Here are the preliminary ratings reports for last night. Despite the season finale hype, these ratings are about average for the year, and in many cases lower than other episodes this year.
FOX�s Sunday shows all enjoyed season finales, beginning with "Futurama" at 7 p.m., which scored a 4.5/8 (4.1/8). "King of the Hill" climbed to a 5.0/9 (4.8/9), followed by "The Simpsons," which took in a 9.0/15 (7.9/14). At 8:30, Bea Arthur baby-sat Dewey on "Malcolm in the Middle," grabbing a 9.2/14 (7.9/15). The cliffhanger finale of "The X-Files" pulled a 10.3/15 (9.2/13) starting at 9 p.m.
Not that I'm deadly serious about this, but I think it's interesting how this "heir apparent to the Simpsons" stuff comes out in the wash.
No matter how much everyone wants to bequeath the "throne" from TS to Futurama, no matter how badly people want the core Simpsons audience to embrace and worship this new show, no matter how much respect was given the show (literally, since its inception)-- most people know a piece of junk when they see it--and tune out. (Of course, I no longer make it a point to watch F-rama.)
I may take some flak from this, but after taping the first two episodes of Futurama last year, it was clear that the big "F" was nowhere near as sharp, witty, intelligent, or on the money as TS was in its first year. It seems Fox wants Futurama to become popular, kinda like David Stern (not THAT David Stern) wants the WNBA to be come popular (on the heels of the NBA)--if they hype it, people will buy it.
The NBA steadily gained popularity over the years, because of the great efforts of the people involved. The people involved with marketing both the WNBA and Futurama seem to feel that overwhelming hype is a good substitute for hard grass-roots work, long hours, and patience.
Futurama has none of the wit and sparkle of Murphy Brown, nor even the brilliance or hunger of the writing teams that made the early Simpsons such a pleasure to watch. If only Futurama had to suffer the growing pains, threats of imminent cancellation each week, and a skeptical audience--unsure of what to think of a cartoon for adults--maybe it would pass through the refiner's fire a better product.
Many people may say the time slot sucks. Use whatever excuse you may. If Futurama were a great show, more people would tune in.
The Simpsons were in a bad timeslot (8:30 Sunday), (following America's Most Wanted--against the second halves of ABC's popular "America's Funniest Home Videos" and CBS' "Murder She Wrote"); they also went up against the very popular Cosby Show and beat its brains out for a #3 ranking (7F03)--the highest ranking for TS ever--during season 2.
I like Mr. Groening as much as the next guy; but I've got no blind homage to a show yet to prove itself as anything more than an adolescent fantasy.
Futurama is the equivalent of a celebrity's child--instantly famous, without effort. Many people watch the show because of its parentage. As Joan Rivers pleaded "Help! HELP! My daughter's not talented!"
Flame on, all ye Bender-loving, Fry-empathizing, Lela-lusting horn dogs. Flame on.
Your post is the only thing that's way off. FOX doesn't seem to want it to be a big success, not like they wanted Malcolm in the Middle to be, or other shows. That could be because due to Groening's well-deserved clout, the contract terms aren't as much in their favor as with the neophyte productions.
Maybe you should have watched past the first 2 episodes. Most shows take a while to settle into their own personal happy little rut, heck, The Simpsons didn't even have faith in the episodes they made first, instead introducing the series with some of the later ones in the production line. There wasn't a single bad episode in season 2 of Futurama, something I haven't been able to say about The Simpsons since season 7. Compared to the current Simpsons, the divide is only greater. It's just utter crap compared to Futurama...childish, careless, sloppy, dull, empty, confused, malformed, even vulgar garbage. By contrast Futurama is brimming with original satire, fresh parodies, brilliantly executed sight gags, and one clever idea after another, just like The Simpsons did in its season 4-8 prime. It is indeed the true heir to The Simpsons and its legacy of high quality, far more so than the Mike Scully-era mutant retarded Simpsons clone is.
One could theorize about why the ratings are lacking. The main reason is probably that it's just too original. The concept of The Simpsons, another in a long line of TV families, was one of the least original around. This meant The Simpsons had a lot less to explain and to expect people to think about before they could understand the show. The show was a success partly because it enticed people with the illusion of familiarity, and then, bam, hit them with the originality (pre-season 9 that is). People are frightened and confused by new things and new ideas, no matter how good those new things may be once they get used to them. Are you like me and you've heard, "I don't like that because I've never seen it before?" Futurama is a much, much harder sell to make to the average person since you can't compare it to anything people have seen before, at the concept level anyway. But to the people who do watch, who are already bored with traditional ideas like yet another fractured family show, not to mention the endless stream of "wacky, far-out" and increasingly vulgar animated comedies such as what The Simpsons has largely become, the originality of Futurama and everything the show does in that mold is what we appreciate most.
To defend The Simpsons and criticize Futurama, well, you really hurt your credibility to the intelligent, informed reader. Like the numerous and continuing media articles gushing over the continued "creative success" of The Simpsons, this poor effort at reporting just shows you haven't been paying attention lately. The current staff of The Simpsons couldn't run a frat house successfully let alone a television show. The Futurama staff has all the brilliance, skill, creativity, expertise, and subversiveness Groening cultivated in the glory days of The Simpsons, and it is in fact pretty much the only place you can get that sort of thing on prime time TV these days.
-Eric Sansoni ([email])
"What I'm trying to communicate is that I'm willing to do nudity, no extra charge!" -Bill McNeal, Newsradio, 1998
If memory serves (and it does) Futurama was hyped at _least_ as much as MITM before season 1.
I see everyone jumps to the same conclusion. I taped the first two episodes, and that's where I realized the show just wasn't as good as TS. Of course I watched more episodes. They just weren't worth taping.
I see episodes revolving around alien feces soda pop, a non- sensical "robot-hell", and a killer Santa Claus. People who complain about a "lack of reality" on The Simpsons should watch some of the wacko stuff on Futurama.
little rut, heck, The Simpsons didn't even have faith in the episodes they made first, instead introducing
7G02, 7G07, 7G10, 7G11, 7G12, & 7G13 are classics. They're what made me continue watching the Simpsons into season 2.
You've got no problem with alien feces soda, then? Sorry, IMHO that's just as vulgar as anything The Simpsons has produced recently. And no, The Simpsons hasn't been perfect for quite a while, either. Go back to Season 5 for that. Very hit/miss since then.
another, just like The Simpsons did in its season 4-8 prime.
I disagree. I have seen the majority of the Futurama episodes, and I just haven't felt like taping them. They just aren't that good. (IMO)
My point is proven, then. Many people want this.
A group of misfits, living in the future; yep, that's never been done before.
The whole approach of The Simpsons was way different than anything else before it. Even the Flintstones and Jetsons had laugh tracks. "line/joke/laugh, line/joke/laugh... into infinity." Sadly, the Simpsons been doing this way too much in recent seasons, as well.
