Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Biker-Boy Goes For A Ride With THE SIMPSONS MOVIE!!

Bless you Michael Bay by IVXXLMCM	Mar 26th, 2007 06:10:31 PM
Bless you Michael Bay
When we getting a Futurama big screen movie then? by testricals	Mar 26th, 2007 06:12:02 PM
Huh?
HOMER by THE KNIGHT	Mar 26th, 2007 06:16:36 PM
gotta eat Marge's Taint!
Sounds good .... by livrule	Mar 26th, 2007 06:22:43 PM
They have my money.
Clarification by Datsun	Mar 26th, 2007 06:24:56 PM
This is pretty pointless, but I thought I'd point it out anyway: Although Matt Groening grew up in Oregon and went to high school in Portland, he did not attend the University of Oregon. He attended Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA. Evergreen is filled with the biggest, filthiest hippies in the world, coincidentally. Nonetheless, the UO makes a lot of spurious claims about Groening to prospective students.
Wow...that was...brief? by LordEnigma	Mar 26th, 2007 06:25:45 PM
Am I supposed to be thrilled by that review? If it's going to be that short, then I wonder what the hell is the point? Do we really need an extended episode? Of the Simpsons? I will of course pay hard money to see this film. Nevertheless, add some beef, and make it more than an extended episode. Make it a freakin movie, people!
THIS YEAR'S LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE CAN EAT MY SHORTS!!! by Err	Mar 26th, 2007 06:26:55 PM
ba-zing!
After careful consideration... by Angry Mean Panda	Mar 26th, 2007 06:27:39 PM
I have determined that Futurama is in every way a superior show to The Simpsons. Furthermore, at what point do we admit to ourselves that the Simpson's heyday (arguably seasons 3-9) is now grossly outweighed by season upon season of inferior television?
sweet jeebus, i'm in by LegoKenobi	Mar 26th, 2007 06:28:14 PM
but then, i was before. i'm excited. or to be old-school AICN about it... HUGE FAN, CAN'T WAIT!
?? by livrule	Mar 26th, 2007 06:29:19 PM
whats Futurama??? Never seen dat'.
But does it affect him, Bender? by JackPumpkinhead	Mar 26th, 2007 06:31:17 PM
Who cares. Futurama is the past, present, and future.
I think Ward Cleaver wrote this review by IndustryKiller!	Mar 26th, 2007 06:36:11 PM
It's not bad or anything but "snap, crackle, and pop"? "wontcha"? "Zap and zing"? Jesus I don't think my grandmother is cheesy enough to say something like that.
They're still tweaking this??? by 12-GAUGE	Mar 26th, 2007 06:36:47 PM
I can understand a few polish-ups needed here and there, but this thing is supposed to come out in July, and there are still storyboards placed in for certain shots? I hope it is ready in time. And about the length, the South Park movie was pretty short but definitely brilliant. One can only hope the Simpsons movie doesn't play it up for the masses too, too much.
Screamapiller? ANYWHERE? by Lord Thislewick	Mar 26th, 2007 06:37:32 PM
The one reason to see the film is THE SCREAMAPILLER!
I'll check it out by kafka07	Mar 26th, 2007 06:44:22 PM
At first I was very curious when I heard they were making this. Then I was like, eh who cares. Now I want to see it.
There's no way in hell I can see this movie by GiggityGoo	Mar 26th, 2007 06:47:18 PM
I've watched both trailers without laughing or smiling once. The horrible, unfunny gag of Homer bouncing between a "rock" and a "Hard Place" made me click off the page. I'm an old school Simpsons fan, loving the show since the first episode, but I lost my love with the episode where Lisa was in boot camp with Bart. Something about that episode told me the tide had turned, and I haven't gone back to regular viewing since. God bless those of you who still enjoy it. Seriously, I'm glad it makes you happy. But it's lost its charm for this old-timer.
I'm looking forward to it by onefatman	Mar 26th, 2007 06:48:55 PM
but I just know I'm going to be disappointed. The simpsons hasn't been worth watching on tv for years so unless they signed up all the old-school writers (brad bird included) it's probably going to be 10% hits and 90% misses
all the review did was serve by jaylerd	Mar 26th, 2007 06:56:19 PM
all the review did was serve to embitter me more and raise my doubts of the film. i'm not sure how, since it was a positive review, but i read it and it feels like it confirms every expectation i have that the movie will be a piece of shitcake
Harry! Is this YOR Ghost Town? Own up! by Brendon	Mar 26th, 2007 06:57:55 PM
Ricky Gervais announces first Hollywood starring role: http://snipurl.com/18zli And look who's producing it...
Playing it up to the masses too much... by jorson2	Mar 26th, 2007 06:58:37 PM
"One can only hope the Simpsons movie doesn't play it up for the masses too, too much." Call this off-topic, but can someone explain why so many movie buffs on this site constantly deride "the masses," overtly or subtly, for having bad taste and then beg the filmmakers working on favored properties not to "play it up" to them? Do you want the public to like what you like or do you not? I mean, it sounds like, well, heaven forbid a studio spend $100,000,000 on a movie and actually make a profit -- that'd just be evil. I'm well aware of and all for targeting certain portions of the moviegoing audience with certain genres of movies, but expecting a studio to spend that much money (common nowadays regardless of genre) and alienate a majority of an audience -- not at least try to make it tolerable for more than just a handful of rabid fanboys --is just idiocy. For all the talk about how today's audiences settle too often for mediocre material, by the standards on boards like these, it seems like you guys would rather the number of people that go to movies shrink and shrink until nothing but the smug, dirty, so-called "intelligent" and "clever" movies get made for a select group of people that think they're the only ones worthy of having movies made for them.
Sorry, but this has been screening for a while... by El Scorcho	Mar 26th, 2007 07:05:52 PM
You're not even close to being the first to see it.
am i nuts... by PotSmokinAlien	Mar 26th, 2007 07:05:53 PM
or did matt groening himself write that review????? him and ward cleaver have a lot more in common than either would like to admit (actually matt probably wouldn't have a problem with it) "snap crackle and pop"? "multi page disclosure agreement?" pure groening.
seems finished by sHapesHiftinLizard	Mar 26th, 2007 07:07:35 PM
but theyre pasin out reaction cards so theres room for some comic timing and structure tweaking, prob not for adding any more character scenes, thats the real shame of this review, we know its not gonna have much of anybody but the family. Makes sense tho, we get plenty of the characters backgrounds in the show, would rather we got less of them than expected than Homer. Was the South Park one the same time length round about? that was just right time wise, altho the simpsons animation will be more of a visual feast on the big screen , we probably all will walk out wishing it'd been a little longer.
And if i'm not... by PotSmokinAlien	Mar 26th, 2007 07:17:38 PM
and this is actually a legit review... they are focus grouping this fucking thing when it is 30% off the ground? well THANK GOD is all i can say, there is nothing that instills hope in my movie going-dollar than slavering to fans of an insanely profitable thing in hopes that all of them will love it. it harkens back to something someone said about pleasing all of the people, all of the time. oh yeah, it was pt barnum and it was "it's possible to please all of the people, all of them time, and the way to do it is with as many focus groups as humanly possible." i'm surprised they didn't have a "*YOU* could write the script to the simpsons movie!!!" contest on this site. i dont wanna be negative but i remember making the grim decision to leave cosby behind and switch to the family simpson and i never looked back--- and it is because of reportage like this review that i have about as much intention of seeing this writers' circle jerk as i do to be watching fox at 8pm next sunday (that is, none). and those trailers sure made my decision easier.
Sounds as unnecessary as I expected by bah	Mar 26th, 2007 07:23:12 PM
Meh.
Too Simpsony!! by finky089	Mar 26th, 2007 07:25:37 PM

Jorson by PotSmokinAlien	Mar 26th, 2007 07:36:05 PM
your aversion that "expecting a studio to spend [$100, 000, 000] (common nowadays regardless of genre) and alienate a majority of an audience -- not at least try to make it tolerable for more than just a handful of rabid fanboys --is just idiocy." what the hell are you smoking? whatever it is it is not what i am smoking. this attitude is the true idiocy and it is killing hollywood twice over. first this idea of "well, we spent $100 million on this thing--everyone in this fucking country must know about it a year before it's out, asses in seats, asses in seats" like it's a fucking mantra. and then the idea of "an audience isn't gonna go see a movie that hasn't had $100 million of solid gold poured (digitally of course) into every fucking nook and cranny of this movie and so naturally, your average movie costs $100 million regardless of genre". i am gonna guess that as an apparent fan of blockbusters you saw the da vinci code--- why the hell do you think they had those planets flying around his head when dude is thinking about copernicus or whatever?? because ron howard likes his movies to be unintentionally funny? no--it's because he had a budget that he needed to spend so they could then justify the advertising costs that are incurred when you make a terrible movie but must make people want to see it somehow. i could go on for awhile here but a good recent example refuting this theory of yours is the "three amigos" of mexico--- the big deal about these fellas is that they "miraculously" make amazing, or at the very least confidently artistic, movies on budgets that make people aware of how ridiculously high $100 million really is. think about it friend. i'd rather get 5 pans labyrinths than 1 waterworld. dont give your money to the system and let it tell you what to expect! instead tell the system what we expect from it, with the money that we dont give it.
If Homer says "You go girl!"... by Kurzinski Valentine	Mar 26th, 2007 07:42:49 PM
...I refuse to see it. Seriously. We want classic 'stupid' Homer, not unfunny 'Pop-Culture-referencing' Homer. Ugh.
jorson2, about "the masses" by 12-GAUGE	Mar 26th, 2007 07:44:41 PM
I guess it's a matter of relativity. You could say Batman Begins was a movie for the masses--it made a lot of money. Yet, most people consider it a movie more true to its form than, say, Fantastic Four, X Men the Last Stand, etc.. I'm only hoping that the movie goes for broke and doesn't try to play it safe by catering, too much, to people who aren't as familiar with the show. Some people make the same claim about Transformers, but I see this source material as a bit more rich and worthy of adherence.
