Slashdot Mirror
Futurama Returns
GrumpySimon writes "Good news everyone!
Straight from a one-eyed alien's mouth - 13 new episodes of Futurama have been confirmed by Katey Sagal on Craig Ferguson's Late Late Show. All the original actors have signed up too."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
While I applaud it, I remember the resurrection of Ren & Stimpy and how it just wasn't quite the same anymore. The making of a popular series can often rest on the frenzy of creating the episodes and the chemistry of those at work on it. Add an interruption, time for other projects and influences, what will become of pulling the team back together? Will it be the same, or will it be like, "well, Bender saying, 'bite my shiny metal asee' doesn't totally suck, but it's just, you know, different now."
Other news in the It's About Time Department:
In other good news, finally on DVD, Yellowbeard! Arr! July 27 for USA & Canada or July 10 for UK No word yet on extras, like Group Madness, the documentary of making of the film.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
That's too bad. Sure, I'm sad it ended, but it DID end well. Go figure what'll happen now.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
The problem is that everyone thinks they have a sense of humor, even when they don't.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Futurama does have order to it, and I can't think of any time where it just leave you right where you started with no explanation. Some examples of things that carry between episodes:
- Nibbler shows up and sticks around, the order of those episodes has some significance
- Leela's parents are discovered, then are characters on the show after that.
- Farnsworth's clone is created and is in future episodes.
Just to name a few.
typically everything that happens is straightened out by the end of the episode as needed. It's just not in the typical cartoon genre to have numerous-episode-arcs, because reruns are not often shown in order.
And PS, the "OMG PONIES! AND NEW FUTURAMA EPISODES!!" is *really* old news. I assume this number of episodes is really just the dvds that were mentioned months ago. It's been on adult swim bumps for awhile now.
Humour is like colour; I can't explain to you WHY I like blue, I just do.
Even if you try to persuade me for hours that red is a much better colour, you won't be able to win me over.
In short, nods to classic bits of comedy coupled with a great sense of absurd and sprinklings of science make a cartoon I love to watch. I love the voice-work in Futurama too, great characterizations.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Someone please explain to me how this sort of thing is more popular than something with a real plot or something which is really funny?
You're missing something really obvious: different people have different tastes, and having different tastes than yours does not make somebody stupid or wrong. Just because you don't like these shows doesn't mean they are not "really funny".
You don't like them, and that's fine. Your tastes simply don't line up with the majority, and there's nothing wrong with that. Where it becomes wrong is when you become a condescending ass about it.
Maybe its just me, but I don't get why there is always one guy who feels the need to ask questions like this, or alternatively state that he hates a particular obscure thing. Its not like anyone is trying to shove Futurama down someone's throat. It is like going to a Star Trek convention and standing around saying, "You know, I really don't understand the appeal of this show!" There are a ton of shows on TV that are not Futurama - why not go watch one of them instead of commenting here to the effect that you don't like Futurama?
Hell, there are a ton of other Slashdot articles you could be commenting on. Perhaps you could have found one that interested you. But no, you had to click on the Futurama article just so you could post a comment musing about the lack of appeal Futurama has for you.
It kind of reminds me of people who love Windows and hate the Macintosh. OK, your favorite computer platform has 90+ percent of the market, so why go seek out places online where Mac people congregate and try to rain on their parade? They have less than 5% of the market. Leave them alone. Hell, I've seen people go onto Atari ST forums and say ridiculous things to the effect that the Atari ST is long dead and ST enthusiasts should just move on and get a Windows PC. Was that you?
When you see a kid playing with a balloon, do you have an uncontrollable urge to go and stick a pin in it?
There are a lot of things that do not appeal to everyone. Sane people ignore them. Personally I have no interest in Chritianity. That doesn't mean I show up to church every Sunday and say, "You know, I just don't understand the appeal...could you explain it to me?" It would be gouche and idiotic to do so.
"Not trolling"? Bite my shiny metal ass!
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
flamebait...
My take was that it was consistant that Lisa was a little hippie shitdisturber. Maybe you watched an OLDER episode where they haven't yet developed that trait? Simpsons is popular because it's older than most of the audience. It came out in the late 80s. I was babysitting kids born in the 90s who liked the show even though their first memories of the show were probably from 1996 onward.
Futurama is funny because it's silly and creative. Family guy is funny because it's a bit more adult and off the wall. South park is funny because they're highly objective and use hyperbole.
That doesn't mean EVERY episode is comedy gold. But normally people tend to watch the series not just specific episodes which means watching the occasional shit-fill-the-season-out episode.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Spoilers, dude!!!!
Maybe it's just me but, I don't get why futurama is popular.
Because it's not about you.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
First Family Guy, then Futurama. Where's Firefly?
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
Okay, so all of the original actors have signed up. But what I'd like to know is if all of the original writers have signed up.
