Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:41 pm**

Lots of money.

I don't get it. I really don't.

Yes, last season marked a return for The Simpsons as they were funny again after 3 long boring years. However, after 13 years do they have enough stories and yuks to warrant charging $10 (approx. average) for a movie that's essentially three episodes?

Do the people who paid to see this movie not understand that The Simpsons is on TV every day for free?

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:06 pm**

I could have watched X-Files reruns instead of the movie too, but I didn't. I don't get your argument.

Movie has good ratings.

One response:

"Why pay for something you can see on TV for free?" Homer Simpson himself asks the obvious. As one of the dolts who shelled out the "do'h!" for his film, my only defense to that question is, "Because the Simpsons make me laugh."

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:27 pm**

What I'm saying is the typical American family is spending roughly $40 on tickets and then probably another $20 on concessions to see three episodes of something that's on TV for free.

Yes, it's different because these "episodes" aren't on TV, but they'll be on DVD in December for $12-20 and available to rent for $2-4 that same month.

(I rented the X-Files movie, I'll do the same with its sequel and The Simpsons film.)

It doesn't matter if it got good ratings. Ratings mean shit. Just because Ebert or Harry K. liked the film doesn't mean you and your family will. ET and Star Wars were both panned by critics. Usually, the highest grossing films of the year aren't the highest rated movies.

I do get seeing the film if you're a Simpsons fanatic, I just didn't think so many people were fanatics. Of course, now that I'm thinking about it, Godzilla (Shitty American version) made $99 million it's first weekend and that was ALL fanatics. It'll be interesting to see what the film does in terms of business after this weekend.

P.S. "One response" doesn't count when the guy claims to have cried...during The Simpsons...

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:03 pm**

So... just cuz you wouldn't do it, other people are dumb?

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:40 pm**

That's usually my assumption.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:58 pm**

The problem I see, Leisher, is that by your arguement no one would go to the theaters anymore, since everything comes out on DVD later anyway. And movie spinoffs from TV series shouldn't exist. But what about the Star Trek movies, Serenity, the South Park and Aqua Teen Hunger Force movies, and that sort of thing? Are there none of those you went to see in the theater?

Edited By TPRJones on 1185926578

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:04 pm**

I saw Leisher's point being that the movie wouldn't be bringing anything new to the table except a big screen, which for this type of simple animated feature isn't really a requirement. I mean, have they opened on any IMAX screens? There are movies on which I would go out of my way to see an IMAX version, but the Simpsons movie aint one of them.

So no, unless I was with a group of people who were seeing it and it weas a social situation, I would never pay $20 + $8.75 for a large pop and small popcorn to see it.

Now, I did see the Aqua Teen movie in a matinee, but I was hoping to hear plenty of profanity, which I got. So I dunno.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:04 am**

I saw Leisher's point being that the movie wouldn't be bringing anything new to the table except a big screen, which for this type of simple animated feature isn't really a requirement. I mean, have they opened on any IMAX screens? There are movies on which I would go out of my way to see an IMAX version, but the Simpsons movie aint one of them.

Exactly. What does The Simpsons movie have that the show doesn't have?

The problem I see, Leisher, is that by your arguement no one would go to the theaters anymore, since everything comes out on DVD later anyway.

Not true. I'm only arguing in the case of something like this that is available for free everyday on TV on multiple channels.

And movie spinoffs from TV series shouldn't exist. But what about the Star Trek movies, Serenity, the South Park and Aqua Teen Hunger Force movies, and that sort of thing? Are there none of those you went to see in the theater?

If it's on TV, I haven't seen it in the theater.

Serenity doesn't count as the series was over, not that I saw it in the theater anyway.

Again, I get it for fanatics of shows. I get it when shows have been cancelled and they take the story to film, ala The X-Files, Serenity, and possibly Lost. However, I don't get bringing an existing product to film, without changing anything, and people paying for it.

At least with South Park they added shitloads of cursing and musical numbers. They took it to a level they couldn't go on TV.

