Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Marge Simpson Poses For Playboy

samzenpus posted about 5 years ago | from the drawn-to-please dept.

Entertainment 413

caffiend666 writes "'Marge Simpson is posing for Playboy . The magazine is giving the star of The Simpsons the star treatment, complete with a data sheet, an interview and a 2-page centerfold. 'We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd,' said Playboy spokeswoman Theresa Hennessey. Playboy even convinced 7-Eleven to carry the magazine in its 1,200 corporate-owned stores, something the company has only done once before in more than 20 years." Worst issue ever!

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow . . . (5, Insightful)

AshtangiMan (684031) | about 5 years ago | (#29720999)

Playboy has to jump the shark?

Re:Wow . . . (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721157)

I just want to see if she's a natural bluehead.

Re:Wow . . . (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721713)

It was revealed by Homer in Secrets of a Successful Marriage that Marge dyes her hair with blue dye #56; "She’s been gray as a mule since she was seventeen."
From wikipedia =p

Re:Wow . . . (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 5 years ago | (#29721795)

But does she dye there too? These sorts of questions need to be answered.

Re:Wow . . . (1)

bughunter (10093) | about 5 years ago | (#29721377)

Has to jump? More like has jumped.

In fact, Hefner's magazine has finished the jump, but finished low and smacked into the face of the landing ramp, and it's now struggling to remove its skis and swim free of the shark pen, while being circled by the Brazzer Shark and eyed hungrily by the PiR0Nahs.

Re:Wow . . . (5, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 5 years ago | (#29721455)

Playboy jumped the shark loooooong time ago.

I found the quote about appealing to 20-somethings particularly funny for a couple reasons.

A 20-something has never seen a relevant current issue of Playboy, and likely cannot remember a relevant current episode of The Simpsons.

I mean, I think The Simpsons is still funny, but the time when it was ground breaking entertainment spurring on social examination of how the modern American family is portrayed on television, those days are long gone.

And I don't mean to make a lot of folks feel old, but Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years. The big fans are not 20-somethings anymore. We're 30- and 40-somethings.

(And we get our pr0n on the internet.)

Re:Wow . . . (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721753)

so if im like ...duhhh .. i dunno like lets say 24 .. and it's been on the air like .. duhhhh ... 20 yrs ..... wouldn't that mean that i grew up with this shit... and uh ... you know prolly watched more episodes then u ever did?

Re:Wow . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721787)

Apparently you did watch more of them rather than attend your grammar lessons.

As a 20-something... (4, Interesting)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29721015)

Worst issue ever!

As a 20-something, I must say I agree.

Re:As a 20-something... (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 5 years ago | (#29721439)

Why would they think this appeals to 20-somethings? The show has been on for 20 years. Its audience is probably older (on the order of late 30s to early 40s), although most data on demographics that I can find gives a rating to a very broad demographic of 18 to 49. There is certainly nothing particularly cutting edge about the show today. Years ago, yes.

Re:As a 20-something... (4, Insightful)

Mooga (789849) | about 5 years ago | (#29721643)

They are trying to draw in a younger audience they their traditional readers (who are getting old). Personally, as a 20-something, I wouldn't be attracted to it as much as disturbed by it. That fact that BOTH Playboy and whoever currently owns the rights to the Simpsons thought it was a good idea is proof that they are BOTH in a lot of trouble. I have no motivation at all in seeing a "sexy" Marge Simpson. I think they confused "20-something" and "Anime Perverts." HUGE difference.

No Patti and Selma? (5, Funny)

cfa22 (1594513) | about 5 years ago | (#29721029)

Come on, they're TWINS.

A switch for Playboy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721039)

They are in cartoon porn now. What's next? Goatse and lemonparty images on the centerfold?

Re:A switch for Playboy... (2, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29721061)

At least they're not into furries. *shudder*

Re:A switch for Playboy... (2, Insightful)

the4thdimension (1151939) | about 5 years ago | (#29721063)

A lot of their issues have always contained some kind of explicit cartoon - this time they are just taking it to another degree.

Re:A switch for Playboy... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721565)

You're and idiot.

Re:A switch for Playboy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721735)

"You are and idiot."

What the fuck does that mean?

must buy (1)

pha7boy (1242512) | about 5 years ago | (#29721043)

well, there it is. I will have to buy it. I always thought Marge was rather sexy (when she let her hair down that is).

Re:must buy (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 years ago | (#29721281)

You know? I thought the same thing back when Madonna showed up in a Playboy spread... then I saw the armpit hair. We're not talking just a little bit, either... there was enough in there to supply an entire Lilith Fair audience.

Sometimes, there are things in this world that you just do not want to see, curiosity be damned.

Re:must buy (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#29721459)

>>>enough in there to supply an entire Lilith Fair audience.

