Jump to content

Talk:The Simpsons Movie/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Unmerge this article and the "The Simpsons" article

The rationale for merging the two articles was that there is no concrete evidence that any plans for a movie exists. Now that the teaser trailers have been shown during Ice Age: The Meltdown and during the latest Simpsons episode, and various media outlets have reported on it, I think that there is enough "proof" to move it back. Abhorreo 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The teaser trailer

It was added that the end of the teaser trailer has Mr Burns saying "excellent". I saw the version on television, and don't remember that part... Perhaps it was only on the Ice Age version? If so, I think it should say so. Abhorreo 05:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's there, as can be seen in this video capture of it [1] -Kaizersoze 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Thanx also for the link, I shoulda thought to go look for that myself... It allowed me to make the play-by-play of the trailer more accurate.

BTW, in case anyone brings it up, generally describing the trailer in detail is perhaps overkill, but in this case the person looking it up would likely be a hard core simpsons fan, and if so, I think they would appriciate the details on any information available on the movie. Abhorreo 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I specifically remember Mr. Burns saying "Excellent"

I updated the Url to the teaser page, the old one ( http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/thesimpsonsmovie/teaser/ ) didnt work anymore --Janzomaster 17:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

Do we really need that image? It's not suitable for anyone under 13 years of age to view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.56.136 (talk • contribs)

What? What image? Do you mean Homer in underwear? So? What's your problem? 69.67.231.99 03:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
then don't look at it... A:) it's a cartoon, B:) the TV show has shown him in his underware several times, C:) Wikipedia is not censored for minors... - Adolphus79 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In Simpsons: Hit & Run you can aquire it, and the OFLC classified it as G(General). 203.171.95.32
Er...if a scene with Bart skating naked can be classified G then a picture of Homer in underwear is definitely fine. Homer's not exactly in a sexual pose or showing sexual overtones, is he?...I'd say he's the exact opposite :-P SmUX 15:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The rumors and hoaxes section

Perhaps there should be two sections, one for all the past hoaxes and rumors about a possible simpsons movie, and a different one for speculating about the new (confirmed) one? Both are their own topics, and sure to be expanded upon... Abhorreo 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well its done, I belive the change is for the better, but I am not sure about the titles for the two sections, especially "Speculation and trivia" - There is probably a better way to put that... Abhorreo 02:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps seperate subsections for confirmed facts and speculation? The bulk of the information would need to be rewritten and moved around, however... Abhorreo 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This has been quite a delightful conversation with myself :)

I'm not sure if its really appropriate for an article on a movie to have a "related" quotes section (not quotes from the actual movie), but there are plenty of interesting and insightful ones, so I am going to create one... Abhorreo 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the quotes over to Wikiquote si»abhorreo»T 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Zimmer or Elfman

IMDB says it will be Danny E. So, which one will really be on charge of the soundtrack?

The IMDB is not a reliable source when it comes to composer information. -> http://www.soundtrack.net/news/article/?id=747 --80.140.223.148 08:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I Bow down to the great Matt Groening.02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

danny elfman composed the main theme, which i'm sure will be in the movie.

Oakley & Weinstein

Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein were the show runners for 2 years! Why didn't they participate in the writing of the script? Registered user 92.

Don't know. You will probably have more success getting answers on the IMDB message boards. s»abhorreo»i 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculative?

Can we remove the 'celebrities might make a cameo or larger appearance'? Isn't that virtually a given as a possibility in a Simpsons-based project?

It is even confirmed that Erin Brockovich is going to make an appearance, so just remove it. --Maitch 13:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It was confirmed that Minnie Driver was going to star, but her part was cut...a star might make an appearance, it doesn't mean they'll be in the final cut (although they will be in the extras, I am sure :-)) SmUX 15:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


I agree. Removed. si»abhorreo»T 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


  • It is quite possible that the movie will be presented as a IMAX release. My reasoning for this is that FOX recently released "Night At The Museum" in IMAX, maybe they were "testing the waters" of this format for future releases. Also, the fact that in the trailer it is mentioned the film will be in 2-D which could be intentional to throw off the audience.Ericnet 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if it is available in IMAX (which strikes me as being unlikely for a conventional cartoon), it certainly wouldn't be in 3D. That's an issue that the producers and the shows fans feel strongly about. si»abhorreo»T 07:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's very true, I didn't even consider the "conventional" animation aspect but just to let you know Disney re-released "The Lion King"(about 90% traditional animation) about 3 years ago and it came out great and made some extra money too. We just added IMAX at the theater I manage and I talk with the IMAX people about once a month so I'll try to keep you advised, they are very big on the 3-D(Superman, Spider-Man 3, Harry Potter 5 all will be 3-D). Do you think most fans would approve of the IMAX release?

Film Rating

A PG-13? Ridiculous! I think it's clear from the trailer (taking into account it was shown during Ice Age 2, a PG/G rated film) that the film will be aimed towards a younger audience. I suggest this section is removed.

I don't know about that, but it is unsourced information. I think we should give the person who added it (or anyone else) an opportunity to provide a reference before removing it. si»abhorreo»T 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are kids films, and they are both rated PG-13. And plus did you read the clip dialogue? "I'll kill you, you son of a bitch" really doesn't sound like it belongs in a PG-rated film.
"Bitch" has been said multiple times in the show, which is usually rated TV-PG --Rubber cat 02:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
TV ratings are different from movie ratings. Also, many episodes of The Simpsons are rated TV-14. Pacaman 20:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen Back to the Future, was rated PG, and the word "bitch" is said some of the times. "Bitch" has been said multiple times in some PG-rated film. I've also seen The Lion King, which was rated G, and the word "kill", which is not profanity, is said some of the times. "Kill" has been said multiple times in some films rated G or PG. So can't The Simpsons Movie be rated PG, since most of the episodes of the series are rated TV-PG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.140.118 (talk • contribs)
From the article: "The film's producers expect that the film will be rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America, as it will contain stronger language and subject matter than that of the TV series.[Bowles, Scott (2006-04-02). "Mmmm, popcorn: A 'Simpsons' film in '07". USA Today. Retrieved 2006-04-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)]." —tregoweth (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Spiderman has a rating of M 15+ in some countries, instead of PG13+ --|K.Z|Z.K| Do not vandalize... 08:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Still if you read the first stories boards Bitch is used once and Bitch can only be used once in a PG I think.Themasterofwiki 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Film Ratings.com it will be rated R for strong language, violince, and crude and sexual content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eddyspokie3 (talk • contribs).

I believe you're mistaken; as of a minute ago filmratings.com doesn't even have a listing for The Simpsons Movie. —tregoweth (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(Eulric 22:54, 22 May 2007 Many of you guys do have points about the show being rated PG but think of how long the movie is all that content added up will most likely make it a PG-13 movie and besides almost everyone I know wants it to be PG-13 because they are usually better and some of the movies you guys are talking about were made many years ago when they did not have PG-13 and when you are discussing the trailer remember they are not allowd to show the bad content.

(Eulric Ha I told you all it would rated PG-13 the mpaa has rated the Simpsons movie mainly because of the following Crude and Sexual Humor, Comic Violence,and language as I explained before the rating was easily expected.

That said, of course...don't forget that the British animation Watership Down is a U-rated (suitable for all) film but is one of the bloodiest films I've ever seen and has the seagull telling Fiver to 'Piss off!!'. Lady BlahDeBlah 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eulric: The reason given by the MPAA is "irreverent humor throughout," not what you stated. Also, comments are usually signed at the end, not the beginning. —tregoweth (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

What a no-no. I don't care how credible the plots aintitcoolnews or random wikipedians come up with may be. This is not a site for speculation. Xubelox 03:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then perhaps "speculative" is the wrong word. It isn't random information that some bored Wikipedian came up with when he was drunk, it's relevant information that may end up being incorrect, but is likely and logical enough that it deserves mention. You might make a case to remove Ain't It Cool News bit, but I believe the rest is appropriate. si»abhorreo»T 08:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it relevent? No matter how logical it may seem, it is still classified as original research. It is completely unacceptable and has no place on Wikipedia. There are plenty of other places where people can find this "information", but Wikipedia is not that place. Xubelox 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It is relevant because it is significant information about The Simpsons Movie. Nothing there is original research. There are sources for everything other then the top bit, which is "source-based research". si»abhorreo»T 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The recent 3 additions at the bottom of the speculative section could use some citations... si»abhorreo»T 05:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Those sources could have been concocted by anyone. A tabloid is hardly a credible source. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball and only verifiable information belongs here. Sillygostly 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Well there will probably be swearing and there was a rumor of a completely nude bart.

Previews

The previews of the movie that this article links to require a codec for Windows Media Player that is quite difficult to get hold of (or at least did and was for me - I may be the only person with this problem). Also, the previews were available from YouTube but are not anymore because they were used without the permission of FOX (they seem to have been filmed without permission as well). However, I have found them here, although it may not be long until these are made unavailable too. Perhaps these links should be provided as well/instead? (Please tell me if I am the only person who found playing these clips a problem) George C 13:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A website that plays the clips like that is preferable to linking directly to the video files (as it's currently done). I actually originally added links to the YouTube clips, which were then removed/replaced/updated as YouTube took down one set of clips and someone else put them back up. Eventually the YouTube links were just replaced with the current ones. Fox may send a request for removal to Grouper too, but in the mean time I agree that your links are best. Feel free to make the switch. si»abhorreo»T 14:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the YouTube clips back in a while ago because they were the only way to view the clips at the time. This was before I noticed they were added and taken off before. If there are better sources, I'm all for replacing them -- just as long as there's a way to view the clips until the movie is in theaters.--Undertow87 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I too was wondering whether the linked videos (and images) within this article are legal, and/or have the permission of FOX. Considering the fact that they don't seem to be linked from the FOX website, they may well be illegal ... in which case, shouldn't they be removed?! --Jatkins 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Is Clip 1 only available as the poor quality filmed-from-the-back-of-a-cinema clip as it is or is there a version of it taken from the original video file like the other two? George C 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The animatics were shown at a convention, and thus I think only recorded on phones. So of all the clips, the animatics should probably go. Gran2 10:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I agree. If no one else posts within the next week (by 23 February, 2007), I will remove the animatics. --Jatkins 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Large sections of the clips were shown in a commercial on American Idol, and Fox has released stills of it (as shown in the article). It seems that they are phasing the clips into the "public", and at some point they shouldn't be any different than the trailers...si»abhorreo»T 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I take your point, but even if they were shown on Fox they are probably still protected by copyright law. If there's a link to them on the Fox website or something then that would be a different matter... --Jatkins 11:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Animatic hosting

I see you have the animatic clips hosted on grouper.com

I am going to soon have an unlimited webspace server with no ads or popups, when I do, I will rehost the animatics there so that they can be played without ads everywhere. However, I need a way of downloading them. Where can I do this?

Restructuring

I've just had a go at merging and reforming such information. Please continue to clean-up this article folks, it was a bit messy and we need to find more citations for things. Thank you. Wiki-newbie 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A restructuring is appropriate, but it doesn't make sense to have everything moved under the "history" subsection. After the movie is released, perhaps, but not now. Now that they aren't under a common umbrella, the headings "Confirmed" and "Speculative" don't make any sense, and it also doesn't make sense for "Speculative" to have its own top level section while "Confirmed' is a subsection under "History". si»abhorreo»T 10:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be obtuse....

