Matt Groening Confirms Simpsons Sequel...

[Hermiod]

...eventually.

He says the show's production staff aren't keen on working extra hours, it might take four years to get made.

 

[Brikar99]

They should just put the show out of its misery to work on a new movie. "The Simpsons Movie" was the funniest Simpsons in nearly a decade.

 

[Jim Steele]

They should just put the show out of its misery to work on a new movie. "The Simpsons Movie" was the funniest Simpsons in nearly a decade.

Agreed. And to be honest it was hardly brilliant material.

 

[Christopher]

I agree too. The movie was much better than the show is these days, because it went back to the essentials -- it brought back writers and a director from the early days of the show, and it told a story that was more sincere and character-driven rather than just being a collection of goofy events and stock behaviors (although there was a fair amount of both of those). There were some great bits of character nuance in the movie. I liked how Flanders was portrayed as a sympathetic father figure and had some real emotional beats with Bart rather than just being a caricature, and Marge's goodbye video was the most human, sincere, moving performance I've ever heard from Julie Kavner. If the show would go back in this direction, making the characters human and dimensional in their personalities and telling stories driven by genuine emotion rather than just being constantly broad and farcical, it would be worthwhile again. As it is, though, maybe they need the movie format to allow the characters and their relationships to be explored with sufficient depth.

 

[Kegek]

I agree too. The movie was much better than the show is these days, because it went back to the essentials -- it brought back writers and a director from the early days of the show, and it told a story that was more sincere and character-driven rather than just being a collection of goofy events and stock behaviors (although there was a fair amount of both of those).

What he said. Though I felt at this point even the 'Homer's-marriage-is-in-crisis', no matter how well done - and it was reasonably so - felt rather tired. We've been there so many times over the course of the series they've all kind of blurred together and the highest notes have already been hit (my favourite example of this kind of plot point would be "Bart Gets Hit By a Car", and that was in 1991...).

I stopped watching the series one or two years ago, but I'll turn up for another feature presentation.

 

[Kryton]

All I have to add is

Spider-Pig, Spider-Pig, does whatever a Spider-Pig does.

 

[Trekker4747]

I agree with most here the previous movie was the best Simpsons "episode" in years they should just do movies now.

Can it really be called a "sequel" though? It's not like any second movie is going to have any real link to the first, pretty much what the spirit of a sequel is. Shouldn't we just call it "another Simpsons Movie."

 

[Paxil]

Simpsons already did it!

 

[Mr Light]

The Homer marriage problem just keeps getting worse as the show goes on. You can either A) have Marge leave him the 100th time then come back the 100th time and have it be extremely repetitive and boring, or B) just have Marge blithely ignore/forgive what he does, which can be funny but also makes their marriage into a sham.

Personally I prefer B) when she just ignores it by drinking long island ice tea or something

 

[Christopher]

Though I felt at this point even the 'Homer's-marriage-is-in-crisis', no matter how well done - and it was reasonably so - felt rather tired. We've been there so many times over the course of the series they've all kind of blurred together and the highest notes have already been hit (my favourite example of this kind of plot point would be "Bart Gets Hit By a Car", and that was in 1991...).

I think it worked, because it wasn't just about them or some internal family screwup. Homer endangered the whole of Springfield and then turned his back on them, and that was just too much for Marge. If it were just about the two of them, she'd work it out with him as she has before. And in fact we saw just this -- she stuck with him even after learning of the horrible thing he did, even after being driven out of town and having their home destroyed. But when he refused to go back and save their friends and neighbors, it just went over the top. It was about something greater than just the family.

It would be nice, though, if the show would reflect Homer's epiphany and have him behave like less of a self-absorbed jerk, more like the relatively well-meaning idiot he used to be. But I doubt that's likely to happen.

Can it really be called a "sequel" though? It's not like any second movie is going to have any real link to the first, pretty much what the spirit of a sequel is. Shouldn't we just call it "another Simpsons Movie."

But Maggie's first (public) word was "sequel!" We have to honor that!

Technically, "sequel" just means "something that follows." It doesn't have to have story links, it just has to be the following installment.

 

[LitmusDragon]

Put Sideshow Bob in the second movie!

 

[Brikar99]

Put Sideshow Bob in the second movie!

Yeah. Another weakness of the movie was, I thought, ignoring some of the more classic villain characters the show has in its history. Mr Burns was criminally underutilized, though I can see how in order for the dome plan to work it had to be someone outside the town. But the villain they came up with was just an obvious rehash of Scorpio, even on down to how Brooks performed it.

Alright, maybe Monty Burns is one of my favorite characters on the show and I was just upset that he wasn't around more.

 

[Mr Light]

Actually Hank Scorpio would be the perfect villain for Movie Two. When I heard Brooks was playing the baddie in this one that's what I was hoping they were doing. It could be Scorpio vs. Burns, where Burns is actually the more evil of the two leaving Homer to side with his former one-time nice boss.

 

[Kegek]

Put Sideshow Bob in the second movie!

Yeah. Another weakness of the movie was, I thought, ignoring some of the more classic villain characters the show has in its history. Mr Burns was criminally underutilized, though I can see how in order for the dome plan to work it had to be someone outside the town. But the villain they came up with was just an obvious rehash of Scorpio, even on down to how Brooks performed it.

Agreed on both counts. Actually, I was even disappointed with the little material Burns had in the movie. None of it was that good, and he's provided so many classically hysterical moments on the show proper.

 

[Meredith]

Actually Hank Scorpio would be the perfect villain for Movie Two. When I heard Brooks was playing the baddie in this one that's what I was hoping they were doing. It could be Scorpio vs. Burns, where Burns is actually the more evil of the two leaving Homer to side with his former one-time nice boss.

Hell Yeah, Have homer pick Burns because he forgot how nice Scorpio was, LOL

 

[Brikar99]

Agreed on both counts. Actually, I was even disappointed with the little material Burns had in the movie. None of it was that good, and he's provided so many classically hysterical moments on the show proper.

I forget the episode, but that bit where he's reading off a card and gets excited seeing his own name is amazing. It's his delivery that sells it.

But yeah, Burns' best moment in the movie is during the credits when he says Smithers' suicide MIGHT cheer him up. And it seemed to lack some context... it feels almost like PART of a deleted scene.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

All I have to add is

Spider-Pig, Spider-Pig, does whatever a Spider-Pig does.

...Can he swing from a web? No, he can't. He's a pig...

It would be nice, though, if the show would reflect Homer's epiphany and have him behave like less of a self-absorbed jerk, more like the relatively well-meaning idiot he used to be.

It's such a subtle but important difference between those 2 and I don't think the current writers can do subtlety.

 

[Brolan]

The Simpson's are dead, do they have to keep molesting the corpse?

 

[Christopher]

But yeah, Burns' best moment in the movie is during the credits when he says Smithers' suicide MIGHT cheer him up. And it seemed to lack some context... it feels almost like PART of a deleted scene.

That's exactly what it is. There were huge amounts of material written and even animated for this movie and then cut out.

 

[Mr Light]

Any word yet on the inevitable double-dip with all these delete scenes...?