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!

cancel ×

308 comments

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

Oblig. (5, Funny)

Jack Malmostoso (899729) | about 7 years ago | (#20053683)

Good news everyone!

Re:Oblig. (4, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | about 7 years ago | (#20053727)

I, for one, welcome Groening as our overlord!

Matt & David & Co.: if any of you are reading this I want to say THANK YOU for hanging in there and making these DVDs happen. Here's to hoping to the return of Futurama to full production! :) I will be buying at least five or six copies of this to be handing out as gifts to try to help increase popularity of (and thusly demand for) the series.

Re:Oblig. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054211)

zomg, wtf? flamebait. do you mods even speak english? are you failing to comprehend what he/she wrote and so deciding they're trying to flame you and your low literacy levels? has the term "flame" been redefined in the last 5 minutes or something? there's bunch of fucking mongoloids that end up with mod-points on here...

Re:Oblig. (-1, Troll)

omfgnosis (963606) | about 7 years ago | (#20054261)

I was with you until you used a racist slur against people from Mongolia. Seriously, is that fucking necessary?

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054603)

Mongoloid isn't a racial slur "against people from Mongolia"

Read up a bit before you try to get all uppity about someone swearing. Calling a Downs kid a Mongoloid idiot, sure, that lacks class. By itself, Mongoloid has a number of legitimate uses; 'fucking mongoloid' clearly invokes a historical context such as referring to the person with the mod points as if saying they're a Neanderthal.

Mongoloid by itself without any extra fun like "fucking" is just as legitimate as Caucasoid, so basically you're just up in arms over the fact that he was using the word "fucking" in his rant, right?

- Anonymous Mongloid

Re:Oblig. (0, Flamebait)

omfgnosis (963606) | about 7 years ago | (#20054631)

Oh fuck. Its use to describe people with Downs Syndrome is racist, and it was obviously intended in that way.

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054745)

people with Downs Syndrome are not a race.

Re:Oblig. (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | about 7 years ago | (#20054771)

Of course not. Your point?

Re:Oblig. (3, Informative)

Crunchie Frog (791929) | about 7 years ago | (#20054813)

Of course not. Your point?
... has obviously gone over your head.

Re:Oblig. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054837)

so it's not fucking racist you mong. discriminatory, maybe, but can you prove they (or even yourself) dont actually have down syndrome? perhaps it's a very accurate description of those with mod point, who modded the gggp a troll

Re:Oblig. (2, Insightful)

omfgnosis (963606) | about 7 years ago | (#20054855)

People with Downs are not a race, but the term "mongoloid" is a racial term, which came to have connotations with Downs due to racist perceptions about biological traits of Mongols. Hence my fucking comment.

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054809)

No, I don't think it is any more obvious that it is suggesting that the moderators are downs afflicted than it is that it is saying that they're pre cro-magnon and can't figure out modern tools, let alone mod points.

Mongoloid as a term was usurped by Downs when he clumsily used it to try and scientifically associate "Mongoloid Idiocy" as some sort of genetic Caucasoid regression that expressed Mongol features (hence mongoloid) at great expense to the subject (hence the idiocy.)

In this case, Mongoloid only refers to the features, which were seen to be similar to, rather broadly, Mongols, and the idiocy part was separate, but also had a different connotation when he used it in his book which was titled something like "Survey of Idiocy". Downs syndrome got caught up here because they didn't understand it, not because it was initially seen as derogatory.

In this case, I strongly suspect the user was NOT suggesting that the moderators were downs afflicted, and rather more generally suggesting an association with Mongols, specifically in a historical sense as Mongoloid is most often used to refer to skulls and other remnants from cave man eras.

Out of curiosity, why the intense presumption about Downs Syndrome? Someone in the family or a friend? I'm not asking to insult, but just to understand why your emotions are so sharply defined along the pre-conceived notions you're defending.

