Talk:The Simpsons Movie/Archive 2

FAC?

I would say this article is ready. Buc 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait for the DVD. Alientraveller 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When is that? Buc 09:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's avaliable on December 3 for me and Gran2. On another note, please turn to the other side for questions like these. Alientraveller 09:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's still the two DVD commentaries, plus anything extra. There's a ComingSoon interview with Hans Zimmer that I've been planning on using to expand the Music section for ages... And, ideally I'd love to have a bigger themes section. Gran² 20:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented the CS! Zimmer interview. Alientraveller 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well at least he asked us this time rather than just going ahead. Either way, let Gran2 or Alientraveller nominate it, because they've done the most work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? Buc 09:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, I'd much rather nominate an article I'd worked extensively on myself, rather than have someone else who hasn't really done much at all do it. So I'd greatly prefer to have either me or Alientraveller nominate. But as said, its not ready yet. Gran² 15:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And you've done very little to help with the article, so why should you get credit for nominating it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll be happy to help now or as soon as I can get my hands on the DVD. But as said before does it really matter who nominates it? Buc (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You could say I have ownership issues, but I think it does. When someonbe spends hours and hours working on an article, part of the reward of that is nomionating it for Featured article status and seeing it succeed, and when someone jumps in ahead of you and nominates it without even leaving a message on the talk page, it takes some of your achievement away because then someone else can take credit for something they have done little on. Gran2 has worked tirelessly on this article, so he deserves to nominate it and get the credit for it. And, last time I asked, he said he hadn't finished with the commentaries yet, so it's not quite finished. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scorpion, this is Gran's article. --Simpsons fan 66 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If people feel that nominating an article gets them credit and that only people who worked on it extensively should be allowed to do it (which I've seen elsewhere), I think that means there's something wrong with the whole nomination system. This is an ownership issue and it needs fixing. Not that any one person is to blame, but the system lends itself to feelings of ownership. Working on an article is supposed to be a somewhat selfless process. You're supposed to work on articles because you care about the subject or about Wikipedia in general -- not in the hopes of eventually getting credit for it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:56, 12/17/2007

Equazcion is right, Gran doesn't own the article, just like no one owns any article. but it shouldn't be submitted until he or Alientraveller thinks it is ready Ctjf83 ^talk 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about owning an article. Basically, I don't like people who try to get credit for something they did little work on. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the fact that a successful nomination is seen as credit is a problem in itself, and an ownership issue, regardless of whether or not someone is explicitly claiming ownership. In fact I would say a nomination should come from someone who didn't have extensive involvement in the article -- just as nominations for all manner of "honors" in the real world work. You should feel honored when someone nominates an article you worked on extensively. It's nothing short of a compliment, and on Wikipedia, there need be no "record" that you were responsible, other than the talk page and the article's history. Also, telling people they can't nominate an article unless they worked on it extensively promotes a culture of clublike elitism that is directly against Wikipedia's collaborative philosophy -- this would be a practice that is not written anywhere under any policy or guideline, so if someone comes along who isn't aware of this practice and nominates an article, having had no way of knowing about it, they would be seen as some unwelcome outsider stepping on toes, where Wikipedia is supposed to be a welcoming place for new users. If you want to make a change to the FAC rules, then work towards that; but do not deliberately promote unwritten rules that only the initiated are aware of. That's not what this project is about.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:22, 12/18/2007

A compelling argument, well done. However the fact remains that we believe since Gran2 did most of the work he should have the honor of nominating the article at his discretion. Once again, Gran2 doesn't own the article, but most people (myself included) tend to have a special bond with articles that they have worked extensively on. Believe it or not, this is a good thing, since people will generally go out of their way to guard pages they have improved extensively in the past, thereby helping wikipedia by keeping the vandals at bay. Also, these people still welcome constructive edits from other wikipedians, so ownership isn't as big a problem as you make it to be. At the end of the day some people like to have something to show for their contributions to wikipedia, be it a barnstar or an FA article, and they take much greater pleasure after countless hours slaving on an article when they know that they did it all, rather then some guy coming in and nominating it having done almost nothing for the article. --Simpsons fan 66 03:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that ownership isn't that big of a deal. An argument could be made for that (which should be taken to WP:OWN or WP:FAC), but at present, Wikipedia policy disagrees with you. No one owns articles, anyone can nominate them, and that's really all there is to it. I would even nominate this article myself just to make a point, but we have rules against that sort of thing as well.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:59, 12/20/2007