I liked the Lilith Fair. Not the audience so much, but being able to see ~20 famous singers all at the same time. Too bad we don't have concerts like that today.

Re:must buy (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 5 years ago | (#29721651)

Too bad we don't have concerts like that today.

Try going to your local music festival. Recently Bonaroo, City Stages, and Bayfest happened within driving distance from me. Too bad I had to work...

Re:must buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721711)

Make sure you don't Google Image Search "Demi Moore Bush" with un-moderated results.

In short, the ideal woman has changed a lot. And it's going to keep changing.

Re:must buy (2, Funny)

lastchance_000 (847415) | about 5 years ago | (#29721733)

Ten years ago, I'd agree. Now...eh. Just call me when Leela does a spread.

For crying out loud; (5, Insightful)

fridaynightsmoke (1589903) | about 5 years ago | (#29721053)

At the risk of being modded down furiously, I would like to express my opinion on this:
1) Cartoons are seldom sexy
2) The Simpsons jumped the shark years ago. Since then it has been repeatedly jumping the shark, again and again, once every day at least in the vain hope that somebody notices that it has jumped the shark. So far very few people have.
3) Cross-promoting press release opportunities like this bore me to tears. I can understand Slashdot covering this, but I have seen this "news" in 'serious' newspapers. FFS.
That is all.

Re:For crying out loud; (5, Funny)

jacktherobot (1538645) | about 5 years ago | (#29721205)

don't have a cow man

Re:For crying out loud; (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721527)

Eat my shorts

Re:For crying out loud; (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | about 5 years ago | (#29721333)

Playboy doesn't have to target you to be successful. All they have to do is consistently find what enough people like to stay in business. This time, they're thinking that Marge would be the key to getting the attention of the "20 somethings" that might not normally pick up a copy.

Re:For crying out loud; (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#29721611)

Playboy Magazine ceased to have a purpose after you could find naked women posing online. The magazine offers what - three naked women each month - a celeb, the playmate of the month, and usually some random model. The net offers about 10,000 times as much.

Re:For crying out loud; (5, Funny)

lastchance_000 (847415) | about 5 years ago | (#29721687)

But what about the articles?!

Re:For crying out loud; (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721351)

And all this comes after the sexism article. So much for denial.

Re:For crying out loud; (2, Funny)

NoYob (1630681) | about 5 years ago | (#29721427)

Whoa, whoa, whoooooooa!

Marge has a really hot body! I really want to see her naked. The same goes for Lois Griffith! Quagmire does have great taste in cartoon chicks!

Re:For crying out loud; (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 5 years ago | (#29721551)

cue discussions whether Wilma or Betty was hotter. (Betty of course, I bet she's a filthy slut in bed)

Re:For crying out loud; (3, Funny)

Stuart Gibson (544632) | about 5 years ago | (#29721721)

I'd go with Betty. But I'd be thinking about Wilma.

Re:For crying out loud; (1)

Kugrian (886993) | about 5 years ago | (#29721763)

I'd go with Betty, but I'd still be thinking of Wilma.

In related news (3, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | about 5 years ago | (#29721057)

All of Hefner's girlfriends begin dying their hair blue.

Seems odd . . . (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#29721067)

This seems very unexpected. Not that Playboy would do it, or even that people would buy it, but rather than the owners of the Simpson's copyright (I presume Fox?) would agree to it.

Re:Seems odd . . . (4, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | about 5 years ago | (#29721127)

Well, Fox probably still likes money and the Simpsons isn't the cash cow it once was so... I'm thinking that Playboy dangled cash in front of Fox and Fox couldn't say "no."

Re:Seems odd . . . (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721431)

I beg to differ: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=simpsons.htm

Re:Seems odd . . . (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 5 years ago | (#29721723)

I'd guess that international rights and a show that consistently got high rating adds up to a lot more than a film. I'm not in the movie industry but just running the number of viewers they would have got over the multiple series (and the repeats) when it was funny $527m is important but not overly so.

Re:Seems odd . . . (1)

Red Alastor (742410) | about 5 years ago | (#29721485)

I think the main issue is that The Simpsons is not considered edgy anymore.

Re:Seems odd . . . (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#29721727)

That may indeed be part of it. I remember being in the 3rd or 4th grade when the series was somewhat new and my mom not allowing me to watch the Simpsons because it was seen as morally repulsive. South Park took the Simpson's place in that department LONG ago (and I'll admit that as an adult, I sure to like South Park a lot more than the Simpsons now). These days the Simpsons is pretty much considered good ol' fashioned family-friendly television.

Re:Seems odd . . . (3, Informative)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 5 years ago | (#29721719)

Did you read the article? This was done to increase Playboy's sagging sales.

Re:Seems odd . . . (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29721153)

rather than the owners of the Simpson's copyright (I presume Fox?) would agree to it.