Re:Oblig. (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | about 7 years ago | (#20054873)

"In this case, I strongly suspect the user was NOT suggesting that the moderators were downs afflicted, and rather more generally suggesting an association with Mongols, specifically in a historical sense as Mongoloid is most often used to refer to skulls and other remnants from cave man eras."

Of course. They just happened to use a term that has those connotations, while obviously insulting the intelligence of the people in question, but the reference in no way was intended to refer to those connotations, it's just a mistaken coincidence. I see now.

Re:Oblig. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20053809)

I knew that obligatory comment was coming. You can bite my shiny metal ass!

/goes to find the nearest source of molten metal

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054033)

Sluh!

Re:Oblig. (2, Funny)

Zackbass (457384) | about 7 years ago | (#20053955)

It's a suppository!

Re:Oblig. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20053985)

Sweet zombie Jesus!

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054157)

Why?

Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!

Re:Oblig. (2, Funny)

FlashBuster3000 (319616) | about 7 years ago | (#20054005)

Tremble, puny earthlings. One day my race will destroy you all!

Re:Oblig. (1)

g0rAngA (1131007) | about 7 years ago | (#20054127)

As granny always said, if you want a futurama movie released in November, you've got to do it yourself....god rest her zombie bones.

Re:Oblig. (4, Funny)

waynemcdougall (631415) | about 7 years ago | (#20054597)

The show will return as a full-length, high-def film sold on DVD.

But does it come in a convenient suppository format?

Re:Oblig. (3, Informative)

robably (1044462) | about 7 years ago | (#20054755)

Just saying, but "Good news everyone!" was always the herald of really bad news. The tag should be !goodnewseveryone.

I'll get my coat.

Re:Oblig. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054775)

Awesome. Awesome to the max.

Finally (2)

gertin (1063236) | about 7 years ago | (#20053693)

I missed Nixon.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20053755)

Agreed. I've always felt that someone should produce a T-Shirt with Nixon's head on the front with the words "Who thinks they have what it takes to party with Nixon!?" on it (from the global warming episode), maybe with those two fembots shaking it on each side.

Imagine, jut for a moment, the looks you'd get from people who had no idea what it meant.

Re:Finally (1)

MonkeyBoy (4760) | about 7 years ago | (#20053859)

I found a T-Shirt a while back that had the slogan "Vote Robot Nixon!" or something similar, with a picture of Nixon's head grafted onto a large robot body.

Closest I could come to a Futurama shirt, and it wasn't the same body from Futurama... so it didn't turn out quite as good as I had hoped.

Still... a Robot Nixon is better than no Robot Nixon...

Re:Finally (2, Informative)

User 956 (568564) | about 7 years ago | (#20053867)

You're talking about this one, maybe? [cafepress.com]

Re:Finally (1)

MonkeyBoy (4760) | about 7 years ago | (#20054001)

Yep, that's the one I got.

Re:Finally (2, Funny)

friedo (112163) | about 7 years ago | (#20053757)

Arrooooooo?

Yes, instead we have Jimmy Carter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054103)

Yes, instead we have Jimmy Carter.

No nightly reruns? a la Simpsons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20053701)

I would love to catch up on missed episodes...

Re:No nightly reruns? a la Simpsons (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 7 years ago | (#20053741)

Between now and then it is on Adult Swim five nights a week. Catch it there, or buy it on DVD. :)

Re:No nightly reruns? a la Simpsons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20053827)

It's on Adult Swim 7 nights a week by my last count.

They took over Friday nights a couple weeks ago, and "Action Saturday" starts off with, of course, a block of comedy. The only comedy they run worth mentioning on Saturdays is Futurama, the rest is almost always retarded crap (Home Movies, Oblongs, Shin Chan, etc.).

However AS's deal runs out later this year, at which point you'll have to watch both new & old episodes on Comedy Central. CC, you may remember, ran Mystery Science Theatre 3000 into the ground, then threw gasoline on the twitching corpse. My hopes are not very high for Futurama after CC gets ahold of it. CC will probably slap it into a 2am timeslot and start bitching about how nobody is watching...