I think you're going way out on a limb there. A prime time cartoon family, with no laugh track, yellow skin, and a penchant for satire. That's just like everyday life, by jove.
No personal insult intended.
and then, bam,
As Homer says to Herb "you should have taken an existing product, and put a clock in it--or something."
Not like that at all. It's ironic that you imply I don't like Futurama simply because I've never seen it. This would calculate a sort of conformist personality for me. Clearly, a conformist I am not--seeing that I post original ideas that may bring flames.
to
Well, it's on the air. Apparently, Matt Groening did his job selling the show to Fox--the show has its chance. It has run two seasons. If the ratings aren't there, why is that? Maybe the show would run better on SCI-FI. I think you'd have at least as apathetic a response to Futurama, were it moved to Comedy Central.
like yet
of "wacky,
Simpsons
show does
Far out, wacky "future" ideas? Originality is inherent in Futurama; they can't repeat themselves, because the show is so new. But I've yet to be impressed (at least as much as I was by the early years of The Simpsons) Just once, I'd like to LOL at something on Futurama. The closest I've come is the "suicide booth," from episode 1.
So "You don't like Futurama, but you like the Simpsons? Jeez, you're dumb." That's a really smart comment, itself. (I think seasons 2-5 of the Simpsons were ideal; but, seasons 6-11 have had their moments.)
I can't stand this sentiment. "Because you don't agree with us, you must be stupid." I find it disturbing that so many people are critical of positive Simpsons reviews--especially by those in the press. They're called "lazy" because they don't agree with the CBGs of the world.
At least since Family Guy went off the air.
Well, that's your opinion. I'd like to understand just why people think a show that's at least as crass and dependent on one-liners as the current Simpsons can say that Futurama is a much funnier (or better) show.
People don't complain about a lack of realistic concepts. I mean, Homer in space, and Itchy and Scratchy Land's own killer robots are considered classic episodes. It's all in the execution, whether the episode takes time to give explanations that make those things plausible, or just throw this wacky stuff at us expecting them to work as jokes because they're so far out and wacky. That's childish humor...and "childish" more than anything describes the last couple years of The Simpsons.
Surprisingly I didn't think it was vulgar enough. Humans routinely eat hacked up skinned animals, bee barf, the white liquid from cow tits. There's also the fact that the alien slugs are fantasy creatures. I thought the garbage ep was much more disgusting, because I can relate to the smell of garbage. But I didn't think either of them were vulgar. Vulgarity is stuff like Homer saying "I8PP" and Bart stuffing his shorts with fake giant testicles, and Marge audibly farting on screen. Garbage is offensive to the senses, but those things are socially offensive. They make me feel like I'm stuck in some kind of drunken frathouse where people's behavior is thoughtless and rude.
Well now I can understand why you don't like Futurama so much. I think seasons 1-4 (and 8) were the hit and miss ones. Seasons 5-7 were completely perfect, hilarious, brilliant, original, virtually flawless, my favorites, and I feel Futurama is in that class, although not quite as good as those three seasons but definitely in fourth place.
But that just shows you why they needed the core concept to be familiar to reach ratings success. The style was so original, that people would have no idea what to think of it and no desire to watch unless they countered it with the most traditional setting and character archetypes TV's ever had.
Yes, and as Fry says, "That's _not_ why people watch TV! Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared!"
There's nothing quite as deliciously subversive as Futurama admitting they know exactly what works on TV, and doing the opposite anyway.
But selling it to the audience is harder. Lots of things are sold to networks that do or do not connect with an audience, whether they're good enough to deserve to or not. Two different things.
I don't care how it's published. If they can make enough money to keep doing what they're doing more power to him. Half the time the stuff I like is a huge popular hit, half the time it is not appreciated by the mass market at all. Not really a concern for me, until it threatens to shut down the production.
I LOL in literally every Futurama episode, while in The Simpsons now the most I do is chuckle and frequently sit there stone-faced. The suicide booth I didn't get at first, until I realized it's a perfect logical extension of a world where Dr. Kevorkian's services are in demand.
Well, either that or dumb.
"Dependent on one-liners" does not compute. My favorite things about my favorite Simpsons episodes probably are the one-liners. Great one-liners, and funny dialogue, are one of the strongest foundations to good comedy. Futurama has good one-liners, Simpsons doesn't. The crassness is all about execution. Homer crapping in a camera while Bart and Lisa watch is a bad gag. Leela asking Bender if he's "jacking on in there," that's an original and clever twist. The difference between good crass humor and bad crass humor is usually that in one case they simply portray the crass act expecting it to be funny just because it happened, and in the other they find some ironic or clever angle or twist on the idea, just like. There are bad jokes on any topic and good jokes on any topic. But usually they don't mention non-shocking topics at all unless there's some joke for it. Unfortunately some shows do mention the shocking topics without making a joke about it just for shock value, and that is quite insulting to the intelligence.
-Eric Sansoni ([email])
"What I'm trying to communicate is that I'm willing to do nudity, no extra charge!" -Bill McNeal, Newsradio, 1998
I think another important point is that "The Simpsons" was set up as a show that was set in a slightly exaggerated version of the everyday world, while "Futurama" is set in a fantasy world that resembles ours enough for satire to work, but is different enough to allow for beer-drinking robots, four-armed chefs with spice weasels, and, yes, slugs that emit soft drinks from their posteriors.
Basically, most TV shows, except those "based on true stories" are setting up a certain element of fantasy. This element can range anywhere from stories that easily COULD happen, but have fictional names and such, to something completely off-the-wall and swarming with magic robots (and you should win things by watching!). Once you've established the rules, though, you have to stick by them when resolving plots and such, and I think Futurama has been doing a better job of this as of late than "The Simpsons" has (a case in point being those evil jockey elves, who have NO basis in the reality that has been established for the show over the past eleven or so years).
Oh, there've been quite a few. Many people admit they want a "realistic show" when asked about their preferences on The Simpsons. But, point conceded.
You've got no argument from me there. The wackiness--especially from this past season--is not a good substitute for comedy.
I thought you might bring up "bee vomit". We, as a society, have come to accept that as food--as well as cow's milk. The meat thing makes no sense.
You could just as well argue that vegans butcher and murder carrots. Animals eat meat all the time. When it suits the left-wing, we humans are animals (w/respect to our sex drive; we can't control ourselves). Other times, (unlike animals) we are supposed to be able to reason, and thus control ourselves (when we are confronted with the opportunity to consume meat)
Thus, you make my point--the show is a fantasy.
You're playing the semantics game. Vulgar is literally "commonplace." It has the connotation of "boorish", but I think many people associate "vulgarity" with taboo--and the Simpsons has certainly not walked on eggs w/respect to taboos (at least when the show was good).