Damn you Michael Bay by Damnyou	Mar 26th, 2007 07:48:09 PM
Damn you Michael Bay
So we now know it sucks, let's move on... by performingmonkey	Mar 26th, 2007 07:52:23 PM
Seriously, this sounds sucky in the way I expected it to be, with them not knowing what the fuck to do so we basically get three episodes tacked onto one another. Also, it seems they're going to rip off classic episodes because they can't think of any new jokes/ideas. Meh. This movie should have been made ten years ago when the show still had some life. It's like if they made the South Park movie now, it would be filled with too much shit like Scientology references rather than just being funny like it was. The South Park movie was fucking great.
i don't think he saw it... by damagedinc	Mar 26th, 2007 08:23:22 PM
he references the trailer and said a page worth of things that common sense could assume without the benefit of seeing the movie. "i showed up, huge fan, it wasn't completely finished, no soundtrack, the first half is awesome, middle sucks, end rules" and some stuff from the trailer. i believed it until his discriptions of the actual content turned into "ruled!"/"sucked!".
I think "the masses" already know about the Simpsons... by TheRevengeOfBayouWilly	Mar 26th, 2007 08:25:41 PM
I don't see how they would have to cater to them. I honestly don't see James L. Brooks scrambling to get Panic At The Disco! on the soundtrack, or Sanjaya to make a celebrity guest voice for the purpose of nailing a Wii joke.
"dropped off in quality a little in recent years"??? by Azazyel	Mar 26th, 2007 08:28:06 PM
'a little'! The demise of the Simpsons over the last few years has been nothing short of a tragedy. It's based on lazy and poor writing. I know! lets have a "The Simpsons go to [insert country here] episode!" I agree with GiggityGoo about the 'rock & hard place' joke - someone should have vetoed it the moment it was mentioned.
Homer Gotta Eat My Shorts by Ohiofile	Mar 26th, 2007 08:35:38 PM
meh. Who needs a long episode of this? This'll sit on my summertime back burner.
Portland Oregon owns you all by DOGSOUP	Mar 26th, 2007 08:42:59 PM
Biker Boy do you write for The Mercury or something? I didn't hear about a screening of the Simpsons movie dammit! Does this mean Coraline will screen here first too? I'll just cry over my Stumptown coffee and VooDoo Doughnut and ease my suffering in the naked pierced titties of a tattooed punk stripper at Union Jack's and a Black Butte porter.
I can't say I trust this reviewer by INWOsuxRED	Mar 26th, 2007 08:43:30 PM
there are too many "slight problems" for this current Simpsons lover for me to take this reveiw very seriously. Not a plant, but certainly a review from an appologist. It could still be good, but this didn't get my hopes up.
Springfield by WeinerPenis	Mar 26th, 2007 08:49:21 PM
Anyone who has ever lived in the Eugene area knows that Springfield is Springfield, OR. The rivalry between Eugene and Springfield is a hilarious, and hilariously real, thing. The locals who are from Eugene talk about people from Springfield as if they are cancer, and vice versa. Anyone who goes to school there gets in on the fun and gangs up on Springfield people and gives them a hard time if they try to come to U of O parties. They truly hate each other, like Springfield and Shelbyville. When the Simpsons started, Groening was clearly having a little fun with the rival town. Plus, Springfield itself is this quaint little hamlet in one sense, and then a total shithole with a skid roaw and industrial area that rec3als the nuclear plant, and there even used to be a little quickie-marriage place called the Lovejoy Chapel. It always amuses me when people from Illinois think that it is based on there, and the show has even made some jokes about that, but go to Springfield Oregon, or Eugene and ask about Springfield, and then consider Groening's history in the town, and try to keep believing it's not the real Springfield.
I knew this would suck when... by Leafy McPlantsalot	Mar 26th, 2007 08:50:02 PM
Homer hit his eye with the back end of the hammer. that told me excatly which end of the simpson legacy this flick was comming from. pity
i hate to be a hater by Halfbreedqueen	Mar 26th, 2007 08:57:53 PM
but this show really has dropped off on quality. it's not just because it's "hip to hate it now" or "only the old stuff is good" (i'll defend south park of still having episodes that are really really funny, including the first two of this season, the wii future eps, etc.) but the simpsons is almost painful now. every year i always check in for a few weeks to see what it's like, and now it's basically unwatchable (from the 4 eppies I saw of this season.) even at it's best now, it's only a shadow of it's former glory. which makes sense... it's all different writers, and it's been ALMOST 20 YEARS. how much can happen to ONE family? especially one that doesn't age...
The Simpsons is still on? by theBigE	Mar 26th, 2007 09:24:38 PM
huh - what do you know! I thought they had cancelled it years ago and were just running reruns! Instead of a Simpsons film, I'm waiting for an Itchy and Scratchy movie. If not, how about a 5 minute short before the film, at the very least?
Springfield Oregon ... by Datsun	Mar 26th, 2007 09:28:41 PM
... is one of the crappiest towns in America, with honestly one of the worst malls ever. It sucks on every conceivable level. If anyone actually made a sitcom set there, people would think it was way too over the top and trashy. Anyway, the movie will probably be entertaining, though I got absolutely no indication that this reviewer actually saw the movie.
WeinerPenis and Dogsoup by snomusic	Mar 26th, 2007 09:35:06 PM
Yeah, I grew up in Portland and wonder what theatre it was at - I know it wasn't Lloyd Center - lol. I've lived in Eugene for the past 14 years now though and I've never really understood the silly rivalry between the 2 towns since they have practically no space between them - tho I do enjoy calling it Springtucky. I think Coburg qualifies more as the 'quaint little hamlet'. I guess that would mean the hicks in The Simpsons would be from Creswell or Cottage Grove...or Noti, Elmira, Crow, Harrisburg, Junction City .. whatever, you get the idea.
Oh Springfield isn't THAT bad by snomusic	Mar 26th, 2007 09:38:08 PM
You might wanna do some travelling before calling it the crappiest town in America - heck, just stay in Oregon and go to Myrtle Point or Roseburg for that matter - sheesh.
too soon by Mr_X	Mar 26th, 2007 09:39:19 PM
meh its on tv for fracks sake . why bother. i stopped wacthing ages ago. u still laugh at the old epsiodes though
too soon by Mr_X	Mar 26th, 2007 09:39:23 PM
meh its on tv for fracks sake . why bother. i stopped wacthing ages ago. u still laugh at the old epsiodes though
I remember my wtf happened to this show moment by INWOsuxRED	Mar 26th, 2007 10:02:23 PM
as being the episode where Principal Skinner turned out to not be Principal Skinner. That episode sucked so hard, and I was watching it with family that don't watch the show. I was embarrased for the show and myself.
If he had written it by i eat pow	Mar 26th, 2007 10:09:09 PM
like the review for Grindhouse, you idiots would be all over his jock.
You could never trust a review for this movie by Doctor Zoidberg	Mar 26th, 2007 10:31:40 PM
The Simpsons is too hard to define. Everyone loves a different aspect of its charm. Some very intelligent people say that the last few seasons were the best, but I think that everything before season 2 and after season 8 was complete hack shit. The only way to trust a review...is to know the reviewer. Otherwise, its all a crap shoot.
Homer Simpson by INWOsuxRED	Mar 26th, 2007 11:15:47 PM
is like jacking off to tits with chainsaws for nipples, and then along comes Ned Flanders and some exploding handjobs on motorcycles force you to have anal sex with fashion models in the town of springfield while three eyed fish pay you $100 per eye to watch.
Flesh the running time out with... by gotilk	Mar 26th, 2007 11:38:03 PM
A full Itchy and Scratchy cartoon short!! Or would that make it nc-17?
Smell you Michael Bay by alfal99	Mar 26th, 2007 11:47:54 PM
Smells Like lilacs and broken dreams...
You should honor any agreement you sign by Bronx Cheer	Mar 27th, 2007 12:07:21 AM
If they make you sign a nondisclosure form, then show some moral fiber and shut your piehole. This is what's wrong with the world these days. No one has the fucking backbone to do the right thing. You should have kept your yap shut and sat on your hands. Next time, don't sign if you can't honor the contract. This reviewer is a jojo.
All Bow... by Ender's Jeesh	Mar 27th, 2007 12:20:16 AM
To the Hypno-Toad
bitter by lionbiu	Mar 27th, 2007 12:56:32 AM
we all know we will go see it and the review is very positive...so I am very willing to give it a chance....and Futurama did borrow alot of plotlines, characters and jokes from Te Simpsons even though it was FAR better than The Simpsons current state.
Yeah, I'm hoping it's good... by DanielKurland	Mar 27th, 2007 01:44:05 AM
but not setting too high of expectations. The South Park movie is still one of the funniest movies I've seen though and it was such a fantastic experience seeing that in the theatre. It's a wonder such a fantastic film came from it because the first draft of the script was really underwhelming, and arguably, in season 2, South Park was hardly at the level it was at now/the past few years.
A sucker truly is born every minute... by Kingdaddy	Mar 27th, 2007 01:49:22 AM
I'm not a Simpsons fan...never have been. But I smell beautiful PLANT all over this sucker. How can we ring the bell so they salivate, but only give them a small morsel of what they crave? A so-so review of the Filet Mignon that they crave... What? It's not my favorite chef? The table next to me didn't like it? But the first 2 bites were amazing! The final taste of wine was as good as the first? I'm confused! Need more talk...mmmmmm...brains....Simp sons brainssssssss...... I HAVE TO SEE IT! I HAVE TO JUDGE FOR MYSELF! I HAVE TO TELL EVERYONE IT MAY BE FOR THEM ALSO...NOT JUST THE FANBOYS!!! Hook. Line. Sinker.