Except Jurassic Bark. You can only watch that once unless you have no heart.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I never said otherwise - I was just hassling my PP for overanalysing. What next? "Oh, but at the end of The Simpson's 3D, homer ends up in the real world, but then in the next episode he's back in the Simpson's universe!". Or "Buffy is just so fake: There's no such thing as vampires!"
No. Like many people here (yourself included), I prefer Futurama to Dr Who. Anyone who tries to argue that one successful show is better than another successful show is an idiot, and you might as well be trying to prove the existence or non-existence of god, or the general superiority of one OS over another. It's a personal thing. One is better than the other for you.
I have - many times. The first time I watched it, I watched it out of order. Yes, I didn't pick up on the exact history behind each character, but I didn't miss out on any important story-line elements. (Ok - so the same is probably actually true for Dr Who, but there are many other shows where missing a couple of episodes makes the later ones not worth watching).
On the other hand, having a sense of humor does not mean that you laugh at everything.
it costs 1-2 million dollars to produce each episode of Futurama. We could debate whether they could raise that kind of money over the internet..
also, your model doesn't work for new shows.. if your model was in place before Futurama, it would have never been created.. people won't donate to a show they've never heard of and have no idea if they'll even like it.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
please not have jumped the shark please not have jumped the shark please not have jumped the shark
qntm.org
Good news on the surface but until it is confirmed the original writers have signed up I won't be keeping too many expectations of the new series.
The actors can be replaced, the writing team can not - not if you want to keep the same style of humour.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
that's why I love the Slashdot 'Funny' mod. It always lets me know when to laugh at a joke, so I don't feel left out.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Yeah that was kinda what I was getting at.
I suppose there's no real need for that sort of continuity, as long as the continuity for the main characters broadly fits together, and it gives them more room for humour without being penned in by what they did before.
The last time
On that note, I would personally love for Futurama to return but I won't get my hopes up.
\
It was a plot device so that they could have guest stars playing themselves without resorting to overused time travel plots like some other serious Sci-Fi shows. It sucked most of the time, but cameos often do elsewhere. It certainally had it's moments with some people though.
I'm not holding my breath. Series 4 and 5 of Family Guy suffered by having different writers etc and it just wasn't the same show. For example, Stewie has lost his "kill lois, take over the world" zeal which for me was one of the highlights of the show. I expect the same sorts of disappointment with Futurama, but the talent is there to surprise us if they put their heads together.
As long as they don't try too hard like Family Guy is doing. I have to say, Family Guy these days is boring as anything. First three seasons were mint, but what they're coming out with now is total crap. Previously it was edgy, but funny. Now they just go for offensive for the sake of offensive. The plots are horrible, and just aren't trying.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
unlike the simpsons? how about lisa becoming a vegetarian in season 7; apu getting married, later having kids, then cheating on his wife and going to marriage counseling (this story spanned 4 seasons). or barney going sober in season 11, and not relapsing till season 14? cripes, maud died in season 11 or so, and flanders spent the next year getting over it and then started dating. there is tons of progression happening in the show, its one of the things that makes the simpsons world so great. there is story, depth, history.
There's a certain amount of progression that keeps the show interesting, and a certain amount that ruins it. For example, would we really want to see a teenage Bart, or college student Lisa? I think that would ruin the show. Especially since these characters would be too hard to replace. Thank God the writers realize this, or the Simpsons would go the way of Saved By The Bell.
Luck of the Fryish is one of the top 10 episodes of any TV show ever.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The progression of the plot provides us a reason for Fry not to clone his dog. It isn't a revival, it isn't a resurrection, it's cloning. The dog he knew was in every sense of the word already dead. Cloning his dog won't get his dog back. It's the same pattern but a different animal. That the actual biology of the situation reinforces what Fry already believes to be true is the setup for the kick in the gut. He would have gotten a representation of it; and it was the idea that his dog loved him that drove his desire for the representation, and a misguided desire at that. But the kick in the gut is that the dog lived on, waiting for Fry's return, while to Fry it looks as if he was abandoned. The dog is Fry's nascent wish to return to the life he had, to return to "the way things were" as you scornfully put it, but that wish is nothing more than delusion. He can never return to the way things were. When a family member dies, if you were given the option NOT of having them back, but of having a simulacrum of that loved one again, what would you choose? What would be psychologically healthier? To continue to believe that this stranger is the person you loved who is never returning, or to accept that there are things you cannot and will never change? And "death-affirming"? It's an inexorable part of existence that living things die. Part of growing up is accepting that fact, because to rail against the inevitable is simply a waste of the short amount of time you've got. If Fry cloned his dog, what would he have? Would he have his dog back? No. He'd have a pale representation of his old dog in a new form. The episode isn't "death-affirming." It's about Fry learning to cope with the basic reality of being human. At some point you have to turn away from mindlessly gazing back into your memory and deal with what's in front of you. Fry didn't kill the dog. Fry just didn't clone the dog. He was already dead--hell, he was already a fossil, almost entirely dolomite. To create a new life as your own mnemonic device or to fuel your delusions is a horrible act. What Fry does is what everyone must do to heal from grief.