Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Matt Groening In Talks With Netflix For Animated Series (variety.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the good-news-everyone dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Matt Groening, creator of "The Simpsons" and "Futurama," is reportedly in talks with Netflix about creating a new animated series. According to Variety, details about the new show are still being kept secret, but it would involve a contract for two seasons of 10 episodes apiece. This would be Groening's first major new project since Futurama premiered in 1999.

53 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Please, oh, please . . . by Idou · · Score: 4, Informative

    be something geeky like the original Futurama. . .

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    1. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Funny
      or just more Futurama!!!

      Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Dear Lord! That's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!

      Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?

      Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Well, it's a space ship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
    2. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      Probably not going to happen.

      Futurama was good, all of it. The Simpsons started sucking pretty quickly, and they really suck today.

      Guess which one is still on the air?

      Suck sells.

    3. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Zapp Brannigan: Have the boy lay out my formal shorts.
      Kiff: The boy, sir?
      Zapp Brannigan: You. You lay out my formal shorts.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by Kjella · · Score: 2

      FYI, that assumes the only place it'd land it earth ;) but seriously though, I think they've revealed as many crazy character traits as one is likely to have like Leela being a sewer mutant, Fry his own grandpa, Nibbler being a cuddly protector of the universe and so on. And the circular time-loop duplicates, any more and it'll start being like the end of Heroes or Doctor Who instead of a parody of time travel and the "grandfather paradox". Honestly I'd rather see something new.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re: Please, oh, please . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When futurama returned it was no where near as good as the original run. Forced humor targeting geeks is still forced humor.

    6. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      That explains why you're still posting.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    7. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Futurama was good, because Groening was only barely involved with it. Simpsons jumped the shark in season 13 because he wanted to go more preachy with it. He knew everybody hated it, and the numbers were dropping, but he liked the new direction and refused to relent.

      Haven't you see this before? Groening jumped the shark. Anything he comes-up with will either be: The Simpsons and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, or even worse: Futurama Episode 1: The Phantom Menace.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by kimvette · · Score: 1

      You forgot Kif's response to everything stupid Zap says (which means about 99.5% of Zap's lines):
      *exacerbated sigh*

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    9. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by Idou · · Score: 2

      The Simpsons beat Futurama on traditional television. Netflix is the futur. . . AMA!!!!!

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    10. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by lgw · · Score: 2

      Futurama was good, because Groening was only barely involved with it. Simpsons jumped the shark in season 13 because he wanted to go more preachy with it.

      Groening basically stopped working with Simpsons in season 12 to start Futurama, but the main thing that changed with season 13 is Al Jean became the showrunner, which continues to today. Groening stopped being the showrunner after season 2.

      The Simpsons lost me when it changed formats, for a 20-minute plot to several shorts, like a bugs bunny cartoon.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by victorsosa · · Score: 1

      It should just continue futurama +1

    12. Re: Please, oh, please . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When futurama returned it was no where near as good as the original run. Forced humor targeting geeks is still forced humor.

      But still better than the Simpsons has been for the past decade or so.

    13. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Probably not going to happen.

      Futurama was good, all of it. The Simpsons started sucking pretty quickly, and they really suck today.

      Guess which one is still on the air?

      Suck sells.

      Only if you don't understand how TV works.

      First of all, there are three predominant business models for TV. If you don't know them, then you won't be able to produce the right content for them.

      First, we have the free to air model - where the signal is free, and you get the content for free (or could). Here, the content, and the overhead is paid for by ads. In fact, the content only exists to sell ads, and content can reduce its cost by selling ads within it (product placement)..There's a whole industry built around this, and you know it as the Neilsen raitings. But that's not the truth - because the ratings you see published are just incidental to the real numbers that pay for it. The "free" numbers we get are the L+SD (Live + Same Day), L+3 (Live + 3 days) and L+7 (Live + 7 days) numbers, which are basically the audience numbers for the program. Now, these numbers mean diddly squat to the networks because that's not what they pay for.The networks pay for the C, C3 and C7 numbers, which are the same numbers, minus program content - i.e., they represent the people who during the program watched the ads. That's the numbers they pay Neilsen big bucks for, the numbers they really collect, and what they generate revenue from. Those numbers set the rate for a 30 second spot. In general, they can range anywhere from 80K to 150K during prime time. So your average 30 minute show may pull in a million bucks.

