Futurama movie?

In a recent interview with BBC Radio Bristol, Matt Groening talks again about the possibility of a Simpsons movie and says it's likely sooner rather than later. Wouldn't a much better project be a Futurama movie? This could keep the current team of writers and animators together during the hiatus and the consequent profile-raising might even stop the hiatus becoming cancellation.

"JC" wrote in news:0KDu8.16018$OP.583832@stones:

Yeah but they'll be going on popularity. The Simpsons is far more popular then Futurama (not my personal opinion though) and a Simpsons movie is well overdue if you ask me. I think Matt knows it'd be a certain success whereas, I don't think Futurama has grabbed enough peoples attention - especially over here in the UK.

well

True, a Simpsons movie couldn't fail, even if it sucked. But I think if the Futurama movie was good enough (and with the current writers it should be) it would be able to stand on its own and even attract people who had never watched the series. After all, nobody had heard of Shrek until the movie was released and that was a successful animated feature. John

"JC" wrote in news:BiEu8.13699$51.467227@wards:

To be honest, I never watched Futurama when it first came on TV - I still don't now! I got into it by purchasing the DVD season 1 boxset - and after that I was hooked! Because I missed season 2 and practically all of season 3 (which I believe we are currently in?) I went and bought both seasons on VCD to catch up. As soon as season 4 starts I'll be watching it on TV.

I don't know whether it would attract people who've never seen nor heard of it, that's the risk Matt would have to take I guess. Perhaps Futurama would have worked out better if it had been a movie first and then a series afterwards - who knows?!

As far as Shreks concerned, the first I'd heard of it was the movie. Hadn't it previously been a novel/kids book or something? Having said all that, there is a possibility that a Futurama movie could work because its not really for kids and it deals with more adult themes, so with more and more 'older' people going to the movies to watch animated films now maybe a good time for them to release a Futurama movie. Admittedly I think CGI has helped attract adults to the animated genre.

after

season

of

series

a

has

I don't know anything about financing in the film industry but I'm sure the name Matt Groening would draw in some venture capital even if the corporate suits at Fox aren't interested. And Matt himself is not exactly on the bread line. I think the movie would have to be made to appeal to adults and children, to work on both levels, but that is quite possible -- the Simpsons has been doing it for years.Certainly, a 12 certificate or worse (or whatever is the equivalent in America) would be box office suicide. There is so little quality TV that it would be a crime to just let Futurama die after season 5 and a successful movie just might keep it going. By the way, Sky is currently showing season 4. They showed episode 5 of that season, Leela's Homeworld, on Sunday. John

Not necessarily -- the South Park movie did pretty succesful box office.

That's true. I'm not saying that an animated movie with adult themes cannot succeed but there has never been any doubt about the target audience for South Park. Futurama with its spaceships, ray guns and robots has obvious 'kid appeal' and in that context, a Futurama movie would be throwing away half its audience if it failed to strike a balance between child and adult humour. John

Yeah, but South Park, with its *kids*, also has apparent kid appeal. :)

Of course, the sure way to make kids want to see something is to tell them it's for adults only. But there's a world of difference between explaining to a child why Bender occasionally uses a bad word or Fry and Amy are kissing and explaining a married guy visiting a gay bathhouse or a flood of menstrual blood gushing out of a front door. Parents don't feel comfortable watching that with their kids. Obviously, by the time they get to 12 or so they're smart enough to get to see things for themselves, as Larry mentions in his post. What I'm saying I suppose is that you couldn't make a South Park movie that parents would want to take their 9-year old to - it just wouldn't be South Park. But you could make such a Futurama movie and it could still be just as funny and inventive as the TV shows. And it would probably gross more than South Park because the 'braindead parents' Bill talks about would be paying for their kids' seats as well as their own. John

Here in Norway the South Park movie had 11 year old limit witch I thought was to young because of all the swearing. Futurama does not have swearing at all.

JC wrote:

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:49:37 GMT, Freddy Paulsen wrote:

I heard that it set the all time record for most profanity in a movie.

--Larry

<< I heard that it set the all time record for most profanity in a movie. >>

Yes, 399 curse words and dozens of obscene gestures. -- Guiness Book of Records, 2000.

=v= I guess that depends on one's standards of "swearing." Words like "ass" and "hell" are still scandalous in parts of the United States. <_Jym_>

Ok, but the characters in Futurama doesn't say things like "Shut your fucking face, uncle fucker", and "You are a such a pigfucker" etc....

Jym Dyer wrote:

<< Ok, but the characters in Futurama doesn't say things like "Shut your fucking face, uncle fucker", and "You are a such a pigfucker" etc.... >>

"Don't say 'pigfucker' in front of Jesus!" I think the bleeps add to the comedy. The uncensored album (the first one) wasn't the same without the bleeps.

