Slashdot Mirror


Futurama Voices Could Be Recast

Svippy writes "According to reports surfacing on the Internet, Futurama may be recast. The animated series is due to return next year on Comedy Central, but may not be the same as we once knew it. 'As part of the announcement, the show's producers said stars including West, Sagal and DiMaggio had all signed on to return. Turns out that wasn't true. The stars had all expressed interest in returning. But with the budget for Futurama dramatically slashed, the salary offers came in well below what the thesps were asking.' Phil LaMarr posted 20th Century Fox's request for auditions on his Facebook page. However, some are skeptical about whether it's a real casting call or purely a stunt to reduce the salaries of the voice actors."

260 comments

  1. ob by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bite my shiny metal ass!

    1. Re:ob by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      I think the phrase: "Bite my glorious golden ass" is too far underused and would be more appropriate here.

    2. Re:ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake

    3. Re:ob by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Informative

      I love how the 'goodnewseveryone' tag is being negated - and replaced by 'badnewseveryone' - by people who obviously don't understand that the phrase is supposed to be ironic and prescient of bad news.

      Hand your nerd cards in at the door, please. You know who you are.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    4. Re:ob by sharperguy · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you have the job!

      --
      "sudo rm -rf your-face"
    5. Re:ob by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Bad news everyone!

    6. Re:ob by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      That was not insightful. Did you not read that they are re-casting the voices.

      Try again like this:

      Bite my shiny metal ARSE.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    7. Re:ob by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Mastigate my metal tushie

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    8. Re:ob by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 0

      This is a geek site, excuse them for interpreting a statement logically.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    9. Re:ob by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Farnsworth was known to say "Bad news, everyone" on occasion- like when the supercollider superexploded. Perhaps it is you who must hand over your card, hmm?

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    10. Re:ob by flydude18 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you sure that wasn't "Bad news, nobody"? Why even say anything and risk your nerd card?

    11. Re:ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true. It's usually good news from Professor Farnsworth's point of view (although bad for the crew). I recall once when it was undeniably bad news for him also, he simply said "News, everyone!"

    12. Re:ob by Burning1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'Bad news, everyone' usually implied something that impacted Farnsworth himself, or news that the crew would not be sent on some suicidal task.

      If it sucked for someone else, it was usually good news. :)

    13. Re:ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bad news, everyone" preceded good news. It's still you who needs to turn over your card...

    14. Re:ob by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

      Good news everyone - there's some bad news on the TV!

    15. Re:ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farnsworth was known to say "Bad news, everyone" on occasion- like when the supercollider superexploded.

      He has also occasionally used just "News, everyone!" when the news actually was good.

      In later episodes however they played more off of his wandering mind to make the news have the illusion of good, while not having anything to do with the original bad news.

      (Fry is presented with an egg-sized pill which will allow him to withstand the pressure underwater)
      Fry: Are you crazy? I can't swallow that.
      Professor: Well, then good news! It's a suppository!

      And then the good old expected "Good news, everyone! There's a report on the TV of some very bad news!"

      A true nerd uses the exact saying from the episode closest to the context at hand :D

    16. Re:ob by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

      Futurama is a geeky show.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    17. Re:ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what Slashdot is all about, two comic book store guys battling it out :D

    18. Re:ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who cares what the tags say? Are you serious? Tags in general have debatable utility, but around here, what good are they?

      Take a look at the "tags" around here. Assume I could click on them to find more stories with those tags -- oh, I can't. I click on them and NOTHING HAPPENS.

      But let's assume I could. Typical tags are "haha", "whocares", "ohno", or crap like "badidea", "goodidea", and so forth. Who the HELL actually says, "Gee, I want to read more stories on the subject of 'haha', I'll just click on that... there we go..."

      Forget tags. They are useless in general, and slashdot's implentation of them is doubly useless.

    19. Re:ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Didn't he say: "Bad news, nobody, the super collider super exploded...". You had also better hand it over.

    20. Re:ob by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the tags here serve one useful purpose: they provide a quick indicator of most Slashdotters' opinions related to the article. After all, a time-honored tradition around here is not R'ing TFA. With tags, now you don't have to read the comments, either.

    21. Re:ob by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      hey! some of us actually are comic book store guys.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    22. Re:ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddah, Zeus, God... one of you guys do something! Help! Satan, you owe me!

    23. Re:ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no u.

    24. Re:ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I can click "tags" up in the header, and see every story that I've myself marked, e.g. "biotech", or just "cool". That's pretty useful, especially for project I'd like to come back to later to see how they turn out. (Slashdot's not much for follow-up stories.)
      If I had a long list of articles tagged "whocares" and the like it would presumably be less useful, but who cares, it's good for a meme and a laugh, and at least people seem to be somewhat in consensus on using them.

    25. Re:ob by isorox · · Score: 1

      Didn't he say: "Bad news, nobody, the super collider super exploded...". You had also better hand it over.

      Super-collider? I just met her!

    26. Re:ob by dziban303 · · Score: 1
      I think $75,000 dollars per episode is a completely ridiculous amount of money for a 20-odd minute cartoon. I don't know the details about how it's all done, and I'd love to know if a /.er has the inside story of voice talent, but it seems to be there's *maybe* 5 minutes of actual voice recorded per character per episode. They don't really need to memorize the script. They probably need to be coached on how to deliver the lines, but really, how much prep time do they need? So let's say they're in the studio for three hours and get free drinks and sandwiches. They need $75,000 for that?

      Over 26 episodes that comes out to nearly $2 million dollars. For voice acting? On cable?

      Fuck it. I like the show, so pay the goddamn assholes.

    27. Re:ob by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      I don't know the details about how it's all done, and I'd love to know if a /.er has the inside story of voice talent, but it seems to be there's *maybe* 5 minutes of actual voice recorded per character per episode. They don't really need to memorize the script. They probably need to be coached on how to deliver the lines, but really, how much prep time do they need? So let's say they're in the studio for three hours and get free drinks and sandwiches.

      On The Simpsons Movie DVD, the audio commentary talks about how there was one 2-minute speech that had 50 or 60 takes done.

      It's not that extreme on most animated TV shows, but generally the rule is that you budget at least 10x the running time for the voice-over recording, and that's the absolute minimum.

    28. Re:ob by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Maybe people use badnewseveryone to subvert the cliche of using goodneweveryone ironically. Or they are trolling. Or badnewseveryone is one of the famed steganographic tages used to transmit information about That Which Must Not Be Spoken Of.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    29. Re:ob by maxume · · Score: 1

      Ok, so we are talking about $75,000 for a 2 day week.

      Given the money involved overall, I don't really blame the actors for agitating, but they aren't really the little guy fighting the good fight in a situation like this, they are well positioned people trying to maximize their income.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    30. Re:ob by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      Here are a few random ones culled from the front page right now:

      "nextweek", "!now", "!futon", "giveuswarrenspector", "games"

      Yeah, I know that I'm just itching to read more about "not futon" or "not now". And it's handy to be able to see more articles about "nextweek", too. Perhaps "games", but then, if I wanted that there's an entire section devoted to it.

      I have to agree tags are unbelievably useless in general and on Slashdot specifically.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    31. Re:ob by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1

      Lets put a different perspective on this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends#Ratings
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama#Ratings
      Now we see that for it's last season, Futurama had an average of 6.4 million viewers per episode, or about 3.4 times less than Friends. The shows had the same running time. The cast of Friends was paid $1,000,000 per episode.
      All kinds of conclusions can be drawn from that, but in the end, isn't it all about eyeballs to the network? 6.4 Million viewers is certainly making quite a chunk of change for the network.
      On a somewhat related line of thought, aren't they sort of like professional athletes, where the best they can hope for is a (somewhat) limited career, where they have to try and make most of their money in a short time?

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    32. Re:ob by maxume · · Score: 1

      I've heard that voice acting is a nice club to be in (the producers and whatnot have a group of people that they work with, and it is good to be in that group, but hard to get in). You can draw your own conclusions about how much difficulty they have finding work:

      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0921942/
      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0224007/
      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0534134/

      (I arbitrarily did not select Katey Sagal there because she is well known as an actress; I'm sure the voice actors aren't getting $5,000 for each episode on those lists, but they don't seem to be having any trouble finding work over long periods of time)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    33. Re:ob by mqduck · · Score: 1

      That's Comic Book Guy. :-P

      --
      Property is theft.
    34. Re:ob by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      All kinds of conclusions can be drawn from that, but in the end, isn't it all about eyeballs to the network? 6.4 Million viewers is certainly making quite a chunk of change for the network.

      This is absolutely the point.

      If this was a completely new animated show with no relationship to Futurama other than the voice actors might be the same, then maybe $75K/episode is too much. But once you establish that people like to watch the existing show with the current cast, changing it significantly would be financial suicide.