I don't think that saying that random users not being able to nominate articles promote ownership. I promote a lot of FLs, and you can always tell when randoms nominate articles, because they usually disappear after nominating it and never even attempt to address concerns. I've also been a part of FACs where another user nominated it without warning, and then left me scrambling to get the page ready. If some random editor had full intentions of actually doing the necessary work to get a nominated article promoted, then okay, but usually they don't, and if an article does get promoted, they try and take credit for it. And that's why I don't like it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You clearly feel strongly about this, and as someone with extensive experience with the nomination system, I think you should begin a discussion at WP:FAC to have guidelines put in place that would put some kind of regulation on who can nominate articles. If a successful nomination is indeed seen as credit, that's something that should be addressed. That's how things work here -- you can change the rules if you have a good reason. However if you're unwilling to do that, as I said once before, this promotion of unwritten practices is not a good thing.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:22, 12/20/2007

All this talk reminds me of You Only Move Twice... Didn't Buc just come out of nowhere and nominate it without having major contributions to it? And then, Scorpion0422 and Gran2 had to go back and fix a lot of it to be FA standard. xihix(talk) 18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Orc in Mob

Okay, I watched the movie again on DVD and noticed something, in the mob scene, where the camera pans through the mob, on the right, there seems to be a quick shot of what seemed to be a Orc, as it was grey and holding an axe, not to mention that it did look rather familiar to that of an Orc, sadly though, I have no idea on how to capture screen images from movies or anything, so I can't post the picture of it up. Anyway, what I'm getting at is this, should that real small and brief cameo be mentioned? Captain Drake Van Hellsing Savvy? 07:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It already is. Gran² 08:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I see it, must've skipped it by mistake Captain Drake Van Hellsing Savvy? 08:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a character from "The Lord of the Rings", I´ve read this in the German version of Simpsons Comics. --91.15.212.100 (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Australian rating

I don't know if you can find a use for this, but I just got the DVD and the rating is PG, with mild animated violence, nudity and drug use, sexual references, coarse language and themes. --Simpsons fan 66 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be useful to collect various ratings from around the Anglosphere and organise them on the page. Reginmund (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Is listing the credits really the best possible first paragraph we can come up with for this? Just a thought, but reading through that piece that's supposed to be sparking the reader's interest is really a pretty big drag right now (no offense to whoever wrote it).

Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:16, 12/21/2007

I think its fine, but the lead probably needs to be expanded, so it may get rewritten anyway. Gran² 08:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Kamp Krusty

As far as I remember from the DVD commentary the episode was never meant to be the movie. It was only Jim Brooks who found the story idea good enough for entire movie. I think the text should be slightly altered as it sounds as the story was first developed as a movie script. --Maitch (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I have time I'll listen to it again, perhaps the use of a word like "considered" would be a good idea? Gran² 19:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuity Error

In the Marketing subhead, it's talking about how they had the contests for all the different Springfields to see who would have the premier. At the beginning they mention 16 Springfields, then go on to say "One winner blah blah blah...then the other 14..."

