Futurama R.I.P.

Well, It was fun while it lasted. Fox has done a good job of killing it off.

jy

Has it been officially cancelled yet?

DGH

No, Futurama has not been cancelled. Just another chicken calling for the sky to fall.

FOX did a good job of shoving Futurama out of the way to make way for football! No, it hasn't been cancelled. ;;knock wood;;

Actually football would be there regardless. Futurama just happened to be in the way. You make this sound like some sort if surprise development. I mean football is on every year from August to December. The people at Fox knew perfectly well that episodes of Futurama would get bumped to make way for football. This was all planned out well in advance. The only thing odd is why so many people here seem so surprised that this happened.

Surprised and Pissed are two different things.

mr. lee

Why doesn't someone start some kind of petition or something. To tell fox to smarten up and get futurama a better time slot.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:23:33 -0800, petben wrote:

Why then was it bumped for a damn Simpsons rerun? They can't be behind schedule on making new shows, hell, they never get to show any.

jy (not waiting for the sky to fall, just the other boot to drop)

The Simpsons have better ratings and appeal to a broader demographic. So, for a Christmas (sorry I meant Xmas) special, they figured that the Simpsons would draw a larger audience.

Last I heard, Futurama was re-newed for a third season. While ratings have been lackluster, it is still holding it's own for the time slot it's in.

--Larry

On 19 Dec 2000 20:31:50 GMT, Johnny Yen wrote:

Larry F wrote in message news:[email]...

I don't understand, I thought they were in their third season now?

Do you mean fourth season maybe?

-Fraggler?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:41:20 -0800, "Fraggler?" wrote:

You understand perfectly. I was overstating the obvious.

If Fox planned to cancel Futurama immediately, I don't think they would renew it, run three episodes and then cancel it.

Well, I do hope so.

--Larry

Well, these episodes were the last part of the second season production, technically "holdovers" for season three. If they were to cancel Futurama, this would be a logical point for them to do it. However since season two reruns have been scheduled for the next couple weeks, hopefully they are just holding off season three episodes until football is over and no preemptions are likely.

This was probably preplanned by FOX, because they did not order as many episodes of Futurama as they did of other shows like The Simpsons this season. Although it seems we've barely seen it this season, if only the Christmas episode had aired, Futurama would have been exactly on pace by network planning with The Simpsons. At the holiday point, we see each series is exactly two weeks behind schedule, because both had only two episodes in the production line behind the Christmas special still unaired. The difference is more Simpsons episodes were ordered this season, so they had more new ones to air this fall without worry of preemption.

In article ,

I don't understand how they can say ratings are lackluster. If you lock something up in the bottom of a locked file cabinet in a disused lavatory in the basement where the light had gone and so had the stairs, then of course you are going to get lackluster ratings. I would imagine that that crappy show Malcolm in the Middle would suffer the same ratings if they had so far showed only one full episode this season and continuously pre-empted the show on the few weeks when it was actually scheduled to air.

Paul

42!

In article ,

lock

lavatory

imagine

ratings

continuously

air.

http://www.tomkoinc.com/quotes.html

[email] wrote:

Damn, I've forgotten the question!

cm

What happened to the old days when a long running game would only push back the rest of the schedule? wrote in message news:91qk66$4tf$[email]...

In article ,

I'm suddenly picturing the message under the title card to read "Beware of the Leopard"...

Oh, then you *do* understand how they can say ratings are lackluster. Ratings are just numbers, they don't give a crap about extenuating circumstances and even though they don't tell the whole story, they're still the main tool used to determine which shows stick around and which shows get canned.

Stop misdirecting your resentment, Paul. MitM *is* a good show. Critics love it, viewers love it, awards shows love it and *its own network* loves it. The only people who seem to hate it are people who like *other* shows that aren't as successful, and have difficulty aiming their displeasure in the appropriate direction. And there are a lot of you out there, hell, alt.tv.simpsons may as well be renamed to alt.hate.malcolm lately.