Re:No nightly reruns? a la Simpsons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20053853)

CC will probably slap it into a 2am timeslot and start bitching about how nobody is watching...
Still better than Fox and their habit of throwing promising year 1 shows against the current equivalent of Seinfeld or trailing a sports broadcast that guarantees a 25% overrun rate.

Re:No nightly reruns? a la Simpsons (1)

iamstretchypanda (939837) | about 7 years ago | (#20054333)

It's on Adult Swim 7 nights a week by my last count.

Thats funny, i wasn't aware they aired adult swim on Fridays ;).

Re:No nightly reruns? a la Simpsons (1)

rmoehring (949487) | about 7 years ago | (#20054383)

Actually, they just started airing Adult Swim on Fridays in the last month.

Let me be the first to say... (1)

G-funk (22712) | about 7 years ago | (#20053703)

...Giggity giggi- oh, wait...

Seriously though, this is fantastic news and makes it a lot more real in my mind. I hope they leave those god damned clone kids out of it though :)

Dr. Zoidberg, A Medical Corporation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20053749)

How we missed ye, you ugly mudbug you...

Finally (5, Insightful)

Tykho (1133421) | about 7 years ago | (#20053797)

Life is worth living again!

About damn time (1, Flamebait)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about 7 years ago | (#20053889)

With the Simpsons ending, perhaps a successful release of these DVDs will help get the series back into full production. It was really far too brilliant to end after only 4 (3 production) seasons. I've been so angry with Fox ever since they canceled it and allowed the mind numbingly stupid show Family Guy back. Futurama is so much more deserving than that show. But it's never too late to start making good decisions.

Re:About damn time (4, Informative)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 7 years ago | (#20054047)

With the Simpsons ending

That's news to Matt Groening.

Re:About damn time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054173)

Damn. I wish I read this comment before I started frantically Googling "Simpsons finale -movie"

A few corrections (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054219)

Actually, Futurama had four production seasons (hence the four box sets) that aired as five television seasons on FOX.

Also, AFAIK, The Simpsons isn't ending any time soon.

FINE! (4, Funny)

arcite (661011) | about 7 years ago | (#20054331)

Fine. I'll go build my own movie! With blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the movie and the blackjack! Ah, screw the whole thing.

Re:About damn time (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 7 years ago | (#20054801)

"With the Simpsons ending"

I guess the two additional movies that the cast of the Simpsons movie are in negotiations for is rumor then?

The Velour Fog (4, Funny)

jomama717 (779243) | about 7 years ago | (#20053901)

I only hope Zapp Brannigan plays a major role - he steals the show in my book. Best Shatner parody ever.

Re:The Velour Fog (4, Funny)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 7 years ago | (#20054205)

Whaddya mean, "parody?" Zapp plays it straight!

Re:The Velour Fog (5, Funny)

vranash (594439) | about 7 years ago | (#20054239)

Nothing about Zap is straight, except MAYBE his bagging of Leela, and we all know that's only because he mis-interpreted being 'introduced to a one eyed friend' :)

Re:The Velour Fog (1, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 7 years ago | (#20054351)

I knew somebody was going to object to that sentence...

Anyway, I meant "straight" in the acting [answers.com] sense, sort of, not in the sexual sense. Or in other words, I'm claiming that Zapp isn't a parody of Shatner because Shatner himself is that bad too.

Don't you just hate it when you have to explain a joke?

Re:The Velour Fog (3, Funny)

kramulous (977841) | about 7 years ago | (#20054983)

And which one rocked your world?

Re:The Velour Fog (2)

jez9999 (618189) | about 7 years ago | (#20054439)

You've GOT to be kidding me. Zapp Brannigsn is the most fucking annoying Futurama character.

Re:The Velour Fog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054773)

You win again, gravity!

Oh thank GOD! (5, Funny)

doyoulikeworms (1094003) | about 7 years ago | (#20053951)

That saved me a trip to the suicide booth!