Correct me if I'm wrong but 16 entrants minus 1 winner equals 15, not 14.--72.26.188.195 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You've missed something: "With Springfield, Minnesota pulling out on..." After the pulled out, the original 16 entrants became 15. Gran² 16:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I guess I missed that. Thanks.--72.26.188.195 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

George Tames

The source being used is not reliable as it is a blog, something that cannot be considered reliable per WP:RS. Also, the blog itself mentions nothing of The Simpsons Movie so it cannot be used as a source to say that the movie is referencing it. All it shows is that the photos exist, but without proof that the Simpsons animators actually referenced it for the scene its Original research and so cannot be used. I see the likeness, but unless the source is reliable, and mentions the photos being referenced in the film, it cannot be included. Gran² 14:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mentionless

Yes, I got the movie recently and noticed two things that may be worth mentioning. The first one is that when escaping the dome Homer filps-off, for lack of better term, everyone, or at least tries to, considering he only has four fingers. The other is that during the credits, Maggie says her "first"* words, being sequel, which is ignored by the family in an somewhat frightened way. Are these even worth mentioning?

• First words known to the family, but we know she already spoke. The Dark Fiddler (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, not really. They're both just jokes that aren't that notable so probably shouldn't be included. Gran² 08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ok. But I was just talking like in the trivia section, not their own article. The Dark Fiddler (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is no trivia section, nor will there be. Gran² 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to give my two-cents. The only other times I recall Maggie speaking (ie in the series). Once was when she said "Moe" (but I think that was Homer being delusional) and once she said "Daddy". But no other character heard her say this (Homer had just left the room) so Marge and Homer, in the film, would believe Sequel was the first word she said.TimothyJacobson (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know who did her voice saying "Sequel" in the film?TimothyJacobson (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References - "2001 A Space Odyssey"

In the opening scene with Itchy & Scratchy on the moon, the ultra close up of the popped eyeball inside the helmet seems to be a direct reference to Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey". If I recall correctly, this shot is identical to one of the "HAL 9000"'s camera "eye". Should it be noted on the "Cultural References" page? ("The Simpsons" has refered to "2001" on previous occasions). Walien2001 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Its similar, that's for sure, and the music is the same. But unfortuneatly it cannot be added unless we have a reliable source for it, no matter how obvious it may seem. Gran² 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't look too hard. HAL-9000 was an anthropomorphic red light at a perpendicular angle. It sounds circumstantial that any "eyeball" in space would be a reference to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Reginmund (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Reference - Tuesdays with Morrie

There's a brief book club scene featuring Tuesdays with Morrie. I'd have to watch the movie again to write a proper sentence for the article. Hank Azaria was in the TV-moive. Socby19 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While the book might be worth mentioning (if a ref can be found), the fact that Azaria was in the TV movie is a tad trivial. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be connected in the same sentence. Reference:http://www.accessatlanta.com/movies/movies/etc/getCriticReview.jspd?criticReviewId=5301 Socby19 (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(yet another) Cultural Reference - Neon Genesis Evangelion

During the scene where Homer is hallucinating and he has the epiphany, it seems patterned after the original ending of the NGE television series. The protaganist Shinji is faced with a similar existential crisis during a similarly abstract scene in which he realizes the importance of other people and gets applauded. Did anyone else notice this? It's hard to find a reference to the creators talking about this - why can't the reference just be of the actual scene in NGE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.102.40 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that isn't a reliable source, it doesn't prove that it is what the scene was based on. Without a source from the staff it cannot be mentioned. Gran² 08:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Arnold Schwarzenegger thought of this movie?

And wouldn't this be interesting to stick it the article?--Steven X (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Green Day played themselves in the film after requesting to guest star in the show. They were originally given the part of an unspecified band who drown in Springfield Lake." Does this mean that they originally had the same part, except they didn't play themselves? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I guess this should be our official copyedit topic then. Alientraveller (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that quote is totally not what the ref says. Looks fine now though. I think we should move this dicussion to the PR. Buc (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mention of the Oscars?