Well, I seem to recall that Bart's already had his first nude appearance.

Keep in mind that Fox Pictures != Fox News.

Re:Seems odd . . . (5, Informative)

dfxm (1586027) | about 5 years ago | (#29721243)

I'm surprised Marge would do it. It seems out of character for her, especially considering she is a member of Springfield's Citizens' Committee on Moral Hygiene...

Re:Seems odd . . . (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | about 5 years ago | (#29721623)

She also painted Mr. Burns in the buff, so she can't be that prudish.

Re:Seems odd . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721679)

Hey, money corrupts.

Rule 34! (2, Funny)

Valdrax (32670) | about 5 years ago | (#29721073)

No, actually, wait. In retrospect, let's not. I don't think there ARE goggles that can do something for that.

Re:Rule 34! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721503)

Good luck with that (5, Funny)

Skyshadow (508) | about 5 years ago | (#29721077)

I'm certain that this will convince all the 20-somethings out there who've been weaned on free internet hardcore to subscribe to Playboy.

Re:Good luck with that (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | about 5 years ago | (#29721211)

Playboy is portable and doesn't require internet access or power. I predict that it's still quite popular with that crowd.

Re:Good luck with that (5, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | about 5 years ago | (#29721263)

Playboy is portable and doesn't require internet access or power. I predict that it's still quite popular with that crowd.

Great points. This will surely prove popular for the large, masturbator-on-the-go market.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 5 years ago | (#29721273)

What, the guys who live under the bridge downtown?

peace of mind (5, Funny)

bugi (8479) | about 5 years ago | (#29721095)

At least we won't have to debate whether or not the rack is real, so I can sleep easy for once.

Bah! (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | about 5 years ago | (#29721107)

I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet.

Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?

Re:Bah! (2, Funny)

revlayle (964221) | about 5 years ago | (#29721147)

I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet.

Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?

Rosie O'Donn...

wait... no... not any more...

*sobs uncontrollably*

Re:Bah! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721259)

Bastard!

That thought sticks in my brain no matter how much alcohol I try to drown it out with, and so you've just ruined the whole INTERNET for me.

Re:Bah! (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | about 5 years ago | (#29721655)

Is there something wrong with me if I was turned on by her in Exit to Eden [imdb.com] ?

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721703)

Is there something wrong with me if I was turned on by her in Exit to Eden [imdb.com] ?

yes. yes there is.

Re:Bah! (4, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 years ago | (#29721345)

Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?

Richard Stallman

(and yes, we are ever grateful that such an event has not occurred).

Re:Bah! (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | about 5 years ago | (#29721607)

Found it! [today.com]

oblig. xkcd (1)

yali (209015) | about 5 years ago | (#29721373)

Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?

Nope. [xkcd.com]

so does marge have blue pubes? (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 5 years ago | (#29721137)

and do her blue pubes stand up at ridiculous heights in a mock phallus?

Re:so does marge have blue pubes? (2, Informative)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#29721239)

This spread is worthless without pink.

Re:so does marge have blue pubes? (3, Informative)

Reason58 (775044) | about 5 years ago | (#29721363)

This spread is worthless without pink.

To put in a way that slashdotters may understand, it is like an article featuring a new sports car that does not mention its horsepower.

Re:so does marge have blue pubes? (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | about 5 years ago | (#29721617)

To put in a way that slashdotters may understand, it is like an article featuring a new sports car that does not let us peek under the hood at the shiny pink engine.

Hmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721139)

April first already?

Would rather see Leela (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721151)

C'mon Matt Groening, How about Leela Turanga poses for hustler next?

And for Playgirl (3, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | about 5 years ago | (#29721159)

Playgirl announces plans to feature Homer. When asked what prompted him to do the photo shoot, Homer said he needed the d'oh.

Next issue... (5, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 5 years ago | (#29721185)

I'm waiting for Leela [wikipedia.org] and Amy [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Next issue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721441)

Or Amy's head on Leela's body.

Re:Next issue... (4, Funny)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 5 years ago | (#29721563)

But lack of depth perception is what i look for in a lady!

Re:Next issue... (1)

vodevil (856500) | about 5 years ago | (#29721669)

hopefully we have the technology now to see amy's obscene tattoo!

erotic art (1)

bugi (8479) | about 5 years ago | (#29721207)

The erotic art in PB is often quite good. It's about time it gets center stage.

It's about time that PB embraces hentai-like realism. Their pictorials are usually so far from reality, it's laughable.

Re:erotic art (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | about 5 years ago | (#29721397)

hahahahahahaah
ahaah

Re:erotic art (1)

bugi (8479) | about 5 years ago | (#29721765)

Dude, not in public!

We want (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 5 years ago | (#29721217)

We want Betty Rubble!!!!

Re:We want (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 5 years ago | (#29721413)

Well I would go with Betty, but I'd be thinking of Wilma...