Re:Oh thank GOD! (3, Funny)

ThirdPrize (938147) | about 7 years ago | (#20054407)

Shame.

obligitory? (0, Redundant)

SpaceballsTheUserNam (941138) | about 7 years ago | (#20053995)

FUCK YEAH!!!111!!!!!!1

misnomer (1)

nedder (690308) | about 7 years ago | (#20054049)

Good 'ol "high def DVD". Fishier than 1000 year old anchovies.

Re:misnomer (5, Funny)

bob8766 (1075053) | about 7 years ago | (#20054135)

I wasn't even going to bother getting this DVD, until I saw the Hypnotoad. Now I want 10 copies!

Re:misnomer (3, Funny)

Giddeon Fox (960724) | about 7 years ago | (#20054187)

Dvd's do not work that way. GOODNIGHT.

Re:misnomer (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#20054355)

Technically a 480p image is within the range of high-def, even if it barely qualifies. So a progressive scan DVD can be called high-def, even if it pales in the comparison of a 1080p BluRay image.

Re:misnomer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054659)

What the fuck are you smoking? That's standard definition you moron. Go kill yourself asshole. Next thing you'll claim CIF is high definition...

Re:misnomer (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#20054713)

I don't know why I even bother responding to an AC troll, but 480i is standard definition. Standard definition is also 4:3 aspect ratio.

A DVD can put out a native widescreen 480p picture, which was the bare minimum for the original HD specs. Most high-def TV shows are broadcast in 720p, and the new high-def movie formats are 1080p, but most high-def TVs can't even support 1080p. There is no single resolution that defines HD content.

Re:misnomer (1)

@madeus (24818) | about 7 years ago | (#20054939)

480p - along with 576p - is often referred to as 'Enhanced Definition' (EDTV) but neither qualify as HDTV.

Re:misnomer (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#20054999)

Partially correct. These days a TV that can only produce 480p and not 720p is called EDTV.

However the ORIGINAL HD spec included 480p. That is why the original XBox says it supported high-def, when the games only went up to 480p.

YAY (-1, Redundant)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 7 years ago | (#20054071)

So awesome. I can't wait.

About time (1)

g0rAngA (1131007) | about 7 years ago | (#20054091)

All I've ever heard from anyone about Futurama is that is should have continued.

I've heard rumors for ages, but this one looks pretty solid.

Yay!

Re:About time (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 7 years ago | (#20054203)

When the show first aired it seemed like it was always being preempted by the end of football games and I frankly never got into the series until it appeared on Adult Swim. Also I was in college at the time and time was some I did not have a lot of. But the show replaced the 10PM news in my apartment and the show is still funny.

There will be a million unnecessary quotes, but... (2, Funny)

wizzahd (995765) | about 7 years ago | (#20054153)

"He'll be as strong and flexible as Gumby and Hercules combined!"

"Gumbercules?! I love that guy!!"

Yay (4, Funny)

Safiire Arrowny (596720) | about 7 years ago | (#20054171)

I'm happier than a snake in a sugar-cane field.

Big Deal (1)

ZiakII (829432) | about 7 years ago | (#20054199)

You can all bite my shiny metal ass.

I never really.. (5, Interesting)

daydr3am3r (880873) | about 7 years ago | (#20054215)

..understood as to why Futurama never really took off to the mainstream as Simpsons did. Especially with the declining quality of the latter and the pretty much consistent high quality of the former. Must be the sci-fi tag that works like a repellant: "Oooh I want gonna laugh you know, but can't, it's sci-fi fer christ's sakes!..."

Re:I never really.. (1)

neglige (641101) | about 7 years ago | (#20054341)

"Oooh I want gonna laugh you know, but can't, it's sci-fi fer christ's sakes!..."

Ah, yes, but Firefly, Farscape and Futurama (ok, and sometimes Lexx) should have tought us otherwise by now. Star Trek also had its moments, although not constantly. Sci-Fi CAN be funny :)

Re:I never really.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054467)

Gee, I wonder what all those shows have in common...

Face it, science fiction is just not terribly mainstream right now. Strangely enough, elves and wizards are still quite popular with the mainstream audience. I think this has to do with an obsession with the past in our current culture.