      So the content used here must attract eyeballs, and the eyeballs it attracts would be the ones who aren't savvy enough to use fast forward on their DVRs or other thing. And they must have mass eyeball appeal, hence lowest common denominator (i.e., "suck sells"). Because the more eyeballs means the more eyeballs watching ads, means higher ad rates.

      Now, if we take this one step further - and analyze what's happening. The networks love streaming TV because guess what? They can force people to watch ads (they hate DVRs), so higher rates if you stream your TV. And if you torrent it for the ad-free view, well, they don't care. Because when it comes time to decide at the end of the season, your "view" means zilch - it doesn't matter if a TV show is torrented billions or trillions of times - if it isn't bringing in the commercial eyeballs, it's cut.

      The second model of TV is the subscription model. This can be from cable channels (though with a la carte, it's shifting to the first model. Pay attention as you'll see what impacts it has on your favorite programs), to full on subscription services like HBO, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, among others. For this model, the primary goal is to attract subscribers (except cable channels, which have to attract ad eyeballs too, and with the move to a la carte, even more eyeballs as subscription rates drop, so your favorite programs may watch to go lowest common denominator). But for full on subscription services, their goal to make money is to provide you with content that will keep you paying the subscription fee, AND attract new subscribers. They're continuously examining their demographic - what content they like (to produce content you want to watch and thus, keep paying subscription fees for), and who they'd like to attract as subscribers. This programming will not be lowest common denominator because they don't want eyeballs, they want paying eyeballs. So they'll only attract people who will pay for the content. You'll hear a lot of people how they like what Netflix, etc. is producing - and guess what? That's the point - Netflix is producing what you, a subscriber, likes because they want you to keep paying the $9 a month. The person you hear complaining about Netflix not having what they like? Probably wasn't going to subscribe anyways so no loss.

      The third and final model is government or othe

    14. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by grimfate · · Score: 1

      This is and will be the best thing I have read today.

    15. Re:Please, oh, please . . . by bodster · · Score: 1

      totally agree. Very insightful. thanks for taking the time to write it up.

  2. Gets out popcorn by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Matt Groening Cartoon series likely to be good

    vs

    (from TFA)

    Matt Groening SJW

    He also committed to a yearly $50,000 donation to help students produce socially conscious short films.

    Looking forward to seeing how this plays out amongst the outraged /. population.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Gets out popcorn by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      I find SJWs - especially the self-identifying ones - almost as tiresome as hipsters.

      But if someone wants to waste his own money and he isn't bothering anyone else then I say let him get on with it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re: Gets out popcorn by kubajz · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am sure this theory explains why a number of people in that time believed it. Knocked up by God? Sure, why not, thanks for an explanation Joseph. I am afraid t takes a bit more to have people talking about you 2000 years later...

    3. Re:Gets out popcorn by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      No idea. If you can find one, ask him.

      Or her, of course. Or whatever Barbara Hudson's pronoun is.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Gets out popcorn by 91degrees · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He also committed to a yearly $50,000 donation to help students produce socially conscious short films.

      Good for him. I hope they represented a wide range of viewpoints and opinions.

      Look, the objection to "SJW"s isn't that they're socially conscious. The basic principles they claim to support are all well worth supporting. It's the level of bigotry and hatred of anyone who doesn't share the exact same opinions that comes with it. If you have a socially conscious movie then that's great. Go for it.

    5. Re: Gets out popcorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am afraid t takes a bit more to have people talking about you 2000 years later...

      That's easy, fairy tales passed down through the generations by people who multiply like rabbits.