      A single cast member change might be acceptable to people (like the Superman voice change from Tim Daly to George Newbern in the "Justice League" universe), but based on previous experience with these producers, a well-known voice won't be changed even if required to continue the character (Phil Hartman).

  2. Idea by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

    How effective would it be if thousands of fans submitted MP3 via email stating, "Leave the cast alone!" in varying degrees of passion and vernacular?

    1. Re:Idea by FiveDozenWhales · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not very? If you want the cast to stay on, either the cast needs to be appealed to, or the source of the money (Comedy Central) does. Not the production crew.

    2. Re:Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "How effective would it be if thousands of fans submitted MP3 via email stating, "Leave the cast alone!" in varying degrees of passion and vernacular?"
      Farnsworth: "Well, we won't know that until they actually do it". :)

    3. Re:Idea by risk+one · · Score: 1

      Very effective! They could probably cut the voicework for three really low-budget episodes out of that.

    4. Re:Idea by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Might be effective in getting the producers to dump the show again. Despite the fan base among geeks, it's obviously marginally profitable at best for them, hence the fact that it was already canceled once and the "dramatically slashed" budget this time.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    5. Re:Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because had benders big score and subsequent movies been shown on Adult Swim instead of Crapedy Central they would have received better ratings, instead of suffering from a network swap that left people confused and a lot of hardcore adult swim fans bitter. Futurama on Adult Swim was genuinely trying to remind us of the social commentary that it had already made, Futurama on Comedy Central is just trying to remind us that Comedy Central likes money and will milk something it thinks can turn it over. I'm amazed they gave it 26 shows at a slashed budget. Wouldn't it have made more sense to cast 13 shows, pay the real actors, and see if it retains interest? If it wasn't 'that profitable' before, then the fanbase they are alienating with a recast will ensure it's doom. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED

    6. Re:Idea by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      I hate fox as much as the next guy *shed's a tear for firefly*, but isn't it possible that the voice actors are asking for too much, at the end of the day its the writers that make the show great (well the animators add little details in the background too) and while the voices are important, they may be letting it go to their heads. TBH i don't know, you don't know, all we know is fox don't want to pay the voice actors what they want!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    7. Re:Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Brief chronology of events:

      *Matt Groening comes up with Futurama. After a series of battle that he describes as "by far the worst experience of my grown-up life," Fox runs it for a while.

      *Fox cancels it.

      *Adult Swim picks up reruns at low cost, following the same formula they did with Family Guy. They don't fund anything new.

      *Comedy Central helps produce four new movies, and airs them.

      *The movies do well enough that they decide to pick it up for another season. However, this season is on a basic cable budget, rather than a network or movie one.

      There was no "swap."

    8. Re:Idea by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      It was 'marginally profitable' for Fox because they aired it at 7pm est on sundays. 1 hour before the Simpsons. At that point in time they were also putting out commercials for their Sunday line-up that stated... "YOUR SUNDAY STARTS AT 8!"

      I don't know if you recall that, but I do. Futurama was marginalized right out of the gate by Fox. Right now, I think there's 3 or 4 networks showing reruns of Futurama, which is at least one network per season.. clearly, the show WAS good, and SHOULD have been profitable, but suffered from a godawful time slot, NFL-preemptions, and a complete lack of any interest in promoting it by Fox.
      The movies also suffered for similar reasons.. I guess they were on TV but I'll be damned if I know when.

      I'd be willing to bet that the slashed budget is just ComCen trying to be cheap-asses (as usual). Exactly what programming on that channel is really worth anything anymore, please remind me? daily show, colbert, and southpark are the only original content I can find on comedy central in the next 4 days. Oh, and Michael and Michael, which just looks like it's going to be bad. They titular actors look BORED in the PROMO COMMERCIALS for their own show. YEAH! I'll watch that, oh yeah.

      Nah.. this is just comedy central trying to make money without spending money.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    9. Re:Idea by timeOday · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am a fan, but I don't care whether they re-cast. I think voice actors are grossly overpaid for what they do, taking advantage of their status as semi-recognizable and, for that reason only, hard to replace. The real genius behind the show was its writing, but writers are behind the scenes so they can't blackmail the producers for more $$$.

    10. Re:Idea by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

      Um, no. There is a big difference between voice acting and merely reading lines off of a script. Voice acting takes talent to make convincing.

      I hardly think $75,000 an episode is "grossly overpaid" when people like Ray Romano (a mediocre actor at best) got $1.8 million per episode for his sitcom.

    11. Re:Idea by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

      It went from Fox to Adult Swim to Comedy Central... I'd like to know what your definition of "swapping" is.

    12. Re:Idea by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Not very? If you want the cast to stay on, either the cast needs to be appealed to, or the source of the money (Comedy Central) does. Not the production crew.

      Who sets the budget for the show?
      Comedy Central or 20th Century Fox?

      Because "dramatically slashing" the budget of a show that could be successful seems like the type of thing Fox would do.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    13. Re:Idea by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Do you really think the reason voice actors get paid as much as they do is because they are recognizable? What have you been smoking? Even for the most recognizable actors in the most recognizable shows (say Hank Azaria, Trey Parker, Seth McFarlane, Billy West, etc.) 99% of the people who watch the show couldn't even tell you the name of the actor or what voices they do. I doubt they would be bothered if the studio brought in a replica voice.

      Voice acting is extremely difficult, and some of these people are absolute masters of the craft. They definitely deserve what small amount of acclaim they receive.

      And FYI, most writers have a lot of respect the voice actors. The Simpsons team refused to go back to work after the studio lowballed the voice actors, and forced Fox to raise their salaries. The writers know how important the actors are.

    14. Re:Idea by Neuticle · · Score: 1

      *Adult Swim picks up reruns at low cost, following the same formula they did with Family Guy. They don't fund anything new

      Oh ho? Adult Swim [Cartoon Network] produces plenty of original stuff: ATHF, Squidbillies, Robot Chicken, Metalocalypse, Venture Brothers... you get the picture. I happen to think those shows are pretty good, but then again, they probably have budgets well under what Futurama is used to operating with.

      That aside:
      Futurama is such an excellent show, and a big part of what made it so good was the flawless voices: Lines can be good or bad on paper, but excellent voice actors can make bad lines excellent and good lines unforgettable classics. Futurama did that in spades.

      --
      "Cheeze it!" - Bender
    15. Re:Idea by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Could be successful? Doesn't seem like it was before.

    16. Re:Idea by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Voice acting is extremely difficult

      Really? Name any job you like, and I'll bet I can tell you why voice acting is easier than that. There are very few jobs that don't require any of the following:

      • physical labor
      • specialized knowledge
      • long hours
      • working with the public
      • boring / repetitive
      • exposure to weather
      • night shifts
      • making important decisions
      • physical danger
      • beauty
    17. Re:Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're dead wrong on many of those points.

      The "long hours" and "boring/repetitive" parts are very much involved.

      You don't "work with the public" as a voice actor? Bullshit, ever hear of fans? Plus, you also work with producers, directors, and other actors who can be bigger prima donnas with egos a lot harder to soothe than your average Pointy-Haired Boss or moron customer you'll never see again.

      Furthermore, voice acting can be pretty stressful on the vocal cords due to having to do a lot more yelling and screaming than most people. Weird voices and accents can wear on various parts of your mouth and throat, too. It's comparable to the risk of carpal tunnel that us keyboard drones face. So yes, there is a degree of "physical danger", assuming you were including health issues (and if you weren't, you should have).

      I'm not comparing it to coal mining or anything, but there's a general rule that EVERY job you've never done is harder than you think it is, and voice acting is no exception.

  3. Other articles worthy of reading by Svippy · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Clicked pie.
    1. Re:Other articles worthy of reading by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      What I'm finding confusing is that when Futurama first appeared, certain corners of the net made a big deal about how unlike The Simpsons, Groening actually wholly owned Futurama.

      Which makes me wonder why Fox are involved at all when it's on a different network.

      Or perhaps TVLand is just a lot more complicated than I realise.

    2. Re:Other articles worthy of reading by palndrumm · · Score: 1

      Another comment on the situation that's well worth reading:

      http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2009_07_17.html#017446

      Most likely it's just Fox making some noise to try to get the cast to sign on without having to pay them more money than absolutely necessary, and if they were at all serious about replacing anyone they'd be doing it very quietly behind the scenes instead of making public announcements.

    3. Re:Other articles worthy of reading by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 1

      Fox studios and Fox network are separate entities and have seperate powers as the Bender's Big Score commentary mentions

    4. Re:Other articles worthy of reading by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Probably because they released the last 4 movies via Fox movies, which is a much different set of executives, but I suspect that the licensing is being done via Fox movies first then to comedy central for the broadcast rights.

    5. Re:Other articles worthy of reading by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Sweet Zombie Jesus can't they cancel Foxnews and pay these fine voice actors what they are worth? I don't know anyone that watches Foxnews here in Portland.