Now, it's almost so disgustingly "conformist" in its approach--taking the moral left on most issues--since that's the prevailing sentiment in the country right now. Vegetarianism, homosexuality, and environmentalism are very delicately handled on the show--so as not to offend. It seems to me that this attitude is in direct contrast with the attitude the show started off with. First, there were no sacred cows. Now, there are issues the show simply can't touch.
You can't make fun of serious environmental problems (garbage everywhere), and you can't even parody a famous commercial (the one with the crying Indian) because if you tip-toe too close to racial issues--you're the purveyor of hate crime.
Which is in direct contrast to the reverent, respectful Simpsons show we've come to know and love.
(I hope you saw my smirk)
to
I can't refute an opinion. I conclude that seasons 2-5 were the best, because up to episode 2F05--the thought had never occurred to me that the Simpsons would (or ever could) diminish in quality. 2F05 felt like a direct pitch of the Simpsons at hockey-lovers; it seemed "below" the show's standard to me. Strangely, 8F13 didn't seem like a shameless attempt to lure baseball lovers to the show. It was a well-rounded episode--with or without the baseball.
At the end of that season (6), when Smithers said "no" to Mr. Burns, I actually felt like the writers finally goofed--and goofed big-time. I never felt that way before season 6.
Once again, I can't refute an opinion. (A side note:) I feel like when it comes right down to it, whoever articulates his opinion best might not necessarily deserve to "win" an argument--a person might know that he just doesn't enjoy something, but his command of the language might not let him express why he doesn't like that something.
I'm tired of dialogue sequences, where people sit on the couch in their underwear--"outslying" each other with one-liners. There was a time when the jokes would come one after the other, piled on top of each other, so you couldn't catch your breath. Dialogue is simply a way to move the humorous situation forward. Witticisms are best in small doses.
I think humorous situations, subtexts, concepts and satire deepen the comedic experience. The Simpsons was like a layered cake (albeit eons ago)--you could laugh at something (and laugh harder) because it could be understood so many ways.
For example--the "Homer kills Burns" sequence from THOH 4. First off, the timing was extremely quick. Second, the visual of vampire Burns writhing in agony, dissolving, quickly coming back to life to fire Homer, and then dissolving again worked beautifully. Third, the concept that Burns would fire Homer because he killed him--a highbrow concept-- tops off the list. Fourth (as additional icing), Homer expresses his disappointment (D'Oh!)--this, after killing a man.
Combine them all in a 1 second time frame, and you have classic Simpsons comedy.
Now, all we have are characters giving set-up lines, other characters delivering the one-liners, and we move on. It's no more layered than Seinfeld.
"Crassness" stems directly from the subject matter. If shows have to stoop to using potty jokes--they're hurting for ideas.
Oh, wow. A masturbation joke. The Simpsons did that particular joke one better--and didn't even have to use off-color words. In 8F05, the sequence w/Rabbi Krustofsky & Young Krusty w/seltzer bottle. That was funny.
Why don't we leave out the crass humor?
You could apply that to any subject--anti-semitism, mysogyny, hate- crimes... The writers would be excused if they could just cleverly twist these ideas. My point is--if you can excuse the "sacred cows" from a writer's satiric barbs--you can leave out poop jokes.
Actually I rewatched the episode and realized the one problem with the queen slug. I think the animation just didn't do the script justice in this case. If the creature had looked as hideous as the cockroach creature at the end of Men in Black, then the gross-out gags and stuff would have made more sense. It would have to look truly hideous to the human eye. The brightly colored, smooth animation just wasn't enough to make the creature unappealing enough. So the script looked better on paper than it came out in the end.
Heh, well that is definitely one of the best anti-left wing arguments I've heard recently. I don't think either the left or the right canon of belief makes sense. They're both self-contradictory when you compare the right issues together.
I don't know. I definitely agree that Homer's Phobia suffered for being too preachy, by painting Homer as the complete buffoon on one side of the issue. But in Lisa the Veg, both Homer and Lisa got equal time on their points-of-view. I wouldn't say vegetarianism is a prevailing sentiment either in our country. The ratio of veg to non-veg at Homer's barbecue seems more in line with reality. And we got to see recycling get a lot of digs in Old Man and the Lisa. I just don't see a lot of real-life issues touched on much at all after season 9.
I think George Meyer in an interview did say they are reluctant to caricature female characters the way they do Homer, etc., because of not wanting to seem to be attacking women or being misogynist. So maybe that's why there aren't good satires of women on the show, or any character comparable to Amy Wong.
Strange that I feel the opposite. I think with all the guest stars, the baseball ep was much more of an in-joke pitched at baseball fans, the same way the last King of the Hill worked in all the country singers. Lisa on Ice, however, is one of my top 10 eps of all time. I think the emotional storyline between Bart and Lisa and the insane satire of Homer as the pushy dad were the most dominant aspects to the script. It could have been any sport besides hockey, and there weren't all that many hockey scenes in it. I don't follow either sport, but hockey is a lot more cinematic and interesting to watch to me than baseball. "I never realized how boring this game is." "So they finally jazzed it up."
Well that's what a lot of people said about season 8, that they violated the characters' identities. But I think those are some of the best plot points. I don't think of the characters as one-dimensional, I think they are capable of anything, and so when they carefully develop a story to show one character pushed out of his element, I think that is some of the most fascinating stuff. Plus they usually set it back to normal at the end.
There's a difference though between a lot of funny dialogue, and the conventional sitcom one-liner. Those are usually the characters putting each other down, or telling each other lame jokes. The Groening shows usually have it at a level of irony so that within the context of the cartoon universe, the lines should not be funny to the characters ears', just to ours with our detached perspective. When Leela says, "If you didn't take my help when you didn't need it, why should I give it to you now when you do need it?" the character doesn't mean it as a joke but we see the irony in it.
Well one thing The Simpsons pioneered was the multi-leveled punchline. I never saw that done quite so extensively as in their funniest shows. Most writers would say we've got our punchline, let's move on, but The Simpsons would put more icing on the cake.
Bart has been mooning on the show for a long time. All I'm saying is they can do stuff that looks crass for the lowbrow audience but still is clever.
It doesn't hurt anything if it's done well and will improve ratings with the lowbrow audience.
I wouldn't want to leave them out. When Fry said his toilet broke and he just went in the garbage can for a week, that is one of my favorite lines from the episode. It's a funny idea that sort of makes sense. Same when Fry said phone booths were used mostly as bathrooms in New York, then Leela walked off to use the "phone booth." I wouldn't want to leave out a good joke no matter what the subject matter.
-Eric Sansoni ([email])
"What I'm trying to communicate is that I'm willing to do nudity, no extra charge!" -Bill McNeal, Newsradio, 1998
Who said that? Some magazine writer? Their nobody. Futurama is a totally different show from The Simpsons.
