The Simpsons Movie (David Silverman, 2007)

Discuss specific films and franchises
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Atlanta-ish

#51 Post by jbeall »

denti alligator wrote:I think the Simpsons-went-downhill scenario is a myth. Sure, season 9 has a couple of weak episodes, but each of these still has great moments. All of the episodes I've seen from season 10-17 were hilarious. I just don't understand why everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) thinks the show took a nosedive. What, exactly, changed? I sometimes think the only reason most fans think the post-9th-season episodes are sub-par is because that's all anyone ever says about them. It's a myth. Watch the episodes and enjoy them. There's lots to enjoy.
Perhaps there are great moments, but great moments do not a spectacular episode make. Season 4, for example, was consistently funny, touching, and above all each episode was coherent.

Trust me, I want very badly to like the later seasons as much as the earlier seasons, but they just don't measure up. It's been awhile since I've watched them, so I'm heading over to my dvd player now to watch some and figure out where they went wrong... (to be continued)
User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:36 am
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#52 Post by denti alligator »

I guess I just don't look for The Simpsons to be either "touching" or "coherent," whatever that means. I just look for them to be funny. Maybe that's why I'm not disappointed by the later episodes. I never watch them for plot, story development, believable situations, believable characters, or even consistent characters. That's not what the show is about, nor what it's good at.
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#53 Post by Antoine Doinel »

The thing is being absurd, yet being touching and funny are not mutually exclusive and when the Simpsons were in their prime this is what they excelled at.

Lisa's Substitute (Season 2), And Maggie Makes Three (Season 6), Marge Be Not Proud (Season 7) and Lost Our Lisa (Season 9) are just some examples of this.

As far as being coherent, I think jbeall is referring to is are plot lines that resolved themselves rather than throwing any joke they can up against the wall and seeing what will stick like they do now (and which Family Guy does better, more outrageously and more consistently).

The aforementioned Homer's Enemy (Season 8), Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk (Season 3), 22 Short Films About Springfield (Season 7), Cape Feare (Season 5) are all examples of this as well.
User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#54 Post by colinr0380 »

Antoine Doinel wrote:The thing is being absurd, yet being touching and funny are not mutually exclusive and when the Simpsons were in their prime this is what they excelled at...

As far as being coherent, I think jbeall is referring to is are plot lines that resolved themselves rather than throwing any joke they can up against the wall and seeing what will stick like they do now (and which Family Guy does better, more outrageously and more consistently).
Although I remember some episodes where the lack of an ending was the whole point. What was the episode that ended with Homer saying "I don't get it, is this a happy ending or a sad ending?" and Marge replying "It's an ending, that's enough!". Was it the self analysis of the show's structure and the self conciousness that started coming in part of what drives fans of the earlier seasons away?

Even though I'd agree the early seasons were fantastic, combining excellent jokes with often extremely touching stories I still find The Simpsons as good, if not better than, a lot of television (Although I've only seen up to season 13, so I'm years behind and not aware of what might be in store for me!).

I'm just glad that these animated shows are still around (I'm a big fan of Family Guy and South Park too). Did I also hear something about Futurama coming back?
User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#55 Post by flyonthewall2983 »

Yeah, Comedy Central will be the new home of Futurama I believe.
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#56 Post by Antoine Doinel »

I also think Fox is letting Groening create a few straight-to-DVD Futurama movies.
User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:36 am
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#57 Post by denti alligator »

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Yeah, Comedy Central will be the new home of Futurama I believe.
Can you point me to a source for this. Thanks
User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#58 Post by tryavna »

Antoine Doinel wrote:In my opinion, the best Simpsons episode is the one with Frank Grimes. It is the writers working at their best, with humor that is both absurd yet firmly anchored in the characters world.
This is precisely what I think makes the earlier seasons so far superior to the more recent ones: the fact that the characters occupied a universe that followed its own logical coherency but that also reflected our own "reality" to some extent despite the elements of absurdity and surrealism. For instance, Homer actually had a job that he went to, the kids went to school, minor characters remained just that (and didn't suddenly become best friends with the Simpsons for the purposes of exploring their lives or creating a storyline that revolved around them), the family didn't suddenly and unaccountably have money to travel to distant corners of the globe (like Brazil), etc. In other words, the absurdity flowed out of situations that were vaguely recognizable to us all; hence the wonderful quotability of the earlier episodes.