    6. Re:Other articles worthy of reading by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't know anyone that watches Foxnews here in Portland.

      You're lucky. I look at Faux News much like the Daily Show or similar. It's entertainment that people are mistakenly consuming as news. If you just treat it like you're supposed to treat the tabloids and laugh at it, then it can provide useful entertainment. Sad truth is that lots of people think it's actual news...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Other articles worthy of reading by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      That's because you live in Portland. Move down to Alabama sometime.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:Other articles worthy of reading by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Didn't they secede from the union over slavery? I don't think I would like to live where there is still slavery, that sounds horrible.

    9. Re:Other articles worthy of reading by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Living here certainly makes you fell enslaved, all right.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. Comentary by Usually+Unlucky+ · · Score: 2, Informative

    During the commentary's for the both the movies and the season DVDs all the voice actors always said that it was their favorite show to work on. It was hard to tell if this was simply pandering but they sounded genuinely sincere. Especially Billy West and John DiMaggio who seemed to be to big fans of the show. And I don't think Katty Segal is being flooded with job offers. The only ones I see moving on are the greatly talented Maurice Lamarche and Tres McNeil who do a lot of work other than Futurama and only play secondary characters on the show. Read More... 3 comments top tags

    --
    -
    1. Re:Comentary by Svippy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to mention that Billy West - especially - and John DiMaggio have mentioned in numerous interviews how much they care for that show. Billy West once stated it was "the best gig he ever had".

      Would they really risk the entire show for some money, when they care so much for it? Of course not. I am personally beginning to suspect this is not a trade negotiation issue, but a publicity stunt to get Futurama on everyone's lips again.

      It also puts a lot more real to Comic-Con 2009's Futurama description:

      1:00-1:45 Futurama: Life or Death?!" Be a part of sci-fi history! Join executive producers Matt Groening and David X. Cohen, and stars Billy West, Katey Sagal, John DiMaggio, and Maurice LaMarche for high-stakes thrills as a top-ranking FOX executive decides live, on stage, whether Futurama will make yet another triumphant return or whether it is gone forever! The very fate of Futurama hangs in the balance! Paramedics will be standing by in case the intense excitement causes any panelists to collapse. Raucous celebration or abject despair to follow the news. Ballroom 20

      --
      Clicked pie.
    2. Re:Comentary by KeithJM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would they really risk the entire show for some money, when they care so much for it?

      I've had some jobs I really enjoyed. The products were good, the people were great, and I loved my time there. If they called me right now and offered me less money than they used to pay me, I wouldn't go back.

    3. Re:Comentary by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Risk the entire show for some money?

      If you are talking about the voice actors: What if what they would get would be a total ripoff. Where do you draw the line? At 1 cent per gig?
      If you are talking about the TV network: You know that the only reason of existence for those companies is money, do you? Everything else is completely irrelevant to them. Half the world could die, and they would still try to make as much money out of it as possible.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:Comentary by ShinmaWa · · Score: 4, Informative

      With very rare exception, television shows are renewed in public and cancelled in private. Since this is a VERY public thing at Comic-Con, the conclusion is foregone. If the cast were fired live on stage, agents would be filing lawsuits on behalf of their humiliated clients within seconds and the executive would be lynched in the hallway. The audience, who would obviously be ticked off, would resent FOX. Why send an executive on a PR mission to intentionally piss off your viewers and draw the ire of the SAG?

      So, here's the result: Everyone makes nice, and the show is renewed with the original cast. There might even be a movie deal to up the ante. If there was any doubt about this, there would be no Comic-Con thing at all.

      Nothing to see here. Publicity Stunt. Move along.

      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    5. Re:Comentary by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      AFAICT, the studio isn't offering them less than they made, just not as much as they're asking for. Let's say your happy job paid you $60K per year when they had to let you go for financial reasons. They call you after a few years and ask you to come back. You say, "Sure, but I want $300K per year." They'd rightly turn you down on that number, but may well come back and offer you $100K or more if they really felt they needed you and you provided that much value. Would you take it? Depends on your circumstances and how much you wanted back into the role. But it's still more than you were making at the time.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:Comentary by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      The problem I've seen is taking a pay cut for the team usually doesn't extend to everyone. Look at what just happened with the pay cuts at the New York Times! The CEO walks away with a bonus for saving money slashing your salary.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    7. Re:Comentary by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      look at it this way, they got canned from one job they did very well and now the boss wants them back. It's obviously only going to be one season maybe two tops. While they get royalties, it's really just one paycheck, one time and it means moving across the country for several months only to not have a job when you're done, and possibly giving up other career-building NEW work. The studio gets to keep selling episodes and collecting ads for years to come.

    8. Re:Comentary by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Except the company needs YOU because it's ten million dollars worth of income that would be easier with YOUR help. Once the project is done, they're just going to cut you lose again (business is business), so it's not really your problem right now (they fired you) so how much is it worth to make it your problem?

    9. Re:Comentary by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they'd tell the fans it's just a job and they're only doing it for the money.

    10. Re:Comentary by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      I think it's obvious that this story is pure shenanigans.
      When Phil Hartman was killed, they retired all his Simpsons characters.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    11. Re:Comentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you've sacrificed happiness for money. Good for you.

    12. Re:Comentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember you are actually saying this is "FOX" involved here.

      I'm not sure you can actually say they have a good track record for PR.

      Ahem, "Faux News"

  5. Not watching without original cast. by Gudeldar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I absolutely will NOT watch it without the original cast. I can't imagine anyone other than Billy West voicing Fry.

    1. Re:Not watching without original cast. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Watch some anime; you'll get used to it.

    2. Re:Not watching without original cast. by FiveDozenWhales · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or Zoidburg, or Farnsworth... But yeah, Fry's voice is classic Billy West, and unimitable.

    3. Re:Not watching without original cast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Bender.

    4. Re:Not watching without original cast. by genner · · Score: 2, Funny

      Watch some anime; you'll get used to it.

      NO I demmand the original japanese cast with subtitles!

    5. Re:Not watching without original cast. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Cowboy Bebop was much better in English.

    6. Re:Not watching without original cast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta admit, you make a very compelling case to NOT watch anime...

    7. Re:Not watching without original cast. by genner · · Score: 2

      Cowboy Bebop was much better in English.

      That's becuase it's fairly old. It's only in the past 5 yeats or so that they've really mangled english speaking anime in the attempt to get it across the pond quicker.

    8. Re:Not watching without original cast. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      I wonder if John Kricfalusi will audition?

          -- Still bitter about Billy West taking over the voice of Ren.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    9. Re:Not watching without original cast. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's generally the problem with cartoon series, most of the time you'll get one of three or four people doing 90% of the voices. Which is also why it's so hard sometimes to figure out who's doing the voice.

      There's already been a bit of that sort of shenanigans with some of the minor characters, I think that Santa was among some that was done by different voice actors over time.

    10. Re:Not watching without original cast. by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      This thread just made it click. I had a gut "HELL NO" reaction when I read the headline about the Futurama voices being recast. I knew, hey, they'll surely find people who do an excellent job and are virtually indistinguishable from the originals, but why do I have this huge gut feeling it's going to suck?

      Then it struck me as I was reading this thread.... I saw it once before. Evangelion. It had a good english voice cast (I even watched it subbed to give that a chance and decided the english dubbing was really good and worth watching). That was until "The End of Evangelion", they changed a couple of the voices, and they really did not fit the characters *at all*. It was horrible, particularly the voice of Hyuga... it was jarring and ruined the whole mood of the film...

      Anyway, I'm sure it's a bluff to get the original voice actors to accept lower pay (God I hope).

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    11. Re:Not watching without original cast. by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      It really depends on the genre, and the quality of the dub. For native English speakers, anime with a lot of action or very subtle overtones in dialog are typically more accessible in English. For others however, it depends on the quality of the dub.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    12. Re:Not watching without original cast. by dancingmad · · Score: 1

      Only if you don't speak Japanese.

      --
      "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
    13. Re:Not watching without original cast. by paiute · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like when he was the only voice of Ren.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    14. Re:Not watching without original cast. by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Watch some anime; you'll get used to it.

      NO I demmand the original japanese cast with subtitles!

      Original cast, nothing! I demand the original subtitle artists/technicians/whatever!

    15. Re:Not watching without original cast. by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      The voices are fantastic, but I watch Futurama because it has some of the best writers working in animation. Seriously, when a show is that PhD- and Master's-heavy, AND they're all huge nerds, the show just has to be great.

      All of the writers are probably still working separately on various projects, but Futurama let them all work *together* on something exponentially better than the sum of its parts.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  6. Why not just make them sound the same? by religious+freak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know, when a new voice appears on an old show playing an existing character (memory escapes me at this moment for an example, but I know this has happened), I always wonder why folks generally don't just make the new voice sound like the old voice. This happened to at least a couple childhood cartoons of mine - the voice suddenly changed and ... WTF?