I don't, I want people who appreciate the show to watch. Not just flow over from The Simpsons.
FOX never gave this show respect since they saw the pilot because FOX was as narrow minded about Matt Groening as you seem to be. They wanted The Simpsons in Space. And Futurama isn't that.
Then please make it a point not to Cross post to a Futurama Newsgroup.
So your saying you watched 2 pilot episodes? That's it? I certainly hope not. Otherwise your opinion is worthless.
Oh yea that first year of the simpsons was some quality stuff all right. Please.
Yea they gave it that golden 7:00pm Sunday slot. Wake up. FOX hates the show more than you.
I don't see a connection here.
Where's the Hype? I maby see one commercial a week for Futurama as part of a Sunday lineup commercial at some horrable time If Im Lucky. There's no Hype.
Yes and as we all know they have the same target audience right? Come on make some sense.
The Simpsons was mild at best until season 3 and it wasn't outrageous until about season 4 when Conan signed on to the writing team.
Well if you bothered to read the Futurama newsgroup you posted to. you'd know that Futurama is constantly in danger of cancellation.
Proof. Futurama had better ratings until FOX dumped it at 7:00. Many people aren't even aware the show is still on the air. I hear "I liked that show, to bad they canceled it." at least once a month from people.
That's because the Cosby show was horrible by 1990. People needed some non sugary force fed Sunday wholesome crap that the Simpsons was up against.
Yea? You read Life In Hell? Futurama has more of what LIH has than The Simpsons does. The Simpsons isn't a pure form of Matt Groening's attitude or style.
Hey then don't watch, and check the header so you don't post to Futurama's Newsgroup. Because we aren't really interested in your apparently un-educated opinion. Watch more than 2 episode's before you assume your an expert.
Yea but nobody liked Joan River's kid. There are people who like the show. compare Futurama to other shows scheduled at 7:00pm Sunday, it's holding it's own.
Sorry to disappoint. Just responding with a fairly good argument in opposition to yours.
Just responding to the original; crossposted here.
episodes
Nope. I saw quite a few more, but it just wasn't worth taping IMHO.
Spoken like a person who either wasn't old enough to understand the satire when Season 1 was new, or someone who only saw Season 1 in syndication. There's a reason why TS lasted till at least season 2-- season 1 was better than anything on TV at the time. Way better.
Where do you want the show? What is the best time slot? Tell me, sir.
Shoot. TS shows at 7 PM in the Mountain & Central Time zones, meaning Futurama shows at 6. I make plenty of time to watch TS at 7PM each week- -I'm in the Mountain time zone.
I think the real "wake up" is that a show like Futurama couldn't possibly hope to have as large and diverse an audience as the Simpsons-- it's an adolescent show, based on opinions of the future. It still uses the recent Simpsons formula* of 90% sitcom-style jokes (*which, BTW, I don't like). I don't see satire. I see "line/joke/laugh, line/joke/laugh". The first seasons of TS weren't like that. That's why I don't watch Futurama much. The season finale wasn't that inspired (yes; I watched)
the
Well, then someone was hiding under a rock when Futurama was being "hyped" the entire summer before its premier on Fox--Futurama never had to work for an audience like TS did.
The "Murphy Brown" wit/sparkle reference comes straight from episode 1F16 of The Simpsons. That makes sense.
This is your opinion, of course. There's a reason why I continued to watch the show, after first seeing it in March of 1990... it was really good.
Says who? The "experts"? It appears that a better show (IMHO) is already cancelled--in favor of Futurama (Family Guy). Now, there's a funny show. Why? Possibly because it was riding no other show's coat- tails. It had to prove itself. There was built-in audience for Family Guy, "giving it a chance" every week.
If Futurama truly is threatened by cancellation every week, it seems the writers would use that as incentive to make the show really good. I don't see the "really good" stuff. I see people drinking alien feces; I see unimaginitive scripts, revolving around some robot-hell (where escape is actually possible). I see a poor "Titanic" roast.
Better than TS? Get real.
America's
up
In your opinion. It still ranked in the top 10 every week.
In the "I like you, and respect your work" sense. Not the "I'm his biggest fan" sense.
What's so uneducated? Futurama is a Simpsons offspring. There was a built-in audience before episode one even aired. It's the end of season 2 of Futurama--it's still scraping bottom. By Season 2 of The Simpsons, it was ranking in the top 20 of all shows every week. It's not all "time slot". Much of it is the quality of the show IMHO.
Well, as long as you don't watch The Simpsons anymore, or most other shows on TV, this makes sense. Maybe you just don't like funny shows.
It does hurt seeing it in syndication, because you have all those superior episodes that came after it to compare it to. Of course when all you had to compare it to were the other shows on TV at the time, season 1 looked really good.
It is a more adult-oriented show than The Simpsons is now. It should be on at least at 8 PM, preferably 9 PM. Simpsons should be bumped back to 7 PM to anchor the Sunday evening, because its established audience will follow it, and it will help lead more people into King of the Hill and Futurama.
Stupid, shortsighted analysis. You're used to watching TV at 7 if you're in that time zone. The point is, Futurama is on an hour earlier than the vast majority of people are used to watching prime time TV at no matter what time zone they live in.
This is true. It's much more original a concept than The Simpsons. Sci-fi has always been too cutting-edge for many people, especially TV audiences, who are used to being spoonfed regurgitated formulas. Most TV viewers don't have the imagination for sci-fi.
How exactly does a setting in the future imply adolescence? Yeah, that 2001: A Space Oddysey was so immature, it would make a good double feature with the latest Adam Sandler flick.
The Simpsons has been joke-packed since season 4 or so. If you can't appreciate those awesome, groundbreaking, hilarious middle seasons of The Simpsons, of course you won't like Futurama. Mystery solved.
Both shows used/use every form of humor, from parody to satire to sight gags to one-liners. That's what ya gotta do to be the funniest. Some examples of satire in Futurama...digs at 20th century colleges in Mars University, suicide booths, voting and elections in Head in the Polls, retirement homes and treatment of elderly in Clone of My Own, the state of the internet (ads/porn/nerds) in Bicyclops, the increasing lack of ideals and good sense in young dating rituals, the oversexed nature of TV dramas and the dull-brained nature of TV audiences in When Aliens Attack, and so forth. Most of these are brand new, current takes on all the topics The Simpsons used to savage. Despite the fantasy nature of it, Futurama has FAR MORE references and points-of-view on our present-day problems and idiosyncrasies than The Simpsons does now. It's totally, through-and-through, in-and-out subversive like everyone with a brain knew The Simpsons used to be.
Compared to what? It was clever the whole way through, filled with tons of yes, inspired gags. Of course the first two were parodies, so only the third had an inspired plot. Not to mention the inspired guest star appearances. The whole thing was executed with slick expertise.
