Simpsons DVD Commentaries??

[on:]

I so far own seasons one and two of 'The Simpsons' on dvd and none of the voice actors are featured on the commentaries *unlike the Futurama commentaries*.

I was wondering whether the commentaries on seasons 3 - 5 feature the voice actors and if they don't why don't they appear on them?

I ask because the Futurama commentaries are far more entertaining because of the contribution of the main voice actors like Billy West and Joe Dimaggio.

[Reply #1 on:]

Isn't it John DiMaggio? (Now I'm not sure if that would or would not be considered a nickname. The reason I'm confused is because of a baseball player called Joe DiMaggio. If that was the baseball player's nickname, what was his real name?)

Basically:

-Can someone who has the name John, be called Joe?
-And was there a baseball player called Joe DiMaggio? If so, was Joe a nicname? If it was, what was his real name?

[Reply #2 on:]

 

Originally posted by Eyedol7513:
Isn't it John DiMaggio?

Yes.

 

-Can someone who has the name John, be called Joe?
-And was there a baseball player called Joe DiMaggio? If so, was Joe a nicname? If it was, what was his real name?

- Nope (well, they can, but it's not the conventional thing to do).
- Yes, not sure, if so then probably Joseph.

Baseball fans, come and correct me about his full name.

On the topic of the thread: I don't know whether or not the voice actors appear in the S3 & S4 commentaries. I agree with you that the Futurama DVDs are much more entertaining for the presence of the Messers West and DiMaggio- David X Cohen is great, but it's good to have a mix of personalities in the commentary box.

[Reply #3 on:]

Although actors appear occasionly, mostly on S3 but there not very good, for wacky commentaries, you have to listen to A streetcar named Marge and Homer's Babershop Quartet for Jon Lovitz and Hank Azaria.

[Reply #4 on:]

Season 3 has the voice actors, season 4 has Jon Lovitz, Hank azaria, and Conan O'Brien.  I ordered season 5, but haven't gotten it yet, does it have good commentary?

[Reply #5 on:]

I just ordered season 4 almost entirely for the Conan O'Brien and Jon Lovitz commentaries, was that dumb of me?

[Reply #6 on:]

Here, blasphemers, is some info on baseball legend Joe DiMaggio.

I'm not a sports fan by any means, but even I had heard of "Joltin' Joe".  Also, I've heard of Yahoo search.

As for the commentary voices, I'm content just to have the creative forces like Matt and Dave there; they give a lot more insight as to the shows' workings.

Finally, Eyedol, it is possible for someone with the name John to be nicknamed Joe; but it is far more common for John (or Johnny or Jack) to be an abbreviated form of Jonathan, and Joe (or Joey or Jo-Jo) the abbreviated form of Joseph.

[Reply #7 on:]

 

Originally posted by Mr Fuzzywuvems:
I just ordered season 4 almost entirely for the Conan O'Brien and Jon Lovitz commentaries, was that dumb of me?

Possibly, but its still a good set.  Since you ordered it largely for Conan, just let me tell you right now that you need to go to
track 5 on the "Monorail" commentary.  There's a track four (track one is just english and tracks two and three are french and Spanish I think) without him, and then an extra one with Conan for some reason.

And to answer the main question, yeah, the voice actors make a few appearances.  All four voice actors of the family appear at various points on season three, there's Lovitz and Azaria, on season four and five, and season five also has a couple appearances by Dan C. and Yeardley Smith.  They're not as lively as the Futurama voice actors (except for Lovitz, his commentary is ridiculously funny) but they have their moments. I loved hearing Cartwright (on S3) describing how she was pregnant at the time of recording certain episodes, and then breaks into Bart's voice with "Hey, my water broke man!".

I like The Simpsons commentaries more then the Futurama ones actually, just because there's more information.  The Futurama ones are probably a little funnier overall, but at times there's too much joking around and we don't learn much about the actual process of making the shows or how the ideas developed.  But the commentaries for both shows are still great, and I've listened to every single one.

[Reply #8 on:]

Matt said himself that the futurama commentaries are more lively. And I think there's enough information on the Futurama comentaries about the show. From what I've seen so far, (I only have seasons 1 and 2) in the Simpsons (season one especily) comentaries, it seems like they run out of things to talk about alot  and so are silent from alot of the track. Plus they don't seem to have as much energy as the on the Futurama comentaries.

[Reply #9 on:]

The Futurama commentaries are some of the best I have ever heard. In comparison everything else is like...yawn!

[Reply #10 on:]

My sister has a movie that has a commentary in which the commentators start off sober and get drunk over the course of the movie.   Apparently it is quite amusing.

Regarding the Simpsons/Futurama commentaries, however, I generally prefer Futurama, as some of the Simpsons ones are quite repetative, with the same information and anecdotes repeated several times on different episodes (and sometimes completely wrong information regarding the show). This may be a result of the decade or so between the material and the commentary, though the time certainly adds an interesting perspective to the comments.  The season 5 ones were pretty weak, though. Mirkin explaining every other joke got on my nerves, as well as the joke about every show/movie that they parody copying from the Simpsons.

[Reply #11 on:]

Yeah, I was expecting them to be like the Futurama ones but they weren't!!! They weren't entertaining or very funny.
But I agree with DoTheBartman, Nancy Cartwright saying "My water broke, man" is hilarious!!

[Reply #12 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ranadok:
Regarding the Simpsons/Futurama commentaries, however, I generally prefer Futurama, as some of the Simpsons ones are quite repetative, with the same information and anecdotes repeated several times on different episodes (and sometimes completely wrong information regarding the show). This may be a result of the decade or so between the material and the commentary, though the time certainly adds an interesting perspective to the comments.  The season 5 ones were pretty weak, though. Mirkin explaining every other joke got on my nerves, as well as the joke about every show/movie that they parody copying from the Simpsons.