I can't believe anyone would be dumb enough to make a decision about a shows future based on numbers that are so completely meaningless. I mean if they don't air a show, you can't watch. Then they say "nobody watched it, let's can it." If Spock heard that, his head would explode.

Malcolm is more successful because it has a consistent time slot and is sho shown every week. Since FOX has decided that they hate Futurama, there is no way to directly compare which one is really more popular. As far as which one is actually the better show, I would have to vote for Futurama.

You can't claim ATS hatred of Malcolm is misdirected hatred. The Simpsons already has a good time slot. Their hatred of Malcolm must be legitimate.

By the way, I also hate Malcolm for what it is, not when it is shown. It's the only show on Sunday night that I just can't stand to watch. Therefore, I'd like them to replace it with a show that I do want to watch and that IS supposed to be on Sunday, but is never shown. If Futurama was on every Sunday and shown in it's entirety, I'd still hate Malcolm.

Paul

"Paul Tomko" wrote in message news:3a40f1bd$0$75801$[email]...

it,

Duct tape's the only thing saving mine. The sad part is you just know some FOX executive has probably opined that we on the east coast are particularly uninterested in Futurama, hence the more than willingness to fuck it for a post game show.

Not only consistent, but better as well. You know it IS going to be on, and when, and don't need to consult the NFL/FOX game showings/rules/goat entrails to even see if it's worth sitting down. To add insult to injury, I cite the case of War Is The H-word. A brand new episode, which I didn't even get to see cut off! Screw FOX, I d/l'ed it and got to watch it without commercials. And I told'em so in the e-mail I sent complaining too.

Actually, Fox execs aren't that stupid to not take into account that it is in a slow timespot. The Do demographic testing to see response to the show at any time spot, then see which timespot will draw the most from the demographic they tested positively with.

Most likely, any show in the 8 o'clock spot Sunday would get good ratings, or airing after simpsons or friends for that matter. However, some do better than others.

The odd dedication to a dying show that the people in this newsgroup has PROVES that there is no need to put it in a prime spot because we all are going to watch it anyway. Instead, put a show that people don't mind, but wont go out of there way to watch, like Malcom in the Middle. I don�t see a newsgroup of fans for that show which would seek it out at any hour.

Aaron A BIG Futurama Fan - who would tune in if it were on at 4am on a Tuesday.

"Aaron Finkle" wrote in message news:B66652F6.1C26%[email]...

Yeah, but this is the WORST kind of discrimination. The kind against ME!

   I don't know if it's the placing of Futurama at 7 that bothers people,
rather, that FOX can't stick to actually showing when they do. Yeah, I'll
watch it at 6 pm or 3 am, but when they say it's gonna be on at that time,
I expect to see Futurama, not Football.
   In all probability, I think the fact Futurama has a devoted base is a
weakness, because FOX knows that that base will tune in whenever it's
shown.

Sean Rea

In article , Aaron Finkle wrote:

"Jan Schaumann" wrote in message news:N7p06.5998$[email]...

Amen. I damn near missed the Cryonic Woman because I really didn't expect to have the chance to see it. Imagine my surprise when I tuned in and there it was! This shit has gotta stop, and SOON.

Well, since this *is* the final week of the regular football season, I'd say you're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

Now then, I wonder what the NFL playoff schedule will look like...

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

Oncoming train no doubt.

Probably much as it has in years past.

Perhaps FOX should just come to terms with the fact that their sports programming makes it impractical for them offer weekend primetime programming before 8PM EST. They should just take Futurama and King of the Hill and give them weekday time slots, rather than attempting to place them in Sunday time slots already prempted by helmeted men smashing into each other.

David Garcia

[email] wrote:

But there isn't always a late game. So Fox needs something to fill that half hour. Hence the purpose of Futurama.

Futurama - TV's answer to 'packing peanuts.' Got a few inches between NFL and King of the Hill? Toss in some Futurama, it'll fill the gap and create a nice snug fit.