These marketing concerns are irrelevant to the work the creators of the show do.
But it kept getting better and better, peaked in the beginning of season 7, and declined from there. Maybe there's something to the theory that it's just played out. That's why Groening needed a new playground and some new toys to get the creators inspired again, hence the success of Futurama.
Hahahahaha...Talk about a show that literally has none of the wit and sparkle of Murphy Brown. Family Guy is founded on bad storytelling, awkward cutaway gags, obvious and flat references to bottom-of-the-barrel pop culture with an utter lack of any sardonic point-of-view on them, low common denominator guy-in-dress style jokes, and a large number of dull, less than cookie cutter, uninspired characters. You say you don't like a sitcom-style joke-line-joke show? So what the heck is this? Rest in pieces, Family Guy.
Again, you're less concerned with the quality of the shows you watch, and more interested in some sort of sociological, economic, administrative pecking order placement of them based on some kind of business analysis marketing report. Your measurement of the shows' quality is certainly less than objective in light of this constant reference to the marketing.
Milk comes out of a cow's behind...honey comes out of a bee's behind... I wonder if someone will send a reply to this thread smeared with feces. It would tie with yours.
I see a brilliant Titanic parody that captures all the drama, excitment, plot and special effects, along with hilarious romantic entanglements. The robot hell is not imaginative? Maybe the show went by too fast and demanded too much of your attention and brainpower to grasp the concept. It was not a metaphysical hell, but a location built by the robot religion to punish those who disobey the laws. A conceptual religion where your sins are monitored and you are punished with a literal hell on earth? And you say the show has no imagination? Where exactly are the copying this so-called cliche idea from then? Not to mention that tired sitcom formula we all remember from Happy Days and I Love Lucy of one character drinking the liquid ruler of another planet, winning his place as ruler, and then almost dying as the other aliens try to cut him open to retrieve their ruler. I mean, show me something I've never seen before, guys.
Now you're being sagacious. Better ratings than it has now, obviously.
And as we all know the only way to evaluate the quality of the show is by the marketing campaign. Back to business school with you, you monkey of moderate intelligence, you.
So there has never been any high quality show that suffered in the ratings? The ratings and quality have a direct relationship? What about Newsradio and Sports Night? I'm sure everyone has their favorite shows that weren't ratings successes. Sci-fi itself has a built-in anti-audience, people apparently like yourself who consider it "adolescent" by default. Go back to watching the stock ticker on CNN, we don't need your stinkeen' ratings.
If that theory was true, why do many people who love Futurama think the current Simpsons are about as good compared to Futurama and older Simpsons as re-regurgitated goat feces as donkey vomit? There is no more direct descendant of The Simpsons than The Simpsons itself. It even has more writers from the glory days working on it than transferred to Futurama. Futurama is simply a better show. Something tells me if you IQ tested every writer on each current show and averaged them out, Futurama would score the highest. Other shows are wallowing in current pop culture. Futurama is standing in the corner and making fun of the mass-audience garbage these other shows turn out. It's impossible not to find that crap hollow when you're as smart as the Futurama staff. Just like the old Simpsons, there's enough universal stuff to keep the masses entertained (sex jokes, ass jokes, falling down jokes, all of them more cleverly constructed than usual), but the bulk of it is stuff pitched at a highly intellectual audience ready to examine culture in complex, multilayered ways.
-Eric Sansoni ([email])
"What I'm trying to communicate is that I'm willing to do nudity, no extra charge!" -Bill McNeal, Newsradio, 1998
A perfect example would be the original 'Star Trek'. A great show, one of the best of the 60's and one the few from that decade that is still considered good, that was destroyed by bad timeslots.
When 'Futurama aired at 8:30 Sundays, it achieved around eight percent ratings - not far from 'The Simpsons' at ten percent or so. On Tuesdays it normally got about six percent, and a lot of that two percent drop was because many, many people did not know that it had been moved to that time. And now, at 7:00 Sundays, it only gets four percent. 7:00 on Sunday is a TERRIBLE timeslot. How many young adults are watching TV at that time? And contrary to what The Rack says, FOX has almost totally failed to market Futurama at its new time. I was just talking to a co-worker last Friday, and he stated that he did not know that Futurama was still on.
In fact, it actuall beat The Simpsons quite a few times during its run at 8:30 on Sundays.
talking
I'm not surprised. Most of the advertising I hear or see about Fox on Sundays _starts_ with The SImpsons at 8PM. It's really rare that the ads mention Futurama or King of the Hill.
King of the Hill is also more "adult-oriented?" Please. Talk about weaker jokes. Futurama is hardly more adult-oriented, either. It is occassionally funny, but its humour is not terribly sophisticated. Sophisticated humour is the earlier Simpsons, which could be really subtle.
Sci-fi
don't
Give me a break. Futurama is far more current pop culture than it is sci-fi. Just because it is set in the future, doesn't make it sci-fi. That's like saying "Third Rock From The Sun" is sci-fi because it has aliens. The concept is new, but it is hardly terribly creative. I mean, you could as easily come up with a "new" concept and do a prime-time cartoon show set in medieval times. The Simpsons were ground-breaking, not due to something as superficial as setting, but because of how it was done...a cartoon show with deep characters and a nice mix of humour and sensitivity. Futurama depends almost entirely upon futuristic props. It is much tougher to keep coming up with clever new episodes when you can't resort to making up a new gadget. I'm sure its *fun* to create new gadgets, like a "What If?" machine, but The Simpsons didn't rely on those sorts of gimmicks, except in special episodes, like Halloween episodes.
He didn't say it was adolescent *because* it was set in the future. He said it was an adolescent show that was set in the future.
The Simpsons had great lines. However, it also had satirical *plots*. I think Futurama relies far too much on sight gags, and their "satire" is typically a single thing...like a suicide booth. It is much easier to think up a single satirical idea than to write an entire episode that is satirical. For instance, the Simpsons episode about Mensa was a very good parody of intellectual snobbishness. Or the Simpsons episode where Homer becomes the head of garbage collection, was an *awesome* parody of current elections
gags
of
The suicide booth, while cute, was hardly brilliant satire. The rest of your examples, ditto. None of them were all that brilliant, just amusing.
Oh, state of the internet. *That* hasn't been done before. What incisive satire.
"When Aliens Attack?" I believe the jokes about the "When Animals Attack"-types of shows have been done a whole lot, by The Simpsons ("When Buildings Collapse," "When Animals Attack Magicians" [a double-strike at the animal attack shows and magic shows], etc). At this point, it is not terribly clever to do it again.