If you don't love the Simpons by antonphd	Mar 27th, 2007 01:56:43 AM
then in the immortal words of Mel Gibson "f--- off, lady"
I'd never want to see a test screening by Evil Hobbit	Mar 27th, 2007 02:04:40 AM
ruins the entire excitment of seeing the final project for the first time.
No, Bronx Cheer by gotilk	Mar 27th, 2007 02:12:59 AM
What's wrong with the world these days is fools who buy into any fake, manufactured morality the legal/intellectual property worlds conjure out of their overfilled colons. Your sense of right and wrong are perverted by years of exposure to whining corporate weenies who regularly steal from the mouths of artist's children. The world is filled with truly evil people who will machete their neighbors when the timing is right and they're sure no-one is watching, but no... you're here with us spewing and hand wringing about non-disclosure agreements. Get a backbone of your own and come back to ask about ours later. Phht.
Hypno-Toad by MrSandwich	Mar 27th, 2007 02:37:26 AM
...still the funniest thing to ever come out of the Groening Empire. Thank you Ender.
plant? by lionbiu	Mar 27th, 2007 02:39:25 AM
I highly doubt it...it points out to many errors to actually be a plant. If it was a plant than it's definetely one of the better ones I have read.
Screw You Murdoch by pammybabe	Mar 27th, 2007 02:43:08 AM
I wont be going to see this film for one simple reason. Murdoch, in an pathetic attempt to get me to switch to his Sky TV platform, has taken the Simpsons away from me on cable. All I can see are 6 year old episode shown on terrestrial before I even get home from work. I also can no longer see Battlestar Galactica, Lost or Stargate. So screw you Murdoch and the horse you rode in on.
An hour and a quarter... by henrydalton	Mar 27th, 2007 03:14:35 AM
Is that even legal? I'm appalled. More sauce.
RE: Hypno-Toad by Affleckwasthebomb	Mar 27th, 2007 03:24:25 AM
Just have to agree on the Hypno-Toad being one of the funniest things Groening and co has come up with. I've been trying to get that noise he makes but I can't find one of good enough quality.
Errrr by lionbiu	Mar 27th, 2007 03:49:52 AM
South park was only 77 minutes....and yes The Hypno Toad does rule, I actually think I could sit down and watch a 30 minute segment with the hypno toad alone.
Peter Jackson for JLA! by UltimaRex	Mar 27th, 2007 04:03:14 AM
OT, will see. It's the Simpsons dammit.
Harry, are you working with Ricky Gervais? by Bono Luthor	Mar 27th, 2007 04:19:25 AM
I heard him mention Ghost Town on Steve Wright BBC Radio 2 show yesterday. Just watched 2nd series of Extras. F'kink brilliant.
That wasn't a review by Poopoodio	Mar 27th, 2007 04:37:24 AM
Nothing in it suggested the guy has seen anything other than the trailer. "Can't give any more away because of a nondisclosure agreement" ... yeah, whatever. Unless your name's Bob Biker-Boy, I think your secret identity is safe, dickhead. Admit it, you didn't actually see any preview. Worse than worthless.
this is gonna be good by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 04:46:34 AM
especially if it harks back to the golden era of the simpsons. it'll be wicked!
Last Exit to Springfield by filmcoyote	Mar 27th, 2007 04:47:24 AM
Just rewatched this episode from season 4 yesterday, must be hands down one of the greatest. I love the Simpsons, always have always will, but at the end of the day if the first 30 minutes of the film is as good as a classic episode like Last Exit To Springfield then the whole endeavor is worthwhile i reckon.
3 EPISODES STRUNG 2GETHER? by Lewster3000	Mar 27th, 2007 05:02:44 AM
I just read an article featuring Matty G saying that it WASNT 3 episodes strung together. I really cant trust this review.
"A Great Family Movie!" Moriarty, Aint It Cool News by BannedOnTheRun	Mar 27th, 2007 06:08:54 AM
Your name in print? That's the kind of spontaneous publicity that gets people noticed!
from the review it seems it will be a good movie!! by DHAMAKA2007	Mar 27th, 2007 06:26:08 AM
not excellent but good. I guess it will make money and probably some fans will like it while others won't.
Ghost Town by Dr Eric Vornoff	Mar 27th, 2007 06:31:34 AM
If you actually listened to the show you would have heard Ricky say it was a romantic comedy directed by David Koepp. Doesn't sound a whole lot like Harry's Ghost Town.
Pammybabe, you're wrong... by pdennett316	Mar 27th, 2007 06:37:03 AM
The reason that Sky One etc... aren't on cable anymore is due to Virgin Media not wanting to pay for the rights to carry the channel. Did they make your subscription cheaper? Course not! They paint Sky as the bad guy, yet gladly take their money for Living etc... They are a multi-million pound company and are playing the sympathy card - them against big bad Sky - if they really cared they'de drop their prices due to the money saved. They haven't, they don't. End of story. Oh, and The Simpsons Movie looks good.
The Simpsons is like Britney Spears by Franklin T Marmoset	Mar 27th, 2007 07:07:57 AM
Sure, she's in a rough spot right now, but you have all enjoyed her taught midriff and nearly exposed boobs for many years, so she still deserves your respect. She will ride this out and be back in shape in no time - just you wait and see. Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh yes, The Simpsons. Maybe this show is a little on the flabby and bald and loony side at the moment, but before you know it they will be nude and plastered across a Playboy centrefold and... Goddamnit, every time I try to talk about the Simpsons I drift over to Britney. What's that about? In conclusion, I am looking forward to this film, which I am sure will make me laugh at least nine times.
"show has dropped off in quality a little" by newc0253	Mar 27th, 2007 07:23:55 AM
that's understatement, right? as in the persians outnumbered the spartans by "a little", or the pacific is "a little" wetter than the sahara".
pdennett316 by pammybabe	Mar 27th, 2007 07:29:33 AM
I see where your coming from but I think they are probably as bad as each other to be honest. It also has a lot to do with the fact Sky want to launch a subscription version of Freeview where you'll get Sky 1,2,3 etc for a monthly fee. I might cancel my cable and just go to freeview (but not with Sky). 80% of what I watched was on Sky so there seems little point having cable now. perhaps Branson and Murdoch can get together and screw each other instead of us poor TV viewers.
my impression of this review: by newc0253	Mar 27th, 2007 07:47:43 AM
(1) what kind of internet nerd honours an non-disclosure agreement at a test screening? i can understand harry or mori honoring certain restrictions in return for access, but that's because they're in the business of reviewing this stuff. but this guy? jesus, buddy, it's not as though Fox are gonna supoena AICN for the identity of their anonymous reviewer. hell, they probably expected it to get out. (2) despite the vagueness, it seems more that the reviewer was trying to like it more than he actually liked it. yes, the first half hour sounds very funny. but that's kinda the least you'd expect from the simpson's movie. like other talkbackers on this site, i thought the south park movie was one of the funniest things i've ever seen in the cinema, and that movie was done in record time. by contrast, the simpsons movie has been in development since forever, has all the resources you'd expect from the most successful animated show of all time, and they still can't produce a decent 80 minute simpsons flick? i'm sure the film will be amusing overall, but - after all this time - it's pretty fucking sad that this is the best we can expect from a simpson's film.
pdennett316 by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 07:48:05 AM
dont be so niave, mate. virgin didnt just 'change their minds' cos that would be a breach of contract. what bollocks! sky wanted to INCREASE the fees that virgin paid to sky. fact. do some fucking research. virgin saw THIS as a breach of contract and kicked up a fuss. hence poor old joe public is caught in the middle, and WE lose out. where do you get your news from? newsround? the daily sport? anyway, fella, lets hope this all blows over cos i'm getting sick of these fucking global fuckers fucking the little guy. doesnt affect me of course cos i dont pay for anything, but still.
good analogy, Franklin T Marmoset by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 07:48:55 AM
made me larf
This is hardly an unqualified "positive" review... by Childe Roland	Mar 27th, 2007 08:07:01 AM
...as Merrick's intro indicates. The reviewer says of the movie that it isn't bad and that it's like three episodes back-to-back, only one of which is funny. Taken with the knowledge that the reviewer is a Simpsons fan (still, despite an admitted drop-off in the show's quality, which the reviewer downplayed to the amusement of many), I would say that what we have just read is a desperate attempt to say something nice about a movie that, for all practical purposes, blew. I really dislike the prefaces that the site staff tack on to reviews in an attempt to tell us how we should intepret them. Let the reviewer speak for himself. Then let us discern, based on what they overtly say and incidentally reveal about themselves, what they really thought of the movie. If you don't think the review is well written enough to allow this (which wasn't the issue here), don't post it.
more sauce by henrydalton	Mar 27th, 2007 08:09:39 AM
more sauce.
er, if that wasnt a review.... by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 08:12:20 AM
then what the hell is, you daft bastards? what do you want, a shot for shot breakdown? he gave us enough of an overview without giving away too much of the film. fuck! i swear its like a care-in-the-community kindergarten here sometimes.
Dr Eric Vornoff by Bono Luthor	Mar 27th, 2007 08:18:58 AM
Excuse me. I was concentrating on driving, there was a lot of noise from roadworks and I was conducting a conversation with my girlfriend at the time. Thanks for the snippy 'tude.
Have to agree with Childe Roland assestment. by captboulder	Mar 27th, 2007 08:41:42 AM
Yes it was a review of sorts but clearly the reviewer wasn't liking the movie and so-so recommended it. If The Simpson is gonna play like a regular tv episode than maybe it should have been a tv movie instead? I say what until further reviews or wait til it comes on DVD.
