Have you ever wondered how a constantly broke Homer Simpson can pay for everything? In Season 8 of The Simpsons, we see a gag that may well clarify the fictional family’s unexplained wealth. Read on to learn more about a fan theory around Homer Simpson and his finances.

The Simpsons

Incorporating real, modern-day family issues into an animated world, The Simpsons has its comedic foundation on concerns such as marital woes, work-related stress, and problems concerning money. We see Homer’s struggles with his finances as an integral part of many episodes most of the time. 

In Season 8, one of the series’ strongest seasons, there is an episode wherein a throwaway gag suggests that Homer isn’t as broke as we may think. On the contrary, it implies that the family is fairly doing well financially, with no need for extra cash. 

Related Story: These 12 Simpsons Predictions Will Give You Goosebumps

Homer’s Situation

Only a few families of today can totally claim that money is no object, and the Simpsons are not the exception, maybe even more so as Marge is a stay-at-home wife with only Homer doing the daily grind. Although we see her working from time to time in the duration of the series, they weren’t something permanent. 

Homer’s joke of a boss, Mr. Burns, is depicted as a greedy employer who always finds ways to cut corners. One of which is his way of being stingy with his employee’s paychecks. To add more to his meager income, we see Homer taking on additional hours to be able to sustain his family’s growing needs. 

This is especially true when one of his family members gets into a new passion or hobby. One example was when Lisa got into horseback riding or when she went into musical teaching. 

Quite the Opposite

Even though we see Homer Simpson and his finances in such a way, we often see them spending cash like there’s no tomorrow. In Season 6’s Itchy & Scratchy Land and Season 7’s The Day The Violence Died, we find Homer dropping humongous amounts of money. A theory by Simpsons fan awkwardhipsters on Reddit says that the family’s wealth comes from a scene in Season 8’s You Only Move Twice. 

This episode is where Homer relocated the family to Cypress Creek to work for Hank Scorpio. He went to great lengths to work for the guy as he got along well with him. What he didn’t know was that Hank was a narcissistic, egomaniacal, and arrogant person who was bent on world domination. Unknowingly, Homer even assisted Hank in one of his evil plans, which have resulted in the death of a secret agent.

In the end, Homer takes back his family to Springfield after giving up his job with Hank. As a farewell gift, Hank bought the Denver Broncos and gave them to Homer. Hank did this after hearing that it was Homer’s dream to own the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. 

Surprisingly, Homer was disappointed with the gift, not knowing that the Broncos would win the Super Bowl three times after this episode was aired. The team is now worth billions of dollars, even if they lack the Twitter presence of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

The Fan Theory

And so, the fan theory is that Homer still owns a part of the team, the reason he seems to spit out money whenever he can. This may also explain how Homer can afford to send Lisa to an Ivy League school, as can be seen in Season 29’s Mr. Lisa’s Opus.

In addition, this may be why the family seems to have a limitless bank account. They never lost their house, they can easily pay for Homer’s never-ending injuries and his excessive time off from work.

And for other entertainment stories, read more here at Owner’s Mag!

Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey tells the story of a girl whose perception of reality is warped by her love of Gothic novels. Austen deftly weaves Gothic tropes into her writing before coming to a controlled, romantic ending. 

But how does the evolution from Gothic into horror affect that narrative? What about post-Blair Witch grassroots horror? How would Catherine Morland respond to the blurred line between horror and reality in our fragmented online culture? Enter We’re All Going to the World’s Fair.

Perhaps the greatest testament to World’s Fair is the personal memories it seems to bring out in its audience. Scroll through Letterboxd and you’ll find reflections on cryptic YouTube messages, creepy chatroom encounters, and friends who poured hand sanitizer in each other’s eyes.

Personally, I was too anxious a kid to get involved in the sort of horror ARG that this film’s protagonist, Casey (Anna Cobb), does. Still, anyone who was raised in the ‘00s or ‘10s knows about this sort of online supernaturalism. I knew my fair share of kids who got invested in the paranormal like Casey. At the very least, I was quite familiar with Creepypastas, which this film references explicitly.

What makes this film feel so personal is the online intimacy of its storytelling. With rare exceptions, World’s Fair is told entirely through YouTube-style videos. Even when Casey isn’t on-screen, we’re with her. 

The only true break from this is at the end, when JLB (Michael J. Rogers), the only other credited actor, gets a scene and a half of his own. His “other” is also a strikingly relatable one. Like any strange adult you interact with online as a child, he can be viewed either as a concerned guardian or another supernatural threat.