I've debating with myself as to whether I should mention this at the List of awards won by The Simpsons (which does mention that the series was never nominated for Best comedy series at the Emmys), but should the article mention that it didn't receive an Oscar nom? I've found several reliable sources that mention this [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (with many more out there) and it is one of the most hyped film awards. So what do some others think? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Once award season is out of the way I'll probably write something on it, I know EW mentioned as well. Gran² 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cultural reference - Harry Potter

I don't think that this is mentioned in the article, but I may have just missed it. When Homer renames his pig Harry Plopper, it's a parody of Harry Potter, with the trademark glasses and scar etc. If not already mentioned, is this worth noting in the cultural references section in the article? These two following articles do make a reference to the fact that the pig was called Harry Plopper, but they don't say directly that it's an imitation of Harry Potter: Kate Nash. "A good week for ... A bad week for ..., The Guardian, 2007-08-19. Retrieved on 2008-01-29. AND William Langley. "The secret of The Simpsons", The Daily Telegraph, 2007-07-29. Retrieved on 2008-01-29. Eagle Owl (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though the reference is obvious, to avoid issues of OR the source must specifically state the reference, and be preferably from the staff themselves, but it isn't essential. So as these sources don't say it directly, I'm afraid they cannot be used. Gran² 20:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Marge at Wedding?

Should it be noted that Marge wasn't actually pregnant in the wedding video? (As far as I could see, that is...) 208.39.156.166 (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It's really a small piece of trivia that isn't really notable. Also, as far as I remember, she is pregnant. Gran² 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, I thought their wedding was in VegasTimothyJacobson (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of Character/Plot Changes

Just wondering why there is no mention in the plot or anywhere else for that matter about the result of the movie - as in the death of Dr. Nick - who is killed off in the movie. Or the disappearance of Colin in the new season. JayAlto (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it isn't important or really very interesting. Dr. Nick's death was a five second joke which doesn't need to be mentioned anyway except for his page. As for Colin not appearing in the TV show, what does that have to do with the film? Gran² 07:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a character died in a TV show that has usually refrained from upsetting the status quo of its own existence (ie: changing anything permanently) is hugely important, whether it's a five second joke or not. It's a pretty important meta-point at the very least, and it deserves to be included. Nebuchanezzar (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not hugely important though, it's a joke. That in itself means it isn't that notable, unless it receives widespread press coverage. But in this case it only needs a mention on Nick's page, not here, because it's unlikely he's gone for good. And the fact that it's five second does mean it shouldn't be mentioned, as that would be given something undue weight, especially as he's coming back. The plot is long enough already and any other section would be trivia. Gran² 08:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's a joke isn't exactly terribly important though in terms of its importance as a moment on The Simpsons. Like I said, killing off a main character is a big event in The Simpsons, joke or not. And need I remind you that previous character deaths such as Frank Grimes and Maude Flanders were also five second jokes. Also, I might add that whether or not it recieves press attention shouldn't be a guiding factor in an encyclopedia article, nor should your beliefs over what is likely and unlikely guide what makes it onto an encyclopedia. Nebuchanezzar (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Nick is hardly a main character. The deaths of Frank Grimes and Maude may have taken five seconds, but in both cases the entire episode focused around them (or in Maude's case, around her death) and were major plot points, so it was hard not to mention them. Dr. Nick's death however was just a one-off joke and generally those aren't included. Besides, according to the producers themselves, Nick will be back. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the rather obvious point I was making to begin with. I never suggested including it because Nick was a main character in the movie, but because of what his death meant to the series. Once again, the series has made a point to return to the status quo at the end of every episode, and a death is a very, very important point in this regard. And until such time as he does return, I don't think it's at all relevant to defend this rubbish based on what the producers have said might happen.Nebuchanezzar (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Has his death meant anything to the series? As far as I remember he hasn't been mentioned at all. Besides he is coming back. Gran² 08:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained how it has. I will not be repeating myself. Nebuchanezzar (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If Dr Nick doesn't appear again in the series, then all is goodTimothyJacobson (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there is another focus.Coln was only added to add plots for Bart AND lisa, and plus he appears in the opening of he loves to fly and he D,ohs.Mariofan1000 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No Homers Club

Given how often this website is mentioned in the commentaries and such on the DVD's, and given that it seems to be the most prominent gathering of Simpsons fans on the internet, does anyone think that it'd be an idea to perhaps include the average rating it received on the No Homers Club website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebuchanezzar (talk • contribs) 12:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. An internet poll rating does not show anything, particularly not one from a forum. Gran² 12:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

An internet poll from the most prominent collection of Simpsons fans shows a pretty accurate view of how fans felt about the movie, I think. Nebuchanezzar (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We used to include polls and fan forum reviews, but they were forcefully removed a while back. You can find out a bit more about this here. Besides, it opens a door we don't really want to open because then other forums would start posting their polls from their sites. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The last point about other forums is an understandable one, but other than that I struggle to find a reason for not including ratings from fans in wikipedia articles. I'm not asking for a section dedicated to fan reviews, I'm asking for a sentence or two summarising general fan reactions. Quite frankly, the logic used by people on that Homer's Enemy page was a little cruddy, and I'd be willing to bring it up again at the wikiproject Simpsons or whatever it's called if it can't be settled here. :) Nebuchanezzar (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A sentence about fan reaction would be great, but a poll run by a fan forum does not show that. Polls are not an indication of general opinions or views because they are easily susceptible to vote rigging or something similar and are therefore not a reliable source. If you can find another way, perhpas a prominent web master, then that'd be great. Gran² 07:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how a fan forum does not show an indication of how fan's reacted to the movie. Please explain that for me beyond these ludicrous "vote rigging" statements. No-one would bother to rig a poll on a forum which requires a different user, or least IP address, to register a vote. The number of people who voted on that poll totals 542 at this time. That's more than enough to be an accurate portrayal of how internet fans reacted to the movie. Lastly, I might add that I'm not suggesting that this be any definitive reaction to the movie. It's merely one reaction from a large group of fans - the largest you'll find on the internet (one of the largest anywhere), and this ought to be mentioned in a section entitled "reaction", since it is one of the best indications of a reaction to the movie out there! Certainly a much better, more reliable, more truthful reaction that anything a movie critic might point out. Seriously, your objections to this are based on prejudices that have no basis in fact. Nebuchanezzar (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Our objections are based on past experiences, if we added them, someone else would remove them. We both are long time members at NHC and think it's a great forum. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I...that's good. I was thinking that something along the lines of "reaction from prominent Simpsons fansites has been mostly positive [insert link to review thread]." Any actual objections to the wording of that? Nebuchanezzar (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Films set in Alaska

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_set_in_Alaska Category:Films set in Alaska

The article seems to fit the definition, as a large part of the film takes place there. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Prison Break Reference

When the Simpsons escape from springfield's angry mob, once on the other side of the dome- marge says:

"what do we do?" to which homer replies- "Now we run"

As I recall, it's the exact same dialog from prison break, and the camera work is the same... Can anyone verify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.120.37 (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't on the commentary, it can't go here. Alientraveller (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It was definitely a Prison break reference!! Not only the camera work, the corn field as well... Kacex (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Can we specifiy when the events of the movie take place in the Simpson's timeline? Does it take place between two seasons, or in the middle of a season?--210.50.176.39 (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to place the events, unlike the X-Files movie which moved event forward between seasons, TSM has no specific time. And as Maggie is still 1 in the movie I can only assume they took place within 11 months of her first birthday. To try and plce the timeline would require a lot of OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons doesn't have a timeline, and at best uses a floating timeline with very little continuity or permanent changes. Gran² 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception > Box Office Section

"Third-highest non-sequel opening day revenue of all time" Is this really relevant here, given the years and years of TV produced? The point of this statistic is for a new story or concept, to show that it can bring in new audiences, but The Simpsons surely cannot fall into this category so simply... (163.1.231.196 (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Well it can, because regardless of the show, it's true. But anyway, look at the BOM list of opening day grosses: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=open&p.htm - the highest placed non-sequel film which isn;t based on any existing media publication is The Day After Tomorrow in 32nd place. I understand your point, however. Gran² 11:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough! Just figured I'd ask. Good article dude. (163.1.231.196 (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Reference to OoT?

Is it just me, or is the scene with "Lisa's Song" a parody of when you learn a song in Ocarina of Time. It's just, the way they have this moment, and then a staff appears, and then Lisa sings the song, and then the full version of the song picks up after she sings it through once... It's probably just my mind playing tricks on me, though. Did anybody else anywhere pick up on this, or was it just me? Or does the article already have too many cultural references anyway... 207.179.175.78 (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but would require a relaible source for verification. Gran² 15:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ToonBoom

I heard somewhere The Simpsons Movie was drawn and animated in a program called ToonBoom, if this is true, should it be a relevant addition to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.187.219 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-release edits

Does anybody have any sourced information about edits made between the cinema release & DVD release? I have the Region 2 UK release DVD, & I'm sure a couple of lines have been edited out around Bart's arrest for nudity, since the version I saw at the cinema. I think Chief Wiggum told Bart that he was gonna go to jail (or juvenile hall, whatever) but then told Homer that if he took the rap instead he'd just have to go to a one-hour parenting seminar, which he refused to do. In the DVD, the line about the parenting seminar is in there, but the line about Bart's punishment is removed, & when Wiggum walks away saying "see you in court, kid", his voice is faded out so that this line is barely audible.

This is my own observation (OR) so not fit for inclusion, but if anybody has further info & sources on this, it could be a notable for mention in the article - I.E. are these edits the same on the Region 1 USA release? What are the reasons for these lines being cut? Thanks. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That line is not faded out on the Swedish Region 2 release and I've never heard anyone else mention this edit. Maybe it's just your copy? --Theleftorium (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think my copy includes that line (it's the same, Region 2 UK). I'll check when I watch it in a few days. Gran² 07:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Having seen the film 7 times at the cinema and several times on DVD I have not noticed any notable changes between the cinema and DVD versions, at least not in the UK. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So are yous guys saying there was never any mention by Wiggum of specifically what kind of punishment Bart would be facing for public nudity? If there is such a line (I.E. that Bart could be sent to juvenile hall or somesuch), please confirm what it is, since this line does not seem to be present on the UK released DVD. Thanks. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Trouser Pig

Somebody keeps removing the following piece of information from the "editing" section of the article, describing it as nonsense:

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, initial screenings had the name "Spider Pig" removed and re-dubbed with "Trouser Pig" in an effort to reduce its potential offensive impact. As the alteration made a nonsense of use of the "Spiderman" tune, however, "Spider Pig" was considered preferable and reinstated for the wider UK release .

Could somebody with some authority please reinstate this information as I really can't be bothered engaging in an edit war - thanks! 78.141.18.14 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I live in the UK and that paragraph is poppycock, or to be less polite, utter bollocks. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "less polite" version there, it was really necessary elaboration. It's good to see the kind of people I'm attempting to communicate with here. There is, by the way, a wikipedia code of conduct we're advised to follow. 78.141.18.14 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, why would anyone find "Spider Pig" offensive anyway? Also for future reference, it is not our job to try and find sources for "information" which is added without a source before reverting. Unsourced information should usually be reverted on sight, especially in a featured article, and especially when it appears to be made up, as in this case. If you want to add something to an article, particularly something which isn't widely known, then you source it. Gran² 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to spell out what "spider pig" has the potential to mean. Use your imagination if you must. The information in the article should concern the facts of the editing, not be questioning the rationale of the edit that was made. I appreciate that the information should be adequately sourced, and thank you for communicating relatively reasonably. 78.141.18.14 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's the whole "UK & US separated by a common language" thing; but I have no idea what "spider pig" could possibly mean that's offensive. Something about police?? UrbanDictionary was no help. Fitfatfighter (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt it is offensive to anyone. Why would it be? Ctjf83Talk 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)