Gotta make that movie longer though by godzillasushi	Mar 27th, 2007 08:46:50 AM
Throw in some deleted scenes or something!
if they were to go the tv movie route... by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 08:47:51 AM
they would do a family guy and stitch 3 seperate episodes together and 'try' patching them together with a single narrative thread. are they doing that? no. they are creating an actually film with the pacing that it brings and the story highs and lows like the gear changes on a car. so get the fuck off of their backs until its finished. been looking forward to this for more then 10 years since original simpsons was in its prime. its gonna rock, so shut it. thats my word from the streets
dont agree with childe by lionbiu	Mar 27th, 2007 08:48:35 AM
I actually do think the reviewer enjoyed it...but was expecting more laughs throughout and to see his/ger favourtie characters (which were obviously not in the main family) so was dissapointed with that. I don't think the overall review has a dissapointed tone...more optomistic and very pleased.
despite all that i agree with godzillasushi by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 08:49:54 AM
it would be good to have it at 2 hours or an hour and a half. it would give the film makers the fexibility and the freedom to flesh out some of the secondary characters parts. saying that. the story might be tight as it is. who knows, fuckers?
reviews like this by ZO	Mar 27th, 2007 08:52:39 AM
really make me appreciate the pros who do reviews
"I just hope, somewhere in by lionbiu	Mar 27th, 2007 08:54:33 AM
"I just hope, somewhere in the back of my mind, that they read and pay attention to my comment card, and fill out the middle section with some more snap, crackle and pop. If they do, they could have an all time classic on their hands, which sadly the version I saw falls ever so slightly short of." It does not sound like they hate it at all, with The Simpsons everyone is expecting perfection and it won't deliver that (no movie ever has) but I am glad they did not try to give every springfielder a subplot, it would be far to messy. Also the fact that most of the movie was in storyboard versions is a bit worrying...although I know the animations style they are using takes less time to draw.
Did anyone see "Homerazzi" this past Sunday? by SpyGuy	Mar 27th, 2007 09:06:17 AM
A pretty hysterical episode and this season as a whole has been one of the best in a long, long time. Did they hire new writers?
I hate Sky by Lost Prophet	Mar 27th, 2007 09:33:55 AM
and don't want them to launch a freeview as the one I have at the moment suits most of my purposes. Their only possible motive for doing it is to stamp out the "free" competition which will leave us truly up shit creek as we will be paying TV tax (sorry, meant the license fee) and then ever increasing subscription rates for Sky. Double dipping on a massive scale. Fuck them. I hope Virgin wins (although they are every bit as evil, Branson just pretends to be cuddly- Murdoch couldn't be cuddly if he was wrapped in cotton wool, dipped in marshmallow and standing underneath a bright sugar pink neon sign saying "HUG ME")
"It does not sound like they hate it at all" by newc0253	Mar 27th, 2007 09:35:09 AM
perhaps, but it sure don't sound like he loved it either. the reviewer comes across as a longtime simpsons fan trying hard to disguise his disappointment with the fact that the movie wasn't nearly as great as he'd hoped. and if that's the reaction of someone who's still a simpsons fan, then you just know its gonna suck balls for those of us who think the simpsons stopped being great in about 1997/98.
Don't get me wrong, lionbiu... by Childe Roland	Mar 27th, 2007 09:42:21 AM
...it's an unfinished film so clearly there's room for optimism (one would hope it would only get better), but the reviewer clearly breaks it down as 25 minutes of funny up front with favorite characters being criminally underutilized, followed by 25 minutes of plot advancement introducing new characters solely for that purpose, followed by 25 minutes of resolution and wrap-up to address the complications introduced in the second third. The reviewer is clearly disappointed in the overall structure of the film and the underutilization of the established supporting cast (not to mention the lack of funny in the latter two thirds of the picture). His enthusiasm in the line you quoted can be translated from the superfanese to read: "Man, I was really hoping this movie would be fuinnier. Maybe if they rewrote the part in the middle, dealing with the plot, and added some jokes, it would be as good as the funnier episodes in more recent seasons...which, admittedly, weren't all that funny."
to all Virgin Media customers: by newc0253	Mar 27th, 2007 09:47:41 AM
last time i checked, it's a free market and a free country. Sky owns the broadcasting rights for Lost, 24 and the Simpsons in the UK. it's therefore entitled to charge Virgin as much as it fucking well likes. if you have a problem with the free market, go back to north korea.
Long Past Its Prime by sevenrivera	Mar 27th, 2007 09:50:48 AM
Homer hanging onto a wrecking ball and getting smashed around told me all I need to know about this movie. Seasons 2-8 were the best comedy programming TV has ever offered and it's been a dramatic free fall ever since. This movie is going to be all about slapstick unrealistic physical gags, stupid cartoon effects (isn't there a Wile-E-Coyote scene with Homer running off a cliff and not falling because he doesn't realize he's fallen off the cliff? Seriously, I thought I saw that in the trailer with the dog team), and unfunny cameos or pop culture references like "Nuh uh you di-ent!" It's a crying shame how they have managed to shit all over one of the greatest franchises of all time. Makes my insides sad just thinking about it. Go to hell Michael Bay, I don't know how, but I'm sure this is your fault.
no they're not by Lost Prophet	Mar 27th, 2007 09:52:23 AM
what Sky tried to do was vary the contract from one side before due date. Not legal. Typical Sky- they are trying to stamp out the competition Whoever told you that it is a free country? cos they lied- just wait till we get unelected PM Brown in. so you can fuck off with that communism crap.
dont be a twat, newc0253 by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 10:17:12 AM
if that was the fucking case you wouldnt have media watchdogs that keep a check on prices and that major companies that more or less have monopolies arent fucking the little guy. fucking troll. Grow the fuck up.learn about economics and how it works before posting something so bloody stupid. ha! if you went to north korea you wouldnt last 2 days. you'd be gang raped (judging by the shit you post you'd most probably end up enjoying it and bragging about it to your boyfriends back in america) and beheaded you zenophobe. recognize
Hey Scumbag! by Lost Prophet	Mar 27th, 2007 10:19:47 AM
I know British state schools are crap but Xenophobe is spelt with an X. sorry. Do you happen to have any SUNNY D drinking, Richmond smoking, kappa wearing mates that are going to pirate and flog TINO living in Camden?
WHAT? by lionbiu	Mar 27th, 2007 10:24:12 AM
Are some fo you high?....Virgin Media sucks ass, its pointless. Sky sucks too..its 90% crap and 10% gold which makes it better than most services. Virgin were screwed by Sky, but it was understandable and all buisness. Did virgin really expect to get all of Sky's best shows and sell them at a fraction of the price?!?! Face it sky pays for these shows (often in millions) and Virgin wanted a easy ride now they must suffer without The Simpsons, Deadwood, Battlestar Galtica, Bones, Dexter, Lost, 24, weeds etc.. Childe I have no idea how you came to that conclusion...sorry I just don't interpret the review like that. Yes he was dissapointed by the structure and lack of secondary characters, but it hardly seems like the giant turd some of the talkbackers have pointed it out to be. I seriously think people may either go into this wanting to love it or wanting to hate it, which really means we won't get a real impartial review. And for the 10 billionth time..WE KNOW THE SIMPSONS HAVE SUCKED FOR AWHILE...DONT BLODDY REPEAT YOURSELVES!!
not the point by Lost Prophet	Mar 27th, 2007 10:30:10 AM
Sky are in Breach of contract- they are trying to change the terms unilaterally before date. If the term of the license had expired then fine. What they are doing is snuffing out potential competition at birth and they will win- sadly. Virgin Media is crap but not pointless, as long as it and freeview are around then there will be some competition for Sky- otherwise we are going to have to repeatedly take it in the tailpipe and ask for more, as the fuckers exploit what is literally a captive audience.
The Simpsons Is Still Great by www.valiens.com	Mar 27th, 2007 10:40:04 AM
The "It's not as funny as it used to be" bandwagon is complete bullshit. It's more uneven episode to episode; you can only keep up that comic genius pace for so long. However, some episodes are still hysterical and the ones that fall flat fall flat in comparison to classic episodes, not in comparison to, say, Tony Danza's career. It's still a genius show, "Who's The Boss." Wait...what? I got lost in the sentence.
my bad, Lost Prophet by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 10:41:04 AM
i bunked the geography lesson we had when i was at school where they were gonna teach us about xenophobia nad how it's spelt. i went to france that day, and picked a fight with a frenchman and his wacky accent. also a german. just joshing, son. whats TINO? i aint got no kappa mates in richmond. closest one is Giles from twickenham thats just as poncey. he jumps on the 'missing-link' (silver-link) from richmond to sell dobies and crack up in camden then moves onto hackney. think he got busted last week tho..........Sky are definately fuckers. Murdoch should hang. what happened to newc0253? anyways, this simpsons movie is gonna be wicked. just nicked empire. it says they're competing with their old friend and nemesis, Brad Bird. the war is on!
yeah i agree with ya, sevenrivera by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 10:49:59 AM
seasons 2 to 8 being wicked. just nicked season 9 from hmv last week and it was some wierd shit. some episodes were just fucked and had no point. About as funny as john major at a bird watching convention sticking his dick in a toaster. the cracks wwas starting to show. didnt like cartridge family, didnt like homer in new york and fucking up his car. so its downhill from here, eh? sheeaaat! no wonder you americans were bitching for so long!
kappa as in shitey shellsuit. by Lost Prophet	Mar 27th, 2007 10:50:54 AM
just kidding mate. what did I say about Empire? loadabollox
kappa as in shitey shellsuit. by Lost Prophet	Mar 27th, 2007 10:51:22 AM
just kidding mate. TINO= Transformers In Name Only. what did I say about Empire? loadabollox
SINO ! SINO ! SINO ! SINO ! SINO ! by Pound Sand	Mar 27th, 2007 10:56:01 AM
SINO ! SINO ! SINO ! SINO ! SINO ! SINO ! SINO ! SINO ! SINO !