Not unlike Austen, writer-director Jane Schoenbrun is a formal virtuoso. She prepares an uncanny charcuterie board of internet horror ranging from 8-bit “found footage” to VFX-driven short films. 

Alex G’s score sets a chilling tone, as does Cobb’s refreshingly weird performance, but often the scariest part of the movie is the silent, rotating arrow that plays between videos. It reminds us that we’re watching from someone’s point of view, of the sensation of being held captive by late-night horror rabbit holes.

At the time, I felt a bit disappointed by the film’s optimistic, reality-check ending. Like Casey, I had been swept up in the game. As horrific and seemingly deadly as it was, I wanted to believe. It took me a few days to recognize that the film isn’t from Casey’s perspective; it’s JLB, watching Casey’s videos. That’s why we never see Casey outside of this altered, late-night state. We never know her family, her school, or her interests. Near the end of the film, we realize we might never have known her at all.

We’re All Going to the World’s Fair’s creepy, voyeuristic horror is closely tethered to our strange reality. It’s not just based on a true story, it’s based on a billion true stories. If you were raised on the internet, you may uncover one of your own.
We’re All Going to the World’s Fair is now playing at PFS Bourse and available for digital download.

Recently, I spoke to a friend about Don’t Look Up and The Bubble, two star-studded COVID comedies that are, among other things, shockingly unfunny.

He brought up Bombshell, a 2019 movie about the exposure of Roger Ailes’ misconduct at Fox News. I, having seen it in theaters, considered it another example of a lukewarm, too-soon satire. He, who streamed it in 2021, found it a well-done reflection on the #MeToo movement.

This speaks to how brief the “#MeToo era” turned out to be. What was still too close for comfort in 2019 reads like a historical text today. By the time the pandemic came around, several figures whose time was supposedly “up” had already come back with a vengeance.

Today, we’re not even in the post-#MeToo world. We’re post-post-#MeToo, where the symbols and language of the movement are equally canonized (and perhaps weaponized) by the movement’s kin and its backlash.

Anyway, Amber Heard and Johnny Depp are in the news.

Depp v. Heard: a timeline

I intend to cover the history of this legal battle as impartially as I can. This article is not a condemnation of Amber Heard or Johnny Depp, just a reflection on the trial’s cultural significance.

With that being said, the progression and increased media coverage of their split is a fascinating case study. While Depp was never especially seen as a #MeToo mark, the movement against abuse in Hollywood is inseparable from the context of this story.

2016: Amber Heard files for divorce

In late May, sandwiched between the death of Depp’s mother and the release of Alice Through the Looking Glass, Amber Heard filed for divorce from the actor. Depp’s public image had already soured from a string of flops, and the pair’s 18-month romance was already full of odd chapters.

Days later, Heard was granted a restraining order against Depp. She alleged violent abuse from the actor, while Depp’s team argued she was “attempting to secure a premature financial resolution” with her claims.

By this point, stories of Dr. Luke and Bill Cosby had already drawn headlines. Heard’s accusations were scooped up by the press, with fans and friends coming to Depp’s defense, but preceding #MeToo by a few months, it stayed relatively under the radar.

2016-17: Depp and Heard reach a settlement, finalize divorce

Heard was awarded $7 million in a settlement in August of 2016, which she donated to the ACLU and the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. Alongside the settlement, the pair released a joint statement: “Neither party has made false accusations for financial gain. There was never any intent of physical or emotional harm.”

Against the backdrop of Trump’s election and the ensuing Women’s March, Depp and Heard officially parted, seemingly on good terms, in January of 2017. Needless to say, it attracted little media attention.

2018: The Sun lawsuit

It shouldn’t surprise anyone too much to learn that J.K. Rowling found a way to make this about her. As a vocal champion for the #MeToo movement, she came under fire after Depp was cast to reprise his role as Grindelwald in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.

Rowling pointed to Heard and Depp’s settlement as evidence that their history ought to be left in the past, but critics doubled down. The Sun released a particularly scathing op-ed calling Rowling a hypocrite and Depp a “wife beater.” Depp sues the Sun for libel, claiming that Heard had lied about being abused and had, in fact, abused Depp.

This is probably the low point for Depp’s reputation. The Fantastic Beasts backlash implicated him in #MeToo, while reports of on-set abuse and erratic behavior started to pour out. Denying the allegations in an unrelated lawsuit two years later may seem strange, but in the height of the movement, Depp may have felt it necessary to save his career by any means necessary.

