REVIEW THREAD -- The Simpsons Movie (possible spoilers within)

Topic: The Matrix...It's like it's from another millennium

Users: @SuzyQ

irc.simpworks.com

[Shockwave]

So I think they've been trying to rehab the show - to indulge my inner Nelson the last three seasons have only MILDLY sucked versus the TOTAL suck of the Scully years - there've been MORE THAN ONE GOOD EPISODE A SEASON *GASP*.  In other words, it's been getting better, it's just gonna take awhile for the show to recover from the massive damage that's been delt it.

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism there. I've stopped watching now, so it's hard for me to truly judge, but from what I've heard of newer episodes and what people have said, the show is just as --if not moreso-- stagnant and bland as ever. Hell, even the people at NoHomers, ones who were not 3 or 4 years ago strong defenders of Al Jean, have been saying that the show is a snorefest these days. Some have claimed it to be worse than the Scully-era and even also stopped watching. The show is basically dead to me in it's current form, and as long as Al Jean is in charge I can't see it getting better.

[Lisabella]

Eh, different strokes for different folks.  I think it's a bit better than "bland" nowadays, but I'll take blandness over the (majority of) really offensive stuff that went down in the Scully era.

[A Spy in Mancunia]

but I'll take blandness over the (majority of) really offensive stuff that went down in the Scully era.

I agree. Of course, neither is optimal, to say the least. (I've hardly watched anything since Season 13, so I can't give my own opinion on the show's state.)

Still, if even the media critics are picking up on the badness, we might see a change in our lifetime.

[Stretch Dude]

Some have claimed it to be worse than the Scully-era and even also stopped watching.

It is wise not to listen to those who have been consumed by hate.

(Translation: It still ain't Classic Era good, but it's far from Scully Era bad. I generally agree with Missy's stance.)

[Don Cobra]

Now I have a valid opinion on the movie! Yes, I avoided stating anything about the so called 'movie' until I had actually watched it. So now I can, and I'm as confident as ever that this so called 'movie' shows why they shouldn't have made it, after all: it doesn't state anything. And it is a fact that: adding fanciful 3D effects; adding lazy meta-humour; putting the word "MOVIE" everywhere, from the actual title to the advertising posters; and throwing the results on a big screen does not automatically transform your feature length TV special into a film. It doesn't work like that. And what's worse: what could they have possibly made to effectively turn their TV special into a film, what with the series being almost 20 years old already and still running? Well, whatever it could be, it isn't this. I don't think I can say they didn't try. They probably did - otherwise, why would they throw that obvious meta-joke after the Itchy & Scratchy feature? Yes, they probably did: being cynical without being confident is just dumb, even if it doesn't work.

Ok, so counting with the fact that this is not a film. And also counting the fact that I watched the movie dubbed, against my will, which might have decreased the enjoyability considerably. So, it did attend to my expectations. I'm just afraid that if I had walked into the theatre with good expectations, it wouldn't have. Yes, so I already knew the plot superficially beforehand. Yet, I couldn't have expected a more banal story, supported by a mesh of subplot over subplot over subplot over an abyss of superfluousness. Heck, talk about stating nothing. I hate this kind of argument, but this was one of the most "crowd-pleaser" things I've ever see. They played it safe and cool, just so that everyone would like it. They've taken too many risks already; now it's time to settle down and be friendly like every dinosaur rock band we still have. But how can one be crowd-pleasing and cynical at the same time? Did anyone really wear the cap at Homer's meta-joke at the beginning, or did it sound really, really desperate? Did they really need to introduce a shallow, hollow character just to give Lisa the slightest importance in the plot?

I can sort of see why the reviews have been so positive amongst critics and media and suchlike - the thing did exactly what they wanted it to do. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the TV series became famous for not doing that. Maybe it was all an illusion? Maybe the show did trick us all along into thinking it was more than it was. It's an alternate theory, I guess: either the mask has fallen, or they've become dinosaurs. I don't know which is worse. All I know is that, hooray, now I have a valid opinion!

As for the interesting part... How exciting it is to go to the cinema in a shopping mall that's been partially burnt down just a few months before?

EDIT: in other news... DAMN ADVERTISERS.

[A Spy in Mancunia]

That was a refreshing read! (No, I'm not being sarcastic.) And my commiserations for having to watch it dubbed. I was half thinking that Swedish cinema was going to do that too (they have this tendency to regard everything animated as children's films), but they didn't sink that low, fortunately.

I can sort of see why the reviews have been so positive amongst critics and media and suchlike - the thing did exactly what they wanted it to do.

Personally, I think it was so popular because it rose from the level of mind-numbing mediocrity of the show's latest few years.

I thought Homer's meta-joke right at the start was lame, though I might have found it funnier if it hadn't been spoiled to me by a review. My theory is that they did it because "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut" already did the meta-humour thing of having the characters go and see a film based on their favourite TV series. Yes, South Park already did it.

Seems we agree about Colin. *Can't* the writers not give Lisa a love-interest who is either damaged goods and/or jerks (Ralph, Hugh, Nelson, Milhouse) or a bland Gary Stu who apes all her interests (Thelonius, Colin)? Because, you know, it's not that important that eight-year-olds have boyfriends... they might as well not try.

I suppose Hugh is the most interesting one, since he started out as a perfect guy (if a lot more interesting than, say, Thelonius) and turned out to be a jerk of the lowest order. Dunno if that defeats my model or not.