I'd also put a plug in for the subtlety and intelligence of the earlier shows' allusions to and send-ups of pop culture. They used to present these allusions quickly and without comment, expecting the audience to get it on their own. Lately, they beat you over the head with these allusions, pounding them into the ground. Take, for instance, the episode where Homer steals cable: He stops the cable van by running into the road in front of the van and then falling under it (like Cary Grant in North by Northwest) -- all in about 15 seconds. Compare that with the much later two-minute montage of a Raffi concert that obviously meant to allude to Woodstock; it just goes on far too long, making it less funny.

Despite all the jabs that The Simpsons still make at Family Guy, they've become too much like that other show. And just like Family Guy, I don't think these later episodes stand up to repeat-viewings. They may be good for a couple of laughs the first time you watch an episode, but they're never funny the second time around.
User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:36 am
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#59 Post by denti alligator »

tryavna wrote: the fact that the characters occupied a universe that followed its own logical coherency but that also reflected our own "reality" to some extent despite the elements of absurdity and surrealism.
I'll repeat myself: this is where I part ways with the "average" Simpsons fan. I have never enjoyed the Simpsons for these reasons. Since when was it anchored in "logical coherency"? You're sounding like this cartoon needs to follow certain patterns of realism to be successful. I think that's absurd.
User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#60 Post by tryavna »

denti alligator wrote:
tryavna wrote: the fact that the characters occupied a universe that followed its own logical coherency but that also reflected our own "reality" to some extent despite the elements of absurdity and surrealism.
I'll repeat myself: this is where I part ways with the "average" Simpsons fan. I have never enjoyed the Simpsons for these reasons. Since when was it anchored in "logical coherency"? You're sounding like this cartoon needs to follow certain patterns of realism to be successful. I think that's absurd.
No, I think that any "art work" -- however broadly defined -- works best with it follows its own integrity. In other words, if a cartoon is designed to be rooted in some semblance of the real world, then it shouldn't suddenly start to divert too far from that. Or if it chooses to do so, it shouldn't be surprised when some of its fans part way with it.

I'm not expecting to convince you that I'm somehow objectively "right." But you've asked why former fans (or more precisely, fans of the earlier seasons) don't like the later shows, and both Antoine Doinel and I have tried to state our reasons. You may disagree with those reasons, but you can't disagree that many people feel that way. Perhaps it boils down to why (and perhaps even when) people became fans of the show. As someone who fell in love with the earlier seasons' "fractured take on modern life" when seasons three and four had their original airings, I simply don't like the fact that the more recent shows are little more than Family Guy-like exercises in non-sequitor.
Titus
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:40 pm

#61 Post by Titus »

denti alligator wrote: You're sounding like this cartoon needs to follow certain patterns of realism to be successful. I think that's absurd.
Without those patterns of realism, the show has lost any possibility at the social commentary and satire that made the show so great in its prime. Its lost all of its intelligence, turning into nothing more than a gag show. And even the gags and low-brow humor of its prime were much, much funnier than anything they do now, in my opinion.