Oh good. (4, Funny)

Jethro (14165) | about 5 years ago | (#29721223)

This is the first time I've wanted to get a Playboy since I was 12.

New low (0, Troll)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 5 years ago | (#29721231)

This is a terrible idea. I think everyone at playboy involved with this should be shot, I think that the simpsons shoul've been canceled atleast 10 years ago, and I think that both playboy and the simpsons are old, stale, crap!

That'll get 'em! (1)

bdabautcb (1040566) | about 5 years ago | (#29721255)

This was in the MPLS Star Trib. The Playboy rep said this was an idea to draw in younger readers to the magazine, whose average readership is 35. Really? Is this marketing theory is only slightly better than the Windows 7 launch party video, or am I just too critical of marketing science?

Hentai (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about 5 years ago | (#29721265)

Since when did Playboy feature crappy hentai...?

Sure, why not? (1)

Steve Baker (3504) | about 5 years ago | (#29721301)

About as realistic as all the photoshopped girls.

Would you rather see Julie Kavner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721315)

I mean she was great on Awakenings and the Tracy Ullman show. Kinda old for this sorta thing, but arguably better than a drawing.

20-something ? (4, Interesting)

arielCo (995647) | about 5 years ago | (#29721337)

We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd

Given that The Simpsons first aired 19 years ago and peaked not too long after that, try again with "30-something crowd".

Re:20-something ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721521)

We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd

Given that The Simpsons first aired 19 years ago and peaked not too long after that, try again with "30-something crowd".

Still one of Foxes most watched shows... but why should anybody's opinion but yours matter right? ;)

Slashdot: News For Nerds (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721347)

A Rehash of VERY OLD NEWS.

I'd rather read Pravda, in RUSSIAN.

I've noticed Slashdot posts are decreasing almost as fast as the U.S. dollar.

Have fun in Beijing.

Yours In Petrograd,
Philboyd Studge

7-11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721381)

Why won't 7-11 carry playboy all the time? Does it think it will detract from the bailey legal nude mags it stocks now?

what (1)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | about 5 years ago | (#29721389)

what

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721465)

Is it really any crazier than Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize?

What's next? (1)

ParanoiaBOTS (903635) | about 5 years ago | (#29721507)

Will playgirl do a centerfold for crusty the clown?

Photoshopped (1)

eulernet (1132389) | about 5 years ago | (#29721539)

I hope she won't get photoshopped, like the other models.

Could it also be... (1)

sirgoran (221190) | about 5 years ago | (#29721603)

That they will end up using this as fodder for a episode of the Simpsons?

You know it will end up in the show as a story line.

-Goran

Since I got married I don't read Playboy (-1, Flamebait)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about 5 years ago | (#29721619)

or other porn magazines. I don't think my wife would like me reading them.

But usually there are WWE Divas who pose for Playboy, but I think this is the first time a Simpsons character posed for Playboy. Is Playboy becoming softcore now in that it uses cartoon characters instead of real people? Who next? Jane Jetson from the Jetsons, Willma Flintstone from the Flintstones, Betty Rubble from The Flintstones, Lois Griffin from Family Guy, Leela from Futurerama, Amy Wong from Futurerama, Mary Jane Watson from Spider-Man? Will Playboy turn into a cartoon centerfold magazine or spin off a new magazine called Playboy Cartoon about nude cartoon characters for 20something young men? Is Playboy going after the Japanese Henti market or just trying to appeal to a younger readership? What if this attracts boys younger than 18 to read Playboy like 10, isn't that like marketing cigarettes using cartoon characters for kids? I know the magazine is sold to adults only, but if someone's father or uncle has an issue on the coffee table won't that get some boys to at least peek inside the cover?

Ironically (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29721627)

Slashdot goes straight from story with tons of self-righteous complaints from geeks announcing that THEY'RE not sexist and neither is the FOSS system, to complaining that Playboy's latest attempt to make itself relevant to the younger generations is... what, I don't know, not sexy enough? Hello?

I'm sure this will get modded troll, particularly as I lurk and don't have an account, but honestly.

Wanted to moderate but... (4, Insightful)

JimboFBX (1097277) | about 5 years ago | (#29721657)

I really wanted to spend my mod points here but was disappointed nobody pointed this out:

*ahem*

How many other Playboy models feature hideous bug-eyes, a monstrous overbite, chimp-like ears, and freakish bee-hive hair?

And to throw in my own opinion: Remember folks, the picture was drawn by someone who probably resembles comic-book guy! Yeah!

Boycot 7-Eleven! (1)

Teun (17872) | about 5 years ago | (#29721691)

Boycot 7-Eleven for not carrying all Playboy issues.

Nobody will notice Marge (1)

Boawk (525582) | about 5 years ago | (#29721755)

Everyone just buys playboy for the articles.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?