When was The Simpsons cancelled?

[a***@gmail.com]

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Your Name]

Post by a***@gmail.com
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

It was almost cancelled in 2011, but the cast took a 30% pay-cut to
bring down the cost of production.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by a***@gmail.com
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Soon hopefully! Then again, Disney buying Fox may lead to a renaissance like they did with Star Wars.

[Your Name]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by a***@gmail.com
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Soon hopefully! Then again, Disney buying Fox may lead to a
renaissance like they did with Star Wars.

If by "renaissance" you really mean an "idiotic, lazy, talentless,
reboot" then you might be right, but that's NOT what fans of *any*
series actually want to see. :-(

[Paul S. Person]

Post by Your Name

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by a***@gmail.com
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Soon hopefully! Then again, Disney buying Fox may lead to a
renaissance like they did with Star Wars.

If by "renaissance" you really mean an "idiotic, lazy, talentless,
reboot" then you might be right, but that's NOT what fans of *any*
series actually want to see. :-(

Actually, I rather liked /The Force Awakens/. I found the new, young
stars very much worth watching. To be sure, I had to watch it twice
because, the first time, I was too focused on all the things they did
that aped the originals, but the second viewing changed all that.

Indeed, I am considering just buying /The Last Jedi/ on DVD rather
than renting it first. I used to do this over time, but, as I have
switched from Movie Theater Fridays to rentals, so have I switched
from Speculative Purchases to buying only after renting it to see if I
want it.

[Your Name]

Post by Paul S. Person

Post by Your Name

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by a***@gmail.com
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Soon hopefully! Then again, Disney buying Fox may lead to a
renaissance like they did with Star Wars.

If by "renaissance" you really mean an "idiotic, lazy, talentless,
reboot" then you might be right, but that's NOT what fans of *any*
series actually want to see. :-(

Actually, I rather liked /The Force Awakens/. I found the new, young
stars very much worth watching. To be sure, I had to watch it twice
because, the first time, I was too focused on all the things they did
that aped the originals, but the second viewing changed all that.

That's the problem. It is really just a remake / reboot / rehash of the
original movies. It adds almost nothing to the Saga nor the franchise.
Pretty much the same with The Last Jedi too. Just lazy, talentless
copies of the originals.

Same with the recent "new" Jurassic Park movie.

There's no real point in simply re-telling the same basic sotry over
and over and over. They've taken the quote "history repeats itself" too
the extreme and silly level, whereas they should be studying the quote
"If we don't remember history, we're bound to repeat it". :-\

There's also the quotes:

- "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

and - "History repeats itself, but in such cunning disguise that
we never detect the resemblance until the damage is done."

which seem fitting since the remake / reboot fad produces things that
are always farces of the originals, and for some peculiar reason far
too many people don't even realise they are just lazy remakes / reboots.

Post by Paul S. Person
Indeed, I am considering just buying /The Last Jedi/ on DVD rather
than renting it first. I used to do this over time, but, as I have
switched from Movie Theater Fridays to rentals, so have I switched
from Speculative Purchases to buying only after renting it to see if I
want it.

The Last Jedi will rumouredly be released on DVD, Blu-ray, and new
Blu-rayHD 4K.

[Paul S. Person]

<snippo; you are entitled to your opinion>

Post by Your Name
There's no real point in simply re-telling the same basic sotry over
and over and over. They've taken the quote "history repeats itself" too
the extreme and silly level, whereas they should be studying the quote
"If we don't remember history, we're bound to repeat it". :-\

Some people just don't like sequels.

Some of the are movie reviewers.

Over the years, I have noticed that some movie reviewers pan each and
every sequel.

If the sequel preserves the "look and feel", so to speak, of the
original, then it is attacked as "a cynical attempt to make the
viewers pay for the same movie a second time".

If the sequel strikes out into new terrain, then it is attacked as
"cynically betraying the expectations of the fans by tricking them
into watching a different movie from the one they love".

From this perspective, you chose the first option.

Nice point about "farce", however.

The same could be said about remakes. In fact, your point could also
be taken as saying that /The Force Awakens/ is a remake. I had that
feeling too -- the first time I saw it. But not the second.

As it happens, I own /both/ versions of /The Stepford Wives/.

The first is a very serious film, the ending of which was, when I
first saw it, the most terrifying thing I had ever seen.

The second could be called a "farce", I suppose -- I would say it is
as if they held the first one up by its feet and shook it until all
the humor fell out -- and then turned the humor into a movie (with a
clearly not-from-this-film homage in it toward the end).

But both work, at least for me. So do several other pairs -- but not
all.

But then, I don't judge a film on whether it is a "remake" or a
"sequel". I judge it on whether or not it is a /good movie/ or, if not
a /good/ movie, at least a /watchable/ one.

And, as to "telling the same story over and over", as I understand it,
that is basically what the /Land Before Time/ series of films does --
and there wouldn't be so many of them if they didn't make money. So,
yes, there /is/ a point to it.

Not to mention the minor detail that there are only some many basic
plots lying around that /some/ duplication of plot points is
inevitable.