It's a problem, but not the network's problem. Just don't offer local affiliates any network programming until 8PM. Let the local yokels decide how to fill in the gaps, whether through Road Runner cartoons, M*A*S*H reruns, or whatever. It doesn't make sense for one slab of network programming to constantly step on the other slab of network programming. Dump out of the overlap, and let the locals attend to it.

David Garcia

In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: Futurama Ratings" thread, [email] wrote:

The problem with this strategy is that it cedes a chunk of Sunday prime time. As it is, Fox doesn't broadcast after 10:00pm, so they are unlikely to be willing to give up any more of the prime time schedule -- even the gap between pro football and "King of the Hill."

Meanwhile, Dave asked:

I'm told there's a playoff game 4:15 on Sunday, Dec 31, so it looks like there will be no "Futurama" then. It wouldn't surprise me if both networks don't air as many late playoff games as they possibly can, so they can give the prime time ratings a boost.

Say, does Fox have the Super Bowl this year? If not, they'll probably air a new "Futurama" opposite that ...

You know, you may have just hit on the ideal solution. Why does Fox not have any shows in the 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm prime time block, like ABC, CBS, and NBC do?

If Fox would start their Sunday slate at 7:00 pm, and run it until 11:00 pm, they would be able to get Futurama, KotH, The Simpsons, MitM, and The X-Files all in, and not have to worry about Football running into the weekly line-up.

I guess this just makes too much sense for them.

OmegaMan wrote in message ...

unlikely

gap

If I'm not mistaken, prime time used to begin at 7:30 up until the mid-60s. At that point, the FCC decided to give the 7:30 to 8:00 PM time slot to local stations and deny networks the chance to broadcast network programming in the time period. It is quite possible that this policy is still in effect, in which case the networks don't even have the option of broadcasting from 7:30 to 8, let alone 7 to 8. (I don't think sports counts in this policy.)

Rhino

In article ,

You are mistaken. On Sunday nights, prime time begins at 7 p.m. Eastern Time. Fox only broadcasts until 10 p.m. Eastern every night of the week, unlike the other major networks that go until 11.

Rhino" wrote:

In part, it's done because a number of the Fox affiliates have 10:00 news shows that do quite well. (In San Francisco, for example, the Fox affiliate's 10:00 news does better than anybody's 11:00 news, not in the least because quite a few people have to get up incredibly early in the morning so they can get to work by the 6:30 opening of the stock exchanges.)

Besides, now that football is just about over, they would have to fill the 7-8 hour anyway. (Maybe if they just didn't show anything on Sundays from 7-8 during football season - or, for that matter, have a Fox-based football highlights show, sort of like ESPN's "NFL Primetime".

I don't think it's an FCC regulation. Prime time starting at 7:30 ran until 1971 (for some reason, Tuesdays started at 7:30 until 1972), but when "the family hour" began, it made no sense to have hour-long shows start at 8:30 as they would have to keep out any violence until the second half of the show, so prime time started at 8:00. The main reason they don't show anything at 7:00 is that's when a number of stations traditionally show the network national news.

well out her in the boondocks of South Dakota we only have 9 and 10 oclock news hows that for a kicker :)

Other Jim

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:04:55 -0800, Don Del Grande wrote:

"Jim Logan" wrote in message news:[email]...

Do you have to tape it yourself?

In article , "Rhino" writes:

I think NBC tried to experiment with starting prime time at 7:30 in the mid-80's... unfortunately, they came up with shows like "She's the Sheriff".

But they already start Futurama at 7:00 pm and run their block of Sunday programming to 10:00, when the X-Files ends. So if it were to start their programming block at 8:00 pm and run it to 11:00 pm, there would be no NFL conflict, no FCC conflict, and everybody would be happy.

On 20 Dec 2000 11:51:56 -0600, [email] (Paul Tomko) wrote:

They are called network executives. There was a movie from Disney (I think) called "The Barefoot Executive", where a chimpanzee's reactions to a show were used to determine how it would do in the ratings. Shows that the chimp didn't like, never went into production.