TINO by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 10:58:26 AM
we're working on it, fella. should hit the streets this week at a local pub near you via some geeza selling 'dodgy dvd's'!
SINO? by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 11:01:06 AM
you're wacked out on crack, Pound Sand. this simpsons movie is for real. take dat needle outa your fat vein, put down dat heroin burger your mum made, move out of that hostel for the homeless and recognize!
This is a review of an extremely rough draft by Trazadone	Mar 27th, 2007 11:01:52 AM
How can we take anything from this review? Essentially he's reviewing storyboards (if he actually saw it to begin with, which is suspect based on his complete lack of detail). That would be like me reviewing Spider-Man 3 because I saw the movie poster in the lobby (e.g., "Spider-Man wears both the red and the black costume, it was a little boring...").
I'm really torn on this one by mraig	Mar 27th, 2007 11:02:50 AM
On the one hand, I feel like he's a plant, because there is really no way this movie is going to be good, and no way the first half hour will be as good as some of the classic episodes. If this is a plant, there are really a lot of nice touches -- saying the show has dropped "a little" in quality "in recent years" is a good way to acknowledge what the producers know everyone thinks without having to shit all over their own product too much (i.e. say "we made about five seasons of iconic, cutting edge television, about three or four seasons of an okay version of that, suffering from the 'I'm a TV show that knows everyone thinks I'm the best show ever' syndrome, and then about ten seasons of embarassingly bad, sell-out, cash-in, safe, shit." And his "I won't spoil the plot because of some BS contract I signed" excuse means that the studios don't have to spoil the movie through their plantage. By saying "it was really good, falls short of genius, here are a few minor minor things that might be changed," he isn't unabashedly praising it, which makes him sound less planty, but still makes people want to see the movie. The job of a plant ain't to make everyone think this is going to be the best movie ever, it's just to make them want to go see it. On the other hand... a lot of these things that make him a good plant could also be evidence that he hasn't seen the movie. "I can't talk about any scenes specifically"? "It's funny because it has a lot of physical humor"? "There's not enough time to focus on the twenty million supporting characters"? Yeah, anyone could have come up with that. Or maybe he actually did see the movie and actually did like it? I guess there must be some people who like the Simpsons the way it is, or else it wouldn't still be on.
You'll have to compete with the Triads by Lost Prophet	Mar 27th, 2007 11:05:44 AM
best hurry. They get nasty when pikeys undercut them
PS by mraig	Mar 27th, 2007 11:08:28 AM
Remember when the Simpsons was actually daring and cutting edge? When I was in elementary school, the school had a rule that we weren't allowed to wear Simpsons T-shirts, and my parents wouldn't let me watch the show (this was during the first two or three seasons). It was actually pushing the boundaries of what you could do and say. Remember when (the first) President Bush said, "America needs to be more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons"? That's the saddest thing about current Simpsons, is thinking that this show used to be CUTTING EDGE. It used to be just about the only family on TV that sometimes said and did mean things to one another, that laughed in the face of always learning a lesson and everyone hugging at the end. It used to be the cure for those sickly sweet family sitcoms where precious children would talk back and the mother and father would look adoringly into each other's eyes. Now it has BECOME that show.
PotSmokinAlien by jorson2	Mar 27th, 2007 11:10:58 AM
I never said ALL movies cost 100-million dollars, I certainly never said that the ones that cost that much are all good ones, and I never saw the Da Vinci Code. In any case, your response didn't refute anything I said or even expand upon why I might have been wrong. All you did was essentially say you hate expensive movies -- period. The problem I have is with people that want to crucify anything that might actually be entertaining to a lot of people simply BECAUSE it is entertaining to a lot of people, their usual justification for such righteous indignation being the supposed greed of the film corporations themselves. Unfortunately, if the studios only made movies for you guys, they'd go out of business because even as an art form, filmmaking REQUIRES money to sustain itself and the best way to get that money is to make movies people will pay to see. Then and only then can studios take risks once in a while and let a filmmaker make something that might be more intelligent and subtle but also narrower in its appeal. Then again, I doubt this is anything you don't already know -- I just suspect you don't care because, well, money is the root of all evil, right? Anyway, nice try, but lay off the pot awhile then come back and prove me wrong.
PPS by mraig	Mar 27th, 2007 11:12:21 AM
I love that everyone is talking about Springfield Oregon. I went to high school there, and college in Eugene at the University of Oregon, and I always felt like it was a pretty ideal model for the show's Springfield. The unnecessary rivalry that the two towns have for each other is really endearing. "Springfield sucks, it's full of conservative white trash." "Eugene sucks, it's full of elitist liberal hippies." You're both right!
Simpsons had a bad season or two by Beastmanseventy	Mar 27th, 2007 11:14:19 AM
But is now as funny as it ever was.
fuck the triads by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 11:58:29 AM
they are a bunch of pussies who are too afraid to come down our manor. they work for US. we came to that agreement last summer....to mraig, the reviewer aint a plant. what are you, david bellamy? leave it out, fella. ......to jorson2, $100 million dont make good movies, good writers and directors make good movies. know and understand. go on imdb or something.
Another Indicator You're Watching A Shitty Episode by Aquatarkusman	Mar 27th, 2007 12:03:23 PM
Homer 'whispers' something obvious very loudly. That never fails to not begin to be funny.
mraig what?? by lionbiu	Mar 27th, 2007 12:05:15 PM
you said its a plant because "the movie can't possibly be any good" ?! And your evidence for that is?? Yes The Simpsons was cutting edge, but there is only soo much they can push on national Tv with also being a family comedy. The last 2 seasons have increased in quality (not by much) but there have been jokes which could fit into season 2-9. Who the heck said Homer going to New York and Catridge Family were unfunny?!?! They were the last forms of genius The Simpsons ever had.
i said that, lionbiu. by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 12:15:15 PM
they were the last forms of genius? are you shitting me, pal? i sat through that shit stoned faced, fidgeting and looking at my stolen watch to see when it was time to fucking leave and burgle the next flat on my list. fuck! it was fucking dreadful. you'd obviously find bbc news 24 funny then i suppose. that bloody new york episode had some of the sloppiest writing i'd ever seen. the cracks were there, pal. i guess you simply didnt see it.
Those of you who think the Simpsons isn't funny anymore by Dapper Swindler	Mar 27th, 2007 12:29:39 PM
...haven't been watching the last few episodes. I downloaded them out of boredom and I was SHOCKED to find out they are HYSTERICAL! Fierce gags, tight pacing, it was unbelievable! Go give them a chance.
"Sky are in Breach of contract" by newc0253	Mar 27th, 2007 12:37:15 PM
haha, i love it how every Virgin Media customer is suddenly qualified to give legal advice. trust me, if Virgin had a leg to stand on in this dispute, they would have gotten an injunction against Sky weeks ago. all this whining about abuse of a monopoly is just the kind of retarded shit you'd expect from the phony chav wannabes on this talkback. and, at the end of the day, if you don't want to pay Murdoch for access to shows like 24 or Lost, there's always bittorrent.
Dapper, if I do this thing... by Childe Roland	Mar 27th, 2007 12:57:33 PM
...if I take your recommendation and download those last couple of episodes and they aren't funny, will you accept full responsibility and accoutnability? Because, if they're just more of the same tired knock-offs of Family Guy-esque non-sequiturs that I happened to catch late last year when I accidentally tuned in, I may want to punch someone...
Those of you who think the Simpsons is still funny by JohnnyBlueJeans	Mar 27th, 2007 01:05:43 PM
Are in total freaking denial. Especially those of you that always do the "well it's still the best program on tv" thing. I'll admit that 99% of tv is ass crap, but my fat monkey ass it is still the best. I have a few friends in this denial state as well that I grew up watching the show with. I jumped off the ship around season 8-9 (boot camp, NY, homer gets a gun eps - wtf?), yet they continued on and are still singing its praises. It appears the greatness from seasons 3-8 spawned a denial state in them that I'm estimating to last ~10 yrs. Seems it will wear off shortly. Perhaps the movie will be the last straw
"What Else Is On?" by YokoTits	Mar 27th, 2007 01:33:26 PM
"Will Groening point his poison prick at the muslims? by Monkeybutt2000" What's that supposed to mean? "It means that the Simpsons, so eager to satirize our government and way of life, should turn their sights (i.e., "poison prick") to our violent attackers." Isn't it enough that they're the targets of racism, not to mention sanctions and fucking WAR? Aren't they being annihilated to your satisfaction? BTW Simpsons jumped the shark with the pretentious, fan-mocking, "Itchy and Scratchy and Poochy" episode. "They've given you hours of free entertainment. If anything, YOU owe THEM."
On and On and On by YokoTits	Mar 27th, 2007 01:36:00 PM
What do I owe them, exactly? Ten bucks for a movie ticket? For that, they owe me a good film, and I doubt they have it in them.
Breach of contract, newc0253 by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 01:38:08 PM
"haha, i love it how every Virgin Media customer is suddenly qualified to give legal advice"- nah, mate. its called having a brain and giving an educated opinion. something you obviously seem to lack. oh, and i aint a virgin media customer. just seeing this shit from the outside looking in and dont like the injustice. its the customers that lose. sky just hiked up their charge to virgin for no fucking reason. but hell why am i wasting my time talking to you. you are probably just some nonced up posh twat uni student who mummy pays for everything and have no real concept of life. is Murdoch fucking you or your 18 stone mama? you have a loyalty to that parasite cunt that i find frankly disturbing. hmm... must be you, your mama's a lesbian who whores herself out down kilburn high road for cans of stella artois. get you and your fucked up family on the trisha show, resolve your crazy shit on air hillbilly style, so you wont have to come on these sites and make a twat of yourself, fella.