But what exactly is the plot of this film? Is there going to be ANY plot at all or is it going to be the same worn-out humor the show suffers from now? PatrickJ83 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The plot hasn't been released yet, but every scrap of information that is available should be in the article. The trailer for the movie is coming out shortly, there should be more known about the plot then. si»abhorreo»T
The writers and producers are being extremely tight-lipped about the plot, and as Jim Brooks said himself, that they'll be throwing out fake plots. It's also common practise for TV producers to do the same in order to conceal any plot twists that may occur. (Particularly in season finales). But in answer to your question, no there is no known verifiable information on the plot apart from what is available in the trailers that FOX has released over the past few months. Sillygostly 03:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Movie trailer premiers tonight

We should keep an eye out for it appearing on a clip website, so we can add it to the article as soon as possible. si»abhorreo»T 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

M rating

ive heard the movie will be a M rating because of the violence. is it true?

From what I've heard, it will be PG13. In terms of content, it will probably be not a lot different than on TV, because they stillshow a lot of violence (in some episodes) as well as nudity and some language. Apparantly the language will be a little more "profane" but thats it. Don't expect a Simpsons version of "Uncle Fuka" or anything. -- Scorpion0422 02:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I doubt it. The only circumstances in which The Simpsons has ever exceeded the PG rating in Australia was due to assisted suicide themes in Million Dollar Abie and scenes of drug use in two other episodes. So unless they use the F word once or twice (which I REALLY hope they don't), or if the movie is abundant with moderate impact content, then it would be rated M. The Simpsons has never been rated M for violence as far as I'm concerned as the violence depicted in the series is typically comical in context, and despite the gory nature of some violent images, they don't exceed the PG rating due to the melodramatic and unthreatening nature of the violence. Sillygostly 04:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not Austrailian, but I'mm pretty sure America has a different rating system than you guys because we had "parental advisory suggested" when Selma was getting married. The Simpsons movie will probably be PG-13, i think, because the simpson writers will not want to have to dumb down their content for a pg rating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.149.55.127 (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

There is already a section about the rating so put it there.Themasterofwiki 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a show that's always been between PG and PG-13. PG has gotten the reputation (Napoleon Dynamite withstanding) for "family films". The show is not for little kids, (the classic argument of animation being stereotype as being "just for kids", even though there are notable exceptions) Doc Strange 10:53), 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought M was only a rating for video games, at least in America --Alien joe 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A joke

You know the film isn't real right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.41.14.138 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Then they made the trailers and released them for a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.185.78 (talk • contribs) 07:42, Dec 16, 2006 (UTC)
The trailers were not for a joke, they were just to promote the film's release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.119.173 (talk • contribs) 00:57, Jan 09, 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that the film's a joke. There's been tons of press about it, and apparently work began in 2001. From my personal experience, fans have been speculating about a film from a long time. Also, I'm not sure how necessary these comments are -- it seems pretty clear that the film is real. --Jatkins 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(Eulric 22:58, 22 May 2007 You have got to be kidding me they announced on the news and in theatres everywhere that it will be out world wide you are not fooling anyone and besides who would spend all that money cause all that hype for a joke?

Plot Summary?

I removed the following suspicious plot summary. Feel free to return it with an appropriate source.

Homer causes an accident at the Springfield Power Plant. He gets fired and gets ran out of town. So Homer goes on a mission to find himself meeting past season characters. Meanwhile his family is on the look for Homer but get in some deep trouble. Homer fails to find himself and returns to Springfield. He finds his family's gone and now knows he has to save his family!

Is this the actual movie plot? If so, please say it or isn't to User:Spidermanfan94's discussion page. --Spider-Man Fan 1994 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

David H. Flint 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the third animatic clip does hint to the actual plot, with Homer dumping a contaminated silo into the river. Nothing about the SNPP, however. — NES Boy 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

They did say they were going to throw out some fake plots. 28 april 2007 21:06, 82.0.72.191

Trailer transcriptions

The transcriptions of the trailers are (1) excessive, and (2) copyright violations, and should be removed. Thoughts? —tregoweth (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the detailed descriptions are a bit much, but remain short of overdoing it. The descriptions, along with the other bit and pieces you have been removing, should stay in the article IMO. I hope this doesn't turn into a sort of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper vs http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism. So, I disagree that they are excessive, and you'll have to describe just how they violate copyright. Thanks, I hope we can work this out without resorting to violence. si»abhorreo»T 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My congratulations to tregoweth for cleaning up the article. Describing trailers is not encyclopedic. Wiki-newbie 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that describing the trailers is pointless. Why not just readd the apple link (which disappeared for some reason) that had the trailers? -- Scorpion 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There's already a link to the official site, which links to Apple's trailer site. —tregoweth (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we can't cut the middle man and readd the apple link? -- Scorpion 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. If you want to remove content, there needs to be a good reason. Quote from the linked section:

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

There has yet to be shown a solid reason for removing the content. Tregoweth hasn't shown how it violates copyright. Can we please leave the current version as it is, until we reach a resolution on the matter? We're coming close to the 3rr as it is... si»abhorreo»T 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The trailers are Fox's copyrighted property; the transcriptions are derivative works containing a substantial amount of the work, used without Fox's permission, which is copyright infringement.
    Even if the trailers were public domain, long quotations like that are not something I've seen in other articles. —tregoweth (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally see this sort of detail in many other articles, either, but if we never did anything unprecedented, we would never move forward. Speaking of precedent, and on a less philosophical note, could you provide examples of previous cases where parts of a Wikipedia article were removed due to being derivative of a copyrighted work? What we have here (being overly descriptive?) isn't directly addressed in any Wikipedia guideline I could find. It might qualify as being "an abridgement and not a summary" as described here, but that's pushing it. Also, you are allowed to create derivative works based off of Fair Use, and if you scroll down that page and look through the Fair Use section, you'll see that many of the conditions it describes fit this. In any case, outright slashing the entire sections isn't the right thing to do. si»abhorreo»T 03:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading down the list of factors: It is not for a profit competitor; It is for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research"; The trailer is publicly published; It is merely documenting the original work; It helps the authors ability to sell it; It is not a detailed description of the movie -- It is a detailed description of a piece of promotional material that FOX released to promote their upcoming movie. Bearing this in mind, I think you can make a case for Fair Use. Notice I said description and not transcription, I think that's an important distinction. The animatic piece is in the format of a transcript, but the trailers are not. If they trailer's description's have crossed the line, that should be addressed separately. si»abhorreo»T 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Putting aside my copyright concerns, the sections about the trailers take up a disproportionate amount of the article. Noting that the trailers received a lot of attention, briefly describing them, and perhaps pointing to where they can be downloaded should be sufficient. Also, I just made some edits to the article, mostly changes I had previously made that were reverted along with my deletions; I wish to point out that I didn't touch the trailers sections. —tregoweth (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Dealing with has been a positive experience, and I'm tempted to keep my mouth shut for the sake of making a concession in return for your (albeit a temporary one) own, but... I object to your other changes as well. They are more then "trims", you removed large sections of content and formatting that were valuable and legitimate parts of the article. Wikipedia is not paper, and there is no reason to pare down the article, removing all but the bare minimum of related information. I don't think the trailers take up a disproportionate amount of the article; Perhaps they will once the movie is released and the article fills up with standard movie information, but until then, the trailers are the most relevant pieces of information available. The article also seems more "balanced" in its "pre-trimmed" state. si»abhorreo»T 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the transcription of the clips, I think the first one is wrong. This part... Lenny: So, uh, who is gonna kill him? Moe: Uh, I think the people in the front row. ...should be: Lenny: So, uh, who we gonna kill again? Moe: Uh, I think the people in the front know. Scott 13:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Entirely too much detail for an encyclopedia. Goldfritha 02:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected from soundtrack vandal

I've semi-protected the article in hopes of driving off the persistent user who insists on adding information on a fictional soundtrack album. If this is causing any problems for legitimate edits, please let me know. —tregoweth (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Soundtrack vandal is really the the UPN vandal, a mass vandal who delibirately adds incorrect information to film-related articles (Just to let you know). He even tried to impersonate me [2]; I feel honoured! Anyway, me and David Levy are the main people trying to take care of him. Perhaps you'd like to help? --AAA! (AAAA) 11:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, some people have too much time on their hands. I have experience with mass vandals (User:VaughanWatch) and they are not fun, especially the persistant ones. It's especially funny because when the soundtrack is released released (because there WILL be one), I'm more more than willing to bet that there would be little rap or pop music on it, but you never know. -- Scorpion 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The Simpsons Movie (soundtrack), the page has been made again, I've nomed it for speedy deletion. Gran2 07:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm cleaning it up and I'm reporting him to an administrator. --AAA! (AAAA) 08:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The forked The Simpsons Movie (film) has been recreated, and I redirected it here, but I doubt the creator will just give up. Leebo86 21:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And he's got another new account, ah well, have a good laugh at this "official the simpsons move soundtrack" image he's "found" [3]. Gran2 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Anyway, that one has been blocked, the image is deleted, and the redirects have been protected. I wonder who the new sock will be... --AAA! (AAAA) 23:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please round up some more admins? I've caught another, and we'll be needing more than 2. --AAA! (AAAA) 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this talk page is no longer (semi-)protected. Please could an admin with some spare time once again semi-protect this talk page to help prevent vandalism from unregistered vandals editing under IP addresses. Thanks! --Jatkins 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think protecting the talk page is necessary, as this vandal just reposts the same text occasionally. Revert his edits, block the account used, all is cleaned up. —tregoweth (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The vandal is back with a new account (User:Lil Nanna). I've reverted some of the edits made, and tagged The Simpsons Movie: (the soundtrack) for speedy deletion. Can an admin take the proper actions? Leebo86 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That guy is REALLY starting to get annoying, I reported the user to an admin that is currently online and hopefully all the added pages and category will be deleted and protected. Also, this is off-topic, but the soundtrack info they keep adding really sounds terrible (Lil Romeo on a Simpsons soundtrack... COME ON!) -- Scorpion 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking, should we report him to Long Term Abuse? --AAA! (AAAA) 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know.. I'm leaning towards a yes, because this guy doesn't seem to get the message that NO ONE BELIEVES HIM! Let's see what the admin does first. Gran2 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that people are doing stuff about this, but if this offender (believed to be the The UPN Vandal) keeps vandalizing under different accounts, then how can we stop them? I'm all for banning this vandal and stopping him messing up Wikipedia, but if we can't stop him, why bother. We're just giving him what he wants. --Jatkins 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thankfully, the guy isn't smart because he always gives himself away by posting here first, but are you actually suggesting that we cave into a vandal and let him post whatever he wants? -- Scorpion 13:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. I was just thinking that it was a bit pointless if he keeps coming back under different accounts. I'm not used to dealing with vandalism on wikipedia, but I do understand that you're ways the best. --Jatkins 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I read the article when it was up. There seemed to be a large amount of gangsta rap and emo, with this supposed soundtrack not even containing the classic Danny Elfman theme.Doc Strange 10:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I added an external link to a fan site dedicated entirely to this movie (by the looks of it the first and only fan site out there)

why should this link be deleted?