Re:I never really.. (1)

VagaStorm (691999) | about 7 years ago | (#20054605)

I thought shows like lost, smallwile and CSI where pretty popular over there. They are not so wery futuristic, but sci-fi none the less.

Re:I never really.. (1)

Zelos (1050172) | about 7 years ago | (#20054453)

I'm a huge Futurama fan, but even I wouldn't compare it to the Simpsons - the earlier seasons of the Simpsons which caused it to "take off" are in a completely different comedy league from Futurama.

Futurama had its moments, but there's too much dead space between jokes for it to be as funny as the Simpsons.

Re:I never really.. (1)

oohshiny (998054) | about 7 years ago | (#20054463)

understood as to why Futurama never really took off to the mainstream as Simpsons did

What fraction of Americans do you think are going to get "aleph-1-plex" or jokes about Hawking?

Re:I never really.. (5, Insightful)

dakameleon (1126377) | about 7 years ago | (#20054469)

Lack of instant broad family appeal. The Simpsons has a character everyone can identify with, but Futurama has quirky characters that aren't as broad in their reach. I for one say Futurama is far funnier, but then I land smack-bang in its target audience, so I would wouldn't I.

Re:I never really.. (4, Informative)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | about 7 years ago | (#20054477)

Because it was a little too geeky. Many of the jokes involved references to sci-fi movies or series, or scientific / mathematical theory (for example this list [lycos.es] (spanish)). Most people won't get what is about a 7-11 clerk in a box, but you know it is the shield from "Dune". Or that a aleph-sub-0 cinema would have a countable infinite number of rooms.

Also, many of the jokes are more subtle than those usual to the Simpsons, and probably people won't want to look at a cartoon and have to think harder to understand its humour.

That said, I am already waiting on it.

Re:I never really.. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054677)

I didn't see this answer in the previous replies to your question.

Fox set up Futurama to run at 7PM EST / 6PM CST. This was on a Sunday. Fox had football running on Sundays. With the exception of the west coast, most of the country never saw the show. Many times they joined the show already in progress at approx 20 after, so no one could know what was going on. Too many football games went past their time slot.

Plus, there are those that attended church on Sunday nights, so they never saw an episode. While living with the parents, it was a requirement to attend church on Sunday nights. I never caught the show unless I was sick or after I had moved out. So I never got a chance to see the entire run until Adult Swim started showing it.

So for a few, other things were going on on Sunday nights. For many others they never got a chance to see the show due to Fox's use of a 7PM time slot on a day they had football scheduled until 7PM, but typically it ran until 7:20.

No promotion behind it. All I remember ever seeing commercials for was Simpsons and King of the Hill.

Re:I never really.. (1)

00schneider (992313) | about 7 years ago | (#20054859)

I really can't understand either why shows like Futurama or Family Guy are considered unsuccessful and getting canceled. Are the networks expecting too much from these shows or are the makers demanding to much money for an episode? Many complain about Firefly and other shows I never even heard of not being continued. But unlike them Futurama and Family Guy aired in many countries around the world with good ratings. Almost worldwide known shows and the merchandising have to generate some money.

At last! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054229)

Finally, a good show on TV.

Random celebratory quote:

"The Elders tell of a young ball much like you. First he bounced 3 meters in the air... Then he bounced 1.8 meters in the air. Then he bounced *4* meters in the air."

Wrong again idiot! (0, Troll)

guamman (527778) | about 7 years ago | (#20054233)

The DVD format does not come in high-def. At the very most, they are referring to 480P which might be termed enhanced-def at best.

Eggggselllent. . . (1)

noewun (591275) | about 7 years ago | (#20054249)

Oh, wait: wrong series.

Me too (1)

wamerocity (1106155) | about 7 years ago | (#20054259)

I am seriously so glad they are bringing this show back. I remember when I completely stopped watching the Simpsons after I found out about this show in the second season, then I watched it nonstop. The character are just classic, and it's a lot grittier than the simpsons by far.