They do take into account the time slot a show has, but the bottom line is, they keep the popular shows and dump the unpopular ones. If a show is particularly good and wins a lot of awards, it helps a bit, but in the end, it's sales, not quality that makes the decision.

That explains why Manimal isn't pulling in ratings these days.

I'm pretty certain they would prefix that comment with "Duh". Also, they would make the decision in a committee. That way if it's wrong they can blame everyone else.

People would watch that and then Spock's Head Exploding would get it's own show.

I definitely agree that Futurama is better than Malcolm. Of course, that's just my opinion. In the ratings, MitM has a number of things going for it. First it is set in the present day. That requires no stretch of the imagination. Since Futurama is set in 3000, and parodies a lot of sci-fi cliches, it appeals to a narrower demographic.

Unless you have a Neilson box, you don't get to vote for what shows continue and which are canceled. You can write to the network to let them know you're a dedicated fan. This is not as important as the rating, but the raw number of fans willing to write does effect their opinions.

MitM uses the same basic humor as The Simpsons. It's the dysfunctional family all over again. I think that it works better in cartoon format because it is more abstract. Homer being too busy watching TV to listen to his family works for me. If the same scene is played out by actors, it is too literal, more tragic than funny.

One of the appeals of sci-fi is it's abstraction. By considering contemporary issues in a future setting, controversial stances can be expressed in a more palatable form. The "Prime Directive" in Star Trek was intended to oppose US involvement in Viet Nam, and our general practice, along with the USSR, of interfering with other countries affairs. By placing it in the future, it was accepted without much argument. Likewise the idea that Shatner can act is far more believable if we image waiting hundreds of years for it to happen.

"I               don't know           what you             mean I
studied Shakespeare                and         "

"GONG!!!!!!!!!!"

I don't hate MitM, I just don't find it very funny. It has it's moments, but not enough to sustain it.

I still watch it sometimes, hoping that this time it's going to be
funnier. So far, no luck. Sure, laughing at handicapped people is
great, but ...................................
................................if...................................................................
...I......................................................have.......................................to..........
...........................lis..............................ten......................................................to..
.................................one............................................more..............................................................
ten.............................................................min.............................................................ute
.............................................................speech.............................................................with.......
......................................................just.............................................................four.............................................................
words.............................................................

And then I change the channel.

This is just my opinion, yours may vary.

--Larry

<< [Malcolm in the Middle] uses the same basic humor as The Simpsons. It's the dysfunctional family all over again. I think that it works better in cartoon format because it is more abstract. Homer being too busy watching TV to listen to his family works for me. If the same scene is played out by actors, it is too literal, more tragic than funny. >>

In the words of "Weird Al" Yankovic, "This means something... This is important...." Someone FINALLY put my views into perspective. I HATE sitcoms and LOVE animation. I've hated every show about the dysfunctional family from "All in the Family" to "Married... With Children" to "Titus". However I've always loved "The Simpsons". Hmm.... Come to think of it, the only non-animated shows I watch are "Saturday Night Live" (reruns), "I Love Lucy", and "Wings".

Sincerely, Robert J. Muldoon o--(|8[#]

"When I was a kid, we had an electric toy train that ran around the Christmas tree. Then one year my little brother licked the tracks. He glowed for three days afterward."

"I take back everything I've said about him not being very bright."

S1.3 OFF+++ NED+++# ABE+++ FRI+++># CBG+++# GIL- f+++ n--- slyris+++ so $+++ MG20, 7G09, 7F20, 9F15, 2F13, 3G01, 4F10, BABF07, AABF22----- M1984

Fair enough. "i hate it because it's not animated" makes much more sense and is less cyclical than "I hate it because it sucks."

< I've hated every show about the dysfunctional family from "All in the Family">

Right. All In The Family was about dysfunctional families. You sir, have questionable taste.