    Let's hope they decide to bring in folks that sound the same (or very similar) if they do recast. Having different voices would be pretty lame.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by blahplusplus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Personally I can't wait until they perfect synthetic voices, then there will be no need for overpaid voice actors at all.

      Many voice actors for the most part are total dicks.

    2. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny timing for this as I've introduced my kids to The Real Ghostbusters, a show where both Venkman and Janine's voices changed.

      Venkman sounds like someone doing a very bad immitation of Lorenzo Music (which of course they are) whereas Janine's voice (the lovely Kath Soucie) is actually MUCH better as it's not as squeaky in the "channeling Annie Potts" way the former one was.

    3. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by The+Pirou · · Score: 1

      Thank the discworld gawds I can read binary and didn't need to google 'binary conversion' to realize I was a geek. Normally I don't understand such simple things if people don't spell it our for me.

    4. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many voice actors for the most part are total dicks.

      What facts do you base that broad generalization on?

    5. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, let's see, there's this case, where the actors are demanding 10 times the usual pay.

      And there's the time when the Simpsons actors pulled the same stunt.

      Oh, and there's also all the whining voice actors do about when movies use real actors in their movies rather than making do with people whose only skill is having a strange voice. There's a reason they're voice actors and not actors.

    6. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      Sorry I should have said *some* voice actors are total dicks.

    7. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by numbski · · Score: 1

      On a just barely tangentially related note -

      It is an absolute crime that no one worked to perfect a synthesized version of Majelle Barrett-Roddenberry's voice prior to her demise. Should should have been the voice of all computers henceforth. :(

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    8. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Oh, and there's also all the whining voice actors do about when movies use real actors in their movies rather than making do with people whose only skill is having a strange voice. There's a reason they're voice actors and not actors.

      One strange voice? Billy West voices Fry, Farnsworth, Zapp, and Zoidberg. Just as the character of "Le Chevalier Raphael Danceny" is materially different from that of "Ted Logan" and "Neo", the voice that West uses for "Elmer Fudd" is different than the one he uses for "Stimpson 'Stimpy' J. Cat".

    9. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Synthetic voices won't be perfected until AI is perfected ... if it can't understand what's going on the amount of manual markup needed to describe the speech would take a huge amount of time and effort. What I do foresee happening though is voice morphing becoming big in voice acting, that way only the timing is important ... it will make transitioning between voice actors easier and make it easier for less talented voice actors to vary their voice.

    10. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      Actually, Lorenzo Music DID do the voice of Venkman. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090506/

    11. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

      How do you figure this? That's like saying photorealistic CGI won't be possible until AI is perfected. It's just nonsensical.

      Convincing synthetic voices will require physical modeling of the lungs, vocal cords, larynx, throat, mouth, lips, tongue, and nasal passages. Intonation and speech patterns will be imparted by human sound artists.

    12. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by maxume · · Score: 1

      He's complaining about the guy who did the other 62 episodes.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not the popcorn lady?????

      And we've got REELS of recording of her! :D

    14. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Well, CGI is still a long way from true photorealism for all subjects. But it is extremely useful for portraying things that are very difficult to do with real objects and hand-drawn animation. The motivation for synthesized voice actors doesn't seem as compelling except for a situation like this where it might be cheaper to copy the sound of someone's voice than pay them.

    15. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Expecting a voice synth to follow a simple script with correct intonation, tempo etc etc is like expecting a CG renderer to move a model convincingly from a script and direction in natural English. All the modeling in the world won't make the synthesizer understand the tempo, intonation, emotion etc which it has to use during synthesis ... unless you use huge amounts of markup, with a lot more trial and error and time needed than with human voice actors.

      In the short term voice morphing is simply the more economical option compared to minutely tweaking synthesis to sound just right, just like mo-cap is simply the more economical option compared to manual animation. If they had tried to manually animate say Beowulf to the same standard of realism as mo-cap they would still be working on it ...

    16. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by True+Vox · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, I see the point you're trying to make (and in fact agree with regards to Billy West), but please PLEASE don't make it with Keanu "I know Kung Fu" Reeves.

      --
      "Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox
    17. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      Creating a human-sounding voice is not the problem; it's creating a computer model to convincingly replicate an emotional human-sounding voice that shifts intonation and stress to match the appropriate feel of a line. It's not impossible, but until AI is developed, we can't automate it. The best we could do is reduce it to a series of variables and create a whole new field of sound engineering.

      I actually like the idea of someone getting paid to tweak artificially generated voices and "act" the lines mathematically, but you wouldn't be saving any money over just hiring a voice actor.

    18. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      A lot of times the voice actor is recast because those running the shows didn't like the voice in the first place. Other times they just don't care enough to bother.

      I'm pretty sure most people don't notice anyway. I was watching Family Guy one time with a bunch of guys that were all "big fans" who had seen every episode and half didn't even know they changed the voice of Meg after the first season.

    19. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by infolation · · Score: 1

      Trey Parker and Matt Stone, in an interview on the 'America: World Police' DVD said they don't use voice actors, and do all the voices themselves, because, essentially, 'voice actors for the most part are total dicks'.

      The entire America: World Police story centers around just how totally dickish actors are.

    20. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you seriously have that little respect for the voice actors? You think you can really find someone who can replace Billy West, doing accurate imitations of Fry, Zoidberg, and the Professor? Fuck off.

    21. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wanted to change Venkman's voice to sound more like Bill Murray. Of course, I don't understand why, as the characters weren't drawn to look anything like their movie counterparts. I preferred Lorenzo Music as well.

    22. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Example of that for you: Meg Griffin.

      But what you're suggesting doesn't recognize that voices are unique and that Futurama had several of the best voice actors since Mel Blanc. There simply are not people capable of perfectly replicating every voice that Billy West, John DiMaggio, Maurice LeMarche, etc. used in Futurama. This is especially true when you look at how the actors developed their characters' voices, inflections, speech rhythms, and so on as the series progressed.

      Futurama without at least Billy West and John DiMaggio is not Futurama. Those two brought too much to the show independent of the writing and directing.

    23. Re:Why not just make them sound the same? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Running gag on MST3K (can't remember which episode this was; it was when Mike turned into a crow-bot and received advice from crow):

      "...And every four years, your voice will inexplicably change..."

      You can turn it into something funny or you can act ashamed of it and get canceled. Voice change is not a death sentence for a show.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  7. Bad news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just felt a great disturbance in the force...

  8. voices by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

    In just about every anime, cartoon series, and live-action where they've tried to swap one actor's voice for another, the series usually tanks not long after the switch is made. The only thing worse for a series is to get someone pregnant, involve a baby, or suddenly tack on a female lead or support role when one previously wasn't present. Or a consult with Joss Whedon.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In just about every anime, cartoon series, and live-action where they've tried to swap one actor's voice for another,

      Is there a large sample size of live-action TV shows where a ways in to the series, they tried swapping in one actor's voice for another? (I don't count singing.)

      Anyway, I have the solution to this problem: They should hire the guy that did the voices for Ren & Stimpy. He's really talented and has a great imagination. What's his name? Oh yeah, John Kricfalusi. (Billy West is a fine voice actor, but my god did R&S suck ass when he took over the voices.) It'd be interesting to see what would happen to the show, and what the real life poetic ramifications would be, though I know John K would demand a part in the creative aspects of it and that probably stops it before it starts.

    2. Re:voices by VocationalZero · · Score: 1
      I was completely with you until

      Or a consult with Joss Whedon.

      Then I looked at your name, and suddenly it all became clear. Hahah! Ironic because by the same logic my opinion is also moot! Wait, but by saying that... Uh...
      Anyway, although it does seem that his involvement, while not lowering quality imho, does seem to doom some shows. Why is that?

    3. Re:voices by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      Anyway, although it does seem that his involvement, while not lowering quality imho, does seem to doom some shows. Why is that?

      Because he seems to work for Fox a lot, and they seem to like to kill shows off whenever the execs shuffle offices.

    4. Re:voices by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anyway, although it does seem that [Joss Whedon's] involvement, while not lowering quality imho, does seem to doom some shows. Why is that?

      If you listen to what fans are saying about Dollhouse, a lot of people think the first few episodes were pretty mediocre - one fan said the first five episodes were like five different pilots. But then things started to improve, and by the end of the season the show was absolutely great. Alan Tudyk's performance in the last two episodes was brilliant.

      Now look at the ratings. The first few episodes did pretty well, but then the numbers start going downhill, and the final episode got the worst ratings of the season.

      If Joss' involvement dooms a show, it's not because he lowers the quality. It's because the majority of the audience would rather be watching Friends reruns.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    5. Re:voices by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      If Joss' involvement dooms a show, it's not because he lowers the quality. It's because the majority of the audience would rather be watching Friends reruns.