2018-19: War of the words

In October of 2018, for a GQ cover story, Depp formally denied Heard’s accusations, accusing her of physical and verbal abuse. He went on the offensive, and his devout online audience was happy to follow suit.

Heard published an op-ed in the Washington Post in December of 2018: “I spoke up against sexual violence – and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” Without mentioning Depp by name, she claimed that her career suffered after she spoke out against sexual violence.

This editorial is the very same one that Depp sued Heard for defamation over in 2019, to the tune of $50 million. That trial, delayed extensively due to COVID, is the one happening right now.

Depp v. Heard: the TikTok trial

While this trial is technically about Heard’s op-ed, Depp’s case hinges on the idea that Heard’s accusations of abuse are false. This is tough for two reasons: first of all, Heard doesn’t specifically accuse Depp of anything in the op-ed. Second of all, 12 of 14 allegations against Depp were already found to be true in the aforementioned Sun case.

So, what is there to talk about here? Heard moved to have this case dismissed after the Sun ruling, but since the Sun case was in the UK and Heard was a witness rather than a defendant, that motion was denied.

Depp is trying to prove that Heard’s accusations of abuse are false, through the roundabout means of arguing that she was abusive to him and he was acting in defense. Heard, who countersued Depp for $100 million, is arguing that Depp influenced social media campaigns to harass her and destroy her career. Which brings us to the Depp fans.

Johnny Depp’s insatiable fanbase

It may be unfair to say that Depp’s fans are the only reason you’re hearing so much about this trial. Celebrity trials are a time-honored pastime, and this one’s especially star-studded, with expected cameos by Ellen Barkin, James Franco, Paul Bettany, and Elon Musk.

Still, Depp fans have been relentless in pushing his case on social media. They constantly promote Tweets and TikToks espousing Depp’s innocence and obsessive theories about Heard. On the scene, they pack the courtroom by the dozens, while viewers at home turn CNN’s livestream into a Twitch chat for stans.

How it reflects on #MeToo

Yes, Johnny Depp fans have always been especially… energetic. They proved that at this year’s Oscars, when they got him a mention in one of the Twitter-voted categories for a movie that doesn’t exist. But Depp’s narrative of the silenced victim has brought that passion to new heights. His base is a frothy mix of pro- and anti-#MeToo sentiments, galvanized to support a cause that just so happens to involve their favorite actor.

More broadly, Depp may be a case study in what can happen if a #MeToo accusee fights back. People catastrophized over the impact of a false claim, but this, regardless of who’s telling the truth, is a test of the public’s credulity. Can they flip to the other side in the case of a counter-accusation?

The problem is, this is far from a cut-and-dry case. 12 acts of violence by Depp have been proven in a court of law. At least 1 act of violence by Heard was admitted to in an audio recording. “Mutual abuse” is often used to silence victims, but Depp and Heard’s former couples’ therapist called their relationship mutual.

A foundational idea of #MeToo was that victims wouldn’t get justice from corrupt institutions. Collective justice through social media was a means of finally speaking truth to power. This is a case where one side already got their justice in a court of law, and the other side is now turning to social media for theirs. None of this is to compare Depp or Heard to figures like Weinstein, Cosby, and Trump, but the language of a powerful abuser brought down has been applied both ways.

Conclusion: Is this justice?

If this case correctly rules on who abused whom in this relationship, then a certain kind of justice might be served. But in the court of public opinion, neither party is getting off scot free. 

Could fans be persistent enough to get another Pirates movie made? Is Warner Bros. desperate enough to try bringing Depp back to Fantastic Beasts? Maybe, but the sentiment that got him fired in the first place hasn’t gone anywhere. Heard is as likely to get dropped by DC as Evangeline Lilly is by Marvel; it’s not impossible, but wouldn’t they have done it already?

To the extent that this battle could have any effect, it’s hard to see it as a positive one. Just like Time’s Up came out of hibernation to protect Andrew Cuomo, the language of #MeToo has been completely stripped of ideology. 

Whether Heard or Depp started the fire isn’t for me to decide. What is clear, however, is that Heard isn’t controlling the narrative right now. Whatever their intentions, Depp fans have set a blueprint for combating abuse allegations with social media astroturfing.

Maybe #MeToo itself set that blueprint. Maybe Heard leveraged the #MeToo movement the same way Depp is leveraging his fans. Both sides participated in mudslinging and narrative-spinning, but what happens if the next Weinstein has a fanbase like Depp’s? Whatever the outcome of this case, it points to trouble for the next victim to speak out. The limit of collective justice has been found, and it’s our short attention spans.