added to that, they have information that must be communicated effectively in a limited amount of time. At my high school we had a few troublesome kids -- who had not responded to less "extreme" forms of discipline -- and they were subjected to a public caning (at general assembly) and then suspended for something like 2 weeks. They returned with a new attitude...and the rest of us interpreted that event as a cautionary tale.

On the other hand, there was also a teacher (very recently, at another high school) whose reputation for beating preceeded her. One boy literally had a heart attack and DIED because he hadn't done his art homework and would therefore take a beating. It was a real tragedy because it was partially his mother's fault for not buying his art supplies. She was poor and thought that the art class was "costing too much." The boy warned his mother that his teacher was notorious for beating.

Kids shouldn't be afraid of their teachers (or parents) like that.

[ 02-16-2004, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 02-16-2004, 06:55 PM:
 
Thanks Will. Oh, and Dave, no hard feelings, but I will let you know when I get my own network .
 

---