~DarthArada~ "Snuh!" Homer Simpson "We have all the time in the world..." ~George Lazenby/James Bond "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" MUSSOLINI TO EMBARK ON CHEST EXPANSION CAMPAIGN ~The Onion

I'm surprised they even let that movie air. (Or is the fact that they were too out of it to realize they were the butt of the joke just delicious ironing?)

"American's Goriest Spock Head Explosions III"

"Hi, I'm Deputy John Bunnell. Over the next 60 minutes, you're going to see some of the most shocking footage ever collected from Enterprise security cameras..."

You might say the deck was stacked against Futurama from the start. You might also say the "From the creator of The Simpsons" tag didn't carry near the weight they thought it would before FOX okayed the deal. I mean, that was their big platform, right? Wasn't the plan to hook in all the Simpsons viewers first? Maybe they misjudged the reasons people watched the Simpsons in the first place.

I've been told that e-mail letters/petitions/etc. are worthless, but networks *will* consider actual snail mail pleas if they receive enough of them. I guess they figure it's too easy to click your mouse a few times and send off a note, and that doesn't indicate a level of fervor that's worthy of consideration.

True. The line between funny and not so funny where family functioning is concerned is much clearer in live action shows than it is for animated shows. Homer has done some absolutely shameful things but he's just a cartoon character so it's ok. If Hal had accidentally locked Dewey in a newspaper vending machine, it couldn't just be a quick gag, they would have to deal with the repercussions in a 'real life' manner The Simpsons writers would never even have to consider.

Maybe that's the key. For me, those 'moments' last longer and there are more of them. Maybe it's because I grew up the middle child of three boys, and as is typical of middle children, I was the one that showed promise and was forced into the advanced classes which challenged my intellectual abilities while stunting my social skills. I *was* Malcolm. I can't even tell you how often something happens on that show, even a little throwaway line, that resonates perfectly with my own experiences growing up. I think many MitM fans enjoy the show for that and similar reasons.

I agree. If I could change one thing about that show, it's be less dialog for the handicapped boy.

Dave

How the hell can they hook ANYbody when the show's preempted 80% of the time? Fox knows exactly what they're doing here, don't kid yourself. For some reason, they've had it in for Futurama from the word go.

mr. lee

People on here hate it because of the timeslot. People on a.t.s. hate it because they hate everything.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:36:33 GMT, Rich Bunnell wrote:

Mr. Burns in a room full of monkeys:

I have a thousand monkeys in front of a thousand computers. My theory is that given enough time eventually one of the them will post an intelligent review to alt.tv.simpsons. Ah, here's a review now, "Last night's episode was the BLURST episode ever"...

What are you gonna do next? Quote something original like 'Does anybody care what this guy thinks'?

~DarthArada~ "Snuh!" Homer Simpson "We have all the time in the world..." ~George Lazenby/James Bond "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" MUSSOLINI TO EMBARK ON CHEST EXPANSION CAMPAIGN ~The Onion

No, MitM is more successful because more people are interested in what the show is all about. It has cute little boys doing cute things, and as lots of people have children that they think are cute too, they enjoy watching these cute kids. Whereas lots of people, people I have even talked to, regard Futurama as an inferior version of The Simpsons.

Sure there is. Futurama at 8:30 got mediocre ratings. MitM at 8:30 is one of Fox's highest rated shows.

And the majority of people that watch Fox vote for MitM.

In article ,

"Cute" ain't what it's about. Twisted and surreal, but real all the same *is*. That's what I like about it--if it was just about "cute" kids, it would make me green around the gills!

True. In fact, if you actually watch the show, you realize there's very little that's 'cute' about it. But there's a whole helluva lot that rings true for people who have come to enjoy watching it. To me, MitM has a very high "Griswold factor", if you think about what made the National Lampoon Vacation movies so popular and successful, you can easily understand why MitM is enjoying similar success.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, OmegaMan stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Perhaps we could bring in Homer to strangle these 'cute little boys'? :)

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Dave stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Not here in the UK they don't. It's poor ratings soon got it kicked from its initial timeslot.