Exactly..."used to savage." Doing the exact same jokes, in a fantasy setting, doesn't constitute cleverness. Explain how they are "brand new, current takes."
idiosyncrasies
Futurama, subversive? That's ridiculous. They haven't done a controversial take yet. It is a mildly amusing show, but not ground-breaking or brilliant like The Simpsons used to be.
of
third
The first one was *lame.* The second was cute, when she started killing each person. The third one was quite funny. None of it was "inspired."
The Simpsons finale was better executed, and it [The Simpsons finale] wasn't even close to the best Simpsons' episodes ever.
7,
Undoubtedly Groening wanted a new playground. He'd been doing The Simpsons for years. Doing Futurama gave writers a chance to create all sorts of new stuff. However, by putting it into a futuristic setting, he gave them an easy cop-out, they could just create any fantasty stuff they wanted, instead of thinking up incisive plots.
Can't agree more.
plot
robot
That episode was okay, It wasn't incredible. Titanic roasts have been done about a trillion times. This was hardly the best. Even the Newsradio Titanic roast was better, though I didn't think it was brilliant, either.
Get a little worked up about cartoons? ;^)
those
has
That's *new*. New doesn't equate with clever. The Simpsons lampooned religion better.
Ned: But Reverend, I need to know, is God punishing me?"
Lovejoy: Shooh, short answer: "Yes" with an "If," long answer: "No" --
with a "But." Uh, if you need additional solace, by the way,
I've got a copy of something or other by Art Linkletter in my
office.
Just one instance, but an extremely clever job of parodying the double-talk engaged in by ministers of religion, remaning as vague as possible.
Again:
(new != clever)
ratings?
and
Sure, Sports Night and Action are two current examples.
This isn't sci-fi. Neither is Third Rock.
Nobody has called it adolescent because of it's futuristic setting.
every
the
Debatable. I think the writers who worked primarily on the first half of the Simpsons' episodes were quite brilliant at satire. Saturday Night Live writers, before the early-'90s were quite excellent. The Newsradio writers, before the terrible Jon Lovitz episodes, were brilliant. None of that is current, true, but just because there is weak competition, at the moment, don't make the writing on Futurama brilliant. Being the tallest of the dwarves, as it were.
I hope Futurama doesn't have an arrogant attitude like that. Because that's ridiculous. They have a long way to go before they become masters of satire. A long, long way.
Whatever you say.
jokes,
I agree with that, on The Simpsons. Futurama has some flashes of good lines ("Bender, are you jacking on in there?") but the vast majority is just something to watch.
In The Simpsons? Yes. Futurama? Maybe in the future.
Yet Futurama is Science Fiction, by any measure. New technology is
essential to storyline. How society has dealt with the impact of innovation
is examined thoroughly. The fact that this is done humorously does not
take away from the fact that this is sci-fi.
The pop culture you mention is primarily the culture of the future.
Fry contrasts his version of our current sensibilities against that backdrop.
What is brought across is a theory on what aspects of our society will
endure for a thousand years, which will be disposable fluff, and which will
mutate into barely-recognizable forms of their former selves. Most future-based
science fiction does this, usually with a theme that we should get our
priorities straight. Futurama ditches that plan and goes for laughs.
You can split hairs and say try to contend that it is "Science Fantasy."
You say Tomaycco, I say Tomahcco: it's the same genre as all the books you'll
find in the Science Fiction section at your local library.
This is not an axiom. Your logic does not hold. Proof by counterexample: Some things that are new are clever.
What the original poster objected to were cliche plot lines. By definition: (new != cliche)
Again, you're mistaken and missing the point. The point was that sci-fi has
a built in anti-audience. I wouldn't call it an anti-audience so much as
a limited audience. Several of Futurama's jokes will go right by you if you,
for example:
--Don't know the relationship between a cube and a square.
--Have never heard of dark matter.
--Never programmed in BASIC.
...and so on.
Thus the portion of viewers which know these things get a twofold laugh: first, because it's witty, and second because it's become common knowledge in the future.
Your definitions about what we should think is funny and not doesn't make a bit of difference. Myself and many others find the show hilarious and watch it over and over. Frankly, I could care less about its TV share. Futurama will live on.
In alt.tv.futurama, on the "SciFi or Not-SciFi? (Was Re: FOX Ratings for Sunday 5/21)" thread, James Joule wrote:
The point that Minstrel was really trying to make was:
!(new == clever);
That is, just because something is "new" doesn't automatically mean that it is "clever."
Now that I look at it again, I think I just wrote, "If something is new, then it is never clever." Obviously, that's wrong too. I suppose there's no good one liner to express, "If (a) is true, then (b) might -- or might not -- be true." Oh, well.
By adult-oriented I mean in comparison to shows like South Park or Family Guy. I don't mean it's the CBS geriatric hour, or Charlie Rose or something like that. There are some shows that pander to cheap jokes, pop culture references, guest stars, romantic soap opera plots, etc., and then there are these other shows. KOTH and Futurama both in their own ways, one subtle and realistic, and one humorous and satirical, examine and criticize the real-life behavior, idiosyncrasies, compulsions, and habits of adult human beings.
Well I think it would almost have to, but Futurama includes a lot more elements of sci-fi than just that, in fact arguably more than any other sci-fi epic you could find with wormholes, alien lifeforms, black holes, space travel, artificial intelligence, mutants, evolution, cloning, anti-gravity bras, and so on. If that's not sci-fi, I don't know what is. The closest things I can think to the style of Futurama would be Back to the Future II and Men in Black, other lighthearted sci-fi comedies that don't stray into the complete farce of Spaceballs.
But after merely transferring the style of typical comedy-dramas into animated form, they were groundbreaking for a more creative reason, which is to pack an incredible amount of references, parodies, satire, jokes about jokes, etc. into 20 minutes without losing sight of the sensitivity or characters (seasons 4-8). I'm not interested in seeing any more ground broken. That's about as far as you can get without simply disgusting or shocking people like South Park. I just want to see that tradition of humorous storytelling continued, and right now Futurama is doing it while the former shell of itself Simpsons is not.
The season finale was a special episode in the same vein as the Treehouse of Horror. I don't know how you could claim the eps center on "props." Almost every ep has both an emotional storyline that advances the characters along with some completely different sci-fi themed storyline. The "What If" machine itself was just a device, not the crux of the plot, no different than the dreams or other framing sequences in the Halloween Specials.
Why the bane against sight gags though? There are good sight gags and there are bad. I think communicating a joke through visuals alone is one of the most creative and funny things when it's pulled off well. Just like any filmmaking, it's a visual medium, and the people who know how to communicate ideas through visuals alone are the best artists. The satire has more angles than that too, as I've enumerated with examples...
The first part of A Head in the Polls was a MUCH superior parody of the current political state than anything The Simpsons has done in that regard. Similarly I could point to numerous sight gags in those eps...Bart riding the pig, Oscar the Grouch in the trash, and so on. Those eps are hardly "entirely" devoted to satire anymore than the Futurama eps are. These shows have always incorporated a mix of different styles of humor. I find that the older eps that go for straight-arrow satire all the way through border on didactic and preachy, like the three-eyed fish ep.
