Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:24 pm**

Yeah, pretty much a 90-minute version of the TV show, but that's not a bad thing, in my view. I know it's chic to have not watched the show for the last ten years, but all I can say to that is, if it's true for you, you've missed alot of great laughs. I watch the show pretty much all the time (though I don't kick myself if I miss one). Nothing can be expected to maintain its novelty level over almost two decades, but this show has managed a pretty high level of quality control. (As opposed to, say, Saturday Night Live, which is forever being touted as returning to its former glory but has never come within a country mile of its '75-'80 heyday)

Anyway, not much to say about the movie. It would have been greater had it risen to some couldn't-do-this-on-TV level a la South Park Uncut. But a worthy entry in a great pop culture story.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:04 pm**

Very funny but redundant and slight. Not a single episode in the show's legendary first six years that isn't better, probably seventh too. "Spider-Pig"? Awesome.

Posted: **Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:56 pm**

Solid effort, but it still felt like a TV show gone big screen to me. My favorite running Joke was "Home Sweet Home"

Posted: **Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:47 pm**

vote and discuss

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:24 pm**

Ahh. But it's the first word her parents heard.

She uttered her first word when no one was around. (Elizabeth Taylor provided her voice).

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:15 pm**

Who couldn't think it was funny after seeing the Dome Sweet Dome part earlier. It was the perfect set up and the Nome, Alaska bit just made it more so.

And the first thing I said after the "Sequel" bit was: But that's not Maggie's first word...it's her second.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:24 pm**

I wouldn't question the ignorance of the audience I saw the show with. During the credits, after the joke about a sequel, the man behind me honest to god turned to his companion to ask what a sequel was. The audience I saw the film with found the physical and bodily function humor funny, but did not appreciate any of the more politically or culturally aimed humor amusing at all.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:16 pm**

FilmFan720 wrote:And OG, I too was the only one in a packed house who got the Nome Sweet Nome joke...I actually heard one guy ask "what?" during it. Guess they don't teach Geography like they used to.

More likely that most people just didn't think the joke was that funny.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:28 pm**

I just got back from the film, and am glad to be part of the consensus here. The film is gosh-darned funny, but it is just one extended episode. Never did we get the great cinematic expanse of a television show that South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut gave us. Whereas that film excelled above the TV series, there are a half-dozen Simpsons episodes that outshine this here.

It was nice, however, having the mixture of heart-felt and hilarious the series had so often in the early years.

And OG, I too was the only one in a packed house who got the Nome Sweet Nome joke...I actually heard one guy ask "what?" during it. Guess they don't teach Geography like they used to.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:27 am**

The Original BJ wrote:But I am going to disagree on one point: I think Brad Bird will have nothing to worry about on Oscar night.

One thing you're forgetting is that Brad Bird has already won an Oscar. David Silverman, who is actually a very well respected in the animation world, hasn't. (He's worked for both Pixar and Blue Sky Studios, having worked on Oscar nominees Monsters, Inc. and Ice Age, and has won multiple Emmys for The Simpsons)

Isn't it ironic, though, that Brad Bird worked on "The Simpsons" from its beginning until 1997, around the time the show started going downhill. He even directed two early episodes. The Oscar race, it seems, is a battle between two Simpsons veterans!

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:44 am**

I don't think the film was nearly as rapid-fire as the Television series was in its early days. Most of the sight gags and humor was very noticeable whereas on the show, you often had visual cues in the background while other humor was going on in the foreground. It's like they dumbed most of the humor down for a wider audience (though, apparently, I was the only one who got "Nome Sweet Nome" in the entire theater).

It was just over an hour and a half but did feel like one long television episode (the to be continued part helped cement that feeling). But I was not nearly as impressed with this film as I was Ratatouille. I laughed a lot, but was still remiss at not getting a more early-Simpsons feel.

And one major factor that will work against the film is that a good portion of the animation was done in Korea by Korean animators. If American animators refuse to recognize motion-capture as animation because it eliminates a goodly amount of their jobs, then I doubt they'll want to recognize a film that exported those jobs to another country.

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:40 pm**

I enjoyed The Simpsons Movie. The narrative is no great shakes, but the sight gags come fast, the political humor is sharp and oft-hilarious, and there's more than one heartfelt moment.

But I am going to disagree on one point: I think Brad Bird will have nothing to worry about on Oscar night.

At less than 90 minutes, The Simpsons Movie never wears out its welcome, but it still feels more like an extended television episode than a film. I can't imagine there won't be a bias against this "tv"-factor. (It goes without saying that Ratatouille has the astonishing visuals in its corner as well.)

Plus, I think The Simpsons Movie will absolutely NOT appeal as much to older voters as Ratatouille. Naked boys skateboarding and silos filled with pig crap don't exactly seem the stuff that Oscars are made of. But cute anthropomorphic animals? I think Ratatouille's got the trophy in the bag.

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:17 am**

If it's a race between two such entertaining, smart and enjoyable animated films like Ratatouille and the Simpsons Movie, I say it's going to be a win-win no matter who finishes first in the end.

And all the people seeking that "one heartfelt moment" need look no further than Marge's broken-hearted videotape to Homer. In all the years of the Simpsons, there has never been such a raw, naked and vulnerable moment as that, and Julie Kavner's voice acting was simply spot-on. Never before, with no other sequence in 18 years, has the Simpsons made me feel uncomfortable, nor has it made me cry. Until now. For all the hilarious visual and script gags (Spider-Pig is an instant classic), it is that moment of raw emotions which makes this a Great movie.

Posted: **Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:16 pm**

Saw it last night. Loved it (*** 1/2). It's definately going to be a close race between The Simpsons Movie and Ratatouille.

Personally I'd go with Ratatouille, but then again Cars won just about every animation prize possible before eventually losing the Oscar to Happy Feet, in spite of Cars having better reviews and much higher box-office (probably because John Lasseter already had an Oscar and George Miller didn't). It's possible that the more mature Simpsons Movie will win over the older voters more easily than the kid-friendly Ratatouille will. I also think it's possible that both movies will receive screenplay nominations.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:26 pm**

Franz Ferdinand wrote:I could honestly see this movie winning the Animated Film Oscar simply for its continued cultural relevance and a sense of "well, they have won pretty much every award in the field of television, why not an Oscar as well?"

But Ratatouille is better received and too darn good.

But then again, Brad Bird already has an Oscar.