I tried watching the Pilot, but gave up after just 10 minutes, and have never been able to stand more than 2 minutes since.

Er, how to put this without offending.

Paul? UK ratings don't count. :-)

Dave (Ducking to avoid hurled, um, bangers and mash and fish and chips and blood pudding and kidney pies and toads in the hole and treacle and scones and all the other stereotypical Brit foods.)

So you think there's not much chance Fox is going to swap the timeslots of Futurama and MitM? Sort of what I was thinking too.

Yeah, but I suspect a lot of these people also hate NFL Football too. Go figure.

I think it's a shame. At this point, the fans' best chance is for FOX to sell the show to another network that will actually put it on the air, but that's never going to happen. Hey, we're not the first fans to be screwed by a network, we won't be the last. It's the ineffectual railing that annoys me.

If it ain't [insert favorite show here] it's crap and anyone who likes it is [insert demeaning epithet here].

<< Stop misdirecting your resentment, Paul. MitM *is* a good show. >>

HA HA HA HA HA!

<< Critics love it, >>

Big deal. Critics love

<< viewers love it, >>

GUH! Who watches a show frequently and doesn't like it?

<< awards shows love it >>

"Titanic" won just as many Oscars as "Ben Hur", but surely anyone over 12 would agree that Charlton Heston is a much better actor than Leonardo DeCapricorn or whatever his name is....

<< and *its own network* loves it. >>

Why wouldn't it? It gets them MONEY.

<< The only people who seem to hate it are people who like *other* shows that aren't as successful, and have difficulty aiming their displeasure in the appropriate direction. >>

Oh, so everyone who disagrees with you has "problems" and "issues" and likes INFERIOR programs like "The Simpsons", or "South Park", or "Saturday Night Live" perhaps?. Yeah, right. If I remember correctly, Dean Humphries doesn't like "The Critic", one of my favourite shows. So I should consider his opinions inferior to mine? Isn't that what Nazis do?

<< And there are a lot of you out there, hell, alt.tv.simpsons may as well be renamed to alt.hate.malcolm lately. >>

"Malcolm in the Middle" is total @#$%, truely the worst f&*!kng sitcom on the aire today. I'd rather watch reruns of "Ned and Stacy". At least that had good actors and likeable charactors in it. Crikey!

Sincerely, Robert J. Muldoon o--(|8[#]

"When I was a kid, we had an electric toy train that ran around the Christmas tree. Then one year my little brother licked the tracks. He glowed for three days afterward."

"I take back everything I've said about him not being very bright."

S1.3 OFF+++ NED+++# ABE+++ FRI+++># CBG+++# GIL- f+++ n--- slyris+++ so $+++ MG20, 7G09, 7F20, 9F15, 2F13, 3G01, 4F10, BABF07, AABF22----- M1984

Not by your standards, obviously. But your standards apply only to you.

Uh huh.

Are you missing the point on purpose?

But when awards shows are combined with fans, critics and its network, not even the most clever insults from Usenet subscribers will make any difference. I know, surprising huh? You'd think the really smart network execs would be grepping Usenet for "Robert J. Muldoon"

*Why* does it get them money? Think about it.

Shame putting words in peoples' mouths isn't more lucrative, huh?

Bottom line, most mature fans of TV shows don't feel the need to trash their competitors. You can read into the behavior of the others what you will, but it'd be tough to put a positive spin on it.

Irrelevant. That's not my argument.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

[email] (Robert J. Muldoon) wrote in :

Maybe not better, but Heston is more entertaining, in a Zack Brannigan sort of way.

And by the way, the approved Usenet spelling of the other guy's name is Leonardo deCrappio. Not everybody got the memo.

On 20 Dec 2000 08:42:20 -0600, Paul Tomko ([email]) said...

DNA rules!