      No, it's because as long as the show is under threat of cancellation, Joss tries. The moment the executives say it's not on the chopping block, he gets lazy ("creative" he'd say) and it goes to crap.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:voices by Digital+Pizza · · Score: 1

      I think in this case it's more likely that potential fans were turned away from the show early on by those initial mediocre episodes, so that by the time the show got good, much of the audience was gone. Wouldn't be the first time that had happened.

      --
      We apologize for the inconvenience.
    7. Re:voices by Rambling+Paladin · · Score: 1

      How does that follow? If these folks are to believed, then the show was mediocre for the first five episodes. If anything, this speaks well of most people because they know better than to keep watching something that is demonstrably uninteresting.

  9. Good news everybody! by dancingmad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait, this isn't good news at all.

    Seriously, the voice actors in Futurama gave their characters heart and soul. It's not just that the actors are good (they are, of course) but the characters have grown along with the actors, such that in my mind, and in the mind of many fans I am sure, the two are inseparable.

    Without the original cast, I won't be watching, simple as that.
    It's going to cost more money in the long run to produce an abject failure than to put more money into the show from the start and hoping the fanbase comes back.

    --
    "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
    1. Re:Good news everybody! by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Without the original cast, I won't be watching, simple as that.

      That's what we said about Star Trek. And yet, we keep going...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Good news everybody! by tunapez · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought the the last 4 DVDs was a steady descent from it's glorious 4 seasons on the tube. I doubt any of the original flare will be restored from further meddling.

      RIP Planet Express.

      --
      Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
    3. Re:Good news everybody! by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Agreed. When I watch my old Futurama DVDs, I more often than not watch with the commentary track turned on. I swear I do have actual friends in real life, but those guys are kind of like the friends I never had. There's no way in hell I'd bother watching if they're not involved.

      For that matter, I thought the Transformers movie sucked because they didn't let Frank Welker provide Megatron's voice. I mean, seriously, I can get Megan Fox pics on the Tubes - I don't need a crappy movie for that.

    4. Re:Good news everybody! by carlzum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The difference is they're recasting the characters, not creating a new story line with new characters. Actually, I'd prefer if they did the later. Like Star Trek, Futurama's premise could work if told from a different perspective. Imagine the original Star Trek was recast rather than creating the Next Generation? Futurama's intelligent approach to parody is what makes it great. I'd miss Bender and Fry, but not enough to suffer through other actors mimicking their voices.

      It could even breath some life into the series, the last two DVD releases felt like the current story-lines were running out of gas (Leela-Fry relationship, Nibbler's true identity, etc). Bender's Game really seemed like the writers out of ideas.

    5. Re:Good news everybody! by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, one of the reasons I like Futurama is that it has a cast of characters that are really likable, that the actors have invested a lot of time into making special.

      And Zoidberg.

    6. Re:Good news everybody! by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'd rather see a Futurama spin-off with new characters than the original characters without their voice actors.

    7. Re:Good news everybody! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, speak for yourself.

    8. Re:Good news everybody! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And unlike Star Trek we raised it from the dead and we can kill it. Fox has been screwing around with the fan base for quite some time, and I hope the execs at Fox movies have learned something from the idiots at the Fox TV division.

    9. Re:Good news everybody! by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough,, I only went to see the movies because Hugo weaving did Megatron.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    10. Re:Good news everybody! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd prefer if they did the later. Like Star Trek, Futurama's premise could work if told from a different perspective.

      It worked well with Family Guy -> American Dad. :-P

    11. Re:Good news everybody! by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting that these are *voice* actors. Billy West can imitate voices so well that I, for one, can't tell the difference. A talented voice actor who isn't Billy West could probably pull of a Fry without you even knowing. Give the actors a little more credit.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  10. if someone knows the amount by markringen · · Score: 1

    if someone knows the amount send me a message! i can probably pull some strings somewhere, i hope it isn't in the millions because that many strings i don't have :)

    1. Re:if someone knows the amount by Svippy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      20th Century Fox Television claims the voice actors wanted 75,000 dollars per episode. Which is apparently close to ten times as much as usual.

      This seems extremely unlikely by these people, who love and worship the show, that they would risk its stability for their own greed.

      My assumption is that 20th Century Fox Television is either making stuff up or playing some gag.

      --
      Clicked pie.
    2. Re:if someone knows the amount by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      My assumption is that 20th Century Fox Television is either making stuff up

      I watch fox news you insensitive clod!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    3. Re:if someone knows the amount by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      20th Century Fox Television claims the voice actors wanted 75,000 dollars per episode. Which is apparently close to ten times as much as usual.

      According to whom? The Simpsons actors reportedly earn $400,000 per episode. Sure, $75,000 might be ten times what a voice actor earns for an episode of an afternoon kids' cartoon, but we're talking about a prime time show.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:if someone knows the amount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10x as much as usual? 75k is nothing. The voice actors for The Simpsons get $1,000,000 per episode.

    5. Re:if someone knows the amount by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      On what planet did you read that voice actors on popular shows make $7,500/episode?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    6. Re:if someone knows the amount by maxume · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to shed any tears for Fox for having to pay them whatever, but on the other hand, I'm not going to shed any tears for someone who gets a paltry $7,500 for what can't be more than 2 weeks work.

      In a sane society, the market value for decent voice acting would be a fair bit lower than that (but in a sane society, the Simpson's wouldn't run forever and ever and ever; I sure don't find it nearly as interesting as I used to, tough to say if it is me or the quality of the show).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:if someone knows the amount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that Futurama IS the voice acting (reeeeeeeeally obscure math jokes aside), 75 grand per episode for what will be the biggest cartoon debut of all time isn't all that unreasonable. They give Alec Baldwin double that for 30 Rock.

    8. Re:if someone knows the amount by kklein · · Score: 1

      This seems extremely unlikely by these people, who love and worship the show, that they would risk its stability for their own greed.

      Telling a prospective employer your minimum acceptable salary is greedy? How is that greed? Someone says, "hey, we'd like you to come back to work for us and be our product again," and you say "well, that sounds good, but I can't really see doing it for less than X," you're just telling them what the job is worth to you.

      You do realize this is a job for these people, right? They don't make it out of the kindness of their hearts. Moreover, this is a profitable series with a rabid fanbase. That was built in no small part by the voice talent. Moreover, that number doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all, and there is no way that is over 10X what they were making before. If they were, then it really was charity work.

      Asking to be paid for your work, and saying what you would need to do it, is not being greedy.

      An example: Last year there was a university that needed a custom language placement test designed. They also needed all the data run and returned to them no more than 48 hours after they administered it. They approached my research partner and I, who ran such a test at our university. They offered us what I considered a pittance, even though we were not creating a test from scratch, but were, rather, editing an existing one down. Still, that's a lot of work and the stats that one runs on such a test are quite specialized. Also, this was during our break, when we would otherwise be spending time with family. So we countered with a quote way, way, way above what they offered and said, "take it or leave it." We weren't being greedy or trying to take advantage of the situation--the guy trying to contract us was a pretty close personal friend and former colleague; we were just saying what it was worth to us to do this project. That's what the loss of the time, etc. was worth to us--even though both of us like assessment.

      It's not being greedy, it's being honest about your own work/life balance and keeping your priorities in line.

      Fox is going to pay it, anyway. No one would watch it if they had a different cast.

    9. Re:if someone knows the amount by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      ... so did they pay what you wanted or did they leave it?

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    10. Re:if someone knows the amount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In a sane society, the market value for decent voice acting would be a fair bit lower than that

      Says who?

      I completely agree, personally, that some corporate executives, the elite tier of film and television stars, and many professional athletes are overpaid, but the market has spoken. It's self-correcting. As soon as those people stop being as "in demand", their salary falls.

      A an average basketball player on an average team makes what works out to about $50,000 per game, whether he steps on the court or not. I don't see any reason objectively why an actor shouldn't be paid $75,000 an episode if there's enough revenue thanks to their contributions to support that level of pay. There's nothing insane about that.

      Doctors, lawyers, and executives, and to some extent accountants and those in finance can fairly command high salaries because of the substantial financial risk those professions entail. Highly demanded artists and thinkers can command large sums because of the unique nature of their talents.

      The only part that's insane is the value society places on professional athletes and celebrities, and not on teachers and sanitation workers. That's not really the fault of the athletes and celebrities, though--if your profession suddenly skyrocketed in value, you'd be entitled to charge what your services were worth to you, up to whatever the market will bear.

    11. Re:if someone knows the amount by maxume · · Score: 1

      Says me. I sure hope I can believe that the prices people are willing to pay for various forms of entertainment are completely irrational and then state my opinion that this not sane without also adding two pages of qualifications about how it is just my opinion and etcetera.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  11. Obviously... by VinylRecords · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously the executives didn't take the Torgo's Executive Powder jokes all that well...