    6. Re:Gets out popcorn by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Actually, as I understand it, early Christianity accepted Joseph being married to Mary and that Mary wasn't a virgin. However, they tweaked their own religion to "sell it" to the various tribes they absorbed. That's how many Christmas traditions were formed - Christianity absorbed the winter celebration traditions of some Germanic tribes and put a "Jesus" spin on it. In the case of Mary, some tribes valued virginity so Christians declared retroactively that Mary was actually a virgin and Joseph got shoved aside.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:Gets out popcorn by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every so often (in fact, it's been described as "SJW Friday" because it's regular) Slashdot will post an article along the lines of "Why women are having a hard time in IT", or "Google starts a program to recruit more women into IT". The comments sections for these stories are then shitposted, every time, by angry self-professed opponents of "SJWs" complaining that the stories are indicative of an SJW mindset.

      On the face of it, identifying problems with women in IT, or Google/whatever running programs to promote women in IT, doesn't appear to be cases either of bigotry or hatred, even if one believes, somehow, that women have an awesome time in IT and the only reason we don't have more women is because they want to ride ponies and dress up their Barbie dolls.

      How does this fit in to your model that the opposition to so-called SJWs is due to "SJWs" "bigotry" and "hatred of anyone who doesn't share the exact same opinions", and that opponents to "SJWs" believe the principles "SJWs" support are "all well worth supporting"?

      (And to counter the obvious - before you say "Well, those people shitposting to those threads and modding down all constructive posts aren't representative of the anti-SJW groups", how are they not representative? They certainly are a large enough group to be capable of destroying, effectively censoring, all discussion of women's issues on Slashdot, and I hear no condemnation at all from those who generally use the term SJW unironically against those destroying those threads.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Gets out popcorn by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Sure. You just choose not to.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:Gets out popcorn by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Eagerly awaiting for your rants about /. on:

      * Apple/Microsoft Monday
      * BitCoin Tuesday
      * Linux Friday :-)

    10. Re:Gets out popcorn by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Why? I'm not ranting about "SJW Friday", I'm angry that we can't have adult discussions of diversity on Slashdot because one side labels everyone concerned about, say, women in IT, as "SJWs" and then shitposts and abuses moderation in an effort to shut down discussion of the subject.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  3. Good News Everyone! by glucoseboy · · Score: 1

    Very good news indeed. Can't wait!!

  4. Re:Ted Cruz by sims+2 · · Score: 2

    Its rather funny because we had claims like this about obama and he was born in hawaii which just so happens to be one of the fifty US states.

    John mccain however was born at the Coco Solo Naval Station in Panama. Did you know that's not in one of the fifty states its just a US territory?

    Ergo john mccain was not born in the "United States" yet obama is the one still hounded today for his birth certificate......

    Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. It's my understanding that there is a US embassy in Calgary so I suppose he could have been born there. Or his parent's could have been us citizens. Im sure we will get to hear about it later but Afaik out of the three I mentioned he is the only one that was not born on us soil. Well unless Canada is a part of the united states someone forgot to tell me about.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  5. Re:Ted Cruz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. It's my understanding that there is a US embassy in Calgary so I suppose he could have been born there.

    Because that's where expecting mothers usually go to deliver their babies?

    Or his parent's could have been us citizens.

    Give the man a cigar!

    No, the real reason nobody's making (much) fuss about Ted not being a natural born American citizen is because he's white!

    Really, face it, that is the real reason

  6. Re:Ted Cruz by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I thought it was because he was a mid-transition transexual. Caitlyn Jenner uses less mascara.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Re:Ted Cruz by zdzichu · · Score: 1

    And this is relevant to Groening's animated show how?

    --
    :wq
  8. Re:Ted Cruz by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Or his parent's could have been us citizens.

    Give the man a cigar!

    Take it off him until he tells us what belongs to a parent.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. The effect of copyright by Tokolosh · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Presumably Groening is living comfortably off the residuals of The Simpsons and Futurama. He therefore had zero incentive to create anything original for the last 16 years.