Now, when you say "kid appeal" - what you really mean is braindead parent appeal - so that the parents will drag their 3-10 year olds, right?

I bet you plenty of kids saw south park.

It would be a GREAT insult to Bender if little kids went to look at him and he wasn't getting a govermnet adoption check for them out of the deal.

"JC" wrote in message news:9MFu8.16035$OP.585623@stones...

cannot

"JC" wrote in news:HgFu8.16028$OP.585338@stones:

Oh bugger. Do you know what season is currently being re-run at 8:30am every weekday morning on ch4? I guess I'll have to look out for the re- runs of season 4 then :o(

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

I think C4 is showing reruns of season 2. They have yet to show season 3 although they have bought the rights to it. The problem with C4 is the ridiculous censorship. They even cut the word "virgin" out of one episode. John

The irony is that they're the most relaxed station in the UK when it comes to sex and stuff, yet they act like Mary Whitehouse's stormtroopers when it comes to Futurama! :(

Graham

The Leela Zone - http://www.leela.com.ar/

Because its American, I guess? :)

Yeah, the first time I visited the UK I was amazed by some of the stuff Ch 4 (though not unlike what's available in the US on 'premium' cable channels).

Rob

<< Yeah, the first time I visited the UK I was amazed by some of the stuff Ch 4 (though not unlike what's available in the US on 'premium' cable channels). >>

And what's not outright banned by the US would be greeted with protests. Father Ted comes to mind. Although recent events may make people care less about the portrayal of priests on television....

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:54:58 GMT, "Robert J. Muldoon" spewed forth:

So who thinks the Brass Eye pedophilia special would go over well ? heh

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:51:16 +0100, "JC" wrote:

The ratings were meant to force movie companies to remove violence, sex and bad language from movies. In actuality, it has backfired. Movies rated 'G' are intended for all audiences, including small children. However, almost no one will go unless they are little kids or parents. Many movies have had violence and bad language added in order to get there ratings raised to 'R', so people will take them seriously. Since kids are allowed in with a parent or guardian, they can get in anyway.

When I was under age, we would have one older friend buy tickets two at a time until we had enough for everyone. If we couldn't find an older friend we could always find someone who was 17 and in line for the movie and get them to buy one extra. Then you just get in line right behind two people old enough to be your parents and chat with them as you get up to the front of the line. It worked every time. The theaters really don't care, they just want to sell tickets.

--Larry

Larry wrote in news:[email]:

Yeah me too. Used to try and work out our age so that when they asked, we could just real off the fake date and year we were born! Fake IDs also circulated around!

If you seen the South Park movie it is exactly what the four boys do to get into T&P - Asses of Fire......

Larry wrote:

Is that really true? And 'R' is the highest rating a film can have in the US, right? So, it's perfectly legal for a 5-year-old kid to go and see an adult movie, just so long as they're accompanied by an adult? Sounds totally mad.

http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/

NC-17 is higher, and means that nobody under 17 gets in, unless the person selling or checking tickets doesn't care.

"Chris Jones" wrote in message news:mgIv8.2084$Y55.24859@NewsReader...

totally

in article lCIv8.4945$[email], Doug Tabacco at [email] wrote on 4/18/02 4:26 PM:

And then there's X rated as well.

On or about Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:57:04 GMT, petben made the sensational claim that:

Just my personal experience, and I know it's only a single data point, but when Showgirls was in the theaters the huge stink about it getting NC-17 had ushers checking I.D's at the entrance to the theater, as well as when you bought your ticket. That was unusual, normally NC-17 just blackballs your movie. And unless you're making it for a big hollywood studio, you'll never know why either. Quite an effective means of keeping out the riff-raff.

Is that even an MPAA rating?

In article , LooseChanj wrote:

that was nothing compared to the huge stink the audience experienced when they actually >saw< _Showgirls_ :)

X isn't actually an MPAA rating

"petben" wrote in message news:B8E4BC8F.3C84%[email]...

person

<< X isn't actually an MPAA rating >>

The NC-17 rating was originally X. It was changed to NC-17 in the late eighties or early nineties. That's mainly reserved for prolonged, explicit sex scenes. In other words, porno. I can't remember any mainstream films with that rating.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 04:42:02 GMT, "Robert J. Muldoon" wrote:

"Midnight Cowboy" was originally rated X. Although the intent was to make it for any adult-only movie, it was co-opted by the porn industry. For some reason, the MPAA didn't trademark the X rating.

NC-17 was invented to allow for adult-only movies that are not necessarily non-stop sex. It doesn't seem to be popular, though.