    1. Re:Obviously... by The+Pirou · · Score: 1

      Obviously they're a bunch of squares. A few pizza box length lines worth of 'Human Horn' and they'll be alright.

      Of course, if Human Horn isn't readily available a half ounce of Coke will do the trick too.

    2. Re:Obviously... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      thanks. The haunting "Torgo Theme" is back in my head.

      It only took 10 years to get rid of it the first time.

  12. Good news everyone! by sootman · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've invented a device which makes you read this in your head, in my voice!

    Which is a good thing because you won't actually be hearing my voice while you watch the show! Better turn subtitles on, mwa?

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Good news everyone! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow, I've read it, and it works! Why not just make the show mute with subtitles and imagine the voices? Can't beat this with any recast, I guess.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  13. Speech-to-text by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They have what, 100+ hours of speech recorded for Futurama, presumably the original masters as well? Probably 1,000 hours of speech for each character on The Simpsons on masters. Not to mention accurate closed captioning for the voicings. How hard would it be to write an algorithm to cut and paste the correct words (picking the correct word inflection based on word placement in the sentence/context - presumably there are angry, happy, elated, monotone versions of most words, and the sound files can be edited to convincingly make them sound in context) together? Sure, you'd have to hand-synthesize the occasional odd word or celebrity-head-in-a-jar's name, but we're probably not very far off from being able to fire the voice actors after the third season of a dialog-driven cartoon.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:Speech-to-text by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Hello... Smithers... You're. quite. good. at. turning. me. on."

      I'll give you a hint. If that were in any way possible, we'd be seeing it now. At least for some show like "Pokemon" where the dialog tend to be extremely simple.

      We'll see truly convincing computer-generated people long before we'll be hearing them.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:Speech-to-text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rather suspect "the return of chef" is about as good as it gets without reusing entire phrases way too often. (I mean obviously "good news, everyone!" won't sound wrong, but any sentence that hasn't been uttered in its entierty before will at least take quite a bit of human time to modulate correctly and even then sound subtly wrong).

    3. Re:Speech-to-text by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Funny

      It worked real well for South Park with Isaac Hayes.

    4. Re:Speech-to-text by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      On the one hand that is a good idea.

      On the other hand the media corporations may use it as a way to copyright a voice, even in a way that the original actors themselves can't sound like that out of the contracted uses.

      On a similar note does anyone own Darth Vader's breath sound effect?

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    5. Re:Speech-to-text by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Funny

      If that were in any way possible, we'd be seeing it now.

      Actually in a limited scope is is possible to synthesize the speech of a real person. The only problem is that the researcher who came up with the system was DARPA funded and his project went black after it was initially reported on in the media. There was some footage of him with a recreation of Whoopi Goldberg's voice saying novel things. This is a technology that the spooks want exclusive control over for as long as they can.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    6. Re:Speech-to-text by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Informative

      At this point it's still cheaper to pay high quality voice actors than it is to replace them with software. We have the technology (heck we have software now that can decompile individual strings on a guitar (inside a chord, no less), voices and other instruments and retune the individual notes, remove, add or modify guitar riffs, choruses, bridges etc - google Melodyne or "direct note access" or just watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFCjv4_jqAY), we just need a person and time to write the program. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be convincing. Eventually it'll be cheaper to use software like that than it is to pay real voice actors - eventually 3rd rate cartoon shows will use/buy voice/vocabulary libraries for entirely new series, just the same way sitcoms have been using the Red Skeleton Laugh tracks for decades.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    7. Re:Speech-to-text by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I think the Darth Vader breath sound effect could be trademarked, but Lucas hasn't defended their trademark for over 30 years so it's pretty much become a genericized trademark.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    8. Re:Speech-to-text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think "Osama bin Laden" only publishes audio tapes nowadays, and no videos?

    9. Re:Speech-to-text by xbytor · · Score: 1

      Look at how well it worked for Chef on Southpark.

    10. Re:Speech-to-text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so sure. Have a listen to songs on Youtube created with Megpoid, which is a synth of the voice of Megumi Nakajima, a Japanese voice artist best known for the role of Ranka Lee in the anime Macross Frontier. It's remarkably accurate, even when rendering English rather than Japanese.

    11. Re:Speech-to-text by Itninja · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know from watching the special edition of the Simpsons DVD special features (season 8 I think), they already do this in a limited way. Do you think that every 'D'oh!', 'Ay, caramba!', and 'Exccccellent' are created fresh for every episode that requires them? Because they are not. There is some kind of sound bank they keep clips of all the oft-used lines in. It's not too hard of a stretch to imagine that being expanded to more and more lines over time.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    12. Re:Speech-to-text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that very much. Computer-generated people aren't even close yet. Look at this:

      http://www.loquendo.com/en/demos/demo_tts.htm

      Note that these guys aren't american; they're headquartered in Italy. The american voice is among the worst on that page, and it's still really impressive. Try e.g. russian, canadian french, american spanish, etc. They're pretty amazing.

    13. Re:Speech-to-text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pika pika!

    14. Re:Speech-to-text by chill · · Score: 1

      You aren't a big South Park far, are you?

      If you were, you'd instantly think of the episode where Chef becomes a pedophile and is killed.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    15. Re:Speech-to-text by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but ... [citation needed]

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    16. Re:Speech-to-text by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      What season/episode now I'm curious

      Using southpark as an example in any simile involving quality is going to end up being about as accurate as a car analogy unfortunately. It's like someone said "let's try and make a cartoon that we can compress down to less than 20mb per episode and not lose any quality" (search "psp southpark" or "video ipod southpark" all the eps are like 56k sound and 400x300px video but it all scales beautifully at h.264 due to how simple everything is. Cartman and the gang sound just as awful and earsplitting at 56kpbs as they do at 320kbps :)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    17. Re:Speech-to-text by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You can't trademark that kind of thing. You're thinking of a copyright. Which does NOT become invalid just due to disuse.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    18. Re:Speech-to-text by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe it is Season 10, Episode 1 (The Return of Chef). http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1001/

      This was after Isaac Hayes quit in a huff over SP's treatment of Scientology. The SP boys made a fairly nice "send-off" episode, but since Hayes had already quit, they used the library of his voice clips to do this episode. It is hilarious!

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    19. Re:Speech-to-text by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      wikipedia: A trademark is a distinctive sign (phrase) or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.
       
      I'll go with "phrase" here. The vader breathing noise is a pretty distinguishable noise, more or less instantly recognizable by most people, and people who've never even seen starwars. A couple of Star-Wars commercials immediately come to mind that are prefaced by the noise. I'm sure if you go look on the side of a "vader noise toy" box, somewhere on the box it says the noise is trademarked. The seeming lack of 3rd party, unlicensed "vader noise toys" would seem to confirm this. If UPS can register the color brown as a trademark, I'm pretty sure Lucas can trademark the "vader noise".

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    20. Re:Speech-to-text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same way you can't use an actor's appearance without paying them or at least getting a contract saying you can use their appearance (barring parodies) I'm pretty sure you can't use someones voice for a show without paying them.

      Now, if you create a completely synthesized cast from the get-go, who knows!

    21. Re:Speech-to-text by isorox · · Score: 1

      Actually in a limited scope is is possible to synthesize the speech of a real person.

      Good news everyone! I'm a horse's butt!

      What's this device's marketability? Who's the target consumer?

    22. Re:Speech-to-text by knappe+duivel · · Score: 1

      Won't work. The way words are pronounced depends on the surrounding words. Also, words are not seperate soundbites but a continuous stream of sound. It is not possible to cut one word out of a sentence and keep it distinguishable. Written language suggests words are seperate entities, but looking at a graphical display of sound there is no way to count the words in a spoken sentence.

    23. Re:Speech-to-text by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      How hard would it be to write an algorithm to cut and paste the correct words (picking the correct word inflection based on word placement in the sentence/context - presumably there are angry, happy, elated, monotone versions of most words, and the sound files can be edited to convincingly make them sound in context) together?

      Very, very hard. Synthesized voices are absolutely horrible at capturing proper inflection and tone. They can't even get a customer service menu to sound remotely human, let alone get the timing and creativity needed for good comedy.

    24. Re:Speech-to-text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Em... not really. It sounded terrible - that was part of the gag.

    25. Re:Speech-to-text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now children...

    26. Re:Speech-to-text by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      They turned him into a brainwashed paedophile and then had him die by falling off a cliff and get eaten by rabid dogs.

      Somewhat harsh, IMO.

    27. Re:Speech-to-text by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They turned him into a brainwashed paedophile and then had him die by falling off a cliff and get eaten by rabid dogs.

      Somewhat harsh, IMO.

      Scientology is far more harsh than that.