Cutting Edge by sevenrivera	Mar 27th, 2007 01:50:56 PM
Great call to all of you that pointed out how Simpsons went from cutting edge to plain vanilla schlock. It used to be protested but now Mormons and suburbian children watch it regularly. And I'd really like to believe those of you that say, "Give the last few episodes a chance, they are back!" but I've been burned by that little ploy far too many times. And each time I dip back in, my stomach just boils at how far they have fallen. I don't want to go back anymore because I don't want to start questioning the overall greatness of seasons 2-8. I don't want the taint of the last 10 seasons to ruin the experience. 10 seasons. It is sad to realize that there are more bad episodes than good now. You know this when you turn on a syndication episode and the chances of it being a good one are getting smaller and smaller. Such a shame. I guess I have to see the movie, but it's going to be a sad disappointment. Guaranteed. "Prove me wrong kids, prove me wrong!"
WHATEVER! by lionbiu	Mar 27th, 2007 02:07:25 PM
I am sorry, but I still think they were hilaious....The Simpsons hit a low point with that stupid Behind The Laughter episode....now that was truly awful and complete took the family out of their world and into Another.
not knocking ya, lionbiu by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 02:25:18 PM
not knocking ya, fella. it's your opinion. i was just giving mine (harshly). thats how we speak where i'm from. blunt and to the point.no offence meant, son.
Meth+Corpse Rape = Springfield OR by Baron Karza	Mar 27th, 2007 02:39:47 PM
I can smell it from Portland.
"hiked up their charge to virgin for no fucking reason" by newc0253	Mar 27th, 2007 02:59:24 PM
you mean, besides profit? or maybe you've got Sky confused with a charity? you might do a piss poor impression of a chav, mate, but your imitation of a fucking moron is dead on.
"imitation of a fucking moron is dead on" by council estate scumbag	Mar 27th, 2007 03:47:45 PM
ooh...sticks and stones.....grow up, you idiot, i'm trying to have an adult convo here, fella. sky, charity? if we lived in the world you envisage companies would hike prices up to the hilt and everyone would be fucked. You DO understand the concept of a monopolies commision, right, mate? i thought you being a uni boy would have at least grasped that concept. we encourage competition but not at the expense of the consumer, otherwise we end up with..you MIGHT not have heard of this word...a cartel. go ask mummy when she's done tonight off kilburn high road what that means. or if she's too drunk and high on crack, ask uncle freddy once he's finished fucking you in the ass, you dysfunctional shit. argue with me on an intellectual level, or dont waste my time, son. your embarrase not only ME (cos its like me debating with a brain damaged retarded 2 year old cro-magnon child), but yourself (you debating with...let me start again, a normal IQ person debating with albert einstein). you're pitiful. lets discuss films.
"the concept of a monopolies commision" by newc0253	Mar 27th, 2007 05:01:03 PM
except, if you were actually English and not some internet poser, you'd know it's called the Competition Commission over here. and, if you had half a clue about what it actually does, you'd know that the Competition Commission has nothing to do with the Sky/Virgin dispute - that's being dealt with by Ofcom (which i'll let you look up on the internet - together with 'cartel': pretty much the polar opposite of the Sky/Virgin dispute). but don't feel bad: any fool can watch Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and pretend to be hard on the internet but it takes a special talent to fuck it up as badly as you do.
Funny Family guy Yahtzee bit. by TomBodet	Mar 27th, 2007 06:13:21 PM
The dog and the baby are playing yahtzee, the dog gets Stewie to flip his wrists around and cry 'Yahtzee'-GAY!...anyways. It was funny. And that squeeze the rat so it pukes into the soup chef stuff was funny too. That said-they're miles away from being as good's the Simpsons Classic stuff was. Flanders!
I'm sure Zimmer and 45 shadow writers will do fine by mikey mike	Mar 27th, 2007 06:19:44 PM
they always do
It's funny... by mraig	Mar 27th, 2007 07:32:23 PM
I consider the New York episode to be the beginning of the end of the Simpsons. I saw that episode, and I was really puzzled about why the show wasn't funny in the same way that it had consistently been before. I'm not saying that the show has never been funny since then, or that it was always funny before then, but I mark that as the exact turning point when it changed from the show it used to be to the show it is now.
i dont care by LarryTheCableGuy	Mar 27th, 2007 08:05:27 PM
simpsons worst episodes are still better than scrubs and whatever else, not that i ever watched it, this movie will be awesome cause it's the simpsons and it's on the big silver screen. yes the simpsons took a down fall after like the 10th season, but come on, the 10th season?!! and thats cause all the great writers went to futurama, and then 4 years later th show picked up a little, there's still classic episodes to be seen in the last 6? seasons. don't just assume their aren't. and it's not just my opinion, i'm right. simspsons is probaly the best comedy show on tv period, ever. the jokes span from all generations and i learned so much from them about comedy, pop culture and history that i would never know if i hadn't watched the episodes over and over throughout my life and payed total attention. i can not wait to watch a 6 foot homer and marge and 5 foot-ish bart and lisa on the big screen. huzzahhh!
This review embiggens me. by thedottedlion	Mar 27th, 2007 08:15:22 PM
What? It's a perfectly promulent word.
i'm trying to have an adult convo here by INWOsuxRED	Mar 27th, 2007 08:18:58 PM
Thats one of the funniest lines I've read in a talkback in at least a day or two.
sky/virgin nonsense. by gotilk	Mar 27th, 2007 09:18:55 PM
You guys need to stop shelling out hard-earned money to them and in protest just get yourself a bittorrent client, find a decent tv torrents site and just download from now on. In HD in most cases. You have internet and a computer, use it. Screw that nonsense and screw them. My satellite provider tried that crap a few years ago and I canceled all my pay channels until they fixed it. Now, if they tried that crap I'd tear down that little wussy dish on my roof and never use it again. It's far too easy to get that stuff on the net these days for them to be pretending they have some kind of leverage with consumers.
So which one of you has a BETTER cartoon coming? by emptyhead	Mar 27th, 2007 11:18:36 PM
It's a simple question. Any hands? Anyone? OK then. It seems to me that if season 8-9 is where The Simpsons ended in many minds is right when 'The Masses' all got access to the Internet, where they could shout their petty grievences about OTHERS WORK with no real consequence. If you can create a better SINGLE episode of a cartoon; one that is funnier than any of the 220-ish episodes that have happened since the show supposed loss of charm, then let us all see it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. Films, Cartoons, and SitComs were designed to allow us all to indulge in something other than reality. Suspension of disbeliif. Hell, watching ANY cartoon is an affirmation of that. This nitpicking over nonsensical plots and changes to the characters attitudes/actions is pointless. So many people have worked so hard to entertain us for so long. Yet the best I see out of those assumedly interested in this flick (I assume since they BOTHER to comment) is contempt for what has, and hasn't even yet, been given. The episodes are free. You can hook an HDTV up to an antenna and still get FREE programming, in HD, from all thee major networks. So I hope not to hear any whining about how we pay for cable/sat., ect. So you might shell out a big $10 this summer to see something you already DON'T like, and want to complain? Fine. Do it after you've spent your allowance. Or after you've aired a thousand hours of free entertainment. All that time spent Tyching (that's bitching via type) could probably be spent creating something that lives up to your expectations. We all have opinions. Usually connected to something we care about. So if you don't care about this film, for whatever reason, don't act like you do just to hate on it. So call me a fanboy, call me whatever you want. Like I fucking care. I certaintly won't be forming any life changing opinions on any feedback I get. Refer to the last paragraph if this is confusing. What I know is I'm leaving for the bar soon, and god help me that the girls there don't judge me before I arrive. Otherwise my dinky will stay dry tonight. Hopefully this analogy isn't lost on those who are meant to see it. This is obviously pointed at a great number of posts. Frankly because I'm sick of it. If you can't enjoy anothers art for what it is, in whatever form, then the energy wasted would be better spent cocking the hammer next to your temple. It's all about suspension of disbelief. If you can't DO that, then watch the History Channel, Documentaries, and Punk'd. They were designed with you in mind, by those just like you. Money-minded, non-creative, unimaginative and wholly judgemental bastards. One more time... What is YOUR cartoon called?
why can't we have jobs we like and/or are good at? by INWOsuxRED	Mar 27th, 2007 11:41:53 PM
Now if we don't like something on TV we have to write, voice, and animate something ourselves just to prove that we are correct in not liking something? So I need to go tell my wife that I won't be spending any time with her for a a few months or maybe even years because I'm going to be spending every free second of my life making a cartoon that proves the last 10 seasons of the Simpsons have been devoid of heart and charm and the creative team behind current episodes appears to have completely lost its way? If a cop takes a bunch of bribes on camera, then gets drunk and runs over some orphans, I'm not allowed to suggest he might be a bad cop until I graduate the academy with honors and then make sherif? Are you sure you wrote this BEFORE you went to the bar?
As a once huge fan and now a disgruntled naysayer... by a goonie	Mar 28th, 2007 12:53:36 AM
I can't picture this movie being any good. But I guess that's to be expected. My biggest problem is that I don't think a Simpsons movie has ever been a good idea (beyond the obvious money-making reasons). I'm not crazy about successful tv shows deciding its time to make the leap to the big screen and just taping together a few episodes and tossing around a larger budget than usual. And so even when The Simpsons was one of the funniest things on tv (fuck, it's been so long I kinda feel like that was all a dream), I think a movie was a little unnecessary. Now that the show has been a disappointing mess for longer than it was good, I really don't see the point in making a movie. That said, it would be a blast to go to a theater this summer and be welcomed by that old-school Simpsons spirit. But sadly, I'm skeptical that'll happen.