I imagine that it'd be hard for even an organization as large and filled with evil power as the MPAA to get a valid trademark on a single letter. I know Paramount has a trademark on "Q", but I think they'd have serious trouble defending it in actuality.

(I Am Not A Lawyer But This Intellectual Property Stuff Pisses Me Off.)

in article ueNv8.3728$[email], Robert J. Muldoon at [email] wrote on 4/18/02 9:42 PM:

Wasn't there a big stink made when Bo Derek's "Bolero" was given an X rating in the mid 80s. Perhaps it wasn't given a rating at all, but they played up on the X factor with the tagline "An adventure in eXtasy".

Siskel and Ebert have discussed this before on their show. The original aim of the old X rating was to label films that are suited to adult audiences only--NOT necessarily because they're full of sex scenes but because, as in the case of "Midnight Cowboy", their subject matter can only be understood and appreciated by an all-adult audience, who might never be able to explain what's going on to the 17-year-olds that would get in if it were rated R. The makers of hard-core porno films merely appropriated the X, tripled it, and through its long association with those types of films, is now erroniously believed to be a smut rating only, not to be connected in any way with intellegently produced adult projects like "Midnight Cowboy".

But the overwhelming majority of a public that believes what they want to the point where it becomes common knowledge--whether true or not--pretty much defeated the original good intentions of the X rating. Siskel and Ebert once felt that a new "A" rating should have been introduced for non-porno adult films, which would be pointless to triple because Triple AAA is already the name of an auto club and might have been impervious to the "smut" label which doomed the X. Instead, they came up with NC-17, which--surprise!--is no more effective in trying to convince a cynical public that the films it's added to are *not* necessarily hard-core porn.

--David Johnson

On or about Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:32:24 -0500 (CDT), David Johnson made the sensational claim that:

That's because of the Puritan stigma concerning sex in America. It's the only thing children must not, ever, EVER see. Under no circumstances.

<< Siskel and Ebert have discussed this before on their show. The original aim of the old X rating was to label films that are suited to adult audiences only--NOT necessarily because they're full of sex scenes but because, as in the case of "Midnight Cowboy", their subject matter can only be understood and appreciated by an all-adult audience, who might never be able to explain what's going on to the 17-year-olds that would get in if it were rated R. The makers of hard-core porno films merely appropriated the X, tripled it, and through its long association with those types of films, is now erroniously believed to be a smut rating only, not to be connected in any way with intellegently produced adult projects like "Midnight Cowboy".

But the overwhelming majority of a public that believes what they want to the point where it becomes common knowledge--whether true or not--pretty much defeated the original good intentions of the X rating. Siskel and Ebert once felt that a new "A" rating should have been introduced for non-porno adult films, which would be pointless to triple because Triple AAA is already the name of an auto club and might have been impervious to the "smut" label which doomed the X. Instead, they came up with NC-17, which--surprise!--is no more effective in trying to convince a cynical public that the films it's added to are *not* necessarily hard-core porn. >>

Aw, fuck it.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 07:23:55 GMT, "Robert J. Muldoon" spewed forth:

Should be noted that one didn't need MPAA approval for an X rating. Hence the appropriation.

Robert J. Muldoon wrote:

"X" and "NC-17" are technically two different things. When the "X" rating was first developed, MPAA decided that anybody could just give its movies an "X" rating rather than have to submit it to MPAA - otherwise, they would have to watch pretty much every porn movie ever made (okay, who just said "and that's a bad thing how, exactly?"). Some non-porn movies (the original releases of "Midnight Cowboy", "A Clockwork Orange", and "Fritz the Cat" come to mind) received X ratings by the MPAA. Eventually, X became synonymous with porn, and most TV stations and newspapers simply would not accept advertising for them. A number of films, when given an X, were released "without rating, but limited to adults only" (for example, "Bolero"); the only one I can think of that received an X but was released without a rating and let under-17s in was "Kids". After one too many complaints (including Roger Ebert's numerous calls for an "A" rating on his TV show), MPAA created "NC-17", which is like "X" but it has to be MPAA-given, so there would be a distinction from porn. I think the problem was, when "Showgirls" was released as an NC-17, newspapers and TV stations started treating NC-17 as "another porn rating".

in article ZTLv8.2104$[email], Doug Tabacco at [email] wrote on 4/18/02 8:09 PM:

It may not be, but that doesn't change the fact that kids aren't legally able to enter an X film with or without a parent.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:03:35 +0100, "Chris Jones" wrote:

In addition to R-17 there is also "NR" or Not Rated. If a movie wasn't submitted for "voluntary" rating, it is listed as "NR", which is generally assumed to be porno.

--Larry

Or just indie or foreign.