    This is society's loss. Now if his income had dried up 10 years ago, he would have gotten off his Duff and produced something for our enjoyment and remained comfortably off at the same time.

    Thanks, ridiculous infinite copyright!

    PS I know he is working on a new project now, but we cannot rely on boredom as an incentive.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:The effect of copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Presumably Groening is living comfortably off the residuals of The Simpsons and Futurama.

      As he should be. They're great works of entertainment.

      He therefore had zero incentive to create anything original for the last 16 years.

      wut.

      This is society's loss.

      hmm... reading through the rest of the post (as well as your post history), I suspect what you really mean is "This is my personal loss because Matt Groening should've produced something new to entertain me."

      but we cannot rely on boredom as an incentive

      huh? Doesn't this directly contradict your earlier ramblings?

      Christ, I know you're being a parody of a typical entitled slashdot poster here, blaming copyright for Every Single Thing That's Wrong With the World Today... but, focus, man, FOCUS. Just can't take you seriously.

    2. Re:The effect of copyright by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      You think he should be out any money from stuff he made 16 years ago? I think copyright laws as they are now are ridiculous as well, but that's just stupid.
      He should be able to enjoy the benefits of the stuff he personally created, from a copyright of original works standpoint, for his own lifetime.

      Now after the original author dies (or a certain number of years, whichever comes last) it starts to be less about protecting the works for those involved and more about corporations looking for endless income with no work and talentless family members wanting a money cow.

    3. Re:The effect of copyright by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Clearly, if you were fired today then once the unemployment benefits ran out you would create a hit television show.

  10. Re:Ted Cruz by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    Just to note after further research (google) the US embassy's are not considered us soil so that idea is out either way.

    And for your last point have you ever heard anyone call mccain on his non 50 state birth? Ever?

    Hopefully reporting in your area is better than mine.
    Because that wasn't reported at all here. Probably one of the benefits of living in a red state. Hey while we're at it Did your state opt out of medicare expansion too? Nice having all those people screwed over in that gap huh?

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  11. Re:Ted Cruz by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    Children.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  12. Re:Ted Cruz by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    It's not.

    But it's fun to discuss.

    Otherwise Rick and Morty Is not a successor to futurama.

    Well unless you also consider ben 10 omniverse to be a continuation of any of the preceding ben 10's. In which case what the hell is wrong with you Mr. Nielsen?

    While I personally would prefer netflix to have a larger library instead of going after original content. There are a lot of other shows I'd like to see more of like red dwarf... just as long as its not made anywhere near the united states That was one fked up pilot.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  13. He's out of juice by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    The Simpsons hasn't been funny in a decade. And after it was canceled it was never quite as good, Seasons 5, 6 and 7 are optional for viewing.

    Can't we have Matt Groening pick a successor in the industry, say something nice about him (or her) and then we all go watch the new blood take a crack at making us laugh?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:He's out of juice by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      What? no. He didn't produce that one.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:He's out of juice by Tukz · · Score: 1

      "The Cleveland Show" was a spin-off from Family Guy, a completely different crew mainly spearheaded by Seth MacFarlane.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  14. correction by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    s/And after it/And after Futurama/

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  15. Re:Cry more, nazi scum by lgw · · Score: 1

    Like a typical redpill moron, you project your own fucked up nature onto other people.

    Also, you're using "godwin" wrong; this conversation started out in the shit the minute you alt-right fuckheads came in to whine about your imaginary "SJW" bugaboo.

    Now go on and follow your hero Hoover's example and put on your pretty dress and SWAT some liberals from the safety of your bedroom.
    Better yet! Do the world a favor and follow your Feurher's example and eat a bullet.

    /. has reached the point where I honestly can't tell whether the posts are generated by "rant bots" or not. Thanks SJW Friday!