fan site: simpsonsmovie2007.com

I like to see fan sites receive as much attention as any other resouce that briefly covers a topic. At least they stay updated. I've listed plenty of other fan sites across wikipedia for various topics without any problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wozzaofrare (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I personally feel it should stay, I mean I have actually ben looking for a site like this in ages and now there is one! I know it isn't official but until the film is released, it is good. I mean it beats the Simpsons Channel, which is good, but it hardly ever updates. So I say keep it, it isn't really linkspam. Gran2 07:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If unsourced rumors should not appear in articles, there is no reason why an article should link to a site featuring unsourced rumors. Also, even including the rumors, there's not enough content on the site to justify a link. —tregoweth (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this has come down to an edit war, could another editor please make a decision which both Tregoweth and myself will abibe by. Clearly there is a difference in opinions and already one editor has offered an opinion that the link should stay. My point is that the link is something that is being updated regularly which would be a benefit since other links are static pages which rarely update. Rumors are content that shouldn't appear directly on the wikipedia site which *as per the rules on external links* would class this content as something that should be linked to externally

wozzaofrare (talk)
That is not a valid reason to link to an external site. In any case you will be hard pressed to justify a link to a fansite, let alone one that is practically empty. si»abhorreo»T 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Green Day

Just so people know, the most recent trailer featured a BRIEF shot [4] of a band that was later revealed to be Green Day. Based on that, many are predicting that they will be appearing as themselves. It's all speculation, so remove anything that gets added, but I just figured I'd mention it so people know where the speculation is coming from. -- Scorpion 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't seen that, add I've watched the trailer a fair few times. Who revealed it to be Green Day? Gran2 16:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the point. It hasn't officially been revealed to be Green Day, the characters all just look quite a bit like the Green Day band members (except Simpsonized, of course). The black clothing and red tie on the singer makes me fairly positive that it is Green Day. Still, it shouldn't be mentioned until its official. -- Scorpion 16:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see, sorry me being stupid, but yes agreed, it should be in the article until officially confirmed. Gran2 19:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that IS DEFINITELY Green Day!! I wonder what song they'll play, hope its 'American Idiot' haha! CoolChris 10:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Green Day confirmed to be in the film and playing on song, in this article. Adamravenscroft 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that. I'll add a small note that nothing has officially been confirmed, but that spokespeople for the band say they will appear and a song will be featured. -- Scorpion 16:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Right I think we should, using the above source, list Green Day. We've reverted it for so long now, but that source does pretty much confirm it. So I guess we best put it in. Gran2 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

PROFANITY

Hey,

Just so you know, profanity is not allowed on Wikipedia, please remove Dr. Hibberts Swear Phrase or Star out the swear word

Coolchris,

PS: IT IS against the rules to use profanity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CoolChris (talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

No, it isn't. Prometheus-X303- 10:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Plus its a quote. And "son of a bitch" is hardly even that profane. Gran2 10:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool Chris, you know you have to use four tildes (~) to sign your comments? And don't space. It makes it hard to read. As to the question in hand. This website has an entry for fuck I have never heard of the rule about profanity if it's used in a quote. In that case the Wikiquote entries for Clerks., "The Big Lebowski and just about every R-rated movie are in violation Doc Strange 11:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

yo coolchris, ur allowed to swear on wikipedia... ive seen wikipedia say heaps of times that wikipedia iz not cencored for minors.... witch iz pretty much the same thing.. - kozmic|sk8r 02:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

kozmic sk8r, please don't edit other people's comments (you changed "fuck" above to "the "f" word). —tregoweth (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot

We should put some possible plots on the plot section of the article, here are 2 that i found:

When Homer accidentally pollutes the river with toxic waste from the nuclear power plant he gets fired from his job and everyone has to evacuate Springfield, possibly forever.

Homer causes an accident at the Springfield Power Plant. He gets fired and gets ran out of town. So Homer goes on a mission to find himself meeting past season characters. Meanwhile his family is on the look for Homer but get in some deep trouble. Homer fails to find himself and returns to Springfield. He finds his family's gone and now knows he has to save his family!

No. They are unsourced and speculative. See WP:V and WP:CITE. WikiNew 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They are speculation. That is why your edits were reverted in the first place. Gran2 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie Phone

March 11, 2007

I visited this article a while ago and saw info on a new simpsons it was deleted due to lack of references. Well i bring references to add it to the article.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/01/11/limited-edition-simpsons-movie-samsung-mobile-phones-on-display-at-ces/

Gundum285 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)gundum285Gundum285 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie Premiere

I live in Springfield, Illinois and recently saw an article about a contest between around 22 Springfields throughout the USA to host the movie premiere. Is this worth mentioning? And would anyone care to add it because I don't want to. Tinkleheimer 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that and all the stuff about the trailers could be shoehorned into a "Marketing campaign" subsection? There's also a 7-Eleven promotion that's going on (11 7-Elevens will be turned into Kwik-E-Marts)... --Rubber cat 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use: add here

Alientraveller 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the above are now in use. Gran2 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two cites: [5] and [6], for the technical specs, and the fact it will be produced by Film Roman and Rough Draft, but they're blogs. Are they reliable sources? Gran2 20:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Couple of proposals for the page

To be able to use the two above references we need to create some form new section, any ideas would be good, as I've got none. (Apart from merchandise, but the real Kwik-E-Mart thing is not merchandise). And we should remove or move to wikiquote the transcripts of the animatic trailers. I mean we removed the production quotes, and every quote from the episode pages, so this one shouldn't be different. Gran2 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well its been 22 days and no one has responded so I'm going to remove the transcript of the trailers. Gran2 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first query, the heading would be 'Marketing'. Keep some info on trailers: the first teaser is important as that was basically the worldwide revelation of the film's existence. Alientraveller 20:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've just removed the transcripts of the animatic trailers, but the basic sections till remain for now. Gran2 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have rename the section to marketing. The trailer sections should be a lot shorter though. --Maitch 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Move improved the page, good job. I think we're going to have to lose some of the trailer images, as those sections need to be cut to ideally one paragraph. I'd say lose pig crap at least. Gran2 19:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The images are probably not allowed per the new fair use instructions anyway. --Maitch 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about this in the long run, we should probably keep the Homer in a superman t-shirt, as real the teaser trailer was the first really widespread confirmation for the film and release date. And possibly the mob shot, for the plot, and because it cool. Also, I'm going to add the other marketing stuff, figures, game, real life Kwik-e-marts and the simpsons movie phone. Gran2 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay that's done, prose needs improving though. Gran2 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, the trailer section as been reduced to one paragraph, with the pig crap image removed. I shaped it after Spider-Man 3 which is a brilliant article for a film that has only just been released. The recent edits, have massivly improved the page, which of course is good. Gran2 17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoooah no. Wikipedia isn't paper, and you can't chop all that off without a solid reason backed up by guidelines or whatnot. The description of the teaser trailer should be returned, and a cut down version of the animatics (not written in transcript form as they were.) I've been absent from this article for a while, but I'm still going to stick to my guns :P si»abhorreo»T 09:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia also isn't a junkheap, and adding trailer transcripts is unnecessary fluff and by the time the movie airs, they will be gone anyway. Gran2 has done a great job of cleaning the page up. Make your own fan site and add all of the unencyclopedic stuff you want there. -- Scorpion0422 09:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it doesn't really matter if there isn't a policy (although WP:FILM guidelines are pretty good for it), having a blow by blow description and a section for each trailer is rubbish. Can you show me another high quality film article with sections like that? Gran2 14:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cast section

What are we going to do about this? Most high rated film articles list the main characters and there actors, with a short description, and any important cameos in a paragraph underneath. This could be difficult here as vast amounts of characters are voiced by the same person. Any ideas on this? Also, from a fan-testimony I read recently, it looks like Albert Brooks is voicing the main villian. Gran2 17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Albert Brooks as a villain who is trying to take over the world?! I believe we haven't seen the last of Hank Scorpio... Valley2city 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Its possible that Scorpio appears again, but the villain is confirmed to be a new character. Gran2 05:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to absorb into production as a sub-section, so we note everyone on TV reprised their roles, guest stars and the axing of Minnie Driver. Alientraveller 13:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the cast section should only mention the main characters in the style of Spider-Man 3. We can refer people to the List of The Simpsons cast members for the minor characters in the film. --Maitch 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Animated feature film

I don't know if this true, but isn't the simpsons movie the first animated feature film of a popular animated television series since the 1999 south park movie, because that might count as a trivia or something. Rodrigue 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Two Rugrats films, Every Pokemon film, several Scooby Doo films, Hey Arnold! The Movie, The Wild Thornberrys Movie, plus several others. So no its not the first animated film since the South Park film. Also, even if it was, it would be trivia, and would be anywhere near this article. Trivia is not good. There's your answer. Gran2 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

there are many error in this article.

for instance it says in the beginning homer dares bart to skate nakes, but later it says sherri dares bart. get with the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.226.141 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, why don't you "get with the picture". You state their are many errors, you have cited one. And its not an error, the Homer daring Bart is cited plot, what will happen in the film. The Sherri and Terri daring him, is the description of a figurine, meaning it was the original idea for the scene. But that doesn't matter, as that is the description of the toy, which is what that sentence is describing. So there are no errors in this article, thank you very much. Gran2 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

94 characters to speak in the movie so far

I was reading the third reference, "Inside the Simpsons Movie", and one of the things Matt Groening and James L. Brooks talk about is character selcetion. How they looked at the famous group poster of The Simpsons characters with the yellow background. And that so far (during the time of that interview, anyway) there are 94 speaking parts. I think that is something all Simpsons fans following the movie would want to know and should be somewhere in this article.Tj terrorible1 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, give me a few minutes and it will be in the article. Gran2 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

plot

Just saw on a film guide that the plot was Homer dumps nuclear waste in the river and Springfield has to be evacuated. Bencey 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an old plot, one of the fake ones. Pretty sure it isn't the actual one. Gran2 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard there will be a Simpsons movie ride in Universal Studios replacing the back to the future ride.

24.85.130.233 13:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie Ride

I heard Universal Sudios Orlando was planning to make a Simpsons Movie ride replacig the back to tthe future ride.


It is true read the wiki artical The Simpsons Ride


Music criticism

In the Music section, the choice of Hans Zimmer is criticized with quotes from Rotten Tomatoes and Ain't It Cool News. I don't think criticism from random bloggers, especially ones citing "The ScoreKeeper," is sufficiently noteworthy for the article. —tregoweth (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If enough people think it should go, I'll remove it, but at least the RTs one stays, it should be noted that Danny Elfman and Alf Clausen were other avaliable choices, and the source provides that info. Gran2 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should loose the Ain't It Cool News bit. It hardly seems encyclopedic and the source is dodgy. I'm not sure about Rotten Tomatoes though. --Maitch 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As the Rotten Tomatoes link is just a guy blogging on a site better known for compiling other people's reviews, I don't think it's especially noteworthy either. Also, do we know that Elfman and Clausen were available choices? —tregoweth (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why the wouldn't have been, but I have removed the ain't it cool news sentence now. Gran2 07:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Alf Clausen, for one, does have a day job that keeps him pretty busy... —tregoweth (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Rated PG-13???