      Isaac Hayes needed to be discredited. He quit the show over his total lack of sense of humor. That is a betrayal of the fans of the highest caliber. Supporting Scientology is like supporting the Catholic church; it's okay to have beliefs and stuff, but putting money in the collection plate is supporting child molestation (since the church seems to like to move them around to different towns so they can molest other kids instead of removing them and/or turning them over to authorities.) Giving money to Scientology supports brainwashing and taking advantage of the depressed to make more money.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Speech-to-text by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      I think eventually you could do what you're saying and make it sound natural.

      The thing you'll NEVER be able to automate is determining how you want the character to say a particular phrase. Surprise? Delight? Sadness? A subtle combination of all three? An emphasis on this word or that word? That kind of work takes talent. At that point, why not just hire the actual people manipulate their actual voice rather than technicians sitting in a room trying to manipulate software? The software is always going to have severe limitations in what it can do. Sure you can add in new abilities, but who wants to tweak someones voice to do this or that, then be told "we don't currently support that feature", and then wait 6 months for it to be (possibly) added? The talent of voice actors isn't simply the ability to create a certain sounding voice.

      --
      AccountKiller
    29. Re:Speech-to-text by TBoon · · Score: 1

      Cut'n'paste voice was done in the movie Contact (1997) with Bill Clinton to make it appear he was speaking about something he actually never did.

      Red Planet (2000) had a realistic computer generated voice. (At least realistic enough for a speaking computer on a space ship, as it doesn't need to express emotions...)

      As for shows like Pokemon clones, I guess it's simply quicker/cheaper to re-record near-identical lines several times, than having someone stitch together various clips all the time.

    30. Re:Speech-to-text by maxume · · Score: 1

      Do note that it was really more of a gag to respond to Hayes quitting than it was a serious attempt at making dialog.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    31. Re:Speech-to-text by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No, you can trademark a phrase (as in a line of text that is specifically attached to your product, like Avis rental cars "we try harder") but you can not trademark a sound. You can only copyright a sound.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  14. New Voices?! by Utopia+Tree · · Score: 1

    Sweet gorilla of Manilla!

    1. Re:New Voices?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet lion of Zion?

  15. To save money on the animation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they are going to go back to those talking upsidedown chin characters.

    I predict success.

  16. Re:Hey Soulskill! Read this, you douche bag. by jimshatt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Go ahead, submit more interesting stories then.

  17. Casting notice by HumanEmulator · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work in the business and I saw a casting notice for this go out yesterday. Right now (if you're a member) you can see the notice on a site called Actor's Access here and the sides are up on Showfax.

    Casting notices for shows like this almost never appear on a site like that (it's a step above Craigslist), so my best guess this is a negotiation tactic to convince the cast to accept contracts that pay less, in line with the reduced budget for the show.

  18. Hmm by Cloud+K · · Score: 2, Funny

    It just won't be right without Wakka as Bender :)

  19. This is how much i want futurama back by lindoran · · Score: 1

    I don't care if they cast satan himself as a voice actor... seriously i just want futurama back.... I could give a sh*t less about who dose the voice acting.

    1. Re:This is how much i want futurama back by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, although it's repeated about 3 times a day here it's one programme I can keep watching and finding funny.

      OTOH I can watch new simpsons episodes and find them so dull I switch off. They cancelled the wrong show.

      I agree though - voice actors change all the time and we don't notice unless someone tells us.

  20. Not necessarily that bad by Fleeced · · Score: 1

    In theory, it wouldn't really bother me as long as the characters sounded the same - that's one of the benefits of cartoons - that the "actors" never age on screen, so you can repeatedly recast the voices and keep the show going for decades... but in reality, the voice actors have grown into the role and provide numerous nuances that make up part of who the characters are. Replacing them all at once would certainly be noticeable, IMO.

    People need to settle down though. Pretending that they're never going to watch if one one the voice actors is replaced doesn't fool anyone - you will still watch (at least at first), and you know it. Yes, I'm worried - but the voice actors aren't the whole show. Painting the producers as the big greedy corporates playing hardball is a bit one-side - the voice actors are playing the same game, which is as it should be... I suspect they will come to some agreement in the end.

  21. Zapp Brannigan! by Werrismys · · Score: 2, Funny
    As long as they keep Zapp Brannigan, Zoidberg, and Fry. They're perfect. Except Fry, who sucks. But excels at it. And the professor. And the hypnotoad. All bow to the mighty hypnotoad.

    They could replace ... the kids, the rasta dude, the japanese chick, etc.

    They could find an even sexier Leelaaaah... Leeluuuhh... Lee-Laaa.

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    1. Re:Zapp Brannigan! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      They could find an even sexier Leelaaaah... Leeluuuhh... Lee-Laaa.

      Should I kill him now, Doctor?

    2. Re:Zapp Brannigan! by Selfbain · · Score: 1

      It's funny you should bring up Zapp in a conversation about replacing voice actors. He was supposed to be voiced by Phil Hartman before he died.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    3. Re:Zapp Brannigan! by cpricejones · · Score: 1

      just in case you have never heard of the hypnotoad: www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiVYjRbZMe0

      ... easily my favorite random alien in the series

  22. Severely-reduced pay by keyboarderror · · Score: 3, Funny

    Farnsworth: Well, it looks like I'll be needing my heroic bureaucrat back. At severely-reduced pay, of course. [The staff cheer.] LaBarbara: It's better than nothing. Fry: What about me? Can I come back at severely-reduced pay? Hermes: You got it, mon! In fact, severely-reduced pay all around!

  23. Tall Tell Sign by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    However, some are skeptical about whether it's a real casting call or purely a stunt to reduce the salaries of the voice actors."

    If they all have East Indian accents, then the question is answered.
         

    1. Re:Tall Tell Sign by RickRussellTX · · Score: 1

      By the many hands of Vishnu I tell you it is a lie!

  24. calculon by sukotto · · Score: 1

    NNNNOOOOOOOOoooooooooo! (It was supposed to be "yes", but I gave it a little twist)

    --
    Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
  25. So how are they going to explain the new voices by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    on the show? The crew gets into a horrible accident that requires them to get voice box transplants, and Bender's voice gets erased and he is programmed with a different one.

    This is almost as bad in a TV series when an actor or actress is replaced with a different one, and it usually happens to Soap Operas and really Cheesy TV shows. The only TV show to do this on a regular basis and still survive was Saturday Night Live, who kept reinventing themselves with new comedians.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Nethead · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bewitched switched "Darrin Stephens" from Dick York (1964-1969) to Dick Sargent (1969-1972) and did well. Even spun off a few shows and cartoons.

      Man, am I dating myself.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      on the show? The crew gets into a horrible accident that requires them to get voice box transplants, and Bender's voice gets erased and he is programmed with a different one.

      What a nice idea. If this recasting turns out to be a bluff, I'd love to see them poke fun at it for the opening of the first new episode...get random people the mail room, HR, etc., to voice everybody for the first 5 minutes (or something similar).

      Of course if they actually recast, I expect it will go down in flames...I just can't see it being the same.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    3. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      My God! They just switched one Dick for another?

    4. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Doctor Who?

    5. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two words: law & order

    6. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by wonmon · · Score: 1

      Here's a clip of another show that kinda got away with it... skip to the end credits of the clip for a postmodern referential treat ;)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJjnj50KtO0

    7. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bewitched switched "Darrin Stephens" from Dick York (1964-1969) to Dick Sargent (1969-1972) and did well. Even spun off a few shows and cartoons.

      Man, am I dating myself.

      Nah, but the actors could say that since Sargent was gay.

    8. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not as if anyone else would date you

    9. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but in that case, they were both dicks.

    10. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by wdef · · Score: 1
      Yes but the husband in Bewitched was just the straight comic foil. He could have been any competent "Dick".

      It would have been much harder to replace the beautiful, impish, stuff-of-wet-dreams Elizabeth Montgomery. Kids might have watched this show but, apart from her comic talent, she was there for the dads and boys to dream about.

      Funny how gorgeous females from my early childhood tv have imprinted on me.

      Don't even get me started on the young Barbara Eden in I Dream of Genie.

    11. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      Man, am I dating myself.

      This is /. ... 99% of us our dating ourselves.

    12. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No spluh, they could like totally be in a room filled with some crazy gas, like helium, or ferrous bromide! Then when they walk out of the room, they could switch over using the coughing to clear their voices gimick.

    13. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's not as if anyone else would date you. /Dilbert

    14. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by zsau · · Score: 1

      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']

      In your sig, "us" and "you" really should be variables, not string constants. Who they refer to depends on the context, y'see.

      --
      Look out!
    15. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...confirming what women have known for ages: most dicks are interchangeable.

    16. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem... Dr Who?

    17. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Actually I should have stated the "entire cast" as Futurama is supposed to do and SNL have done.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    18. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Actually I should have said "entire cast" as Futurerama is supposed to do and SNL did on a regular basis.