[Your Name]

Post by Paul S. Person
<snippo; you are entitled to your opinion>

Post by Your Name
There's no real point in simply re-telling the same basic sotry over
and over and over. They've taken the quote "history repeats itself" too
the extreme and silly level, whereas they should be studying the quote
"If we don't remember history, we're bound to repeat it". :-\

Some people just don't like sequels.
Some of the are movie reviewers.
Over the years, I have noticed that some movie reviewers pan each and
every sequel.
If the sequel preserves the "look and feel", so to speak, of the
original, then it is attacked as "a cynical attempt to make the
viewers pay for the same movie a second time".
If the sequel strikes out into new terrain, then it is attacked as
"cynically betraying the expectations of the fans by tricking them
into watching a different movie from the one they love".
From this perspective, you chose the first option.

JarJar Abrams didn't "preserve the 'look and feel'" ... he wholesale
ripped off virtually the entire storyline and scenes.

Post by Paul S. Person
Nice point about "farce", however.
The same could be said about remakes.

It is true about all *reboots* where they lazily re-use the same coer
idea and keep the same name, but make a lot of ridiculous changes. You
end up with something that is in reality completely different hiding
behind the name of the original.

Remakes are slightly different, *if* they change the name. *or* stick
mostly to being the same as the original.

Post by Paul S. Person
In fact, your point could also be taken as saying that /The Force
Awakens/ is a remake. I had that feeling too -- the first time I saw
it. But not the second.

It was a mixture of a lazy *reboot* and a remake ... a stupidly
"Politically Correct"-erised one at that.

Disney would have been much better off leaving the Saga as a finished
set of six movies (with it's happily ever after ending) and simply
making spin-off movies about other characters in the same universe.
It's a massive universe with bazillions of stories they could tell,
without resorting to silly remakes, lazy reboots, nor continually
pulling in the same old characters again and again.

'Rogue One' was a step in the right direction. 'Solo' is a backwards
step, possibly a partial backwards step. JarJar Abrams lazy reboots are
a massive leap backwards ... all the way back to 1977.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Your Name

Post by Paul S. Person
<snippo; you are entitled to your opinion>

Post by Your Name
There's no real point in simply re-telling the same basic sotry over
and over and over. They've taken the quote "history repeats itself" too
the extreme and silly level, whereas they should be studying the quote
"If we don't remember history, we're bound to repeat it". :-\

Some people just don't like sequels.
Some of the are movie reviewers.
Over the years, I have noticed that some movie reviewers pan each and
every sequel.
If the sequel preserves the "look and feel", so to speak, of the
original, then it is attacked as "a cynical attempt to make the
viewers pay for the same movie a second time".
If the sequel strikes out into new terrain, then it is attacked as
"cynically betraying the expectations of the fans by tricking them
into watching a different movie from the one they love".
From this perspective, you chose the first option.

JarJar Abrams didn't "preserve the 'look and feel'" ... he wholesale
ripped off virtually the entire storyline and scenes.

Post by Paul S. Person
Nice point about "farce", however.
The same could be said about remakes.

It is true about all *reboots* where they lazily re-use the same coer
idea and keep the same name, but make a lot of ridiculous changes. You
end up with something that is in reality completely different hiding
behind the name of the original.
Remakes are slightly different, *if* they change the name. *or* stick
mostly to being the same as the original.

Post by Paul S. Person
In fact, your point could also be taken as saying that /The Force
Awakens/ is a remake. I had that feeling too -- the first time I saw
it. But not the second.

It was a mixture of a lazy *reboot* and a remake ... a stupidly
"Politically Correct"-erised one at that.
Disney would have been much better off leaving the Saga as a finished
set of six movies (with it's happily ever after ending) and simply
making spin-off movies about other characters in the same universe.
It's a massive universe with bazillions of stories they could tell,
without resorting to silly remakes, lazy reboots, nor continually
pulling in the same old characters again and again.
'Rogue One' was a step in the right direction. 'Solo' is a backwards
step, possibly a partial backwards step. JarJar Abrams lazy reboots are
a massive leap backwards ... all the way back to 1977.

But enough of this, when was the Simpsons cancelled? Can Disney reboot them and make them funny and fresh again?

[Your Name]

Post by j***@gmail.com
But enough of this, when was the Simpsons cancelled?

The Simpsons has never been cancelled, as far as I know, although it
has got close once or twice.

Post by j***@gmail.com
Can Disney reboot them and make them funny and fresh again?

It was never "funny" to begin with, nor was it ever particular "fresh"
(it's largely just a knock-off of "The Flintstones", but at least Matt
Groening wasn't lazy enough or stupid enough to actually call it that
name).

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@gmail.com
But enough of this, when was the Simpsons cancelled? Can Disney reboot them and make them funny and fresh again?

From what I recall, it was cancelled sometime around the turn of the century, but I just don't remember the exact year. I do hear some rumblings that the newly Disney-owned 20th Century Fox may reboot it, possibly on ABC, or maybe even on FXX where the show is currently AWOR.