Favorite quotes:

Zapp: "Congratulations Leela. Now you're officially my woman. Kudos! I can't say I don't envy you."

Zapp: "Kiff, have the boy lay out my formal shorts." Kiff: "The Boy sir?" Zapp: "YOU Kiff, YOU lay out my formal shorts."

Dr. Zoidberg: "Love? Love is not known here. I am simply looking for a female swollen with eggs to accept my genetic material" Fry: "You and me both brother!"

Fry: "Oh! Why couldn't she be the OTHER type of Mermaid, which the fish part on top, and the lady part on the bottom!"

Any differences in the releases? (1)

LarsWestergren (9033) | about 7 years ago | (#20054273)

One thing I have been wondering about is if the series will add or remove some material? I guess some people would complain if they first bought the movies, and then found additional material on the series DVD release. If so, I would probably buy both. Remember that it was the good DVD sales that brought Family Guy back.

Re:Any differences in the releases? (3, Insightful)

AngryJim (1045256) | about 7 years ago | (#20054301)

"Remember that it was the good DVD sales that brought Family Guy back."

Yeah and look how that turned out.

Re:Any differences in the releases? (1)

LarsWestergren (9033) | about 7 years ago | (#20054445)

>>"Remember that it was the good DVD sales that brought Family Guy back."
>Yeah and look how that turned out.


Ouch... yeah, point. I think Futurama season 4 was a slight step down in quality too. The jokes were telegraphed way ahead, and there were no new interesting characters introduced.

On the other hand, the redeeming qualities were that plots moved from just being satirical joke-vehicles to real story arcs with interesting sci-fi twists and developing characters, at least with regards to Fry&Leela and Kif&Amy. Dangerously close to being sentimental and sappy sometimes, but The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings was a fantastic finishing episode.

Re:Any differences in the releases? (1)

AngryJim (1045256) | about 7 years ago | (#20054761)

That was the one positive note for me personally, they really went out on a high note much like Arrested Development and Seinfeld, whereas shows like The Simpsons got stale a decade ago.

Morbo is pleased, but sticky. (1)

rmoehring (949487) | about 7 years ago | (#20054321)

Morbo is pleased, but sticky.

Wohoo! (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | about 7 years ago | (#20054329)

Theese news made my day!

Don't forget (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | about 7 years ago | (#20054365)

Rumor has it that one or more of these DVDs will feature a very special full-length episode of Everybody Loves Hypno-Toad.

All glory to the Hypno-Toad!

Networks (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#20054373)

Will the networks ever learn? They never marketed the show properly, and that is why it failed, just like why Family Guy failed the first time around.

Often they bail very early on a show that could be successful (like Drive this year, or Firefly) before they ever give the show a chance to succeed. If you don't market a show, people don't know it exists, and they aren't going to watch it. The weird thing is that there is quite a bit of start-up cost in getting an animated show running with an animation shop. 16 episodes is more than a half-season slate. I don't know why they don't just bring it back as a mid-season replacement on Fox, see how it goes, and hopefully just bring the show back for good?

Re:Networks (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 7 years ago | (#20054549)

Well adds cost money. And they rather focus it to show that they know everyone will like. Futurama and Family Guy have a target audience (people who understand and appreciate sarcasm), a large majority of the population are kina luke warm about those shows Family Guy re-found success was that it gathered the Shock Watch Crowd (They Cant do that On TV) and the Sarcasm loving fans. Futurama is a lot less shocking then Family Guy so it looses that segment.

Re:Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054861)

adds = ads

kina = kind of

then = than

looses = loses

Re:Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20054673)

I don't know why they don't just bring it back as a mid-season replacement on Fox, see how it goes, and hopefully just bring the show back for good?
Network TV time is expensive. Pressing DVDs is cheap.

Given that you've already produced the content, it's less risky to produce DVDs than trying to (re)launch a show on TV. Of course, if you're really risk-averse, you wouldn't make the content at all in the first place...

