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

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.

Comments

Please, oh, please . . .

[Idou]

be something geeky like the original Futurama. . .

Re:Please, oh, please . . .

[brxndxn]

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.

Re:Please, oh, please . . .

[tlhIngan]

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

Re:Gets out popcorn

[squiggleslash]

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.)