The Simpsons movie - leaked footage

Darren Dirt · August 03, 2006, 04:40:43 PM

...okay not really a "leak", since it was apparently shown at a Comic Con somewhere.

But not a "preview", pretty much just a storyboard (a couple of them -- notice 2 Flash movie players)...

http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/07/simpsons-movie-previews.html

a) it's animated (i think there were rumours it might be live action)
b) it takes place somewhere cold (at least the first scene does)
c) Homer pisses off everybody (hence an "angry mob") so now the Mystery intrigues us, oooo...

and the apparent release date (expected) is 27Jul2007.

Lazybones · August 03, 2006, 05:04:59 PM

Interesting, but I stopped following the Simpsons over a year ago.. Maybe the movie will have a plot...... unlike most of the random crap from the last few years.

Melbosa · August 03, 2006, 05:28:40 PM

Boooo, I still love The Simpsons

Darren Dirt · October 11, 2006, 05:21:16 PM

Well, looks like the IMDB entry and the Official Trailer are out there for fans to enjoy and speculate over...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462538/
http://www.imdb.com/rg/title-tease/trailers/title/tt0462538/trailers

Mr. Analog · October 11, 2006, 06:41:43 PM

"Uh oh! We better get started!" Hah!

I can't wait to see what the final rating will be and/or what's left on the cutting room floor (Comic Book Guy gets powers, Lenny & Karl in exploding motorbike accident, topless Marge, the possibilities are endless!)

Shayne · October 11, 2006, 07:22:55 PM

I anticipate something very similar to the Family Guy movie, 3 stitched together episodes that people will have to pay to see instead of seeing for free on Global every Sunday.

Darren Dirt · October 11, 2006, 08:51:55 PM

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 11, 2006, 06:41:43 PM
I can't wait to see what the final rating will be and/or what's left on the cutting room floor (Comic Book Guy gets powers, Lenny & Karl in exploding motorbike accident, topless Marge, the possibilities are endless!)

No, man, don't limit yourself -- how about topless Marge "with" Lenny & Karl -- and by "with" I mean avec, if ya know what I mean, nudge nudge ne dire pas plus!

Mr. Analog · October 11, 2006, 10:16:53 PM

Who pays for movies anymore, seriously?

Thorin · October 12, 2006, 02:05:41 AM

Ummm... <timidly puts up hand> But generally it's for kids' movies that we saw in the theater, downloaded a copy of while we were waiting for the DVD to come, and know that our kids will watch a hundred times...

Wait, don't you own hundreds upon hundreds of DVDs yourself?

Mr. Analog · October 12, 2006, 05:50:26 AM

Yeah, but I stopped going to the Theatre regularily a few years ago mostly because if I go once, I've paid for half the DVD, and I might not like the movie.

I'm condoning piracy in this case, Hollywood is making it tough for me to justify slapping money down to go see overpaid crybabies make marginal movies.

I seem to recall ticket prices being around $7 back in '98, if this inflation calculator is to be believed if the price of the ticket had been simply following inflation (and IF it was seven bucks give or take) we should be paying somewhere around $8.41, not $12.

Darren Dirt · October 12, 2006, 08:32:10 AM

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 12, 2006, 05:50:26 AM
Yeah, but I stopped going to the Theatre regularily a few years ago mostly because if I go once, I've paid for half the DVD, and I might not like the movie.

I'm condoning piracy in this case, Hollywood is making it tough for me to justify slapping money down to go see overpaid crybabies make marginal movies.

I seem to recall ticket prices being around $7 back in '98, if this inflation calculator is to be believed if the price of the ticket had been simply following inflation (and IF it was seven bucks give or take) we should be paying somewhere around $8.41, not $12.

Well, you wanna talk about a bargain? How's a twonie to see 30 movies (most of them ~5 minutes long)

Shayne · October 12, 2006, 08:34:23 AM

People's resistance to see movies in theater is going to be the death of the block buster uber movie. Don't get me wrong, I'm generally not a fan of these movies and find myself preferring independent and foreign.

Mr. Analog · October 12, 2006, 08:40:04 AM

Quote from: Shayne on October 12, 2006, 08:34:23 AM
People's resistance to see movies in theater is going to be the death of the block buster uber movie. Don't get me wrong, I'm generally not a fan of these movies and find myself preferring independent and foreign.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, it might not be bad for the movie industry to suffer a recession of sorts. I don't think the industry can die per se, but it will have to go through some rigerous changes to grow.

Darren Dirt · October 12, 2006, 09:15:15 AM

Googletube and iTunes videos = the wave of the future, even for the Big Studios/Networks. I predict that a *lot* of people will be willing to plop down $1.99 thru Paypal to watch a medium-quality version of some "Hollywood blockbuster", whereas they would neither watch nor DVDpurchase said film unless and until the reviews come in to say "it's teh r0x0r$"... of course all this could be resolve by hiring decent screenwriters and decent directors and decent actors to tell actually interesting and unique stories. We need more Kurt Wimmers and Joss Whedens, more visionaries to push the limits of "blockbuster" territory away from 1) military ground combat/rescue of POW/corrupt General, 2) police buddies/corruption, 3) mob guy gain a conscience/seeks revenge

Shayne · October 12, 2006, 10:11:03 AM

$1.99? Uhh...iTunes movies are a heck of a lot more then that. I don't honestly see movies dropping below the $10.00 barrier for a new release for a long time.