Damn, Newc0253 just owned council estate scumbag. by captboulder	Mar 28th, 2007 03:11:44 AM
been following their little conversations and its way more interesting than The Simpson movie will be, it seems.
Damn, I think INWOsuxRED just owned emptyhead! by captboulder	Mar 28th, 2007 03:14:28 AM
Wow, this TB is the shits!
THIS MOVIE WILL OWN by Lewster3000	Mar 28th, 2007 03:25:10 AM
and all of you will be there to witness it. naysayers will be proven wrong. and old fans will rejoice. July is gonna be a memorible month.
Exactly-"the concept of A monopolies commision" by council estate scumbag	Mar 28th, 2007 03:41:59 AM
Not the concept of THE monopolies comission. i never said it was called that, son. Don't put words into my mouth. pay attention. good comeback tho! nice to see you're using your bonce and that college money mummy has worked so hard for and busted her pussy walls for hasn't gone to waste. I know what the fuck Ofcom is and what they fucking do, you nonce- my arguement is that you believe in throwing the lamb to the slaughter- fuck the little guy, let him sink or swim. thats MY beef. This Sky shit NEEDS to be investigated. its bang outa order. Oh...and I am english, fucking deal with it. Been in Bermondsey and Peckham for donkey's years. I probably met your mum at some point on my adventures up in kilburn. she hangs outside kilburn high rd station on the 'missing-link'.....anyway, i aint 'pretending' to be hard. i am who i am. aint my fault if you fear me......"Sky/Virgin dispute"- nah, mate. that aint no dispute. its a fucking annex. sky's tryna rape virgin in its ass......to gotilk- wise words, fella. i might start doing that. murdoch dictates too much and i feel that freeview in time will be worthless. at the mo its alright. i got family guy, futurama, film 4 and loadsa shit. saw the brian dates some bird episode last night. great shit. that'll be lost under hitler-doch. recognize!
captboulder, i didn't get owned, sunshine!! by council estate scumbag	Mar 28th, 2007 03:57:10 AM
It's called a debate, fella. He came up with some fucking good points tho, and i was impressed! Thats what a debates all about, mate. This AICN is wicked. .....but remember, no one owns (i assume that means 'beat' or 'destroyed') the council estate scumbag. light speed, fella!
"I am english, fucking deal with it" by newc0253	Mar 28th, 2007 04:06:48 AM
sure, you're as english as dick van dyke in mary poppins. i bet you do a great mockney accent too. but you oughta know that 'scumbag' hasn't been current on the inner city estates for a while now. giving yourself the user name "council estate scumbag" sounds about as authentic as someone in the US declaring that they're "a bona fide coloured person". in fact, there's a suggestion for your next online persona. trust me, you need the help.
Damn, some bloody good times on these TB here! by captboulder	Mar 28th, 2007 04:42:18 AM
nuff said!
Funnily enough Newco (sorry about the list) by Lost Prophet	Mar 28th, 2007 04:51:11 AM
1)In june I will be qualified to give legal advice. I finally caved and went back to get my qualification at the ripe old age of 28. What they are doing is deliberately breaking the contract. They will have to pay damages, but unfortunately virgin will not be able to broadcast the pay channels with all the stuff on them that people want to watch- which in turn will lead to a declining subscription rate thereby restoring Sky's monopoly. And that is when the subscription fees will start to escalate. 2) I have neither Sky nor Virgin, I just despise Sky's business practices. 3) It used to be called the monopolies and mergers commission. now it is the competition commission. 4) I think he is english, he has some weird references in his slang that a londoner wouldn't know. (Missing-link for silverlink, and he actually seems to know the route) sorry about the list, but I couldn't think of another way to put it down. I am not trying to be a dick
"In june I will be qualified to give legal advice" by newc0253	Mar 28th, 2007 06:15:33 AM
yeah, i thought as much: because your post has all the hallmarks of a wannabe n00b lawyer. here's something for you to think about while you're preparing for your LPC/BVC/CPE exams - if it was such a clear-cut case of breach of contract, don't you think Virgin would have been able to obtain an injunction against Sky to prevent them from blocking access to Virgin customers? if you'd even bothered to read the media reports, you'd have realised that Virgin's contract was expiring and that was why Sky had them over a barrel: if they wanted continued access to the channels, they'd have to pay Sky's new price - there's no breach of contract because there's no contract. here's another thought: maybe you should spend less time on talkbacks and concentrate on studying for your exams...
The problem for me... by Bubba Gillman	Mar 28th, 2007 07:06:30 AM
...is that the Simpsons used to be about character and story. Lately they seem to be in Family Guy mode i.e., throw in any joke whether or not it relates to the story and see if it works. Still watch it though, and will be there for the movie. Well, that's it for the Yanks. Back to the Sky/Virgin debate.
Virgina are suing for breach by Lost Prophet	Mar 28th, 2007 07:08:35 AM
I have reread my post and your post. Sky have pulled it early (at least according to the freebie paper I read) that is why Sky are in breach. Once the term expires fuck them, let them charge what they want. As I said repeatedly, it is a ploy for them to restore the monopoly- not extract more from virgin. Also, not having seen the license between Virgin and Sky this will be speculation, but I would not be surprised to see some sort of option/ renewal clause in it. Virgin will probably end up having to pay more, which is why they are fighting this PR battle, but they are making a huge fuck-up doing it through the press as the great british Chav only has limited thought process and will see "SKY not on virgin, better get a sky subscription". regarding the injunction thing- That is only one remedy, and one they are not likely to get as (you so rightly point out) the contract has/ will have expired by the time it gets to court. Therefore they will get damages equal to whatever figure is calculated for the fucked up part of the term. By the way, congrats on your clairvoyance- a nice ability to determine everything about my character from a post that was mostly based on common sense- any tips for the horses?. I am not a "wannabe noob" lawyer as I don't particularly want to be a lawer. I actually post at work, not at home. Try and moderate your tone. I was nothing but polite (apologetic even) something that in my experience lawyers never are. Thanks anyway and I appreciate the concern for my studies which are 2 months-ish away.
Virgina! by Lost Prophet	Mar 28th, 2007 07:09:46 AM
shit, what a twat I am.
"congrats on your clairvoyance" by newc0253	Mar 28th, 2007 08:09:05 AM
thanks, but my advice to you is: tone it down yourself. this is the internet and posting on talkbacks about breach of contract impresses no one, least of all actual lawyers. it doesn't help that you got the basic facts wrong (the contract was up for renegotiation). nor is it remotely accurate to describe Sky as having a 'monopoly': a monopoly is when competition is shut out, whereas every channel in the UK is free to bid for those shows. Lost originally showed on e4 and 24 originally showed on BBC. Sky has also lost out in bidding to other channels: e.g. Alias went from Sky to Bravo. if Virgin wants those shows badly enough, it can team up with one of the other channels to bid for them. that's how the market works. and anyone who claims that Sky, with a mere 8 million subscribers, somehow has a dominant market position is talking out their ass. the thing which really kills me is how many people on talkbacks are willing to spout Virgin's bullshit as their own.
I'm back, bitches! To newc0253 by council estate scumbag	Mar 28th, 2007 08:19:31 AM
"sure, you're as english as dick van dyke in mary poppins"....and where the fuck are you from, pal if you are too fucking stupid to know an englishman when you hear (read) him. Stupid bastard. Thats like some one going up to Delboy and saying "you're from The Gambia" or going to Nigel Havers and going "I swear you're from the punjab"..... 'Scumbag' hasn't been on the estates for a while? Where the fuck are you from? Esher? It's still in use up here in old Bermondsey, so fuck off, twat. Aint my problem if that word hasnt reached the leafy suburbs of Surrey. Go lick the caviar from your mama's ass whilst jacking off to "history boys"- thats your thing aint it? I aint gotta prove nothing to you. I dont know WHO the fuck you are or WHERE you're from, and more importantly, I dont care. Oh yeah, and keep that "bona fide coloured person" shit to yourself. Thats in fucking poor taste, fella. Keep your prejudices to yourself you redneck fuck. All those years of taking Uncle Freddie's dick whilst trying to do your homewok has turned you into a sad bitter little man. recognize!
"it's still in use up here in old Bermondsey" by newc0253	Mar 28th, 2007 08:48:35 AM
BZZZT i live in Bermondsey, dickless, and nobody here uses it. i reckon the closest you ever came to this part of town was visiting the London Eye/Millenium Wheel. you looked out east and said (in your worst mockney accent) "Cor Blimey Luv! I reckon that's where I'll pretend to be from the next time I'm on the Internet!". And then your mom told you to stop talking in that ridiculous accent.
shut up, idiot. you're an insult to bermondsey by council estate scumbag	Mar 28th, 2007 09:28:16 AM
you aint from bermondsey, you muppet. dont give it all that. dont try and kid a kidder, mate. you are some posh esher boy who visits london every 6 months to 'come see how the working class live'. dont fucking patronize me, fella. once you've steeped off the train at waterloo you're liike "mummy dont bring me here again. these people smell pungent". fucking tool........"And then your mom..blah, blah"- who the fuck in britain calls it 'mom'. its mum, mate. you aint even from england are ya? shit, you wouldnt last 5 minutes in bermondsey. you'd be mugged and shot, and thats just by the birds. fucking posh twat, hugh grant wannabe. dont insult the working class mate. you've probably never done a days work in your life- giving it the biggun. sipping champagne, and caviar and shopping at fucking waitrose. piss off to the suburbs and let me talk about films. recognize!
"you wouldnt last 5 minutes in bermondsey" by newc0253	Mar 28th, 2007 09:59:02 AM
nah, bermondsey ain't that hard. if you actually knew what you were talking about, and not just watched 'snatch' and 'layer cake' on DVD, you'd know that some parts of bermondsey are pretty upmarket these days. besides, a real chav would never describe themselves as "working class", unless you count standing in line at the benefit office as "work". then again, it don't surprise me that you don't know these things, since you've never lived here.