"Moon" wrote: "DNA rules!"

Today's comedians could learn from this man!

Sincerely, Robert J. Muldoon o--(|8[#]

"When I was a kid, we had an electric toy train that ran around the Christmas tree. Then one year my little brother licked the tracks. He glowed for three days afterward."

"I take back everything I've said about him not being very bright."

S1.3 OFF+++ NED+++# ABE+++ FRI+++># CBG+++# GIL- f+++ n--- slyris+++ so $+++ MG20, 7G09, 7F20, 9F15, 2F13, 3G01, 4F10, BABF07, AABF22----- M1984

Am I the only person on the internet who thinks that MitM is funny as hell?

Whatever -- I still find it extremely funny. I do agree that Futurama deserves a better spot, perhaps even 8:30 with MitM in the timeslot before Simpsons.

In article ,

I wrote to Rich privately to assure him that my husband and I enjoy the show a lot. Your description seems to reduce it to "Fawlty Towers", which I'm afraid I never did "get"... I don't feel like writing a lengthy defense of "Malcolm" at the moment, other than to say we both find it quite funny, and have finally found a sitcom with whose characters we can actually identify for a change. (Donning asbestos undies now...)

In article ,

On the whole, I'd rather watch him in "A Fish Called Wanda", or sitting behind a desk, or walking silly. Watching him explode week after week got really boring really fast for me.

Tell my news server. That's how it comes out, and I have no control over it.

On 21 Dec 2000 16:42:38 GMT, [email] (Janet F Caires-Lesgold) wrote:

It took me a while to get into Fawlty Towers. I liked the stories he'd concoct to try to keep his insane plots on track. It was nowhere near as funny as Monty Python. Fawtly Towers doesn't hold up after repeat viewing, Monty Python is still funny after watching it for 20 years.

Mr Fawlty is the same basic character that Cleese played before, a control freak who can seem to get control of anything. I remember seeing him play the same character in a movie. Like Eddie Murphy's con man character which they keep transplanting into different circumstances.

Exploding in frustration, which he does so well, works much better when it's a surprise. Having it happen every week made it as predictable as a bad drum solo.

--Larry

I find John Cleese and all that Monty Python crap extremely boring. He was good in Fish Called Wanda though.

Then is is probably a safe bet that you don't enjoy Malcolm in the Middle either?

Eh? I watch it because there is nothing else better on at that time. I get a few giggles out of it. But, it is starting to get irritating, I would watch HYPE on WB, but it is even less funny and that dang laugh track stuff gets on my nerves.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Jan Schaumann stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Perhaps we should demand a recount on those ratings! :)

"Paul Hyett" wrote in message news:[email]...

Only if we really wanna miss Futurama.

Is this gonna be a hand recount?

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:59:04 GMT, [email] (rabidsockmonkey) wrote:

I see a dimpled chad from Florida. No, that's Katherine Harris' butt.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 19:25:35 -0500, "Jan Schaumann" wrote:

(snip)

Assuming you are talking about the Recent Political Unpleasantness, the correct conclusion to your sentence is "...didn't even bother to vote."

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:37:53 GMT, Rich Bunnell wrote:

I'm afraid so. I contacted every single internet user and they all said they hate the show. They also said that people who like MitM look like dorks.

But seriously, there does seem to be a minimal crossover audience between MitM and Futurama. At least, Futurama fans on this board. Some of it may be a resentment of the timeslot, however there are other factors as well. The style of humor is quite different. I would guess that you'd find a large crossover with Titus. Both are live actors. set in contemporary times and both are dysfunctional family comedies.

Futurama, on the other hand, is set in the future, animated, and rarely deals with dysfunctional family issues. Other than Amy's parents, Hermes' wife and Fry's distant relation to Prof Farnsworth, there are no families at all.

--Larry

"Larry F" wrote in message news:[email]...