Whether or not you agree that the show has severely declined, the fact that that's pretty much the universal consensus is not an accident. It's a very different show now than in the early to mid-90s.
Last edited by Titus on Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm

#62 Post by domino harvey »

This entire thread needs to listen to the audio commentary for the Season Nine episode with Martin Sheen in it where the writer defends the logic of the episode to such a degree that I think it's required listening for anyone complaining about any TV show in general
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#63 Post by Antoine Doinel »

Sigh. Well, whatever brief hopes I had that the film would be good are beginning to diminish. According to their record label, Green Day are reportedly making a cameo and contributing a song to the soundtrack. If you pause the latest trailer towards the end, you can catch a glimpse of them.
User avatar
Highway 61
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:40 pm

#64 Post by Highway 61 »

domino harvey wrote:This entire thread needs to listen to the audio commentary for the Season Nine episode with Martin Sheen in it where the writer defends the logic of the episode to such a degree that I think it's required listening for anyone complaining about any TV show in general
It's been a couple of months since I listened to it, but the writers' only defense seemed to be that The Simpsons is just a low-brow TV show, so hush up. What's more interesting is that in the commentaries of the sentimental episodes--Lisa's Substitute, the one with Homer's mother, etc.--the writers discuss how involving and moving the show is, or in other words, the exact opposite of what is said in the commentary for the Martin Sheen episode. Frankly, I thought they came off quite bad, as though they know they're washed up, but can't admit it.
User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#65 Post by tryavna »

Highway 61 wrote:
domino harvey wrote:This entire thread needs to listen to the audio commentary for the Season Nine episode with Martin Sheen in it where the writer defends the logic of the episode to such a degree that I think it's required listening for anyone complaining about any TV show in general
It's been a couple of months since I listened to it, but the writers' only defense seemed to be that The Simpsons is just a low-brow TV show, so hush up. What's more interesting is that in the commentaries of the sentimental episodes--Lisa's Substitute, the one with Homer's mother, etc.--the writers discuss how involving and moving the show is, or in other words, the exact opposite of what is said in the commentary for the Martin Sheen episode. Frankly, I thought they came off quite bad, as though they know they're washed up, but can't admit it.
It also needs to be said that that particular episode ("The Principal and the Pauper," I believe is its title) is quite controversial because Matt Groening himself has referred to it as one of his least favorite episodes and because hard-core fans of the earlier style frequently identify it as the first discernable moment that the series became "untrue" to itself.
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm

#66 Post by domino harvey »

I guess you forgot the only part that mattered to my argument. Keeler (I think it's Keeler, right?) says that a lot of fans got upset because it was changing the history of the character and Keeler's argument was that wasn't it weird that so many people are upset about a fictional cartoon character... He thought the show idea was funny and made it work within the internal logic of the show (It's not like they all turned into flying dinosaurs or something) but that people could love a TV show so much that they get upset when something changes within the universe, there's something peculiar about that.
Harvey Domino
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:18 am
Contact:

#67 Post by Harvey Domino »

Is there any director (or artist, or pop cult figure of any kind) whose work is referenced more often in The Simpsons than Stanley Kubrick?
Solaris
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:25 am
Location: Australia

#68 Post by Solaris »

He was referenced a lot in the early seasons, but I haven't seen very many Kubrick references in the recent seasons.
Tarantino is referenced a lot, especially in the episodes "22 Short Films About Springfield" and the damn funny Itchy and Scratchy episode where he "guest directed."

The Beatles could possibly be the most referenced pop figures on The Simpsons.
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#69 Post by Antoine Doinel »

love me do wrote:Is there any director (or artist, or pop cult figure of any kind) whose work is referenced more often in The Simpsons than Stanley Kubrick?
Orson Welles perhaps. The episode where Smithers tries to find Mr. Burns' long lost teddybear is pretty much an animated Cliff's Notes of Citizen Kane. There are also Citizen Kane references in many other episodes.
User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#70 Post by tryavna »

domino harvey wrote:Keeler's argument was that wasn't it weird that so many people are upset about a fictional cartoon character...
That sounds less like an argument, though, and more like a philosophical question about audiences' emotional attachment to fictional characters. :wink:

Anyway, this sort of audience frustration is nothing new or particularly surprising. Fans of Conan Doyle's stories about Sherlock Holmes have been complaining for decades about the liberties taken with the Rathbone-Bruce portrayals, even though Doyle himself frequently licensed out the characters to other authors who introduced various inconsistencies into the Holmesian world. (And Doyle sometimes even adopted the new characters these other writers invented into his own stories.)
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#71 Post by Antoine Doinel »

The fight begins on which Springfield will host the film's premiere.
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#72 Post by Antoine Doinel »

7-11 will retrofit 11 of their outlets (presumably in cities named Springfield) as Kwik-E-Marts as part of the film's promotional vehicle.
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#73 Post by Antoine Doinel »

So, uh, it appears Bart Simpsons will get his first full frontal nude scene. From Newsweek:
Homer's Big-Screen Odyssey
'The Simpsons' is a sitcom legend. Now it's coming to a theater near you.

By Sean Smith

Newsweek
Updated: 5:43 p.m. ET April 21, 2007

April 20, 2007 issue - To make it on the big screen, you have to give people something spectacular. Something extraordinary. Something like Bart Simpson—full frontal. It happens early in "The Simpsons Movie," when the animated 10-year-old takes a dare from his goofball father, Homer, to skateboard naked through the streets of Springfield. Hidden by plants and picket fences, he whizzes along, past kids, down hills, through traffic lights, until, in one shocking moment, little Bart flashes his little part to the entire world. Which may make this the first Hollywood film to show that kind of skin and to escape an R rating.

In a summer bursting with comedies—including major animated fare "Shrek the Third" and the new Pixar film, "Ratatouille"—"The Simpsons Movie," which opens July 27, is both the least hyped and the most anticipated. Since "The Simpsons" debuted in 1989, it has built a fanatical fan base, earned 23 Emmys and generated more than $2.5 billion in revenue, if you include the never-ending selection of T shirts. Now in its 18th season, "The Simpsons" is the longest-running sitcom in history, and it's broadcast in more than 70 countries. An online poll conducted in 2003 by the BBC declared Homer Simpson "The Greatest American." No. 2: Abraham Lincoln. "Homer is what other countries think America is like," says writer-producer Al Jean, who has been with the show since the beginning. "Voting for Homer was like saying, 'Screw you, America.' It's probably part of our success."

Entire books—and a few doctoral dissertations—have analyzed the significance of "The Simpsons": how the family became blue-collar antidotes to idealized "Ozzie & Harriet" Americana, how the show's swirling of stinging social satire and base physical humor helped it to cross all comedy boundaries. All that's true. But the reason people love these dysfunctional yellow characters—and Homer in particular—may be less academic. "Every time someone creates a Ralph Kramden or an Archie Bunker or a Homer Simpson, it's considered one of the greatest characters on TV," Jean says. "Because that's who people really are. We're a show about a family, a screwed-up family, and that's where most people come from." Amid all the absurdity of "The Simpsons" universe, the writers have made sure to keep the nuclear family at the show's center. Creator Matt Groening credits writer and executive producer James L. Brooks with that. "In the writers' room, Jim is the guy who pitches the heartfelt moment, which is very difficult for a comedy writer to do," Groening says. "Everybody is trying to be the most cynical, the most jaded, and Jim is willing to go for that sweet stuff."

That sweet stuff is at the core of the movie, too, but getting it made took almost as many years as Bart has been in the fourth grade. "This movie has been rewritten more heavily than any human document," Jean says. "The thing we fear most is making a bad movie. It's really daunting, because every fan has a vision of what this movie should be." Although animated shows "South Park" and "Rugrats" have successfully made the transition from TV to film, history is littered with sitcom-to-screen forays (e.g., "Bewitched," "The Brady Bunch Movie") that flopped. "Yeah, it's a risk," Groening says. "But look at all the lousy movies that make huge box office. And I think everyone who worked on this is pretty proud." That said, ratings for the sitcom have dropped recently. Did Groening wait too long to make the movie? Apparently not. " 'The Simpsons' has a loyal cult following, and they're always talking about a movie," says Robert Bucksbaum of Exhibitor Relations, a movie-industry analyst. His box-office estimate: up to $175 million. "You're going to be a little bit surprised by how well this film does."

