Release the Hounds! Why Mr. Burns Needs to Be the Villain In "The Simpsons Movie" Sequel

The unapologetically evil nuclear power plant owner Charles Montgomery Burns has been the main villain of FOX’s beloved, long-running animated sitcom The Simpsons since its very early days, and yet the character was sidelined in The Simpsons Movie back in 2007. Below I give my thoughts as to why the just-announced sequel is the perfect opportunity to correct that oversight.

As a fan of The Simpsons for nearly 36 years (as a ten-year-old boy, exactly Bart’s age at the time, I watched the premiere episode “Simpsons Roasting On an Open Fire" on its original airing in December of 1989) I was excited to see The Simpsons Movie in the theater in 2007 (I was 27 then, as I continue to age along with the show). I ended up liking it, but not completely loving it, and I’ve always harbored a theory as to a big part of the reason why: Mr. Burns is barely in it. The iconic character, voiced by comedic actor and This Is Spinal Tap star Harry Shearer) has served as a constant foil for Homer Simpson, his family, and the citizenry of Springfield in general from the first season onward, making him the ultimate villain of The Simpsons franchise– he’s even the final boss in the classic arcade game. But for some reason that I’ve never been able to wrap my head around, the powers that be chose not to make Burns the villain in The Simpsons Movie.

Instead we got Russ Cargill, a new character who headed the Environmental Protection Agency under President Arnold Schwarzenegger (why this wasn’t Rainier Wolfcastle could be a whole other opinion piece) and the man responsible for sealing Springfield under a giant dome after Homer causes a toxic catastrophe. Now, I should note that Cargill was voiced by a brilliant comedic actor / writer / director in his own right, Albert Brooks (Defending Your Life), who also happens to be a cherished The Simpsons veteran as a frequent guest star on the show. In fact, I’ve heard that the Russ Cargill character was originally intended to be Hank Scorpio, the supervillain-like owner of Globex Corporation that Brooks famously voiced in the beloved eighth-season episode “You Only Live Twice."

Scorpio would have made much more sense to me, and in my opinion the reasons for the change have never been satisfactorily explained, but we’re left with a subpar Simpsons antagonist in the film, while Mr. Burns is granted just a scant few lines. Which brings us to today’s announcement that The Simpsons Movie is getting a sequel for its 20th anniversary. And I’m hoping nearly two years out is enough time to convince the writers and filmmakers that Mr. Burns deserves to be the main foil for this next theatrical outing. Below I’ve enumerated my reasoning as to why.

Reason #1: Harry Shearer is a national treasure. The Simpsons may be his most famous work (he’s provided voices for Mr. Burns, Waylon Smithers, Ned Flanders, Principal Seymour Skinner, newscaster Kent Brockman, Lenny Leonard, and others for over 36 seasons), but he’s also known for the Spinal Tap films, two brief stints on Saturday Night Live, A Mighty Wind, The Truman Show, and dozens upon dozens of other movie and TV roles. He also hosted a long-running public radio series called Le Show and directed a feature-length documentary about post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans entitled The Big Uneasy. But when it comes to The Simpsons, in recent years Shearer has also become known as one of the animated sitcom’s most reluctant cast members. He didn’t participate in The Simpsons Ride at Universal Studios theme parks, he’s had contract renegotiation issues, and he rarely appears in public to promote the show anymore. Counterintuitively, that’s why his featured performances on The Simpsons have felt so valuable to me over the last few seasons. The fact that I know he doesn’t necessarily really want to be there makes me appreciate it all the more when I can tell he’s actually giving it his all. In fact, I’m going to propose this: why not make The Simpsons Movie sequel a sendoff for Harry Shearer and his characters? Sure, there’s no end to the show in sight, but I’d be okay saying goodbye to Mr. Burns if he had one more grand scheme worthy of the character’s legacy.

Reason #2: Mr. Burns has the best schemes. I guess covering Springfield in a dome is interesting, but to me it’s always felt like a cheap imitation of C.M. Burns deciding to block out the sun in the classic two-part episode “Who Shot Mr. Burns?" from seasons 6 and 7. Beyond that, Burns has plotted to create a tuxedo out of adorable greyhound puppies, stole oil from underneath Springfield Elementary School, revoked the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant’s dental plan (Lisa needs braces!), endeavored to kill baby sea turtles to create an animal slurry, poisoned Springfield’s water supply and dumped nuclear waste around the town on countless occasions, attempted to bury Homer alive, stole a trillion dollars in foreign aid, and even kidnapped an entire Brazilian soccer team. I mean this is a guy who, as a child, crippled a poor Irishman by repeatedly driving into him with a bumper car. I’m sure the writers of the new Simpsons movie can come up with a diabolical Mr. Burns scheme to top all of that, and in fact, I’m counting on it!

Reason #3: Hating billionaires is totally in right now! Look, it’s no secret that the creative minds behind The Simpsons have tended to be pretty liberal-minded over the years, and in many ways Mr. Burns represents everything that liberals perceive to be wrong with America and its oligarchic tendencies. Hey, we could have Burns as a stand-in for tech-magnate-turned-DOGE-supervisor Elon Musk in the new movie, or even run for (perhaps be elected as?) President of the United States himself. I could definitely see the duo of Bart and Lisa Simpson working together to expose Burns’s fiendish past in order to prevent his rise to (even more) power.

Alternate suggestion: Okay, if Burns isn’t the villain in this new The Simpsons Movie, it’s gotta be Kelsey Grammer’s Sideshow Bob, right?