On 19 Apr 2002 13:19:53 GMT, [email] (Matthew Miller) wrote:

There are a number of reasons that a movie might not have a rating, it is generally, often wrongly, assumed to be porno.

If a movie is not "voluntarily" rated, none of the big theater chains will show it. Since they control the vast majority of theater screens in the US, 'NR' means it will not be shown to a wide audience.

Other than porno theaters, they are only shown at the ever decreasing number of independent theaters. Near many universities, you'll find an older "art" theater that runs movies for 1-3 days and doesn't answer to a chain. They will often be the only place to see a movie that is not rated.

Unless you "voluntarily" have your movie rated, it is virtually impossible to have a financial success. This was the real problem with the equally voluntary ratings on CDs.

This system does cause indie and foreign films to get lumped together with porno. Meanwhile we are subjected to an endless parade of plotless formula scripts based on the general concept of the ever larger explosion. High quality, intelligent films are often left to linger with no access to an audience.

--Larry

Um... not neccesarily. It could also be an older film. For example:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6300181820

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

totally

On or about Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:51:16 +0100, JC made the sensational claim that:

Futurama isn't geared towards children now, why should a movie? That said, this whole movie idea is non-sense. In the near term, hoping they'll make a movie is just wishful thinking. But who knows, maybe Futurama will follow a path similar to Star Trek, and we'll get a movie a few years down the line.

LooseChanj wrote:

(Thinks about the sterotype of a trekkie. Tries to imagine a group of pathetic losers similar to trekkies but the they dress up like characters from Futurama. Shudder. ) Oh Yeah. That's a disturbing image.

On or about Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:21:57 GMT, Pocketwatch made the sensational claim that:

I was gonna say something about Leela and Amy, but then I remembered fat chicks.

LooseChanj wrote:

Futurama is probably hipper than star trek. I mean, I know like, at least five really hot chicks who are into futurama. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing them dressed as amy or leela... You have to hang out at animation schools to find those kinds of people. I go to an animation school. Woo hot futurama-loving animator chicks!

Where else would you meet a really pretty girl who makes more Douglas Adams references than I can understand?

Seeya

in article [email], Reminiscent of Pancakes at [email] wrote on 4/25/02 4:34 PM:

What school pancake?

petben wrote:

Um, it's in the old montreal. Lots of artist hippie people. Nice little place.

Why do you ask?

in article [email], Reminiscent of Pancakes at [email] wrote on 4/26/02 11:08 AM:

I went to CalArts. Thought you might be there. Lots of artist hippies there too.

Reminiscent of Pancakes wrote:

Well, Several Newsgroups immediately come to mind.

Pocketwatch wrote:

Yeah, well, of course you know that I meant actual people, who actually are girls, who I can actually see in real life. You know, *outside the computer*...

Seeya

=v= I think the cast of _Futurama_ lends itself to a wider variety of dress-up than something with a heroic mythos. The real issue is whether the Zoidbergs and Hatties of the world would insist on dressing like Bender and Amy. :^)

=v= Somebody here had a photo of a woman who looked a lot like Leela (except for the two-eye thing). Give that woman some boots and set her loose at Futuramafest 2002! <_Jym_>

=v= I agree, though I wonder whether it'd have some of the same issues as the _X-Files_ movie, which had to appease fans by carrying the "mythology" storyline forward and also tried to work as a standalone film (which I think most reviewers thought it didn't). _South_Park_ did manage to pull this off, though there wasn't a mythology to carry forward ...

=v= _Shrek_ was a kid's book, and they completely altered the story for the movie. It was a good movie in its own right, but it didn't really have any continuity with the original story. <_Jym_>

<< I agree, though I wonder whether it'd have some of the same issues as the _X-Files_ movie, which had to appease fans by carrying the "mythology" storyline forward and also tried to work as a standalone film (which I think most reviewers thought it didn't). >>

The film critic I follow didn't think so. I'd never seen an episode of "The X-Files" before the movie, and it actually got me watching for a few seasons.

On 16 Apr 2002 08:59:49 -0700, Jym Dyer wrote:

South Park plays so loose with continuity, that they can do anything and get away with it. South Park has been destroyed at least five or six times, Kenny died 50 times and so on.

The events in the movie were referenced in the show later. In the episode about earth day, they talk about Terrance and Philip started the war with Canada.

--Larry

What was the original story like?

DGH

Err..Shrek meets a witch who sends him after a princess, he meets a donkey and uses a magic word the witch gave him to make it talk, he took him to the princess, who was also an ogre, and they lived happily ever after, basically

It's amazing how different the story is....

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:06:00 +0100, "JC" wrote:

I *SO* love the idea of a Futurama movie! THEN back to more episodes!