Where did you read this the films offical website says this film is not yet rated and IMBD does not have a rating!Themasterofwiki 12:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's cited, and the crew expected it. Don't argue. IMDB is always behind anyway. Alientraveller 12:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to filmratings.com, search for "Simpsons Movie", and see for yourself. —tregoweth (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nudity in the trailer?

Did anyone else think it was strange that there was nudity in the trailer for the movie? Isn't that against the MPAA's rules? Coosaysdove 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Members of the MPAA have to submit their trailers to the MPAA for approval, so if it was a "greenband" trailer (with the green screen at the beginning), they didn't have any problem with it. —tregoweth (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but they didn't show the penis!

Simpsons Comics - running gag

Should it be noted that there was a running gag in the comics that whenever someone wrote in asking about a possible Simpsons Movie, the reply would be the editor "falling asleep"? ~~Neo 2.3 Hylan 13:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really have much to do with the film as a whole, it would only be Trivia. As such it shouldn't be included. However, if it becomes something important to do with the film's production, maybe it can. Gran2 14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Simpstasia

I just watched the DVD commentary for Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie and there are two things that I thought could be mentioned here:

  1. Simpstasia. Matt Groening has said several times that he wanted to do it and if the Troy McClure live action movie is listed here, then so should Simpstasia. I think it's also mentioned in the commentary for Marge vs. the Monorail.
  2. They mentioned the Simpsons Movie. This commentary was recorded in 2004, so it might be worth noting that it had been mentioned before the official announcement. -- Scorpion0422 21:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think it merits inclusion, I personally only think point 1. needs to be added, please add it to the article. Simpstasia seems very interesting and should go in here. Gran2 06:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What is Simpstasia? Well, that's my point. Include it. Alientraveller 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide

What happened to the worldwide release? --(trogga) 01:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It got changed. Australia and the UK get it a day earlier. Gran2 06:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It's still a worldwide release, because by Australian (and probably UK) customs, you must release a film on a Thursday, not Friday (like US)... so it still the same... really. SpecialWindler talk 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

New poster

There's a new, much more impressive, poster. [7] Are we going to switch to that, or stick with this one? Gran2 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well its in there now, so moving on, the soundtrack info could be split off into a separate article in my view. Gran2 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Alientraveller 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot information right

Surely the claim that Bart eventually going "full frontal" must be incorrect. Since it would break laws reguarding child pornography, since Bart is just a 10 year old boy.

Ummm no. It has been reported by dozens of sources, and from the producers themselves. I suggest you go and read them. Gran2 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet we won't actually see his penis. I'm sure we will see him skateboarding naked, though. Captain America 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
See below. It states that there is actually a glimpse of it. Also, I don't think it'd be breaking child pornagraphy laws since 1: There's no sexual context to it, and 2: If Eric Cartman has done it, then I'm pretty it's okay if Bart does it. --AAA! (AAAA) 15:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Bart's penis

I added a part in the article about how Bart's penis is revealed in the movie, which was also accompanied by a reliable source. Yet it still got reverted saying "You don't know that for sure". If it's accompanied by a reliable source, I believe it should stay. I'm not going to revert again because I don't wanna get clubbed by that big 3, but I do think it's worth putting into the article. Your thoughts? --AAA! (AAAA) 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have no more plot, but its sourced so it stays. And also, no edit warring please, talk it over here before reverting the current version. Gran2 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the stupid convo ever. The bit about his penis shouldnt be in the article as its irrelevant to the story and the movie isnt out.BlueShrek 15:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says it irelevant to the story? Because, of course, the film isn't out, you haven't seen it. And so what if the film isn't out yet? Should we just not have any plot at all? Answer: no. Gran2 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We should have a plot but seeing as how NOONE knows whats gonna happen in it a minor thing like his penis isnt gonna be in the article.BlueShrek 15:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved it to the censorship paragraph. Alientraveller 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually BlueShrek, it has been confirmed in numerous newspapers that his penis will be shown, and there was also a premiere screeing here in London a few days ago. Besides, it is worth adding because they have never shown anything like that in The Simpsons, but they will for the first time in this movie. --AAA! (AAAA) 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it is in the movie isnt important until the movie is released. I doesnt matter how many times you say it does.BlueShrek 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah! I hope it doesn't show Bart's penis just because it's rated PG-13.

Statue of Liberty vandalism to promote the movie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx6G-O3AWQs

I saw this, and the donut looked like the same one from the posters and trailers.. was it to promote or not? Nocarsgo 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, and this is CGI. Dalejenkins 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

Release image

Could someone help me fix the image under the "release" section? I was at the premiere and I took that image with my cell phone.. it fits there well but I can't get it to work. Cs302b 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)cs302b

Have you uploaded it? If not go here [8], rejester for an account, click upload file on the left hand side and follow the instructions. Copy the image's name, and then add that to the page. Or if you did upload it, then you might have got the name wrong. Anyway, it sounds like a better image than the one there, good job. Gran2 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you have uploaded it, I've found it, before I add it in, do you have any other images from the premiere? Of some of the production staff for example? Because they would be useful as well. Gran2 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are two other images from the day. The first is the signatures and quick little scribbles of Matt Groening and David Silverman (the only two famous people who were there.. all voice personalities didn't show up). The second is a banner the town set up. NEEDS SOME PHOTOSHOP LEVEL WORK FOR LIGHTING. And I don't want to do it. So whoever wants to, have fun.

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/d0455fff2e.jpg

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/c67bed50b9.jpg

And I've been talking with this person: http://www.myspace.com/PhotographThis

She has some GOOD photos of Matt and David (I didn't get there until after they left). Ask her if you can use some of her pieces.. but leave my marquee image up there.. I think it fits very well.

user:cs302b

Don't worry, your image will remain, its a very good inclusion. Its just that David Silverman's article needs a free use image. Also, good work with the plot so far! And be wary of other stuf you change though, for example many people have told me that Sideshow Bob's part was cut, but unless there is a reliable source to back this up, the article can't be changed, for now anyway, no matter how true it is. But as said, great work with the plot. Gran2 20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Pig feces"

I found some of the ref names saying "Pig feces" on them. Is this vandalism, or legitimate? --AAA! (AAAA) 05:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No that's not vandilism. Gran2 06:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't think of anything else, but the EW article is the first substantial (ahem) mention of the plot. Empire already used the "Homer's Odyssey" title. Alientraveller 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Pig Crap" is actually the one used in the film maybe it would be worth quoting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.162.138 (talk • contribs)

Page Blocking

I have noticed a few times coming to this page that it is under constint attack. Just before someone had deleted the whole page and replaced it with just one word. Maybe its time for a lock to apear at the top of the screen. --MattyC3350 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've noticed that it's just that one address, so if we could bloc that, but I do agree that a block should happen, because people can just use other addresses. So I am in support of this. JpGrB 01:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It is now semi-protected. Gran2 08:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivial Matters

Trivia

  • Homer never says "D'oh!" in the movie... Though he comes close with "DOOOOOOOOOMMME!"
  • Bart's chalkboard message is "I will not illegally download this movie"
  • Ralph says "I think I like men now!" after seeing Bart skateboard naked.
  • Otto can be seen smoking a bong for a quick second or so while leaning up against the bus.
  • Maggie says one word.. At the very end. ("sequel?")
  • Martin Prince beats up the bullies with a board. "I see why you guys like doing this, this is fun!"

Move trivia to here. Gran2 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He does say "D'oh", and the rest, save the chalkboard, aren't really trivia.

The chalkboard gag is part of the film, much like on every episode, it's not trivial, it's a running gag. Darrenhusted 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As said, someone else put this in the article, as trivia doesn't belong there, I just copied it straight here. Gran2 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He does say doh when the mob are at his house and also when marge said "maggie's first word!" that is incorrect because maggie says her first word in season 4 episode "Lisa's first word" ("Daddy") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)
But nobody heard her say that word. Darrenhusted 13:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
that's because you are one of those people who walk out of the cinema the instant the movie finishes. Thats why they put it in there, to punish people like you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)
I heard her say it. And according to TV Guide Network, my sister Erin said there will be 2 sequals- Ryan Holloway
No, dummy, nobody heard her say "daddy". Way to attack someone who wasn't wrong, though. 72.40.101.195 07:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see, no one was in the room when she said it, excellent observation. That could justify what Marge said since she wouldn't have heard it. And yes, I was a bit harsh before, apoligies.--123.51.103.64 09:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, it happens. 72.40.101.195 16:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bart's Doodle

Who erased the section about Bart's "doodle" (crotch) seen during the skateboarding scene? In Entertainment Weekly, there were 3 sentances on it! -Ryan Holloway

"Sequel?" is not Maggie's first word.

Maggie's first word was "Daddy." And she said some stuff ("Daddily-do-doodilly") in the episode where Flanders becomes the father of her and Bart and Lisa due to Homer and Marge being deemed incompetent. Please change that.--86.43.64.115 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Already addressed, at least read the talk page before starting a new topic. Darrenhusted 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

More than half of that list just arent trivia, they are just jokes or descriptions of shots from the film 172.141.156.157 23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sequel?

Shouldn't there be an section about possible sequels? I heard on TV Guide channel that there may be a second and third movie. Also, at the end, Maggie said "Sequel?" implying that there will be another movie. Emperor001 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Darrenhusted 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Episode references?

Someone want to add a section on references to episodes of the show? I saw:

  • Bart the Daredevil: Obviously, the motorcycle failing to jump over Springfield Gorge.
  • The Way We Weren't: The heart-shaped iceberg breaking in two, like the heart-shaped rock in the episode (questionable), and "So Happy Together" playing during the pig fantasy.
  • Bart Sells His Soul: The church organist playing a rock song.
  • Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish: The squirrel with many eyes.

