Talk:The Simpsons Movie/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unmerge this article and the "The Simpsons" article 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it's there, as can be seen in this video capture of it  -Kaizersoze 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The teaser trailer 

message: 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)
replies: text: I moved the quotes over to Wikiquote si»abhorreo»T 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Quotes section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zimmer or Elfman 

message: 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)
thread_title: Oakley & Weinstein

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Speculative? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Speculation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Previews 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Restructuring 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Movie trailer premiers tonight 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  M rating 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plot Summary? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  There's already a link to the official site, which links to Apple's trailer site. —tregoweth (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason why we can't cut the middle man and readd the apple link? -- Scorpion 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ; 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The Simpsons Movie (soundtrack), the page has been made again, I've nomed it for speedy deletion. Gran2 07:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cleaning it up and I'm reporting him to an administrator. --AAA! (AAAA) 08:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And he's got another new account, ah well, have a good laugh at this "official the simpsons move soundtrack" image he's "found" . Gran2 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected from soundtrack vandal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Just so people know, the most recent trailer featured a BRIEF shot  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Green Day confirmed to be in the film and playing on song, in this article. Adamravenscroft 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Green Day

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it isn't. Prometheus-X303- 10:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus its a quote. And "son of a bitch" is hardly even that profane. Gran2 10:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  PROFANITY 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Simpsons Movie Phone 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Simpsons Movie Premiere 

message: *
Alientraveller 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two cites:  and , 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)
thread_title:  Citations for use: add here 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have rename the section to marketing. The trailer sections should be a lot shorter though. --Maitch 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree. The images are probably not allowed per the new fair use instructions anyway. --Maitch 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Okay that's done, prose needs improving though. Gran2 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Couple of proposals for the page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Its possible that Scorpio appears again, but the villain is confirmed to be a new character. Gran2 05:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Cast section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Animated feature film 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  there are many error in this article. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, give me a few minutes and it will be in the article. Gran2 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 94 characters to speak in the movie so far

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: plot

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Alf Clausen, for one, does have a day job that keeps him pretty busy... —tregoweth (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rated PG-13??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nudity in the trailer? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Simpsons Comics - running gag 

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

message: What happened to the worldwide release? --(trogga) 01:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It got changed. Australia and the UK get it a day earlier. Gran2 06:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Worldwide 

message: There's a new, much more impressive, poster.  Are we going to switch to that, or stick with this one? Gran2 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. Alientraveller 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New poster

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plot information right  

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum, and this is CGI. Dalejenkins 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue of Liberty vandalism to promote the movie? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Have you uploaded it? If not go here , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Release image

message: 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)
replies: text: No that's not vandilism. Gran2 06:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Pig feces" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is now semi-protected. Gran2 08:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Blocking 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You *actually* think that, don't you? Jesus Christ, you're stupid! 72.40.101.195 04:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: No. No it is not. Darrenhusted 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe 70.49.201.94 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: As they would be unreferenced, no. Gran2 06:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: It's all trivia, so I'd say no. Darrenhusted 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Short answer yes with a but, long answer no but with a maybe. Darrenhusted 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: That was a Rev Lovejoy quote. Darrenhusted 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it was, but I was just given a definite answer as well. Gran2 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

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

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

text: No. Darrenhusted 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sequel?" is not Maggie's first word. 

message: 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)
replies: text: No. Darrenhusted 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequel?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You *actually* think that, don't you? Jesus Christ, you're stupid! 72.40.101.195 04:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Episode references? 

message: 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)
replies: text: No. No it is not. Darrenhusted 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe 70.49.201.94 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Foreshadowing 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jebediah Springfield Statue Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Exactly, good to see we have consensous, moving back to the top. Gran2 09:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot tag

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot Spoilers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Plot as it stands

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, they just left Spider-Pig/Harry Plopper inside the dome when the house got sucked in. Steveweiser 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Already is. - .:Alex:. 09:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pig 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Green Day 

message: 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)
replies: text: He says "Goodbye everybody" and expires. Darrenhusted 13:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dr Nick

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of tag 

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Its not OR, its quite clearly sourced, and it is just another factor of the environmental theme. Gran2 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Themes (part one and two)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Its not OR, its quite clearly sourced, and it is just another factor of the environmental theme. Gran2 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: They're a little big, but enjoy!
<BR><BR><BR>
<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
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)
replies: text: Its a reference to a line in The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show. Gran2 11:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some userboxes

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

message: *'Simpsons' success lifts Fox —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate success 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA fail

message: 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)
thread_title: Cerne Abbas giant

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good Article review 

message: 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)
replies: text: So how does it contribute as critical commentary? Alientraveller 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Screenshot of Movie Trailer

message: "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)
replies: text: No it is not appropriate and it has been removed. Gran2 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Should this be removed? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: A metal shard 05:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Neon Genesis: Evangelion---theme? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sequel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Could a "Memorable jokes" section be placed? 

message: Spoiler warning??? --66.169.9.118 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:SPOIL. Alientraveller 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you expect when you see the Plot section in an article? No spoilers?...--Svetovid 20:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not only that but the plot has been trimmed of most jokes, so they are not spoiled. Darrenhusted 15:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the ...  

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks! Gran2 07:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: 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)
thread_title: Article is unclear

message: 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)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: 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)
replies: text: It could be mentioned. See also Talk:Bart_Simpson#Bart_Nude.--Patrick 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bart 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Plot

message: 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)
thread_title:  Winning Short Film 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source that proves this? And there IS a Themes section. -- Scorpion0422 03:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Radical enviornmental angle? Propaganda piece? Would you feel more at home at Conservapedia? Reginmund 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Conservapedia, The Simpsons was  "created by "Life Is Hell" cartoonist Matt Groening." Now you know. -- Scorpion0422 04:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmentalism