As I understand it, Jackson did his own voice work, but did not do his own singing. That was done by some kind of licensed impersonator. He was credited under an alias for the same reason he didn’t sing: legal crap with his label and such. This doesn’t count for much as evidence, but if you recall the episode with the Itchy and Scratchy movie, Lisa tells Bart that Dustin Hoffman and Michael Jackson both made cameos under fake names. Dustin Hoffman did guest star under a phony name (Sam Etic), so can we call that a hint?
I hope it’s not a musical. Sweet Lord, I hope it’s not a musical.
MJ didn’t use his real name because, in the early days, many celebrities were hesitant to do a voice on a cartoon show, fearing it could backfire on their career and all that. One of the first actors to use his real name was Harvey Fierstein, and it was only after him that celebrities saw the Simpsons as a “hot gig” instead of some kiddie show, and started using their real names…perhaps not the most important barrier Fierstein has broken down, but significant nonetheless. 
BTW the current MJ scandal has only been going on for about a year…I know, it seems much longer…
The current trial, yeah, but he had a similar problem in the mid-90s that was ended by an eight-figure out-of-court settlement. That’s when the pedophile jokes started.
I’ll be first in line for the movie, but in my ideal universe, the Simpsons Movie would’ve been an extended version of the episode Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in “The Curse of the Flying Hellfish.” One of my favorite episodes, in 22 minutes it manages to hit all the required notes to fill out a feature-length movie. Grampa embarrasses himself, Bart criticizes him, he tells the story Bart doesn’t believe… and then Burns shows up and it’s all true. Flashbacks, exciting treasure hunting, a chase sequence, then good prevails- for about 15 seconds. The only Simpsons episode I can think of with real movie-grade action, and it’s really funny. Definitely could’ve been stretched out into a movie. They could’ve just developed things more slowly and added in some kind of B plot, and maybe had it dovetail into the main story at the end. Blammo.
I’m with you, Marley23, in my fondness for the Flying Hellfish episode. I would hope for a movie with a nice historical arc, not just something set in present-day Springfield.
[They gotta make a movie like that. They gotta do it for Ox, and Asa, and Griff, and Burnsie… well, not so much Burnsie.]
I’ll definitely be going to see it when it comes out. Even a less then average episode of the Simpsons is better then a lot of the crap on at the moment.
I’m sure the writers can come up with an entertaining Simpsons movie that is as good as the TV show.
And it doesnt have to be 2hrs long as previously stated here. Most comedies are 90 minutes. Most cartoon movies are 70 to 80 minutes. All they have to is string together 4 20-minute episodes. There are so many characters that multiple plot lines are possible.
The question is, will it be BETTER than the TV show?
I’ll go no matter what. I have a lot of confidence in the writers. The show has had a few blips in quality at times, but overall it has maintained its edge.
And that crap about Bart loosing his virginity…people, Bart is 9 years old.
The writers talk about it on the DVD commentary. They don’t beat around the bush, either. They say they were supposed to never reveal that it really was Michael Jackson, but oops! There they are, doing it right on the commentary!
Bart is 10 years old. Lisa is eight.
Ah, well I guess that makes it okay then. 
They do make fun of him and talk about how today’s generation doesn’t remember how MJ used to be a huge pop star, before he became that creepy weirdo who’s famous just for being famous. I certainly never got the impression that Groening, et al, would never let him do the show again. I’d like to see a firm cite on Groening’s comments in Rolling Stone, if possible…(does RS have their articles online?)
Speaking of commentaries, in the “Kamp Krusty” episode, it was revealed that the network wanted to hold back that story and extend it to a feature-length movie. Ironically, the staff had trouble filling up 22 minutes and had to do a bit of padding – it came out ok, but imagine if they had to fill up 90 minutes?? Indeed, the commentators often talk about shows being too short, and they have to stretch it out by adding extra rakes & stuff like that.
I hope they manage to come up with a story that’s a genuine feature-length STORY instead of four TV episodes strung together, especially considering how crappy the show has become lately. TV-to-movie adaptations are always a dicey proposition, and the track record isn’t great.
I’m not sure if you’re joking or not, but one day I’ll have to post picture of my boys. All four of them are ours. The first two look very much alike and have the same caramel latte color. The third looks bi-racial; he has a very light complexion and curly hair. My fourth has a darker complexion, much like his father. It’s very strange, but very true.
Both South Park and Beavis and Butthead were quality shows at the time the movies came out, and at least in South Park’s case, the show has gotten even better since.
Simpsons, on the other hand, hasn’t had anything even remotely approaching quality in at least 4 years (maybe 6, just what season are they up to anyway?)
Go back in time 10 years and THEN maybe a Simpsons movie would work.
But have thirty deconds of rake injuries ever been have been as funny?
They some, and excerpts of others, IIRC. Of course, Groening could just be yanking our chain with his comments.
Yeah, just one of those “Maybe those innocent sitcoms we grew up with had something dirty going on underneath” kinds of jokes, kind of a “Shaggy and Scooby were potheads” thing.
I’d love to see a picture of your boys. Your family sounds lovely.
If it was a “live-action” film, as long as William H. Macy plays Ned Flanders, it’ll all be okay.
Bart and Lisa Get worked up over the new Itchy and Scratchy Movie. They go to the movie and learn foul words, and Marge starts a Media Awareness group, and Blames Canada. Bart then gets fitted with a “V-chip”. Also throw in a bunch of Musical moments.
Oh? It has? Darn. (And this of course doesnt even mention Marge V Itchy and Scratchy)
Seriously though. This could work. The overall “Glue” to make it 90 minutes needs to be good. Some “epic” adventure would need to take place. Possibly this would mark a big change in the “permanent” storyline of the cast. Then again, that would destroy all of the self referencial stuff going on.
Maggie could grow up some, either physically or in a toddler-esque comming of age story. That or it becomes a Secondary character cram-fest.
And Gary Oldman can play Homer. What’s that? John Goodman!? That’s so obvious!! Begins choking Bart and punching the cat
If they are really serious about a Simpsons movie, they need to bring back some of the old writers. Give Conan O’Brien whatever he wants.
If we’re talking just looks here, no one comes close to Bruce Willis. I mean, he might be getting a little old for the part (and so are Gary Oldman and John Goodman), but he’s naturally bald, and look at the distance between the top of his upper lip and the bottom of his nose! That’s a definitive Homer feature right there and very few real-life humans have it.
Wayne Knight could be Chief Clancey Wiggum. If he kept some of his Don Orville uniforms from “3rd Rock,” they wouldn’t even have to provide a wardrope.