I think there were a few others I forgot. Anyone have a few more? 72.40.101.195 07:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The "more than 2 eyes" joke is way too generic (in The Simpsons) to reference it to an episode.--Svetovid 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
All the "more than 2 eyes" jokes are references to Blinky. One I forgot: the fish floating to the surface of the lake, dead, is a reference to The Fat and the Furriest. 72.40.101.195 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A section like this, along with a cultural references section, can be added when a reliable source is found to reference them. Hopefully the DVD, an article, or even a book will cover them all. But until then they don't go in the article. Gran2 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The jump over the Gorge is the only obvious call back, all the rest are OR. Darrenhusted 22:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The squirrel with many eyes is easily as obvious as the jump over the gorge, given how often the series references Blinky the fish. 72.40.101.195 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No, equating a fish polluted by the SNPP with a squirrel polluted by pig shit are two different things, hence OR. Darrenhusted 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You *actually* think that, don't you? Jesus Christ, you're stupid! 72.40.101.195 04:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to refrain from personal attacks and try contributing something to this article rather than just abuse. Darrenhusted 15:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like nothing better than to contribute to this article. To that end, would you mind unlocking it and/or quit dismissing perfectly legitimate content as "original research" because you didn't come up with it? That suggestion I made above seems to be a potential contribution to this article, if you're really eager to have me contribute. 72.40.101.195 16:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If you added it, it would be reverted, because you have no source to support your claim. Also, this article is not being unlocked until the week its protected for has finished, which is Wednesday. Gran2 16:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't OR, dumbass. It doesn't introduce a new theory, or an original idea (it's not exactly a new idea that The Simpsons references itself frequently), doesn't define a new term or provide a new definition of an existing term, doesn't introduce an argument that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; it doesn't introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by me, and it doesn't introduce or use neologisms.72.40.101.195 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Message for life, insulting people means that they won't listen to you. It is OR, unless you have a source that clearly says that it was intended to be a reference to Blinky. If you don't have one, then it counts as speculation. Gran2 18:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently someone's listening. Unless, of course, they're just typing random sequences of words in reply to random messages without reading them, and the random words are coincidentally forming coherent sentences. That must always be taken into consideration. 72.40.101.195 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn guys, let it go. I dont think the episode has enough call backs to warrant a section listing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)

What about Stampy? ONEder Boy 00:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is maybe a reference to Life In Hell, (Matt Groening's First Cartoon) In the Pig. He looks just like the rabbit, i think. Or another character but i just cant remember who it its. Im pretty sure its the rabbit though.189.171.152.207 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

After Bart and Homer make it over the gorge, there is an ambulance crashed into the tree, a reference from Bart the Daredevil when the ambulance crashes into a tree and Homer falls back down the gorge. Although I suppose this would probably fall into the trivia category. 211.30.167.17 12:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

question

i think we should add goofs on other series and a trivia note to tell the people that they made a reference to the Springfield gorge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.119.19 (talk • contribs)

Foreshadowing

In the episode Lisa's First Word, Bart refers to moving into their new home as moving over the sinkhole. Is this possible movie foreshadowing? Andraxx 16:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No. No it is not. Darrenhusted 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe 70.49.201.94 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not really a foreshadowing. It's more of a continuity or something that they could use that has been established in an episode prior to the movie. Socby19 19:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuity with the show.

Someone registered should start a part in the actual article regarding this particular topic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.77.169.167 (talk • contribs)

The best example i can think of: This is not the first but SECOND Itchy and Scratchy movie, according to the show. Anyone else has other examples? Enough to start a section? Broza 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As they would be unreferenced, no. Gran2 06:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
They never say it's the first Itchy and Scratchy movie. Besides you are forgeting about the movies Scratchtasia and Pinitchyo refered to in the episode, Itchy & Scratchy Land.--Steven X 11:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice.Lord Sinestro 13:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that there shouldn't be just continuity with the show, but other allusions. Some include Titanic (1997 film) (Green Day sinking); Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?/Celebrity ('advertising scroll'); and Tuesdays with Morrie, as Hank Azaria was in the TV-movie adaptation. Socby19 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all trivia, so I'd say no. Darrenhusted 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
So does that mean that every list of trivia that's featured on all of the Simpsons episode articles that have them should be removed? Socby19 02:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Short answer yes with a but, long answer no but with a maybe. Darrenhusted 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually the answer is a clear yes, all trivia should be removed from episode pages. The article will have a cultural references section eventually, but only when it can be sourced. Gran2 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That was a Rev Lovejoy quote. Darrenhusted 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I know it was, but I was just given a definite answer as well. Gran2 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don`t know what to choose between Yes and No. On all movies pages on Wikipedia there are trivia and/or cultural references. Why shouldn`t there be some with this one? Do you think it`s because it would be too big for writing in one (already long) article? I also looked for another show I chose by hazard and there was a trivia or cultural reference section for each episode. I still don`t understand why this debate exists. ~~Gamesrcool~~

Cultural References

Are we going to add a 'Cultural References' section like every other Simpsons episode page? — 60.241.121.150 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll wait for the DVD to avoid original research. The Al Gore joke is cited though. Alientraveller 08:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jebediah Springfield Statue Question

Towards the end of the movie, the statue of Jebediah Springfield is shown in the background. At one point I swear that the bear had three eyes, akin to the mutated squirrel in the movie of the three eyed fish. Did anyone else see it? I do not want to put it into Trivia if it was merely my own (two) eyes playing tricks on me. --KNHaw (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

PLEASE can we take down the unnecessary plot summary. It hasn't been released yet and it's gonna ruin the movie for many people... I'm seeing it at a special screening at fox thursday before it comes out >_> Bly1993 03:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the plot summary is necessary. It contextualizes the rest of the article. If you don't want to see the information, then common sense implies that it's a bad idea to read the section titled "Plot". 17Drew 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia, the plot has to be summarized. You read articles pertaining to a new book or movie at your peril. HalfShadow 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit + revert = discussion. The plot seems excessive. Although being fair to myself, it's hard to argue because I don't want to read it before I see the film, correct plot or not. I feel there should be a spoilers warning for the plot section. Again, I haven't read the section. If someone has seen the film and knows that there aren't any spoilers in the section, then perhaps we don't need it. However, having such a detailed plot section before a film is released, especially having been pieced together from all the available material, seems a bit OR and unreliable, and the citation needed template backs that up. I've seen all the trailers and read all the other stuff, too...and I can't even put together the plot. After thinking it over more, there should either be a {{Spoiler}} template at the head of the section, or an {{Unreferenced}} tag at the head of the section to advise people that there is a very detailed plot and/or an unreliable plot respectively. --MPD T / C 04:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but WP:Spoiler kind of states the exact opposite: the plot section is considered to automatically contain spoilers; it's the plot. Given that the movie hasn't actually been released yet, I'd suggest Unreferenced, myself. HalfShadow 04:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between plot and plot containing spoilers. "Jim and Mary must search the countryside for their lost son, encountering all sorts of strange creatures" is a plot. "One of the creatures is Jim's mother" is vergining on a spoiler. "Turns out she was trying to stop them so Mary wouldn't find out Jim killed their son" is a spoiler. I'm terrible at summarizing plots. Ok a Simpsons trailer is on now: they enter the Church. Now they run. And it's snowing, and now they walk. Yeah no help for the plot. So like I said, I haven't read the section so I'm blindly arguing, but I'll settle for unreferenced, so at least if I (or someone else) does decide to read that, they know up front that it might not be right. Just my $.02 and I've really got nothing else to contribute to the discussion. Thanks though. I'll retroactively argue this on Saturday :-) --MPD T / C 04:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot, its to short, but its fine and pretty much accurate. The guy who wrote it, went to the Vermont premiere, and he was the one who uploaded the picture in the release section as proof he was there. If you don't want to see spoilers, then that's not my problem. Simple fact, just don't read the article. The film is out today in Britian (although I can't see it until Friday), so a more detailed plot I'm sure will come. Gran2 08:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sticking spoiler tags in it in courtesy of the readers of this article and the creators of the movie. If you disagree, post here.--Loodog 16:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I wouldn't have expected a plot summary now. Alientraveller 16:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Its still a plot, and the film has now been released in the UK. I wasn't planning on a plot summary either but we have one now. But "Meh", if its deemed necessary we'll have one for a day or so, but it goes tomorrow. Gran2 16:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It *has* been released. At least in some parts of the world. I just watched it a couple of hours ago. :P I have no problem with the spoiler tag though, as I do agree that many won't be expecting spoilers yet. Shrumster 16:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay its been released in te UK and Australia, and we now have full (hugely overlong) plot, so I have again removed the spoiler tags. It should now be clear that the plot section will contain obvious spoilers. Gran2 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine, as per Wikipedia talk:Don't-give-a-fuckism.--Loodog 04:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much yeah, I mean it is policy, plot summaries should not have spoiler tags, that was decided. They are a read at your own type thing, and it shouldn't be out fault if someone ruins the film for themselves. Gran2 07:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest an improved plot section? The current "stream-of-consciousness" version that is there now is relatively complete, but could certainly use some grammar and content improvements. Here goes my attempt, enjoy your own improvements. >_> Keithober 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

After an Itchy and Scratchy film, and a remade version of The Simpsons opening credit sequence, the film begins with Green Day hosting a concert at Lake Springfield. When they pause after 3.5 hours of entertainment to talk for a minute about the environment, the angry audience throws garbage at them, further polluting the lake and causing their barge to dissolve and sink, killing them.

The next day at church memorial service for Green Day, Grandpa is possessed and rambles incoherently, forewarning of impending disaster. Marge believes that Grandpa’s prediction was a warning from God, and decides to decipher the clues and discover the meaning of the message. Luckily Jeff “Comic Book Guy” Albertson recorded Grandpa’s “possession” on his mobile phone, and stopped by Marge’s kitchen for her to review the footage. Meanwhile, Lisa starts canvassing the neighborhood to drum up environmental awareness, with no success. She encounters Colin, an Irish boy who shares the same passions as her.

Homer and Bart are repairing the roof when they decide to have a dare contest. Homer dares Bart to skateboard to Krusty Burger naked, which Bart obliges. This scene is our first glimpse of a Simpson doodle. Inside the restaurant (after Nelson “haw-haw”’s himself hoarse), Ned Flanders lets Bart borrow his spare pair of kid pants. Bart is touched by this fatherly gesture, which is not matched by Homer’s refusal to take the rap for daring him into public nudity. Bart somehow didn’t notice that the Flanders clan walked into the restaurant (right past a handcuffed, naked Bart and a crowd of ooglers) without doing anything fatherly.

Meanwhile Krusty is filming a commercial in the same restaurant. When recording finishes Krusty orders for the pig he is using in the commercial to be slaughtered. It flees to Homer, who adopts him. Many creepy and adorable pig hairstyles follow.

That evening Lisa holds a conference at city hall and explains that the town lake cannot sustain any more pollution. Mayor Quimby declares a state of emergency and orders the cleansing and protection of Lake Springfield. The barrier is idiot proof. Luckily, Cletus Spuckler is handy to test it.

Before bed, Bart and Flanders have a “father-son” talk that leads to a cup of hot cocoa and a fishing trip the next day. Bart recalls a fishing trip with Homer that ended with Homer being electrocuted. . .several times. The Ned-Bart trip is slightly different, ending with Ned giving Bart a pat on the back.

Marge learns that Homer has named his pig "Spider-Pig", and asks him where Spider-Pig's waste is going. Homer shows her an overflowing silo, which she somehow missed in her backyard. It even is labeled, in large letters, “Pig Crap.” Marge is horrified, and becomes convinced that Grandpa’s vision in church was a warning about this very pile of crap. She makes Homer promise to dispose of it safely.

While waiting in a queue at the dump, Homer is told by Lenny that the health department has shut down Lard Lad Donuts and that they are giving away free donuts. America’s Fattest Town is showing up in droves. Homer, in his haste to get to the giveaway decides on a quicker means of disposal and dumps the silo into the lake, causing it to become heavily polluted. He gets the idea pretty quickly that he might have made a mistake. A nearby squirrel jumps into it and becomes severely mutated, with many eyes. Nearby, Bart and Ned are hiking up a hill when they discover the squirrel that is immediately captured by the EPA. At the White House, Russ Cargill, head of the EPA, brings the contained squirrel before President Arnold Schwarzenegger. Hank Scorpio—uh, I mean Russ Cargill—states that Springfield has become so polluted that the government must take drastic action and proposes five different solutions. The President picks plan #3 at random choosing to not even read them.