Star Trek actually shit on its fans with their movies. They brought better effects to the table, but also did more character development within 90 minutes than they would do in an entire season. That sucked. It being a movie forced the producers into thinking they had to really push the envelope to make it special.

Then in the final "Fuck You", they canceled the #1 rated show in syndication because they thought it'd help their box office receipts.

That's what I worry about with TV shows that go to film while they're still on TV. They have to rush the storyline and do "big events' rather than letting things play out over time. On top of that, if they think they can charge you for something rather than give it away for free, then they'll take a chance and cancel a ratings giant for a few dollars more...

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:12 am**

South Park movie sucked ass.

While I disagree with you, that movie does support your notion that people shouldn't pay for TV shows as movies.

Do you know they didn't add anything for the movie? Make anything different?

Edited By TheCatt on 1185981180

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:28 pm**

The South Park movie was brilliant.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:33 pm**

GORDON wrote:The South Park movie was brilliant.

Oh, hell. I can feel this flame war coming on.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:41 pm**

It was a movie which made fun of idiots using a movie as an excuse for the ills of society... and it was criticized by people who used the movie as an excuse for the ills of society.

Additionally, the movie was about a bunch of underage kids whose parents allowed them to go to an R-rated movie, and it was criticized by a bunch of parents who let their kids see it, an R-rated movie.

And...... a whole lot more.

All preemptive.

With snappy musical numbers which, in my opinion, had melodies that could have come out of any disney movie.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:41 pm**

While I disagree with you, that movie does support your notion that people shouldn't pay for TV shows as movies.

Maybe you disagree because that's not exactly my "notion"?

As I said, there are instances where a movie based on a TV show is fine, and there are instances when I think it's stupid for consumers to be sucked into it.

If it does stuff they couldn't do on the show or if the show is no longer on TV, I'm fine with it. Hell, if you're a huge fan of the show and refuse to miss anything, I get going to see it in the theater.

For a casual fan to go see a movie that is really just 3 episodes of a show they can see for free daily and wait six months to see the movie...that's dumb.

Maybe it's just this one movie that irks me so much, I don't know. The big screen is for movies not 13 year old TV shows where someone decided to cash in on their audience.

I would've been annoyed had Family Guy done their movie while the show was still on too.

That reminds me, Fox ran the Family Guy movie as three episodes. I wonder if they'll do the same with The Simpsons movie or if they'll show it as a full length film?

I'm betting film first, then episodes in syndication.

P.S. South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut was great. It was also an Oscar winner.

Edited By Leisher on 1185990226

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:29 pm**

Leisher wrote:P.S. South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut was great. It was also an Oscar winner.

Whoa, "Crash" won an Oscar, too. Doesn't mean it's worth seeing.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:45 pm**

Whoa, "Crash" won an Oscar, too. Doesn't mean it's worth seeing.

A fair point. Crash was complete and utter dog shit.

Ditto for Traffic.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:55 pm**

South Park movie was like Spanish film after the fall of Franco. People could suddenly do movies about drugs, prostitution, death, and with cursing... so they did. Again and again. Without any point whatsoever.

The movie was just plain dumb.

Seriously, it may have been entertaining to twelve year olds who didn't know better, but that's about it.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:19 pm**

It wasn't pointless, I listed two specific points of the movie, above.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:06 pm**

Leisher wrote:
Whoa, "Crash" won an Oscar, too. Doesn't mean it's worth seeing.
A fair point. Crash was complete and utter dog shit.

Ditto for Traffic.

Bah. "Traffic" is at least watchable.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:43 pm**

Bah. "Traffic" is at least watchable.

I guess it is...if the sound is off.

And every other movie, tv show, and video game ever made is unavailable to you.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:20 pm**

GORDON wrote:Now, I did see the Aqua Teen movie in a matinee, but I was hoping to hear plenty of profanity, which I got. So I dunno.

I'll watch the Simpsons, assuming there are a few gratuitous sex scenes and/or full frontal nudity.

That Marge Simpson is hott! Probably not work safe)

Welcome to Thunderdome

The Simpsons box office haul