What did you think of it
Still trying to find the meaning behind ot but overall pretty good
All I remember was the plot was about the entire Springfield Lake was polluted to shit so the President sealed all of Springfield in a Dome
It really did feel like an extended TV episode since many seasons later Burns becomes President and identifies Greenpeace as a Terrorist Organization which grants him the legal ability to pollute the shit outta the entire planet
>>88572269
I remember being excited and enjoying it. Although I was 16 at the time.
>>88572313
The meaning is there was no meaning the marketability behind the film is its for Die Hard Simpsons fans who never miss an episode
Not sure if these people are the same stature as they were back during the movies release since I am convinced The Simpsons like Family Guy exists as Fox's tax write off.
'Twas okay.
eskimo shaman bullshit aside it was pretty ok
>>88572334
In terms of memorability the one thing remember the most about the film was Spider Pig and
>I was elected to lead not to read.
Could have passed for a decent season 11 episode I guess? Meh
>>88572269
I thinkI really want a doughnut now.
>>88572334
I was around the same age when I saw it also. Still remember going to a packed out theatre in Sydney to see it.
>>88572468
Homer slow down you might choke.
>>88572269
I enjoyed it. Not every joke hit, but a lot did.
>the worst day of your life SO FAR!
>>88572508
No need.
>>88572269
When it came out, I knew it was kinda bad but I ended up watching it 4+ times with my family in the theatres, and the DVD probably a hundred times.
>>88572560
>God he eats like a pig
>Nah Pigs tend to chew he kinda eats more like a duck
It was dreadful. It was like they took the mediocrity of neosimpsons, spliced it with the ills of animated tie ins and Hollywood summer blockbusters of the time, and stretched it out to an hour and a half reminder that the Simpsons are dead
>>88572583
Hey in hindsight that was the same mentality put into the 2nd SpongeBob Movie
+ Fox already has plans to make another Simpsons movie.
>>88572325
Oh man is this deforestation fetish guy?
Would you fuck a female Burns?
>>88572353
Who the fuck cuts a hedge like that?
It has a really strong 'modern Simpsons' feel, but also feels old in some aspects. It's okay, I suppose. It sure could've been WAY worse. I'm wondering what it could've been like to actually have the movie from the 90's.
>>88572629
Does art of that exist?
That sounds fucking disgusting.
>>88572637
Gladys Sharp after trying to kill the animals who ruined her property values
>>88572657
There probably is.
But seriously, would you? Doesn't his character pretty much already do the shit you fetishize?
>>88572687
Burns isn't exactly attractive enough to make Rule 63 out of.
>>88572269
The entire film screamed "WE'RE PG-13, LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO. WE'RE PG-13, LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO. OTTO SMOKING A BONG. MARGE SAYING GOD DAMN. BART'S PENIS!!!!
>>88572269
came out too late
had it come out in the 90's-early 2000's, it would've been a good movie
>>88572647
Modern feel probably comes from the modern animation style, that kinda smooth look with the heavy black outline. But I agree I did certinely have a odd blend of classic Simpsons and newer humour wise.
>>88573079
Late 90s/early 2000s Simpsons was already going to crap, though.
It should've come out around 1990-1996. Then it would've been perfect.
>>88572353
MODS
CP
>>88573261
>>88573079
I honestly feel like if it had been made in le golden age either the show or this hypothetical '90s movie would have suffered, because they'd have to either have writers working on both at the same time or take away some from the show to work on the movie. We'd have a different movie for sure but also a different show. At least with the movie being made during a bunch of seasons no one really cares about they could actually get a bunch of the original writers working on it at once.
I don't think it needed a movie in the first place. It's not that kind of show really.