ROTTEN TOMATOES: Where's Disco Stu?

Where's Disco Stu?

Producers on why some Simpsons characters are absent.

by Fred Topel | August 02, 2007

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.

"Disco Stu was a pretty good example," said director David Silverman. "He had a few lines from time to time. A joke went in the movie but didn't work. [We even tried a] bump at the end which just said, 'Disco Stu will return in Simpsons Movie 2,' but the [test] audience just went, 'Eh.'"

Even recurring celebrity guests did not make the cut. "Sideshow Bob we had a lot of talk about trying to work him into the story," said producer James L. Brooks.

On the other hand, Flanders gets a major role as a kind of surrogate father to Bart. "Bart's always kind of a bad kid," said producer Al Jean. "Having him think about not being so bad, having him think about what it would be like if Flanders was his father, my favorite scene in the movie is the one where Bart's in the tree looking at the window and the score by Hans Zimmer there and throughout, it just really is a neat moment in the film."

(1-20 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 420 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)

Related Links

The Simpsons Movie

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links