I kinda agree (I still enjoy them and got a fair amount out of them, but agree with your basic points, plus the fact that Mirkin spends too much time talking about the guest voices in some cases), but to be fair I think Mirkin was a victim of circumstance.  For one thing there's just not as much to say on season five, frankly.  Most of the plots are fairly empty "just a bunch of stuff that happens" stories, and most of them aren't very ambitious either (notice that, on the rare episode with some real substance like "Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy", the commentary is typically much better).  Plus Mirkin probably hadn't done much commentary before (Jean and Reiss had two seasons of commentaries under their belt by the time they got to the first season they'd actually ran) so he was less experienced.  I think season six should be much better, both because of more episodes with substance, and because there's more episodes in there with specific "stories" to talk about ("A Star is Burns" and "Round Springfield", "Another Simpsons Clip Show", to a lesser extent "Sideshow Bob Roberts", etc).

And again, I personally tend to prefer the Simpsons commentaries, since I think they just have more info.  They sometimes repeat themselves too often but every commentary at least has one nugget or two of real information generally (and on the best ones much more then that).  Whereas there were a fair amount of Futurama commentaries where'd they'd finish and, at least when I was done laughing, I'd often think to myself "wait....there wasn't one bit of info in there".  Of course those commentaries are still great too, much funnier then most of the Simpsons ones (I'd have to admit that) and usually with some good information as well.  For me there wasn't a single commentary for either show that hasn't been worth listening to on some level, and I've devoured all of them as quickly as possible.

[Reply #13 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
 I kinda agree (I still enjoy them and got a fair amount out of them, but agree with your basic points, plus the fact that Mirkin spends too much time talking about the guest voices in some cases), but to be fair... *snip, because it's a post away*

I agree with most of your reasoning on that, but it doesn't really change the quality of the commentaries.  Plus, there was at least one instance where Mirkin cut someone off in order to explain a simple joke or plot point, so I don't know if saying that it is a result of the substance of the episodes themselves is a valid assessment. They still could have talked more on the creative process, what changed and why, etc, if they needed to fill the space. In general, I found the season 5 commentary to be more of the commentators watching and laughing at the show than explaining and commenting on it, which works in some cases (eg. Futurama, but mainly due to the voice actors), but it didn't really have enough in this case. They weren't bad, just weaker, that's all.  Also: Is it known why there aren't many VAs on this (or most) season, compared to season 3?  It it just scheduling problems, or what? It would be good to get another view in the commentaries, in addition to the writers and the animators.

 

And again, I personally tend to prefer the Simpsons commentaries, since I think they just have more info. *el snippo* For me there wasn't a single commentary for either show that hasn't been worth listening to on some level, and I've devoured all of them as quickly as possible.

I look for the Futurama commentaries more for entertainment/humour, and Simpsons more for information/production anecdotes. I do enjoy them all, but I generally enjoy the Futurama ones more, and certainly consider more parts to be memorable. I see where you are coming from, but to each his own.

[Reply #14 on:]

As far as I know the VA situation is not known.  I would have maybe guessed that there were issues with it when they were doing S4, since as I understand it one of the demands in the recent contract negotiations for the actors was a cut of the dvd sales.  But since Hank Azaria is on S4 I'm out of guesses (unless they happened to record that one commentary before or after that whole mess reached its peak).  I think it might just be the voice actors being busy, and a less concentrated effort to get them on.  With Futurama, West and Dimaggio in particular like to joke around a lot and hear their own voices (rightfully so of course) so they might've made more of an effort in that case to specifically do as many of them as they could, whereas you'll notice the Simpsons VAs are mostly more reserved (obvious exception of Lovitz, who inexplicably even appears on a commentary for an episode he wasn't in.  Oh that Lovitz).

[Reply #15 on:]

Yeah I think some of the issues especially Harry might have had was that they  were expected to go around promoting the DVD's and there really is no justifcation for them to do so.

[Reply #16 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
...whereas you'll notice the Simpsons VAs are mostly more reserved (obvious exception of Lovitz, who inexplicably even appears on a commentary for an episode he wasn't in.  Oh that Lovitz).

That is one major difference between the two commentaries.  In Futurama, the VAs are almost always consistantly hilarious and extra punch to the show.  West, DiMaggio, and Maurice (don't forget Maurice!) all do entertaining, if not laughable, work on the commentaries.

On the other hand, I can't remember any humorous stories told by the Simpsons VAs.  Castellneta has been in a few, but aside from him and Lovitz, none of the VAs seem to be that knowledgable about the building of the show.  I don't know if it's a different atmosphere or what, but the Simpsons VAs seem more nervous* than insightful.

*-primarily Julie Kavner.

[Reply #17 on:]

Well, Cartwright adds a fair amount.  She has some interesting and amusing stories, and even brings along original scripts to note changes even the writers have forgotten.  I'd agree with you though that the others seem fairly nervous, although I still enjoy hearing some of their thoughts.  Maybe if they get to do more commentaries they'll eventually open up more. 

[Reply #18 on:]

One of the things I like about the voice actors in season 3's commentaries was that they sometimes asked questions about the production of the show that the normal commentators would not usually consider worthy of discussion. The one that comes to mind is Kavner (I think, it's been a while) asking about the slightly different colours for objects that move in animation, which is something that I always noticed, but never knew the reason of before then (I didn't know much about cel animation at the time).