Well we can argue about gradations of how good the show is, or how new or clever it is. At least we agree it is new, clever and good, to some degree.
It hasn't been done that well before, or that extensively. One one-liner about guys pretending to be chicks in a chat room doesn't compare to what Futurama did.
I wasn't talking about that, that's only the title of the ep which most viewers didn't see anyway. I mean the way the aliens were portrayed as an example of the typical television viewer, with lots of new observations I have not heard before, and which certainly most networks would never let a show leak through in its script, without the carte blanche Groening has, since it borders on insulting the viewers.
Can't really explain it to your satisfaction I'm sure, without naming every show that covered the topic in the past and finding no jokes from Futurama used on them, but I can't think of one Simpsons ep which savaged American colleges the way Mars University did for example.
"It's time someone stood up and said, I'm against those things that everybody hates!"
I'm not interested in controversy. Futurama might be controversial if the people it criticized watched it and understood the jokes. Even religious groups praise The Simpsons now, the most irreverent show when it comes to religion by far. All I'm saying is it included many jokes that are critical of the dominant state of our culture the way Simpsons used to be.
The Simpsons finale was more weakly executed, with sight gags that made no sense in the context of the parody, and fuzzy emotional context for the events that happened. Futurama on the other hand made me understand exactly what was motivating the characters, especially in the second one with Leela's turn to the dark side, something similarly handled with clumsiness and ineptness in last week's Simpsons ep where Marge goes apparently crazy.
Then why are the plots FAR superior to what The Simpsons staff churns out now (Kill the Alligator, Hell's Angels, etc.)? Any show needs a plot to sustain audience interest, regardless the setting or style.
I thought the Newsradio one didn't approach Futurama's attempt, and was a step back from what they had done the rest of the season. Season 4 of Newsradio was a classic, funnier than anything Simpsons or Futurama has done (except for Simpsons season 5). Although it was better than their Space sci-fi parody the year before, both of them lost sight of the character development somewhat amid the special effect gimmicks. Obviously they were not used to integrating those different types of humor. They got to play with something new during those episodes and overdid it a bit. That's what makes Futurama so special above all else perhaps, it really does that well, not turning the characters into just another prop like the visual gags and surprises.
Yeah, that was great. Definitely one of the best jokes on that topic that have been written. Of course Simpsons will have superior gags in most categories with 5 seasons of top quality satire to pick through.
I will agree season 4 of Newsradio, and seasons 5-6 of The Simpsons are better than Futurama is now. But Futurama is on par with Simpsons seasons 4, 7, and 8. Sat Night Live I don't care to compare too much, since it is hardly the same format. Hardly any of the SNL characters or concepts could sustain the storytelling of a show or feature, as their movies have often proved. It is easier to write a good short self-contained sketch than to create something that also has a depth and convincing reality. The Simpsons was groundbreaking not for its level of satire so much as the way it integrated an unprecedented large level of humor with character and plot after season 4, and that is the tradition Futurama continues to excel in.
Well, that's my characterization of it. I think Simpsons had the exact same attitude, when they have Homer laugh at some of the parodies of crap shows and so forth ("Their clothes are different from my clothes!" could be referring to That '70s Show's style of humor). Same when Fry laughs at the monkey putting the hat on his butt. They're making fun of the type of "entertainment" other shows do and other people laugh at (e.g. a dumb joke Drew Carey has done where he pretends to spray fake hair on his butt while sticking his butt out to the audience).
-Eric Sansoni ([email])
"What I'm trying to communicate is that I'm willing to do nudity, no extra charge!" -Bill McNeal, Newsradio, 1998
I understand that. And they are *more* adult-oriented that South Park (funny once or twice just from pure novelty of little kids being so profane) and Family Guy (funny, nearly never). However, I don't think it [Futurama] has the subtlety/sophistication that the Simpsons used to have all the time.
All fairly uncreative.
and
See, that's what I *don't* see in those shows. I can give Futurama some credit, they do some good work, although not, in my opinion, to the extent that you give them credit. However, King of the Hill I just don't see any of that. I mean, I'd love to see it, I'd love another animated series step up to Simpsons' level, but KOTH...no no.
Again, Third Rock isn't "sci-fi" just because it has aliens. Likewise, Futurama isn't sci-fi just because it is set in the future.
I mean, I wouldn't call "The Jetsons," sci-fi. I'm not putting Futurama in the same boat...Futurama is much better and more sophisticated than The Jetsons...however, The Jetsons are in the future and have high-tech gizmos, and space travel and what not.
the
Hmmm. I didn't put those into sci-fi, either. Both were comedies with some high-techery. I guess we have different conceptions of sci-fi. I guess I think of sci-fi as things along the lines of Star Trek or Star Wars. Futurama seems like a modern civilization set into the future. I mean, they make numerous references to pop culture (most notably with their "head" gag...the Hanson heads, or the Beastie Boys heads...) and so I think of it more as an animated comedy about pop culture that they chose to set in the future.
with
is
I'll go along with that. I guess I just don't see that parody-, satire- and joke-packing in Futurama.
the
Well, I don't think Futurama is doing it, either. That is, it *is* doing it, but not anywhere near the lofty standards set by TS.
of
Almost
along
The plots in The Simpsons were usually good satire in and of themselves. Evidence being, reading the scripts of those Simpsons eps at snpp.com is often nearly as entertaining as actually watching the eps. Obviously, when reading a script, it isn't about sight gags, but rather about the how engaging the plot is and how clever the dialogue. I suspect I'd be quite bored reading Futurama scripts...the show itself is usually not boring, but I don't think I'd be entertained just be the scripts.
than
Well, that's precisely what I said. TS didn't really resort to high-tech, or otherwise special, props *except* in specials like the Halloween episodes. Until recently, they strove for realism...just bending it at places to exaggerate reality to incredibly humourous extents. The old line: It's funny cuz it's true.
IMO, that is *much* harder than coming up with funny uses of fantastic things like wormholes, or what-not.
No bane against them, unless the show *relies* upon them. Sight gags are important, but should be used judiciously.
Sure. In the "Missionary: Impossible" episode of TS, there was an awesome sight gag when that "pretty butterfly" turned into a skin-burrowing horror. That was beautiful and not *so* far-fetched as to just make you say "Huh?" IMO, a fantastic use of a sight gag.
communicate
angles
IMO, Futurama relies *too* much on sight gags. TS used them much more subtley...often times working them in so that you noticed them maybe only on the second or third viewing, because they occured in the background of a funny/important scene.
regard.
I don't know about that. However, I cannot comment, since I haven't seen A Head In The Polls.
