ROTTEN TOMATOES: Where's Disco Stu? Comments

Where's Disco Stu?

by Fred Topel | August 02, 2007

Summary

The Simpsons has so many supporting characters that there were over 300 different fan contingents who were hungry to see the likes of Crazy Cat Lady, Duffman, Comic Book Guy and Disco Stu shine in The Simpsons Movie. Some will be pleased, others will demand equal time. Cat Lady and Comic Book Guy get some jokes, but Duffman and Disco Stu only appear in crowd shots, never speaking. Back to Article

(1-33 of 33 posts) | Reply

DanielLee8793 writes:
on Aug 02 2007 09:12 PM

cool!

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 02 2007 09:23 PM

This might be the first time in 5 years that Disco Stu wasn't shoved in frame to get a laugh. I still thought the movie sucked, but at least Disco Stu was held back for once.

(Reply to this)

Product_of_You writes:
on Aug 02 2007 09:49 PM

That is one of the reasons the movie wasn't very good in my opinion though... random moments just to fit in characters and hardly any story.

(Reply to this)

rainfall writes:
on Aug 02 2007 10:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#1005461)
What the hell are you talking about it's almost all story with gags thrown in thru out.

(Reply to this)

savethemooses writes:
on Aug 02 2007 10:34 PM

I would prefer that they make a solid movie rather than a gallery of random characters. I think they did just that. I really enjoyed the movie.

(Reply to this)

See-Jay writes:
on Aug 02 2007 10:57 PM

I don't think Disco Stu is that funny anyway. But uh... why is this news?

(Reply to this)

killermonkey8822 writes:
on Aug 03 2007 12:47 AM

yeah so...... how does this make news?

(Reply to this)

Hans Gruber writes:
on Aug 03 2007 01:31 AM

Disco Stu wasn't even a funny character. His first appearance was hilarious (due to Homer's "Disco Stu(d)" jacket),but it should have ended there.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Aug 03 2007 03:19 AM

I didn't miss him. I thought the movie had the right balance with the townspeople. There's just so many characters that everyone knows, it would have been lame to fit as many in as possible (with actual scenes, not crowd-shots) and would have been equally lame to show none of them (again, with actual scenes).

To me the movie was a good old fashioned Simpsons story. A family affair filled with gags and heart. It's what the older Simpsons episodes always were. Plus Homer in love with a pig. Pretty awesome in my book..

Also, it completely re-affirmed my liking for the character of Bart, whom I haven't been thrilled with for awhile now.

(Reply to this)

Azlam Orlandu writes:
on Aug 03 2007 03:25 AM

Glad to hear that they used restraint with this film instead of going down the checklist of things to use. I'll eventually have to see this one.

(Reply to this)

gratefuldawg writes:
on Aug 03 2007 05:44 AM

The film was a major disappointment. 18 years of waiting and the best they can give is Spider-Pig and Ralph's "I like men, now" comment. The least of their problems was inserting Disco Stu. Mabye if they had actually worked on a coherent plot, people wouldnt be so concerned with third tier characters.

(Reply to this)

BUCK69 writes:
on Aug 03 2007 06:25 AM

In reply to this comment (#1005901)
I beg to differ! The Movie is the best thing to come out of the Simpson's camp in at least seven or eight years. Its the closest they've come to the "golden years" in a long time. I hope it represents a return to form on the small screen and if not, I can look forward to the sequel.

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on Aug 03 2007 07:33 AM

people complain that the movie couldn't cover all the characters, but it's only a two-hour movie! they can only cover so much! are you expecting a movie trying to tell a progressing story to cater to every single person in the audience by making sure every secondary and tertiary character got a speaking line?

(Reply to this)

DanielLee8793 writes:
on Aug 03 2007 08:09 AM

yeah there is a reason why the Simpsons movie was number one last week, because it wasnt very good!

haha

(Reply to this)

PlanBFromOuterSpace writes:
on Aug 03 2007 09:29 AM

I was hoping, since they were trying to jam every single character in, that they could have done a little Phil Hartman cameo, maybe re-using an old bit, like just having a Troy McClure movie on in the background somewhere or something like that. It would've been a nice little tribute, as he was a pretty big part of the show (at least in a supporting role) up until his death.

(Reply to this)

PlanBFromOuterSpace writes:
on Aug 03 2007 09:30 AM

I was hoping, since they were trying to jam every single character in, that they could have done a little Phil Hartman cameo, maybe re-using an old bit, like just having a Troy McClure movie on in the background somewhere or something like that. It would've been a nice little tribute, as he was a pretty big part of the show (at least in a supporting role) up until his death.

(Reply to this)

gratefuldawg writes:
on Aug 03 2007 09:47 AM

In reply to this comment (#1006176)
The reason it was number and the reason for other craptastic films (i.e. SPIDER3, DIEHARD4) breaking records this summer is based on consumers playing into the hype resonant from Hollywood and nostalgia for the product(s). Its not from the film, itself. The Simpson Movie should not have been about the continous deprication of the series. I mean if they really took time to create an actual film, a testament that defined THE SIMPSONS, we would've had an intelligent timeless film; instead we got a 2hr highlight reel of individual sketches plugged together.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Aug 03 2007 10:00 AM

In reply to this comment (#1005901)
Yeah we had to wait 18 years, but it wasn't like those 18 years were spent idle. They were expending 18 years worth of creativity on the show as well. It wasn't like they spent 18 years trying to come up with enough good idea's to make a good movie. Ya know what for all the Simpson's haters out there who don't appreciate what the show has done and in many peoples opinion continues to do just don't watch and as soon as there are enough of you it'll be taken off the air. Then you can move on to complaining about how the next classic show isn't nearly as good as the Simpsons.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 03 2007 10:01 AM

In reply to this comment (#1006569)
This man speaks the truth.

