Talk:Springfield Up

Goof?

Uh, how is the fact that the movie trailer was shown during this episode a goof?

Painting reference

A painting is shown echoing a famous painting of the person crawling through the grain field toward a farmhouse. Needs to be in the reference section when someone (not I) can identify the painting! Tempshill 05:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A reference to Christina's World was added 20 Feb 2007. Frumpet 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Canon?

Is this episode considered canon or is it, like Behind the Laughter and all of the Treehouses of Horror not considered canonical? Valley2city 07:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for this episode not to be canonical. In regard to any continuity problems involving characters' origins and such, the series has played fast and loose with that thing on a semi-regular basis, so that's not enough of a reason to call this non-canonical.

This one's pushing it pretty far though. They've had Homer knock Marge up between-highschool-and-working-life, and right out of highschool... and messed with their wedding a bit... but this is the only time they've had any time as a childless married couple at all, let alone a whopping 10 years of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

They were not married yet they were dating. Homer meet Marge in High School The Way We Was and knocked her up whene they were in there late twentes I Married Marge. logicley they dated for a the decade between the events and Homer had more jobs then just working at a mini-golf corse then.

I think the timeline got all screwed up when Carl Carlson took the time machine at age 8. So I dunno if it's canon. I don't suppose it really matters though.--Steven X 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Couch Gag

This episode did not have any couch gag or opening sequence. Is this unusual? If so, should we put that in the trivia section? Rhino131 15:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the only post-season 1, non-THOH episode to not have an opening credits (I can't remember if Spinoff Showcase had one or not) so I think it is worth noting. -- Scorpion 15:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I put a note saying it is one of the few to not have them. Rhino131 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Explain: http://www.nohomers.net/showpost.php?p=1536251&postcount=148 A wikipedia member with an awful username 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It must be a joke, because the episode started off with Declan Desmond talking, and then the usual "created by" and "developed by" credits were shown over a shot of a playground. -- Scorpion 15:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think that parts like the opening credits and missing scene were removed to make way for the movie trailer, but on Global there was no trailer, so it kept in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A wikipedia member with an awful username (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Would this be the only canonical episode to not feature an opening sequence at all? (Excluding Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire) --.:Alex:. 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cut scene in US premiere airing

In the discussion thread for this episode at NoHomers.net, it has become apparent that the very end of the episode was cut in FOX's airings of the episode in the US to make up for the time taken up by the movie trailer during the second commercial break. Canadian viewers watching on Global (which did not air the trailer) got a bit more episode after Homer and Marge's hug (past the point where the US airing cut to credits). I would imagine when this episode is rerun in the US (presumably during the summer), the cut material will be restored, negating this little detail, so should this be mentioned or not?

I live in Canada, but I watched it on FOX because I wanted to see the trailer so I didn't see this end. I don't think it's that notable. There are lots of times when stuff in the end credits gets cut out on Global, but it isn't mentioned on Wikipedia. -- Scorpion 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So an entire scene being removed from the episode 'isn't notable'? A wikipedia member with an awful username 11:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really, stuff has been cut out of original airings before, especially stuff in the end credtis. -- Scorpion 15:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Children of Golzow

Is this section really necessary? It is, chronologically, the first "Up" type series in the real world, but I take the Simpsons' use of a Brit director as more directly parodying Apted than the Germans. Wl219 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this episode set 2 years in the future?

This article as written presumes Homer is living in Mr. Burns' mansion "in the present day". However, Homer is described as 40 years old in this episode, which is older than the more common 34-38 status quo. I think this story is deliberately set a few years in the future to give viewers the possibility that sufficient time has passed for Homer to become genuinely wealthy.

This is of importance beyond this article because 40 is now being given as a possible present age in the Homer Simpson article. I'd like to remove that, but could use some confirmation that Homer has never really been 40 in the show's normal present. / edgarde 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, Homer's age, heck the age of most of the characters, has always been extremly malleable. Lots42 (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevance?

Is it really important to note Idle was considered for one of the Doctor Who roles? Lots42 (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)