Plan #3 turns out to be a giant glass-like dome, carried by a very good drawing of dozens of V-22 Ospreys, being placed over Springfield. Cargill then tells the town that Springfield is now the most polluted city on the Earth and that the government has decided to contain it.

The next day, Maggie falls through a sinkhole in her sandbox and emerges outside the dome. She discovers a fun game, jumping into the sinkhole to get outside the dome, then returning. It’s a good thing that 742 Evergreen Terrace is right on the edge of town, with the edge of the dome going through their backyard.

Through some extensive detective work, the SPD reveal that Homer polluted the lake. Kent Brockman does his part to encourage mob rule, which the trapped Springfielders readily adopt. They march on the Simpson house and torch it. Marge saves one item from the house: their wedding video (which she stored, for some reason, in the kitchen). After an escape scene that would make Benny Hill proud, the family escapes through the sinkhole, which expands destroying their house. After 18 years, Homer finally gives us the finger.

The family flees outside the dome, and whilst hiding in a dilapidated motel Homer reveals that he has always kept a backup plan in the event that they are run out of town. He proposes that the entire family move to Alaska, a plan that Marge agrees to. The next day the family attend a carnival where Homer enters the "Ball of Death" challenge, a spherical cage in which he must ride a motorcycle around in a full vertical circle. He wins a truck so that the family can drive to Alaska, and begin their new life.

The new life in Alaska is grand, characterized by free government money, Eski-Moe’s Bar, avalanches that don’t hurt anybody, and Disney-style forest critters that help Marge and Homer rock the Kasbah.

Back in Springfield, the townspeople go crazy and attempt to break the dome. Nobody thinks to dig a shallow hole underneath the bottom of the dome; instead, everybody (including an elephant that looks like Stampy) hammers on the dome above ground. Russ Cargill tells the President that they can't keep Springfield in this state forever and presents five new solutions. Again Schwarzenegger tries to randomly choose a plan, but this time he is led by Cargill to choose the plan to destroy Springfield (plan #4). Back in Alaska, the family see an advert presented by Tom Hanks promoting a new Grand Canyon, to be located where Springfield is. Marge and the kids decide that they must save Springfield, but Homer refuses to help the town that tried to kill him.

Later that night after returning home from Eski-Moe’s, Homer discovers videotape left on the bed, which is a pre-recorded message from Marge telling him that they have left. She is so determined to save the town that she is prepared to end her life with Homer. In the most heartfelt scene in Simpson history, she reveals that she taped the message over the wedding video. Homer becomes frantic and starts looking for Marge, but ends up stranded in the middle of the snowy Alaskan tundra.

The next morning a polar bear tries to attack him but a mysterious person dressed in Native American clothing wards it off and drags Homer to her tent. When he is revived the stranger, revealed to be a woman with enormously sized breasts, tells him that he must reach an epiphany or he is doomed to spend the remainder of his days alone. He soon has a mysterious vision where he is tortured by a forest of trees and reaches an epiphany: he must save Springfield to save himself because other people are just as important as he is. He thanks the lady, and sets off to find the family.

On a train, Marge tells the kids that they must reach Seattle and warn everyone about the plot to destroy Springfield, however, they're overheard by one of the thousands of spooks in a giant NSA listening post, and are captured by Cargill.

When Homer is struggling on his journey, the "Boob Lady" appears and points him in the right direction (with, what else, her boobs). Despite some disagreements with his dog team, he approaches Springfield and sees that the EPA has set up a compound around the dome. He hears Lisa's saxophone and realizes that his family is in a nearby EPA van. He uses a parked bulldozer to attempt to free them, which fails resulting in him being crushed. The van moves on and the occupants are gassed to sleep. They awake to find themselves in a practically destroyed Springfield; the town went crazy and destroyed everything.

Cargill appears and tells the town that they are going to be killed and Springfield completely destroyed. A helicopter arrives and opens a hole at the top of the dome, lowering down a bomb (but not dropping it, just holding it in a hover). Outside the dome Homer knocks out the guard and locates some superglue in a nearby hut. He begins to climb to dome with his now sticky hands.

Back inside the dome, the town fails to disarm the bomb and decide instead on a diversion (the bomb disarming robot cracks under the pressure and kills himself). Cletus Spuckler distracts Cargill while the rest of the town climb up the rope and escape through the hole. Homer makes it to the top of the dome and jumps through the hole, knocking everyone and the bomb off of the rope, speeding up the detonation timer in the process. In desperation, Homer notices a motorcycle and heads to the church. There, he grabs Bart, who had wished to spend his last moments with Ned. They motorcycle up the side of the dome (the dome evidently suspends the laws of physics) and Bart throws the bomb through the hole, detonating it and shattering the dome, with one piece crushing Dr. Nick Riviera (or at least his crotch). Homer and Bart land the bike at Springfield Gorge, where they encounter Cargill wielding a shotgun. As he prepares to shoot them, Maggie crushes him with a boulder.

The town praise Homer, and they soon rebuild Springfield and the Simpson's house, Lisa and Colin walk away together while Homer and Marge (with Maggie) ride off on a motorbike into the sunset.

During the credits, it is revealed that the family has been watching the film. Bart gets up to use the bathroom, complaining that he has been 'holding it in since the dome scene'. Homer forces him to stay, saying that, in return for the people in the credits creating the film, the least the family can do is 'memorize their names'. They get up to leave, and Maggie takes out her pacifier and speaks her first word: "Sequel?" The Pizza-Faced Teen (the assistant manager of the theater) complains about his assistant manager duties while sweeping up after the Simpsons. There are a couple of funny songs during the credits, including a Spider Pig theme song.

Don't put comments at the top of a discussion, it ruins all sense in things. And no, your plot "summary" is a blow by blow description of the film, about three times longer than the already far to long one there already. Gran2 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot tag

Someone point out the policy that states an overlong plot tag MUST be in the plot section, then I'll concede. Gran2 07:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It says This article or section... meaning it could be either at the top or under the Plot heading, and seeing as having it under that heading ruins the page we should move it back to the top. - .:Alex:. 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The tag makes such a big gap in the middle of the article. That seems less helpful than pointing out what's obvious. --Camptown 09:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, good to see we have consensous, moving back to the top. Gran2 09:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot Spoilers

Can someone add signs saying "plot spoilers start here" and "plot spoilers end here"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.130.202 (talk • contribs)

No, for about the fifth time. Read WP:SPOILER Gran2 18:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Typo

Need to fix "who had who had" in the "plot" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk • contribs)

Plot as it stands

I've got it down to 502 words, can we try not to bloat it up with direct line quotes, or adding subplot points, such as who found the sinkhole, how they got to Alaska and other things. To avoid spoiling too many people let's keep it to the basics. Lisa and Environment/Lake/Silo/Dome/Alaska/Bomb/Homer saves day, is all that is needed. Darrenhusted 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I added info about Grampa's vision thing, and the Flanders/Bart bonding because I think they were key points. Otherwise, it needs a copyedit and then I think it'll be GA quality. -- Scorpion0422 02:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

itchy and scratchy

thy isnt the opening in the plot summary?Lord Sinestro 21:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it is essentially one long extended opening joke that is not important to the main plot, the real film starts when Prof Frink says "Moovie-on the big screen". Darrenhusted 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No it doesnt i just watched it the movie starts with ralph doing the fox theme.Lord Sinestro 21:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it three times and the relevant plot starts with the words The Simpsons Movie, the I&S thing is not in any way relevant to the rest of the film, other then for the Simpsons writers to make a joke about people paying to see a movie of a TV program. Darrenhusted 21:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not.Lord Sinestro 23:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not what? Seen it three times? I have. Darrenhusted 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhuh.Lord Sinestro 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude, stop being an irritating dipshit. It is possible that he has seen the film three times -- I have seen it done before. The plot does indeed start with Frink, so stop arguing about it. --FireV 08:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hear Hear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)
Thank you, FireV. Darrenhusted 11:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pig

What happened to the pig? Did it get barbecued? I bring this up because it's an unresolved issue in the plot summary. Baseball Bugs 21:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Because its not resolved in the film. After the leave the house and its destroyed you never see nor hear of Plopper again. Gran2 22:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, they just left Spider-Pig/Harry Plopper inside the dome when the house got sucked in. Steveweiser 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Aha. The purpose of the pig was to provide the "last straw", so to speak, in the pollution of the lake that advance that plotline. In fact, the pig's treachery (or stupidity) in nudging the board and spilling the Simpsons into the crowd was probably its last scene. Roger-Dodger. (Fittingly, he might have been turned into Spam). Now, the question is, should I add something about the pig's departure? Or is the plot too detailed already? Baseball Bugs 22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Its too detailed, in my view. You can mention it in Plopper's section of the animals list though. Gran2 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Already is. - .:Alex:. 09:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

the pig will be included in the first episode of the 19th season, though so it didnt die or anything Tyler9090 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Green Day

At Green Day's funeral, Reverend Lovejoy refers to them as "the latest rock band to die in Springfield". Haven't only Spinal Tap died in Springfield before, or should we assume there have been others inbetween that have occured off screen? Steveweiser 10:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Its just a little aside, that is not meant to have any basis. Although, yes, Spinal Tap and Los Lobos (will their a band..) have both died in the show. Gran2 10:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr Nick

Can sombody add about Dr Nick being killed in the film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.83.232 (talk • contribs)

No, because it is never actually stated that he is dead. Gran2 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
He says "Goodbye everybody" and expires. Darrenhusted 13:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to wait and see it for myself, I just got that info from Nick's article, but I doubt that he will actually stay dead. I mean Miss Hoover apparently died in 24 Minutes didn't she? And Hans Moleman's died a load of times. Gran2 13:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Chief Wiggum does say "It's a good thing nobody was hurt" when Dr. Nick is then shown crushed into the ground. I doubt it means he's dead though. - .:Alex:. 13:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Many charcters in the series die and come back back to life, because no episode is directly in canon with each othe. Like everyone thought Dr. Monroe was dead in season 7, and came back to life in season 13. Same thing will probobly come back to life in season 19. In the whole span of the simpsons i could only remember 2 people being permanitly killed off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.207.154 (talk • contribs)

Dr nick will be back the instant the creators need him for a joke and/or a plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)

The dead characters are Maude Flanders and Bleeding Gums Murphy by the way. (I'm not the anon who stated that there were two deaths, I'm just identifying them) Digifiend 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

didn't they say before the movie that they'd intorduce a new character who would carry over into the Tv Series and kill of an old character? i could've sworn that i remember something like that but that would've been awhile ago, and my memory isn't the best.68.255.174.58 23:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tag

Would it be considered OK to remove the future film tag as it has been released in Ireland, England and The Philippines. It is not yet released in other countries but would it be considered OK to remove the tag? — Rlest 10:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, please do not remove the tag until Friday. Its an American film, and will still be a future film until its been released in America. Gran2 10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a recently released film tag or something? Besides I wouldn't put the reason down to it being an American film. Official release date is a more valid reason. - .:Alex:. 21:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article!