(Reply to this)

murray84 writes:
on Aug 03 2007 10:09 AM

also there was no patti & selma if i recall.

(Reply to this)

FireflyFan4evr writes:
on Aug 03 2007 10:42 AM

It's good to hear that the writer's and producers cut out unnecessary jokes and characters- for once. For that, I give them kudos.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 03 2007 12:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#1006720)
And yet they still kept in jokes like "Grand Theft Walrus" in the movie.

Note to all of you who think this movie is a return to form: watch some of those old episodes and compare.

(Reply to this)

Defmonkey writes:
on Aug 03 2007 12:09 PM

I knew I was right! Stu and Duffman wasn't in the film with speaking parts... But I was wasted when I seen it and told my buddies this.

...But I really don't know why this is news.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Aug 03 2007 02:35 PM

In reply to this comment (#1007610)
I don't know man, When I watch the really old episodes I've seen them so many times I generally just turn to something else or when I do watch they seem so dated some of the jokes don't even make sense anymore. Like when they make fun of the T-shirt craze. I have to struggle to remember why that's funny. No argument that there have been funnier seasons than some of the recent ones, but don't you kinda expect that to be the case after 18 seasons? Are they just going to break every law of nature and get funnier and funnier the more idea's they use? Even in some of the newer weaker seasons I still find more humor than is in 90% of the sitcoms that have been on only a few seasons. As a body of work you'd still have a hard time convincing me there was a better comedy made in the last 50 years.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 03 2007 02:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#1008695)
Seinfeld could give The Simpsons a run for its money in the "greatest comedy" department. Also Curb Your Enthusiasm and Monty Python's Flying Circus.

I would never expect the show to stay funny after 18 years. It was a fantastic show, but they should have pulled the plug years ago. My problem with it is that they'll end up with more bad seasons than good ones eventually.

There are still a few good jokes peppered in here and there, but I find the last 4-5 seasons virtually unwatchable. I saw an episode where they used 3 different hit songs throughout, just to fill up time and not write dialogue. And the celebrity cameos have gotten progressively worse and more frequent.

Many of the problems I listed are not what the movie suffers from. The problem with the movie is that a) they tried to make it a gigantic "movie", b) it gets really boring after Homer dumps the waste, and c) after the first 15 minutes or so, it just ceases to be funny. It needlessly self-parodies and relies on knowing the characters for laughs. They go to Alaska for all of 10 minutes and nothing is achieved there. I know all about Grand Theft Auto, but Grand Theft Walrus will never make me laugh because it's just about as forced a joke as one can write. And I turned and saw the audience laughing hystarically. And that happened over and over again.

(Reply to this)

gratefuldawg writes:
on Aug 03 2007 09:47 PM

In reply to this comment (#1008695)
The ingenious of the first nine seasons was that it didnt soely rely upon humor. That is to say that a story first was developed then jokes or site gags were applied accordingly. Certainly, it strayed on some episodes which were composed of short sketches were at the forefront, but even though sophormic; it was also adult with a scholastic edge which engaged the viewer. That simply is my problem with the series since season 10 and the movie, its not engaging nor intelligent. Just colorful images flashing on the screen. There's no heart, it's become the byproduct of what Conservatives claimed the show was 18 years ago. Which is a shame for all of us kids who have grown with the series, and not be able to share a quality show with your own kids.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Aug 03 2007 10:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#1008730)
So if the audience was laughing hysterically but you weren't, then I'm thinking the wrtiers got it right, because they obviously appealed to the majority, which I imagine was their goal.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 03 2007 11:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#1010328)
If a writer undercuts his/her abilities then it is never a success. In the pantheon of great Simpsons memories, where will this movie stand in say...2 years even? Pretty low on the list.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Aug 04 2007 02:15 AM

In reply to this comment (#1010448)
hmmmm, but what from the "golden years" of the Simpsons really stands out today? I don't see people "doing the Bartman" or wearing the T-shirts. You have the Halloween episodes I guess, but I could argue that despite the use of the "A" material in the early seasons some of those have been just as funny later on..."The leprechaun vs. gypsy" episode comes to mind. What I remember from the early seasons is Homer going over that cliff while trying to jump Springfield gorge. At the time one of the greatest site gags ever.

What really impresses me about you guys' arguments is that you can actually remember which seasons certain episodes took place. They tend to all blend for me and usually when someone tells me "That was in season 8" I just feel really old cause I think of it only being a couple of years old and imagine where I was at that time. However someone told me that "Tomacco" was season 11, so anyone claiming they started to go south before that is on crack in my opinion. "Tomacco" is the greatest episode ever along with Homer and Grandpa becoming drug mules and Homer gets a gun.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Aug 04 2007 02:18 AM

In reply to this comment (#1008730)
Seinfeld maybe, but talk about a show that petered out in it's last few seasons. Don't really watch Curb your enthusiam because it's not on here much in the UK and the Pythons while great were and very much still are a niche program. IF you include the movies then maybe yeah.

(Reply to this)

Product_of_You writes:
on Aug 04 2007 02:22 AM

I would just like to note that everyone keeps calling the simpsons movie a two hour film... it was definetly not two hours. It felt very short, couldn't have been more than an hour and a half, which is usually the standard for comedies anyway.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Aug 04 2007 05:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#1006121)
The movie is actually only 1 hour and 27 minutes long.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Aug 04 2007 05:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#1006569)
The movie is actually only 1 hour and 27 minutes long.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Simpsons Movie

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links