Titus I really like. MitM, OTOH, is...well, ok. I get the same feeling from it I do from Sports Night. Which is, I don't really get it. It's a formula, contrived...a very good contrived, but contrived nonetheless.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Rich Bunnell stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Well, to me, being roasted in the eternal fires would be preferable to watching MitM! :)

Not at all. I routinuely LMAO while watching MitM.

I like it and find it funny. But if MitM didn't come on after The Simpsons, I probably wouldn't watch it. If it were on another time, it would get skipped. It's mostly the Sunday block I watch, Futurama, King of the Hill, The Simpsons, and Malcolm in the Middle. If something else were on after The Simpsons, I would probably watch it instead.

Of course all bets are off if there is a good NFL game on ESPN. Then I watch the football game instead. Sorry all you NFL haters.

OmegaMan writes:

Good point. I always wach MitM on Sunday nights, but almost never catch it on Wednesdays. But if Futurama were on Wednesdays, I'd either be sure to watch it, or at least be a whole lot more depressed when I forgot to.

David Garcia

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 19:10:46 -0700, OmegaMan wrote:

Fox must be off their blocks to expect us to spend three hours watching Y3K, KOTH, OFF, MITM, XF in a single sitting every Sunday.

Oh.. never mind. They already leashed the brain slugs on the sports fans to get them to watch six hours of NFL football.

NFL good... must buy licensed NFL merchandise...

Actually, they must be shrewd as hell because people are doing just that. Park it on FOX at 4:00, watch the ballgame, then the three hours of shows you listed, then it's off to bed with 6 hours of FOX programming in their heads (9 if there's an NFL doubleheader) and when they wake up and turn on the TV, they're still right there on FOX. Off their blocks? The viewers, perhaps, but certainly not the network.

Actually, it's the games themselves that get people to watch football for 6 (7?) hours. If you check the football ratings, the numbers have far more to do with how good the matchup is than what network the game is airing on. And brain slugs are only a very small part of it.

Believe it or not, it's possible just to watch the games and enjoy them without being labelled a mindless consumer.

I've been known to watch NFL/Futurama, then use the KotH half hour to cook dinner so it can be eaten and enjoyed during The Simpsons. Dessert during Malcolm, of course. (Maybe that's why I like it? Cause I'm usually eating something sweet while I'm watching it.)

Definitely. I don't even bother with X-Files. After Malcolm, I click over and pick up the game midway through the first quarter. If I'm lucky, there's an injury or something that delays the game early on so there's only a few minutes of game time elapsed by 9:00.

Malcolm in the Middle is Fox's highest rated show. It is the show that is propping the network up. No way Futurama got as good of ratings when it was in that time slot. Why do you think they dumped Futurama from that time slot and put Malcolm in the Middle in that time slot instead? Obviously because Futurama wasn't working in that time slot and they wanted to put something on that people would watch. And now that they do, fat chance that Fox is going to move Futurama back to that time slot.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, OmegaMan stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Above Simpsons? No way, surely?

I guess it's another show, like Seinfeld, that Britons will never really take to.

It's last two ratings (Sky One) were :

26/11 8pm, 54th 0.20m 3/12 8pm, 39th 0.26m

and that's in a timeslot where Simpsons could expect 0.7-0.8m, and that's for episodes having already been rerun several times.

Way. And stop calling me Shirley. (Loses something in print, don'it?)

Yeah, but that's the British. Most British sit-coms don't go over that well over in the USA, for that matter. Usually get relegated to Public TV. I was a big fan of "Absolutely Fabulous" though. And, no offense, but the British rating don't count for much as to what gets on American TV. I suspect NFL football doesn't go over that well in the UK either. Can you even name the British NFL Europe team(s)?

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, OmegaMan stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

I never liked it.

It's been a few years since I even followed American Football, so I probably couldn't name all them either.

It used to be shown as highlights at a reasonable time, but they switched to live games. With time differences, that usually meant early hours of the morning, so no way was I waiting up. Besides, it takes 4 hours for a one hour game, so I much prefer highlights.