The idea of making a movie first came up back in 1990, but it always got pushed down the to-do list. Finally, around 2003, Groening and gang got serious about it, but instituted a cone of silence around the project. Although the basic plot has been in place for years, the filmmakers have managed to prevent any details from slipping out. "That's the way it's supposed to be," Brooks says, laughing. "It's always more fun not knowing what's going to happen. That's why first dates are so great." Of course, that silence has been rich soil for rumors, most of them initiated by people working on the film, to throw nosy reporters off track. "One of my favorites was by one of the writers," Groening says. "He said the movie's about Bart losing his virginity." Despite that nude scene, it's not. "It's an epic story, but at the heart it's about the family staying together," Groening says. "And, as anyone could predict, Homer causes a great deal of havoc. We just raised the stakes. He can ruin the planet this time, not just Springfield."

Based on footage shown to NEWSWEEK, the film appears to start with a growing environmental crisis. Then Homer further messes things up—there have been (unsubstantiated) rumors about his storing tons of pig waste in the backyard, which seems about his speed—and a new villain appears, voiced by Albert Brooks. ("Well, I'm not sure I'd call him a 'villain'," says James Brooks. "He functions as someone who wants to bring an end to the world, yeah, but ... ") Also, Lisa may get a green-activist boyfriend. The filmmakers get bonus points for Zeitgeist reading—they did environmentally focused shows and dreamed up the movie's eco-angle years before half of Los Angeles was driving a Prius. "You'll never be out of date talking about the environment," says the film's director, David Silverman, who has been with "The Simpsons" since it was a series of skits on "The Tracey Ullman Show." (He also plays the flaming tuba. No joke.) "It's not, like, 'Wow, the environment's solved! No problems now!' "

And anyway, the movie (like the sitcom) is about something much, much deeper than saving some dumb old planet. It's about being a loser, and still winning—albeit in a consolation-prize kind of way. "It's fun to see a dad trying to hold his family together while indulging in every vice he can, and getting his comeuppance again and again," Groening says. "You can relate to him and feel superior!" Unless this whole movie-star thing goes to his head, of course.
User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#74 Post by flyonthewall2983 »

Antoine Doinel wrote:Based on footage shown to NEWSWEEK, the film appears to start with a growing environmental crisis. Then Homer further messes things up—there have been (unsubstantiated) rumors about his storing tons of pig waste in the backyard, which seems about his speed—and a new villain appears, voiced by Albert Brooks. ("Well, I'm not sure I'd call him a 'villain'," says James Brooks. "He functions as someone who wants to bring an end to the world, yeah, but ... ") Also, Lisa may get a green-activist boyfriend. The filmmakers get bonus points for Zeitgeist reading—they did environmentally focused shows and dreamed up the movie's eco-angle years before half of Los Angeles was driving a Prius. "You'll never be out of date talking about the environment," says the film's director, David Silverman, who has been with "The Simpsons" since it was a series of skits on "The Tracey Ullman Show." (He also plays the flaming tuba. No joke.) "It's not, like, 'Wow, the environment's solved! No problems now!' "
It's official, I'm there opening day. It's too bad the villain isn't Hank Scorpio, though.
patrick
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia

#75 Post by patrick »

I haven't really watched the show in years (I think it was the jockey episode that made me stop) but since this is being written by the "classic" creative team, I'll definitely go see it.
I also think Fox is letting Groening create a few straight-to-DVD Futurama movies.
If I understand correctly, the straight-to-DVD movies are being broken up into episodes and that's what will be shown on Comedy Central.
Post Reply