Congratulations everyone. I think this is one of the best articles I have ever seen. I just saw the movie 2 hours ago and I came here to see what the article was like. you guys haven't forgotten anything! marketing, release. An excellent movie and a splendid article!

Why thankyou! The plot's far to long, and there's still a lot of stuff (box office, hopefully awards and expansion of other sections) to come. But I think its good now, and I'm glad to see someone else agrees. Gran2 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the plot is too long. you could lose a few sentances with the bit about the van and the wreacking ball and just say "after a failed attempt at rescuing his family, homer... whatever" and the bit at krusty burger could lose a few words but that's about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)
I agree with the guy before me, i think its just the right amount. EvilHom3r 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Plot summaries need to be under 900 words. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Alientraveller 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn, what happened to the plot? good job on condensing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)

Contradict

First it says it opens worldwide on the 27th. Then under release dates we have several for 25th and several for 26th... It is perhaps fairly normaly to have countries releasing it after the 'worldwide' release but before? Could we at least get a ref for this worldwide release claim, preferbly something official Nil Einne 03:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it says it was released worldwide BY July 27th, not ON. That's when it was released in the USA, only the British date was changed. Gran2 06:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It was released in Australia 26th. Believe me I know. I wanted to skip school to see the very first showing at 10 am.
I know, but I'm pretty sure it was always meant to be the 26th in Aus wasn't it? (I don't know for certain though..) But the British date was moved, it was meant to be July 27th, but it was changed. Gran2 06:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the usual release date of a country. Here in Belgium releases are made on wednesday. So ppl here were able to go and watch it on the 25th.

It wasnt changed. I went to see it in england on the 27th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.162.138 (talk • contribs)

The trailer said "released Worldwide 27th July 2007", the individual preview screening dates and region release dates don't really matter because even the most recent trailer said 27/7/07 Darrenhusted 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So did I, but that doesn't mean the date wasn't changed and it wasn't actually released two days ago. All of the British TV Spots and posters said July 26th, then it got changed to July 25th. Gran2 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this all acedemic since the film has long since been released? If it is essential for the article by all means, but otherwise just say 'the movie was released in most countries on the 27th, however some countries screened a day earlier" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is, that's why no one else had said anything. Darrenhusted 11:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Themes (part one and two)

Themes

One crazy moment of Granpa in church and some "spiritual" journey isn´t a lot to say that it´s concern over religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.28.171 (talk • contribs)

"This books has no answers" (or similarly) ;)--Svetovid 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but such jokes are in The Simpsons all the time, that is not to say that it was "theme" worth to mention.

Umm no, the sources used clearly show it was a theme in the film. Not all film's can have themes sections, so this article having one is only a good thing. Whther you thinks its worth a mention or not is irrelevant, the staff said that it was theme, so it is. Gran2 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried changing it and it gets reversed... Religion is barely mentioned in the movie. As a tool to keep the plot going at the beginning (grandpa going nuts) and a vague thing with the native woman Homer meets.. But you could just as well say fatherhood or family or.. hell.. even public nudity are themes if you're counting religion. And even if religion is a theme someone change it from "Marge's" spiritual journey to "Homer's" (even though he didn't really have one.. it was more of a plot thing to give him an realization he had to go back to Springfield). Cs302b 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)cs302b

So? The source (which is from the producers) says that religion is a theme. Now whether you think its a major part of the film is irelevant, the producers say its a theme, so it is. And as the source says Marge's spiritual journy, we won't be changing it to Homer's. And Marge's journey is unravelling the warning from Grampa, which she thinks is a message from God. Gran2 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
In the source I read, the producers did not say it was a theme. The mention of religion and the environment was made by the writer of the article after watching the first 10 minutes. "...that a man should listen to his wife" was listed as a theme by a producer, though. 171.71.37.103 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Themes

he villainous Russ Cargill, voiced by Albert Brooks, is head of the EPA.[11]

Could someone with an account either remove that from "Themes," or expand on how evil was a theme (while citing sources so it isn't OR)? 171.71.37.103 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, why? What's wrong with it? The theme is the environemt, and the head of the EPA is evil. What's wrong with that? Gran2 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that he's evil (that's OR) and who voiced him belong elsewhere. Read through the section. That sentence doesn't fit. 171.71.37.103 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Its not OR, its quite clearly sourced, and it is just another factor of the environmental theme. Gran2 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Read through the section. Overall, it's poorly organized, but specifically, the sentence in question doesn't fit with the rest of the section. 171.71.37.103 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and I've rewritten the section. Although I see nothing wrong the Cargill clause. Gran2 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some userboxes

They're a little big, but enjoy!

Woohoo!This user thought that The Simpsons Movie was better than ten Super Bowls!

{{User:Scorpion0422/SimpsonsMovieGood}}


d'oh!This user thought that The Simpsons Movie was, without a doubt, the worst movie ever. Rest assured that they were on the Internet within minutes, registering their disgust throughout the world.

{{User:Scorpion0422/SimpsonsMovieBad}}




How about, This user has seen the Simpsons Movie X times, and will be seeing it X times more. Darrenhusted 20:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How about changing the superbowl bit? what about people who arent american and who dont like sport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)

Its a reference to a line in The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show. Gran2 11:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you make a "this user was at the World Premiere" userbox? Sorry... I've been bragging to everyone I know and don't know for the past week. Cs302b 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)cs302b

Voices credited but say nothing

Dan Castellaneta is credited as Kang and Marcia Wallace is credited for Mrs Krabappel, but she doesn't speak. Darrenhusted 20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And? Alientraveller 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Just something I noticed. Darrenhusted 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well are you going to suggest anything to improve the article, or am I going to have to purge this topic as forum-esque? Alientraveller 20:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Marcia Wallace is listed among the cast, but she doesn't actually say anything during the movie. Is this worth noting, it is unusual for cast to get credits during a film but not actually do anything (she even gets her own picture credit with the "Not My Boyfriend" T-Shirt still). The Castellaneta credit is confimation of the Kang appearance being cut. Darrenhusted 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Mrs Krabappel had a song cut from the final draft.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs)
Do you have a source? Because that would be a very useful addition. Gran2 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap...

I've just seen that this was nominated for GAC 9 hours ago... And the guy didn't even put it on here... Gran2 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the same guy who nominated You Only Move Twice for FAC without telling anyone. -- Scorpion0422 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Corporate success

Thanks, I'll try and stick it in. Gran2 16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

With is being so recently released, I am speedy-failing the nomination. This is not a failure based on article content, only stability. I would wait about a month before I re-nominated it so that daily updates on statistics, critical response, etc... will be given a time to cool off. You have the right to contest this at GA review. Best wishes for a future re-nomination!--Esprit15d 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And (as I said to the nominator) is exactly the reason why it was nominated by any of the actual contributors to the page. Thank you. Gran2 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerne Abbas giant

I was in Dorset last week and have a picture of the Homer and the Cerne Abbas giant I took myself. If you think it would add to the Marketing section let me know. JimmyMac82 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Credit Gags

Well, I saw the movie and noticed a few credits gags. First off, near the end they play a few of the same credits, but giving the people japanese names. 2. lisa asks the family if they can wait and see if any animals were harmed. 3. at the end, an "Assistant manager" cleans up the "Theater"

71.183.51.41 01:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So? And there Korean names anyway... Gran2 07:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean they gave them japanese names as a joke? how thick are you? Most of the animation is done in Korea since the show started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)

Dubbed/subtitled?

Are the international versions dubbed or subtitled? — mattrobs 08:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubbed. Gran2 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Of we're going for unsourced statements her then I'll say: Subtitled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.131.68.194 (talk • contribs)
The voice cast have regular dub stand-ins who dub the series, at a guess the same people would have done the film. Darrenhusted 08:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I am living in South Korea, it is subtitled here. This did not seem at all to hinder the film's popularity here, the theater in Seoul was packed with Koreans, and they all loved it, they were laughing all the way out the door. However, I assume the opening in Japan scheduled for next spring has to do with dubbing... Rick 09:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickvaughn (talk • contribs)
In Denmark you can choose between a dubbed and a subtitled version. --Maitch 09:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The important thing to notice here is that international versions are different. The Simpsons movie is dubbed in some places, and not in others. It depends on the traditions of the media in that country/region. I guess a good indication would be to investigate whether the simpsons tv episodes are dubbed or subtitled. In Sweden, it's subtitled, since dubbing is used exculsively for movies and programs directed only at children. In very few cases (Major Disney relases, Harry Potter) are two versions available in theaters. Kriko 14:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose in Europe it`s French dubbed. In Quebec, it`s also French dubbed, but with their own slang. ~~Gamesrcool~~
There's a dub in Finland (I have no idea why, I bet they'll go bankrupt), but also a subtitled version. Finland in other hand does not dub any cartoons (except children's cartoons obviously, not The Simpsons) or TV shows. Tuntis 09:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

I have taken on the task of reviewing the article The Simpsons Movie nominated by Gran2 for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. A full report of the review will be posted when the review process has been completed. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. .:Alex:. 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot of Movie Trailer

I fail to see how this fails WP:FU, as that policy reads-

  • Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
  • Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.

Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So how does it contribute as critical commentary? Alientraveller 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
It shows the marketing techniques used to promote the movie, the same as the other screenshot. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the image has no point at all. What exactly in the article does the image aide, aside from one clause in the plot? It doesn't add anything, not even commentary on the plot. As this has nothing really to do with overall plot of the film. And, in the marketing section, that doesn't mention the scene at all. You may be able to add a Fair Use rationale, but it isn't fair use, it purely a useless decorative image that has no place here other than decoration. And a marketing technique? What that Fox released a trailer? Wow we so need two images for that... So I'm sorry, but the image does not satisfy a claim of fair use. Gran2 22:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Should this be removed?

"As of August 4, 2007 a DVD screener has leaked onto the internet, making it the best quality release to date. Other releases have been camcorder copies and Telesync copies."

Is it appropriate to inform people about illegal download information? Andy120290 23:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. --211.27.216.1 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No it is not appropriate and it has been removed. Gran2 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems appropriate to mention that an actual dvd critics only screen copy of this years biggest movie has been leaked on the internet. JayKeaton 07:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well not really, it wasn't even cited. Also what makes it so notable? Was it actually reported by any news agency? Gran2 08:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be kept in, especially in light of what Bart writes on the chalkboard during the title sequence. Rick 09:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Worst Article Ever

The whole article needs cleanering up, it does need a section for trivia and it does need a section for a possible issue of a sequal. There is loads of stuff missing that it relevent, please rectify this 80.229.169.189 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AVTRIVIA. So frankly you're hardly in a position to comment then. Alientraveller 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I wasn't aware that "cleanering" was a real word, I'll have to use it more often... As for a possible sequel, see WP:RS. Gran2 11:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My grammer has nothing to do with this article. I fail to see why trivia sections should be avoided, they are important80.229.169.189 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read the policy? Because it clearly shows that they are not important. Gran2 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Trivia sections are not needed here and in fact they should be avoided completely. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. These are Wikipedia Policies, and if you fail to recognise them then you should not edit on Wikipedia. .:Alex:. 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
LMAO, grammer. The point is is that the policy says trivia sections are to be avoided.