Re:Networks (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#20054725)

They have to fill the timeslot with something. My point is that if they are paying the cost to make the show in the first place, and animation is expensive, then why put it on Comedy Central?

Networks have more viewers than cable. They get more return on the investment if they air it on FOX as opposed to Comedy Central, not to mention now Fox suddenly saves themselves money since they don't have to pay for another show to fill that timeslot.

Either way, they can still sell the DVDs like they did with Family Guy. Their aired the episodes on Fox, and still sold the DVD of the "movie".

Re:Networks (0)

mgblst (80109) | about 7 years ago | (#20054871)

Yes, I really liked this show, so it must be a great show. You do realise that everybody blames the networks/ Nielsen's rating systems whenever there show gets canceled. I mean, I know that a few guys at work watch it, and so do people on slashdot, so it must be popular.

The networks are actually experts at this, they have people who jobs it is to try to analyse all the data they have about a show, not just limited to ratings but to focus groups, interviews and online boards. But it is much easier to just attack them whenever your show gets canceled, rather than realise that you are in the minority. WHY? What is so bad about being in the minority, you are by already being on slashdot.

Re:Networks (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#20054981)

Ummm? The reason Family Guy was brought back was because it got HIGH ratings on Comedy Central and TBS, as well as HIGH DVD sales. It was canceled because it was poorly marketed, and no one saw it before it was initially canceled.

And take a show like Firefly. They only aired like 6 episodes total, in different time-slots, out of order, and never advertised the show. They aired a whopping 4 episodes of Drive, which got good reviews from pretty much every critic on the planet, and it was canceled.

I'm not a big fan of TV, and I was never a Whedon fan. I really hated Buffy and Angel, but Firefly was a damned good show. It sold like man on DVD to the point where they made a movie. Initial ratings aren't always indicative of the quality of the show. Jerry Springer was the highest rated show on the entire planet for a while, and so was Baywatch. And sometimes really good shows how poor ratings because no one knows anything about them. Even though Firefly sold well on DVD and was critically acclaimed, most people still haven't heard about the show.

That is poor advertising on the part of the network.

Jericho is another fine example. The network canceled it because of "poor ratings" and it had a huge fan-base who spent money out of pocket to take out an ad in Variety, and ship tons of peanuts to the network demanding the show be brought back. How were the ratings so poor with so many fans?

The Neilsen ratings often don't pick up on people who record shows with their DVR, and they also don't account for the people who watch the show on CBS.com so the ratings really didn't accurately reflect how large of a fan base the show actually had. If the networks were "experts" as you put it, they wouldn't lose so much money every year developing all these new shows that bomb. They wouldn't have canceled shows like Futurama, Firefly, Family Guy or Jericho in the first place when market demand for these shows was so high that they made more money after cancellation than before.

I know a guy (we're not close friends, but we have spoke on a few occasions) who wrote Grosse Point Blank. (Great friggin' movie) and he kept getting approached by the networks to do some TV work. He had some great stories. No one wanted to touch anything new, because it wasn't established and they had no way to determine if it would be successful or not. However they kept asking him to make "The Next Friends" show, because Friends was huge at the time. Every week when the new movies came out, whatever was big in the box office, they'd tell him to clone that.

Just because someone has money, that doesn't make them an expert. Far from it. As Kevin Smith said, "Hollywood is the only place where you fail upwards."

Translations? (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | about 7 years ago | (#20054491)

I know maybe it is to soon to ask, but there is any information about possible translations to other languages (ok, to Spanish, I don't care if it is not translated to French or German). Being a DVD release it means it will reach a smaller public, and I fear that they don't think that it is worth to translate it from English.

Re:Translations? (2, Funny)

Da Fokka (94074) | about 7 years ago | (#20054975)

I hope not! There's nothing as annoying as downloading a movie to find out it's the french or spanish version. By the way, the very reason many spanish don't *speak* english while they can read and write it perfectly well is because they dub everything (badly, by the way). Watch the english version. It's way more enjoyable anyway.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>