"bermondsey ain't that hard." by council estate scumbag	Mar 28th, 2007 10:17:18 AM
It doesnt pretend to be, son. It is what it is. Life makes the people here a bit rough around the edges and so people like yourself who travel in from the suburbs (or the US- i dont think you're british at all) assume its a 'hard' area. sure we have our problems like any area, but we have a sense of community that many areas of London have lost. Look what they're tryna do to Borough market. the only upmarket part of Bermondsey is the jubilee tube station, and i can say that, its my manor. nothing wrong with benefits. did my old man no harm. nor my mum. posh twats like you pay for it anyway, so who's laughing now, fella?
"he only upmarket part of Bermondsey is the tube" by newc0253	Mar 28th, 2007 10:33:56 AM
once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Bermondsey Street, for instance, is filled with gastro-pubs and flash bars. all along the river, from Shad Thames to Rotherhithe is crowded with swanky new flats. the area around Bermondsey tube/Jamaica Rd is pretty average, but you only have to go a few hundred yards towards either London Bridge or Canary Wharf, or just fifty feet towards the river, to find some expensive apartments. you'd know this, of course, if you actually lived in Bermondsey, but i guess it's the kind of info they don't bother to include on the DVD extras of 'Snatch'.
I believe we are witnessing the by Bubba Gillman	Mar 28th, 2007 11:53:42 AM
effect of too much blood pudding in one's diet.
I'm back, bitches! Bermondsey Street by council estate scumbag	Mar 28th, 2007 02:08:26 PM
I aint talking about fucking Bermondsey street, you tart. Thats too fucking far up London Bridge way. I'm talking round bermondsey tube and Southwark park Road going down to South Bermondsey british rail. You're going on about Rotherhithe and Canada water, the ponsey places. That aint Bermondsey. my cousin moved out to canda water. full of posh twats who need a good mugging. I dont even recognise surrey docks no more, sorry surrey 'quays'. how poncey. all this bullshit gentrification pushing locals that have lived there all their lives out so the likes of you can move in. you think you know my area better than i do? you're whacked out on crack, son. Run along. Grab some Castrol GTX. I hear your mamma calling. she needs you to lubricate her pussy for her shift tonight up in Kilburn. recognize!
Southwark Park Road? by newc0253	Mar 28th, 2007 02:28:02 PM
yawn think that's gritty? a Wimpy's, a Co-op, and an Eels Pie & Mash place. hell, i used to be a member of the Apollo video store there in the days before mail order DVDs. there's nothing remotely hard about Southwark Park Rd or the area around Bermondsey tube. it's just another average stretch of inner city London. and anyone familiar with the area would laugh their tits off at the idea at some internet poser calling himself "council estate scumbag" simply because he was from there. you probably live somewhere boring in North London like Wood Green and you think Southwark Park Road is the real deal, because you're a nob who don't know any better. run along, kid. your wannabe-chav routine is already getting old.
and so are you, newc0253 by council estate scumbag	Mar 28th, 2007 03:13:50 PM
you dont know what the hell you're talking about. you guessed right about the Pie & Mash place, but there's no wimpy's or co-op there. busted, bitch! you forgot one tiny little thing. my fucking estate. the place i fucking grew up in. you tool. grow up and stop irritating me pretending to 'know' bermondsey. oh, and stop refering to me as a fucking chav- you think you're better than me or somehting, surrey boy. you're pathetic. i'm off to discuss films with non-trolls. you're wasting my time, child. recosnize!
Dear INWOsuxRED, by emptyhead	Mar 28th, 2007 03:53:44 PM
Nobody said you HAVE to do anything. I was more suggesting what you could do. Shut the fuck up was in my last post, wasn't it? Another thing said was WATCH SOMETHING ELSE. And, lastly, I suggested suicide. All very reasonable suggestions. I wish you had taken the latter to heart (or head, as previously stated). Is there a particular reason you took such exception to my post? Struck too many chords against your principle sensabilities? Did I peg you TOO well? Also, your 'Cop Killing Orphans' blurb is a little non-sensical. You speak of this hypothetical officers actions as if they are fact. Therefore you would be righteous in not only suggesting he was a bad cop, but righteous in stating that as fact. You don't need a degree in anything to relate something already known to be factual. The hypothetical camera you propose is the what creates truth. Yet you are trying to defend opinion as if it were fact. Your second sentence (the run-on sentence) shows exactly how you feel about the topic at hand. Masking opinion in the hypothetical is a dubious form of verbal trickery. Women do it all the time. Furthermore, what the fuck does occupation have to do with this? I never said anything about profession. Personally, I've never found a job I didn't like, or one I didn't excel at. And I've worked enough shit jobs. I still liked them. All I did was offer alternatives to shitting all over other peoples work. Thoughtless of me, I know. I should have just popped a squat in my hand and threw it at the Mona Lisa, or burnt down a local art commune. At least that'd be an honest form of criticism, and to the level of evolution most critics (looking at you, suxRED(dogDICK) ) seem to be at. You can ignore media you don't like. It's not going to harm you for not liking it. It's not like ignoring a rampaging pit-bull that you don't like. There's no survival ethic here. Don't fault me for any voids of satisfaction with your job/life/evidently lackluster skill-set. What I did was suggest something else to do besides hating on things. Sorry if that shreds your moral fibers. Yeah, you tried to pen me as a drunk because I mentioned a bar, so this is the tricky part? What can I use from YOUR post to make you look stupid? I've covered all the supposed 'points' you made... So what can I use? Hmm.. Ah-Ha! If you do decide to make a cartoon, worry not. I'll keep your wife company while you're busy. --P.S. Try to keep personal FACTS out of posts that attack. Although my OPINION is your wife is probably your jacket sleeve.
Emptyhead you are missing the point. by TomBodet	Mar 28th, 2007 05:26:26 PM
No one ever tells fucking Roger Ebert to actually direct his own goddamn Bruckheimer movie or Keith Olbermann to run for Senate or Chris Berman to start for the Broncos, okay? You aren't getting it. People have every fucking right to critique stuff like the Simpsons, it's popular entertainment, it's in a VERY public Forum(TV), it's part of the job description. Seems like Groening and co. have flapped their gums about the foibles of society and pop culture all they wanna for 20 years or so, done very very well by it--$$--, if they're going to satirize or insult others they can danged well take it, you know? Personally I think the Simpsons were great for a few years, they're really just like watching the lator years of Gunsmoke or Bonanza now, something that once was really good now needs to be dragged out and shot just because it'll be good for both the show and the audience. 'Sides let's face it-the animatino and drawing etc on Simpsons has gen. been Hanna-Barbara 1974 era level at best, it's not like you've got something that set the fucking bar that high of late. Family Guy, Mike Judge and even Vern's two assholes in Denver have it all over these guys.
Groening said in issue of Empire Magazine by emeraldboy	Mar 28th, 2007 05:37:08 PM
That the Dvd will be spectacular!
Jorson by PotSmokinAlien	Mar 28th, 2007 05:58:34 PM
hey thanks for the level headed response. i think i did refute what you were saying with my 3 amigos reference-- a huge part of the reason these guys are a big deal in hollywood is there's this "how do they do it? who knows, they're mexican" attitude about how they can have budgets that are so low and still make movies that people want to see that wind up making money AND get award noms, the two things hollywood deems measures of success. but without spending $100 mil. basically my point is that focus grouping the living shit out of something out of fear that you will lose your $100 mil, or having an advertising budget that is equal to or greater than the budget of your $100 million movie, is no substitute for good old fashioned creativity--both in terms of the content of the movie and the how you are gonna make it with the limited resources you have. i dont think money is the root of all evil but i do think greed sure has caused humanity some problems over the years. also your request that i "stop smoking so much pot," a) no b) you're not the first one to come up with that particular bon mot, i expect something a little cleverer next time
"there's no wimpy's or co-op there" by newc0253	Mar 28th, 2007 06:12:04 PM
you've obviously never been to southwark park road then. the co-op's on the corner of st james's road. the wimpy's is further up, by the blue anchor pub. anyone who lived in the area would know that. plus i never called you a chav - i called you a pretend chav. and i'm right, because only a pretend chav would claim to live in bermondsey when he didn't. i guess we can look forward to your next fake internet persona. my guess is "twat from wood green".
emptyhead by INWOsuxRED	Mar 28th, 2007 08:52:11 PM
I didn't complain about my job, I was wondering why anyone here would have to create a cartoon in order to criticize one when we have other things to do with our lives. I think most people here are probably either doing something they chose, or working towards being able to do something important to them, and the idea that we would stop doing that to make a cartoon out of spite is beyond reason. I have ignored the Simpsons for a long time BUT, part of the hype around this movie is that it could be a "return to form", and may have involvement from creative people from seasons I consider to be very good, who have otherwise left the show behind. Thus, I am not ignoring news about the movie because it has the possibility of appealing to me, even if the new cartoons don't. I don't remember the last time I considered the Simpsons to be "must see", but I think they may have been running new X-Files at the time. I know I wasn't watching at all by the time Arrested Development was airing on Sundays. The last complete episode I've seen was the one with Gervias, and that was the only complete episode of that season I watched. Many of us here obviously loved the characters and loved the writing of a period on the Simpsons, and many of us are very disapointed by the quality of the show now. We probably wouldn't have ever chosen to watch the bad episodes, but they never seem to put up any disclaimers telling us when they're going to show bad episodes and when they're going to show good ones, so they don't give us much options to ignore them until they become consistently bad. I do wonder why you would be up

Talkbacks

Biker-Boy Goes For A Ride With THE SIMPSONS MOVIE!!