      Doctor Who only replaced the Doctor and other Time Lords like The Master and Romana. But the companions stayed the same and were not replaced, just left, and later some of the companions came back played by the same people later on in the show. Esp the New Doctor Who and the Torchwood people. So Doctor Who does not count, esp when they have a special and the old Doctor Who actors reappear as well for multiple Doctor Whos.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    19. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But back then people knew how to act...

    20. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Man, am I dating myself.

      People on Slashdot don't normally date themselves, they just skip straight to intimacy.

      ZING!

    21. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      aren't you forgetting a rather well known british sci-fi series that has been changing the actor that plays it's main actor regulally since practially it's inception and has been going for so long that some of the early episodes have been lost.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    22. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, they switched a Dick for a Dick and the audience didnt notice? Quite a kinky porno if you ask me.

    23. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ardent hope is that they do exactly this, then at the end of the episode, the big reveal is that this whole thing was secretly engineered as just an epic joke, and all the transplants and reprogramming are reversed. Would be awesome.

    24. Re:So how are they going to explain the new voices by manicmike66 · · Score: 1

      Worked for my ex

  26. Re:MODERATORS!!! DIAL 911 NOW! I AM A TERRORIST by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Congrats. Your IP has now been logged. I would laugh if something came of this.

  27. katey segal doing just fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    She's in "Son's of Anarchy", plus she's married to a producer, and the MWC royalties come in. Trust me, she isn't hurting for spending money or worrying if she'll miss the next slashdot dupe because the IP bill is overdue.

  28. Phony! by RSKennan · · Score: 1

    99 to 1 odds that this is in fact *another* Fox negotiating stunt. A few years back, when Family Guy went off the air, they held a "contest" to find a new animated sitcom. Like a moron I entered with a friend. Our submission wasn't epic or anything, but they quietly sent it back to us. No new animated show came from the contest and then Family Guy came back with American Dad bringing up the rear (Now THAT'S a sitcom title: "Bringing up the Rear". It could be a family friendly spinoff of Assy Mcgee). The whole contest was PHONY. YOU'RE A PHONY, FOX NETWORK! HEY GUYS... THIS NETWORK'S A PHONY! That said, I do a few voices, so let me review some old clips....

  29. OH FUCK THAT!!!!!..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    .....And yet, FOX slaughters yet another potential cash cow.

    Honestly, what is with companies that take great ideas and totally ruin them in the name of "improving" them?

    I could talk about such epic fuck-ups ad nauseum, but I'll limit my post to.....

    FUCK THAT. Futurama will lose the vast majority of what it has built up over the years because those asinine morons at the network can't realize a potential major cash source.

    Good job FOX. You are about to destroy something very valuable.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  30. Opportunity for improvement by absoluteflatness · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe this (or the more normal work schedule of a normal series rather than the "movies"), will get some of the voice actors to return to their original form.

    I think that some of the actors (particuarly Phil LaMarr, interestingly) never quite got the hang of their old characters again.

    Losing the old cast would still be a death blow to the show, though.

  31. Really? What about Homer Simpson? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen to the first season? His voice is more deeper and sad sack sounding, compared to the zanier version we all know. Which would you rather have?

    1. Re:Really? What about Homer Simpson? by HalifaxRage · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it was the same actor who constantly made adjustments until he found a voice that works. Personally the early Homer voice is the "real" voice for me - seems like the more it changed the stupider he got until we have today's infamous Jerkass Homer.

      --
      bomb the us up set someone
  32. They deserve it by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    Seriously, Futurama has been rerun more than anything except for Family Guy in recent history. Then account for DVD sales, 360/PS3 sales, and licensed junk you find at Spencer's. Then consider how much the show would suck if they replaced the voices. They would loose all of that money. So the way I see it, the voice actors deserve to get paid a premium. Hell, Seinfeld is like a gazillionare and you don't see NBC or ABC or whoever originally ran it complaining. They offered him more to continue!

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  33. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >The animated series is due to return next year on >Comedy Central,

    So yeah, Im pretty sure FOX dont want to pay actors for a show thats NOT on their network.

    As for voices, youre insane.
    You can pull it off for a minor character like Meg in Family Guy but think of Stewie, Brian, Hank Hill, Dale Gribble, Bart, Lisa, Cartman and so on. Would they be the same characters without the voices we know and love? No.
    Hell, most younger people I know still get freaked out when they hear the original Homer voice Dan C.used at the beginning.

    Sure, they MAY be letting it go to their heads but you have no proof, no inside knowledge, nothing but a gut feeling.
    Did you have mexican for lunch?
    THat feeling is probably just gas waiting to escape..

    Anyone can do voice overs (heck, cameron diaz speaks english like its a foreign language) just like any moron can 'act' but doing it well is an art in both cases.
    Billy West might do the same job as Diaz but that;s like comparing TV stars Matt Leblanc with Mandy Pantinkin/Hugh Lauries of the world.

  34. Box Network by KneelBeforeZod · · Score: 1

    Fox is still trying to kill Futurama... or keep it dead.

  35. Meep by Beardydog · · Score: 3, Funny

    They only paid me to say it once, then they doubled it up on the soundtrack. Cheap bastards

  36. Having drank with Bender before.... by Jager+Dave · · Score: 1

    ...many moons ago, I cannot see DiMaggio demanding $75k PER SHOW... The man was a really nice guy. We used to hang out at the same pub in Hollywood... In the unlikely event John (or one of his friends) is reading this.... Jager Dave from BB says hey :)

  37. We have the technology. by Animats · · Score: 1

    Check out Vocaloid 2, the Japanese singing synthesizer. This does a nice job. Here's a sample.

    Setting up Vocaloid for a new voice is a big job; the current version requires that the performer sing a long, standardized set of training syllables. Once you have the voice configured, you feed in a MIDI file with lyrics, pitch, and timing info, and singing or talking comes out.

    Clearly, the next step is the ability to train the system from unstandardized speech and singing samples. Once that technology is developed, it should be possible to automatically generated cover versions of any desired song with any desired performer. At last, the computer industry will be in a position to crush the RIAA.

    (Remember, under US copyright law, anyone can make a cover version of any song and just pay the statutory royalty to the songwriter, a modest fee. The songwriter cannot refuse.)

    1. Re:We have the technology. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      (Remember, under US copyright law, anyone can make a cover version of any song and just pay the statutory royalty to the songwriter, a modest fee. The songwriter cannot refuse.)

      Um, ok... how long until US copyright law gets changed?

  38. no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    new cast is bs man! it won't be the same. futurama is one of my favorite shows, not just because it's funny, but because of the character development. changing the voices will destroy all of that. even matt groening want simpsons canceled long ago to make way for futurama.

  39. Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's wrong sounding Muppets all over again.

  40. Feynman? by chub_mackerel · · Score: 1

    Actually, I couldn't help noticing earlier this week that Richard Feynman sounded an awful lot like Bender does. Too bad he's dead or he could take over the role!

  41. Re:Hey Soulskill! Read this, you douche bag. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I think he has a point. Futurama wasn't that good. It only has a following because Fox killed it before it got really bad.

  42. Re:Hey Soulskill! Read this, you douche bag. by anonymous+donor · · Score: 1

    Now it'll have a chance. And once it gets awful everyone will be complaining that they should have killed it earlier. Every smartass will say that they let it get that bad because those evil greedy bastards wanted to milk every penny out of it (just before they start ranting about how evil the RIAA/MPAA is and how it's all their fault).

    --
    fortune favors the lucky
  43. What's wrong with that? by redblue · · Score: 1

    It's not as if they will incur the wrath of Xenu if Bender joins an adventure club.
    Personally, I would like to see some more changes. Too many dysfunctional Euro-Alien-Robot relationships. How about replacing them with a nice healthy nuclear North American family? With income derived from providing a non-fossil fuel based energy. And get rid of those robots, we need more diverse ethnic types for comic relief. And tone down all that unrealistic slapstick stuff. In fact, set the whole show in present day, not a thousand years from now. It might offend people living a 1000 light years from here.

  44. trosor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  45. Re: Safe subject by McGiraf · · Score: 1

    Yours too.

  46. Re:Hey Soulskill! Read this, you douche bag. by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    BLASPHEMY! Burn the heretic!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  47. If I were them Id take the salary cut by voss · · Score: 1

    Of course with increased points on the back-end, basically a increased cut of the gross from episode sales and merchandising from ALL futurama episodes not just the new ones.

    New episodes with the original voice actors increases the value of the repeats.

  48. The simpsons Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Id like to just say if you the simpsons into wikipedia, you'll see the cast members have had three or four pay rises! Initially they were getting less than the Futurama guys!

    1. Re:The simpsons Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you could just click on the telegraph link, but wikipedia has more detail

  49. IT Guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've started a petition for anyone interested in signing! http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/futuramarecast/