Anyway, please learn some GRAMMAR. Because that way we won't have to laugh at you. LuGiADude 09:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with a trivia section? I tried to add one and it got wiped... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.245.5 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

LuGiADude, you shouldn't laugh at anyone, that is what we call bullying - something which I take very personally. Hencetalk 18:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, WP:IAR. Policy is not a universal unquestionable response. Not to mention the trivia guideline is anything but steadfast in its language, and especially many Simpsons articles contain trivia sections.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:50, 12/15/2007

Neon Genesis: Evangelion---theme?

While viewing the movie, I was reminded several times throughout of the old Anime: 1. The corporation EPA and their helicopters = NGE's EVA and their large scale assaults + heli's are almost identical 2. Dome = Angel's shields (were they called AT Fields?) 3. Homer's Epiphany = Shinji's numerous experiences, almost identical, with the clapping hands and such, 3.5 the boob-ladie's blowing into Homer's mouth remind me of the NGA's women cleavage and kissing scene (during Shinji's dream?). 4. Homer's pig = Masato's penguin

maybe more? A metal shard 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs a reliable source, otherwise its original research and not appropriate for the article. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no? That's pretty stupid, you're obviously some Anime fanboy finding something out of nothing. So you're implying that a pig is similar to some penguin simply because it's a pet? Ok, well maybe Lasie was based on your anime show, remember the Air Bud? Well, by your logic, it's GOT to be based on it. --71.238.255.214 23:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
A metal shard 05:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)--71.238.255.214 , excuse me? Putting aside your first calling my idea stupid, then attempting to justify it all in one sentence (is it really relevant who I am, even if I were an "Anime fanboy"?), I would like to add that rebutting (is that even a rebuttal?) 1 out of more than 4 potential claims doesn't exactly thoroughly disprove the idea... Now I'll just pretend that your last three sentences are helpful at all, and call them constructive criticism: Please, would it help if I claimed that this film had themes from something YOU were a fanboy of (here, I'll actually say that I'm making the pretense of you being male at all...)? Maybe if you had seen the anime show, watched the movies, played the games, read the manga, or set foot in Japan, you wouldn't be so quick to claim that I was implying anything... hint-hint: maybe I meant exactly what I said. Thanks, MisterHand, but I doubt an RS for such a movie, and indeed, for such a show, would exist anywhere, at least currently.
You know I actually think it could be a complete coincidence, but it seems so very close. Hopefully the DVD will provide a clue. Gran2 06:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
While watching the movie, I also made the connection between Homer's epiphany and Shinji's Instrumentality. The two scenes are near identical. However the rest of the aformentioned connections are absurd. Many movies have pets and helicopters, so does that mean they are all referencing Evangelion, and comparing the dome to an AT field is complete nonsense. One is designed to keep people in, the other is designed to keep people out. Juts adding my own two cents here. Hellspawn 12:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I too thought there were some similarities between Homer's epiphany and Shinji's instrumentality. Didn't see any other similarities, though. -Figbah the Weight (216.178.51.147 06:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
Hehe, so it's not just me then. That's good to know. I'll have to agree with MisterHand though; until we hear it from someone "in the know", it might just be a coincidence and is "original research". Gaurav 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sequel

Wow, i thought Wikipedia was the best resource for information ever but i was wrong, if anybody stayed for the end credits to this movie they would see that "apparently" Maggie's first word was Sequel, even though her first word was Dada, but none of the Simpsons family knew about it.

And that should be included in the article because? Its just a joke, trivia and nothing to with the plot, unless there is actually confirmation they will make a sequel, its has no place in the article. Gran2 20:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I stayed up to the end of the credits. I even saw the squeaky voice nerd washing the cinema. I know Maggie said "Sequel", but it proves nothing. It`s only a small question so everyone may wonder if there will be one or not. Here what this section would look like:

Is a sequel possible? As Maggie says the word "sequel" during the credits, everyone may wonder about this. But as no resource or other details are available, the sequel, if there is one, is still secret.

~~Gamesrcool~~

I think that someone should put it at the end of the plot and say that a sequel was REFERENCED to, but not confirmed. LuGiADude 09:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a section on a possible sequel should be added; it's a widely discussed topic, very relevant to the film, and with Fox behind the wheel, it's almost certain there will be one at some point. We could even feature the image of Maggie's utterance as a screenshot. I think it could serve as a nice, short section. Nqnpipnr 23:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But the only reliable source is Al Jean saying that there arn't any plans for a sequel at the moment, so what's the point in having a section until a film is confirmed. Wikipedia is not a place for rumours I'm afraid, no matter how likely a sequel is, until there is some official Fox word on it, I don't think there's need for a section. Gran2 07:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Could a "Memorable jokes" section be placed?

I saw the movie two times, once at the premiere Friday 27th and the following Wednesday, and I suppose, with the same spoiler advertisement and serious writing, that there should be a section where many memorable jokes could be told. By example, the famous joke when Marge asks Homer why the silo is overfilled after only 2 days. Well, there would be a spoiler advertisement. The funniest jokes only. I know it would be a somehow big section. But it would be great. ~~Gamesrcool~~

No, sorry. It would just be trivial retelling of the movie, and whose to say which jokes are notable? Wikiquote is the place for memorable, there's a link to it at the bottom of the page. Gran2 22:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the ...

Spoiler warning??? --66.169.9.118 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:SPOIL. Alientraveller 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you expect when you see the Plot section in an article? No spoilers?...--Svetovid 20:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Not only that but the plot has been trimmed of most jokes, so they are not spoiled. Darrenhusted 15:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

Who deleted my goofs section of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukifelth (talk • contribs)

Reference List

Since the reference list was long, I decide to make it so you have to scroll up and down to see all the references. Mr. C.C. 06:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, because the actual scroll ref template was deleted for a reason. I personally don't see the benefit of it, why does it really matter whether there is a long list of references at the bottom? Gran2 07:21, 11 August 2007

(UTC)

And why are there no refrences, or explanations like there are for the regular episodes? Just because it's a movie doesnt mean it should have no explanations?

Illegal Download?

Hello wikipedians and editors,

I went to the source that the simpsons movie is illegally download such as torrent, limewire, ares with basic etc. From what i'm saying is this film is illegally download without permission to the owner of fox? Rickengothic 2:19 am, August 12 2007 (UTC)

All movies are pirated sadly, so it's not notable. Alientraveller 11:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The movie leaked in DVD-quality (DVDSCR) 2 weeks after Premiere. This is quite notable, millions of people watched the movie 6 months before commercial DVD release.
I think it's not especially notable. Millions is uncited and unconfirmable (a download isn't a viewing). Even the screener page doesn't mention notable screeners. 171.71.37.207 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
These kinds of leaks happen all the time these days... not especially notable. Hill of Beans 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I found the article to be throughly informative and well-sourced. FA status is not far behind. The Filmaker 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gran2 07:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Article is unclear

The article doesn't clearly state why the government decided on murdering the residents of the town instead of simply evacuating them from the waste and disposing of the town that way.

-G

Lol. Alientraveller 21:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't a really big deal, but I noticed that EPA has quotation marks around it. Is the creator of this article under the impression that the EPA does not exist? It stands for the Environmental Protection Agency and it is real, not just a gag. I shall remove the quotes. Mooski Magnus 22:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

He probably misplaced the quotes. Environmental "Protection" Agency is what he meant to say. -Figbah 216.178.51.147 06:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Because he went mad with power JayKeaton 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Shouldn't this article have a spoiler alert? -Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by JH17 (talk • contribs) 17:45, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

No... Gran2 17:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bart

Did any critics say anything about the nude Bart scene? Bart's penis was actually drawn on. It was for a second, but it was visible. --69.67.231.25 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be mentioned. See also Talk:Bart_Simpson#Bart_Nude.--Patrick 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It is mentioned briefly in the release section (ref number 77) and that's probabley enough. And by the way 69.67.231.25, I think people noticed. --Simpsons fan 66 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Music

What about Greenday, if i'm correct they play the tune to The Simpsons at the end. souldnt this be added as it's also the movies soundtrack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.37.10 (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Anyway, Green Day playing the theme is already mentioned in the article. Gran2 12:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think he meant The Simpsons Movie: The Music. It wasn't part of that soundtrack. -- Scorpion0422 02:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

I was thinking that maybe we should add the image of the cover of the official soundtrack, or possibly even the cover of the Green Day single (this one) because it seems to me that the music should be represented in some form here. Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 02:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we really argue that its anything outside of decorative? If so, then I'd use the Green Day image, because that illustrates their single and the their guest starring. Gran2 06:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Does the plot really need to appear in the rushed, two-paragraph format? I wrote an extended version, and I felt it was fine; it's not a detail-by-detail synopsis; it just covers the basic information. It's also more in the style of Featured Article summaries, which tend to feature a bit more than two paragraphs. Nqnpipnr 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe other articles do have longer than two paragraphs, but does that means that this page has to? I personally believe that the plot is least important part of an article, and the shorter (whilst still summarising what happens in a film) the better. Some films obvously have more complex plots (Pulp Fiction for example) and thus require something longer. But this plot features of the truly main events of the film, without mentioning jokes. But hell, I don't own this page, if other people think it could in some by expanded, (maybe discuss it here first) then it probably could. I just think its okay now, that's all. Gran2 07:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My description wasn't a run-by of every joke in the film; it doesn't even feature the Itchy and Scratchy cartoon. I know there are some truly ridiculous plot listings out there that cover every last detail, but mine really wasn't like that. Nqnpipnr 12:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Guidelines reccommend that we shouldn't get into too much detail about the plot. Just to cover the pasic vital parts of the story. Reginmund 16:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Winning Short Film

There should be some link (at least a reference) to the short film that won Springfield VT the premiere rights. Oh, and it wasn't a fox competition, it was a USA Today competition, I believe. cs302b

USA Today is used as a reference, there site should have the video on it, if not big deal. And yes it was a Fox competition, that was run through the USA Today website, as the sources clearly state. Gran2 14:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

DVD release

I was wondering about the the DVD release of the movie. Is there a date set yet? According to video eta it says December 18, but that seems late to be releasing a movie so close to Christmas.Video ETA link Natjo1986 07:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Its released in America on December 18th, see the "Release" section of the article for more details. Gran2 07:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Environmentalism

An emotional, radical environmental angle is pushed throughout the film to where it is almost a propaganda piece, and this fact is being almost wholly overlooked in the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that proves this? And there IS a Themes section. -- Scorpion0422 03:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Radical enviornmental angle? Propaganda piece? Would you feel more at home at Conservapedia? Reginmund 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Conservapedia, The Simpsons was "created by "Life Is Hell" cartoonist Matt Groening." Now you know. -- Scorpion0422 04:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that I did add some criticism of the environmentalism theme, as well as an expansion of that section today. Alientraveller 22:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Simpsons_Movie/Archive_1&oldid=1053804201"