Darren Dirt · October 12, 2006, 10:47:38 AM

Quote from: Shayne on October 12, 2006, 10:11:03 AM
$1.99? Uhh...iTunes movies are a heck of a lot more then that. I don't honestly see movies dropping below the $10.00 barrier for a new release for a long time.

My point exactly.

Making a less-than-perfect version available for $1.99 during opening week would encourage the would-be pirates to be honest, and the risk averse stay at home folks to take a smaller financial chance on the film -- with the hope that those who enjoy it might actually want to "take their friends out to see it again". If the movie is actually GOOD, those who took the chance would actually GO during those uber-important opening weeks, boosting the box office numbers for quality and reducing to ZERO the crap offerings.

As a recent example, I saw V for Vendetta in the theatres, twice. And I wanted to go it a third time with folks here on the forum (timing and availability was an issue). IMHO folks who didn't see it on the Big Screen missed a lot of the impact of certain visual scenes, and the same goes for great comedies that nowadays people wait until DVD before seeing (I wish I had seen Mr. & Mrs. Smith in the theatres, for example, but the big ticket price and the LCD* trailer made me skeptical). There's just something about being surrounded by hundreds of others, all sharing the same emotional ride (thrills, anger, sadness, laughter) that the high price of admission has been discouraging.

Heck, there's nothing stopping the studios from offering the viewers of the "$1.99" low res version a dollar discount off the theatre admission, right? There's a deal -- it's like "try before you buy". Simple idea, go ahead and pass that one around, I claim no copyright on it -- DRM free.

*LCD=Lowest Common Denominator

Shayne · October 12, 2006, 11:01:29 AM

Interesting idea. You should patent that

Darren Dirt · October 12, 2006, 11:09:55 AM

To patent or claim copyright is to seek the "legal protection" of the state's "justice system".

No thanks.

(Why I would say that should be pretty clear based on my previous postings re. politics and other such nonsense

)

Shayne · October 12, 2006, 11:24:51 AM

Hmmm. I dont understand a non-capitalist stance.

Darren Dirt · October 12, 2006, 11:30:03 AM

You're mixing up "state capitalism" with "free-market capitalism". The former is all we've ever experienced or seen first-hand; the latter is something we've never experienced in the real world on any enduring, wide scale.

A market is by definition the absence of government involvement in the free exchange of products and services (e.g. Wikipedia summarizes it as "a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange of goods or services."). Patent law and copyright law are by definition the government involving itself -- even if both parties do not wish that (i.e. opposite to the "voluntary" element of the exchange).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
"The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the claimed invention. The rights given to the patentee do not include the right to make, use, or sell the invention themselves. The patentee may have to comply with other laws and regulations to make use of the claimed invention."
Not exactly the kind of deal I'd willfully enter into.

(esp. see also "exclusive right" -- "...a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit...")

The state "grants" one party the "exclusive right" to do something, thus preventing (by violent force, natch) others to do the same... But wait! By definition, any right is just a power that is either inherent or delegated (granted) -- and that power not inherent is "granted" TO a party who desires that power, BY another party who already currently possesses that power. So how does the "state" possess that magical "right" of "preventing or excluding" free people from doing peaceful things?

A bit clearer now?

Shayne · October 12, 2006, 01:55:30 PM

What im saying is you should patent it, and then license the patent to movie companies for many dollars.

Darren Dirt · October 12, 2006, 02:04:01 PM

I know... but you see, what I am saying is that we have been brainwashed, lulled asleep by words like "patent" and "copyright", without really comprehending and coping with their meanings. Who and how would this "patent" be en"force"d? To patent it is to invite/involve a third party, to grant *it* permission to do something that I personally do not have the right to do... I'm not saying I wouldn't want to make a profit off of some product, service, or idea that others find valuable. What I am saying is that, through the use of patents etc., though my goal would not be immoral, the means to achieve it would be.

Shayne · October 12, 2006, 02:21:31 PM

Sometimes you gotta kick a few kittens to get ahead...

Mr. Analog · October 12, 2006, 02:27:06 PM

Cova · October 12, 2006, 04:53:39 PM

And on the subject of kitty pictures....

Mr. Analog · October 12, 2006, 06:31:25 PM

Ha!

Good or Bad? I don't know...

Thorin · October 13, 2006, 11:33:36 AM

Aww, that poor Skyline

Tom · October 13, 2006, 02:47:01 PM

I feel more for those poor domo-kuns that were forced to pose with the skyline

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE DOMO-KUNs?