Actually, when Matt Groening was on The Daily Show a few weeks back, Jon Stewart hit him with a question that had never even occurred to me:
Groening’s answer was that it was funnier for Bart to be 10, and I have to shrug at the inconsistency and agree.
On further reflection that unfortunately took me beyond the edit window, Homer actually knocked up Marge when he was 24 and working at the miniature golf course. In any case, since his age has been confirmed in some episodes as 38, Bart should be at least 13.
In early episodes, Homer’s age was given as a reasonable 34, but he has aged while the other characters have not. Nevertheless, it’s not something to get outraged about.
It seems like most people, including you, liked it. Good for you guys. I was just laying out my reasons, as a devotee of the first 10-12 years of the show, for disliking the movie.
I’m not asking for fanwankery. The thing that was best about the Simpsons at its peak was its ability to work on multiple levels. The slapstick and one-off jokes could have still been there for the casual viewer. But so too could have been the recurring jokes and self-referential gags. Its not really an either or situation. Thats what disappointed me the most.
Also, as I said earlier, by far my biggest complaint was the lack of supporting characters or reoccurring settings like Moe’s, Springfield Elementary, the Nuclear Power Plant, the Kwik-E-Mart, etc. And not nearly enough Mr. Burn’s! :mad:
The way I always saw it, the Simpson’s treat every episode as if its a blank slate, meaning that the events of the previous episodes are more or less forgotten as never happened, with minor exceptions like Sideshow Bob. Thus, this is how Bart has been in 4th grade forever, despite passing it early in season one. (In more recent times, they’ve gone away from this and presented something of a continuum with Maude dying, Barney becoming sober, etc. Because this coincides with, in my opinion, the decline of the show, I’ve tended to ignore this.)
Despite the lack of a continuum of time for the most part, I always thought that the back stories about Homer and Marge’s courtship, the kids being born, Homer and Marge as children were more or less canonical.
I guess this issue isn’t that big of a deal. I really don’t watch the Simpsons much anymore outside of the Treehouse of Horror episode, but knowing that most of the original writers/producers were involved in this movie I allowed myself to expect higher quality than the past several seasons. In my mind, I didn’t get that, thus my dislike of the movie.
Although Maude remains dead, Barney did eventually go back to being an alcoholic.
I agree…there have been so many versions of their wedding (Homer complains about always throwing parties in one episode, mentioning their wedding, in another he re-marries her because their first wedding was so bad, etc.), that I don’t mind.
The whole Homer should only be 28/Bart should be 18 thing is another thing…also, why are Apu’s kids so much more developed than Maggie when they’re supposed to be younger than her (seeing Maggie is what inspired them to have kids). Plus, Maggie hasn’t aged at all despite the fact that a lot of time has passed since that episode (the nine months of pregnancy, and they’re much older now). Best not to think about these things.
Maggie may look like an infant, but she’s a crack shot and she can rescue a fully-grown man from drowning.
I guess there’s a question of taste here: some people wanted everything from the show to be in the movie, some people wanted them to try some different things. They never worked all of the supporting characters or settings into any one episode, and it may have been a tall order for the movie.
While there wasn’t a lot of Burns, I thought the few gags involving him were great.
That scene with the book club griping about how they had no new books to review – that was a Lost reference, right?
I want that game!
I laughed so hard when Bart smacked into the window of Krusty Burger I couldn’t breathe. I had to restrain myself from that several times so I wouldn’t miss anything. Can’t wait for the DVD so I can pause and laugh myself sick.
So is Dr. Nick gone forever? 
I have hated the last 7 seasons (at least) of the series. But I loved the movie.
I thought the ‘Bart riding the skateboard nekkid’ scene was particulaly hilarious.
I doubt it. I have a feeling that when the season opens up, we’ll see no references to anything that happened in the film.
SpazCat:
I didn’t see any reason to think he’s dead. Just badly injured. We’ve seen cartoonish violence not do “real-world” types of harm in the Simpsons before.
I recall reading that the producers said that Dr. Nick will return. (Even if he did “die,” it could be just a myth- remember that Dr. Marvin Monroe was considered dead, but it turned out he was just really sick). We’ll also see Plopper in at least one episode.
Dude, it’s a cartoon. He was driven into the ground by a giant shard of glass and didn’t even lose consciousness - there’s no reason to think he’s dead.
They say some elements of the movie will remain in the series. We know the pig will show up, and I’m assuming that means Colin might show up. There isn’t too much else that could carry over.
Well, Dr. Nick did lose consciousness right after he said “Bye, everybody” so it did look a bit bleak.
We know for sure the pig will show up? Have they said anything about the pig specifically?
I was kind of hoping we’d learn who Colin’s father was.
He’ll be okay if he gets competent medical care - i.e. he doesn’t treat himself.
So, who’s worse - Nick or Zoidberg?
Bryan Ekers:
Zoidberg, easily. Nick is only incompetent at treating humans; Zoidberg is incompetent at treating many species.
Bono? 
The producers said Plopper would return at a panel at the San Diego Comic Con. However, Al Jean has also said that the first episode of the season will have a couch gag that calls back to the movie, so it’s possible that Plopper will only make a brief cameo during the couch gag. We’ll have to wait and see.