    So let me just fit in by adding:

    i don't even. is it so fucking difficult to acknowledge gay separatism???????? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST VEGANISM, YOU HETERO-PRIVILEGED MRA?????? DON'T YOU SEE HOW CRITICIZING GENDERPLATONIC-ASSOCIATING QTPOCS IS PROBLEMATIC?????

    shut up!!!!! respect fatism & gay rights separatism, u able-body-overprivileged shit. stain!!! fuCK, UR MALE PRIVILEGE, U SMALLFAT-NORMATIVE SHIT STAIN!!!!!!!! ur carnist able-body-PRIVILEGED OPINION IS FUCKING WORTHLESS!!!!!!! ull literally never understand my damn hijra native american struggles!!!! reSPECT THAT IM LITERALLY PANSENSUAL, TODAY, U, NON-ETHNIC-PRIVILEGED BIGOT!!!!!! ur, fetiSHIZATION OF NONROMANTIC-TYPE VICTIMS IS REALLY PROBLEMATIC!!!! is it so fucking difficult 2 acknowledge that u can be fat & healthy!!!! leave polyracial-aligned wymyn the fuck alone, u gender-overprivileged kyriarchist!!!

    https://tumblr-argument-genera... is awesome.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  16. Re:Cry more, nazi scum by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    b-b-b-b-but muh nazis!

    If thinking people are mentally ill for identifying as nonexistant creatures and demanding the use of correct "pronouns" makes you a Nazi, then I guess I'm fine with being a Nazi.

    Got any other shaming tactics you want to try?

  17. Re:Ted Cruz by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    John mccain however was born at the Coco Solo Naval Station in Panama

    That entertains me every time I think of it.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  18. He could had an hour with Fox. by antdude · · Score: 1

    Like from for an hour with The Simpsons and Futurama. Stupid Fox had to put Futurama earlier with NFL messing its schedule up!

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  19. Re: Ted Cruz by Zalbik · · Score: 1

    Is it?!?! Damn, us Canadians should get that thing removed!

  20. It's obvious... by burtosis · · Score: 1

    He is bringing Akbar and Jeff to prime time.

  21. Here to more good stuff by chainsaw1 · · Score: 1

    And less influence f the BOX network. I heard you can accelerate the schedule with some Torgo's Executive Powder...

    --
    - Sig
  22. Re:Futurama 2.0 already exists by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

    Interesting take. Mine is that it's Doctor Who re-imagined through the Adult Swim Lens.

    --
    Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
  23. Re:Ted Cruz by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    There was no big public discussion on McCain's eligibility because Congress settled the question BEFORE the election. https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

    This is in contrast to the question of Mr. Obama who insisted that he was eligible not just because he was born a US Citizen. It remains a question as to if that is adequate, given the above resolution named McCain specifically and mentioned military families. Obama claimed eligibility based on his being born within the United States. Being born within the United States being the narrowest interpretation of what the Constitution says on the matter. It got really bizarre when rather than being reasonable and just producing his birth certificate to prove he was born where he said he was; he stonewalled for years. He did this incidentally while supporting things like Real ID and various TSA rule making. Only in Obama's world ( and that of those who were prepared to do anything protect his presidency) is it unreasonable to let you board a plane for a domestic flight with a document that does not contain your middle initial, but its totally cool to vote, or be elected president for that matter, with no proof of eligibility of any kind.

    Quite honestly I accept the interpretation that natural born us citizen means, that you were a citizen when you were born. If the framers wanted to write "citizen born within the United States" they would have. So I don't think the whole Obama controversy matters much because he would have been a citizen at birth either way. I DO WONDER why it took so long to produce a birth certificate, which had he simply done immediately would have made the conspiracy people go away. I sorta doubt the validity of that birth certificate at this point, it just does not matter because he should still be eligible for the office as I understand plain language and the Constitution.

    Which brings us to my currently favored (among those with the potential to get elected) candidate Mr. Cruz. Trump's attack on his eligibility is reasonably IMHO. While if I were a jurist making the call I would rule he is eligible, because he was a US Citizen when he was born; that does not mean the SCOTUS would reach the same conclusion. Trump is right he should seek a declaratory judgement, or similar congressional resolution on the matter lest it become a potential issue later.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html