However, I hope you are giving the TS episode enough credit. The debate between Homer and Ray Patterson was a brilliant take on how debates, these days, are more about the clever one-liners or thinly-veiled insults than about debating the issues.
TS has done other brilliant takes on elections/campaigns. In the Halloween espisode where the aliens impersonate Bob Dole and Bill Clinton, there is a beautiful moment, where everyone discovers that the candidates are really just evil alien overlords who want to enslave them. The aliens then say, "It's a two-party system...you *have* to vote for one of us!" and some guy says, "I believe I'll vote for a third party!" The aliens respond, "Sure..throw your vote away!" I mean, the implication that people *have* to elect in an alien that will enslave them because they don't want to "throw away their vote," is so ludicrous on the surface....yet so true to reality when you consider how often people moan about hating both candidates and then voting for one anyway, because they don't want to turn to a third-part candidate since they have less "credibility."
the
Bart riding the pig is a different episode, but you are right. They *do* use sight gags. And, again, there is nothing wrong with sight gags. As long as they are not the primary purpose of the show.
shows
the
Well, I wouldn't call the three-eyed fish episode, "satire," but, sure, straight satire isn't the way. These *are* cartoons. There has to be some silliness, some visual fireworks. However, I think TS was more satisfying due to their higher level of satire, and they mixed in the satire and low-brow humour very well.
degree.
I like Futurama. I watch it, when I am around at the time it comes on. And it is entertaining. However, it has almost never been memorable, and I never find myself quoting lines from it in everyday life. (Okay, I *do* quote TS lines, and if that makes me lame, I guess I'm just a big lame! [obviously, from that last line, I quote Newsradio, sometimes, too]). TS quotes are so quotable because they have such relevance to real life issues. Sometimes the absurdity of real life stuff can be so perfectly expressed by a Simpsons quote.
So, I guess I'm not willing to say Futurama has come anywhere close to TS in sheer brilliance of humourous social commentary.
I think you have an odd view of American viewership. Most people I know have no problem with non-standard, provocative content. You seem to think that most people are drones who are insulted by provocative stuff, while you and loyal Futurama viewers are high-minded enough to laugh at yourself and society around you. The Simpsons had no problem insulting their potential viewership and most people of college age (the age I am most familiar with) loved it.
Well...what is a joke that you think, if properly understood, would be controversial?
Really? I'd never heard of any religious group praise The Simpsons. On what grounds do they praise TS? TS has very definitely been cynical about religion, and unafraid to show it.
Well, it was meant to be a Behind The Music parody, and it executed that very well. It was supposed to creative, by portraying its cartoon characters as actors with real lives away from the cartoon...I've never seen that done before, and I thoguht that was extremely well executed, too.
Leela's
Gah. It was funny to have everyone end up dead on a one huge sword, but I didn't think it fleshed out Leela, at all. That was anotehr sight gag, and a good one. However, not much more than a sight gag.
I'm not a big fan of the Marge-going-crazy episode. However, as far as character development, it worked well. That felt exactly the way Marge would go crazy...she's usually a very stable person, but I can totally imagine her insecurity revolving around her family and their devotion to her. It was very true to the character, and it worked well.
now
sustain
Hey, TS has declined. I'll admit that.
done
Okay, this may be grave insult to Futurama fans, but I'd rate Futurama on par with TS *now*. There is no way I'd rank them up with TS's best. I draw about equal entertainment from Futurama as I do from TS now...some moderate amusement, with no real out-loud laughter.
I still laugh when I see the TS re-runs. (Thank god they show two per day.)
I'd give them more than five seasons of excellent quality, but I know you aren't a great fan of the early Simpsons. (I don't mean the Tracy Ulman stuff.)
I don't know Newsradio well enough to know what episodes come from what season, but here's what I'd say:
Newsradio episodes pre-Jon Lovitz were better than Futurama is now. All Simpsons season through season eight were better than Futurama is now. (I, personally, pin-point season nine as the season when TS started to really decline). I won't compare SNL, either, I only brought it up as an example of damn fine writing (until recently).
Well, I put Futurama on par with TS seasons 9-present.
same
Hmmm? I believe that was Homer laughing at Indian movies, when Apu put one on. If we're thinking of the same quote, Homer said, "It's funny because they talk and dress differently than I do!"
Which, IMO, was parodying Americans' tendency to dismiss foreign culture because it often different from what they're used to.
Okay. Haven't seen that episode of Futurama, or Drew Carey (however, I *never* watch Drew Carey...I think it is a terribly unfunny show).
In any case...I *do* like Futurama. I just think it's wit and writing aren't close to that of TS in its prime.
I would hate to see Futurama cancelled, though. I think it has great potential...and it already very worth watching.
Well, I am not a real fan of KOTH and have typically been bored by it. But I have seen a lot of good eps of it this year now that it is sandwiched between shows I watch, and a lot of people say it is on an upswing this year. So maybe it is worth you're watching. It definitely has a similarity to season 2-ish Simpsons, with the high level of reality and character depth. There's certainly never anything in it that insults your intelligence, however it can be somewhat dull and I don't identify with all of the characters that well. Some of the scripts I can really see transferring to The Simpsons very well, like I could see Marge being duped into putting her feet on a fetish web site, and imagine a funnier Simpsons ep around that, which is depressing given what Simpsons is doing these days. Gotta remember the pedigree of these shows has Simpsons blood, Greg Daniels, Richard Appel, Jonathan Collier on KOTH, Groening, David Cohen, Ken Keeler (and Lewis Morton from Newsradio) on Futurama.
I think you're just not warmed up to it yet. I thought all the same things you're writing about now a few months ago. I thought I wouldn't like reading the scripts, or quote the lines and stuff, but now I do all that. When reading the script of When Aliens Attack on frcr.com, I laughed out loud at one snappy dialogue after another, reminding me of reading the Itchy-Poochie Show script. Same accidental laughter with reading through the long lists of audio quotes on futurama.org for various episodes. The show is very snappy...it maintains that high standard of putting something ironic or witty in almost every dialogue exchange.
But the season finale was a special Halloween-style episode. I always liked the Treehouses of Horror as some of my favorites anyway, so criticizing a show because it's too much like Treehouse of Horrors is praising with faint damning.
There is a lot more freeze frame fanaticism going on in Futurama now too...something we don't get much of on The Simpsons now where they just don't put much extra stuff in more than they have to to get it on the air. The Simpsons had a lot of sight gags too...I don't see them going too light on sight gags throughout the run. There's no way I could count them all up for the purposes of this post.
Well it was alright. Actually, the political satire I forgot about that stands out in The Simpsons is from the Sideshow Bob for Mayor ep, for example where Sideshow Bob dances and juggles to win the press attention. Even here though we've got references to Watergate, and crazy sight gags like the highway built over the house, Homer on the wrecking ball, Homer fighting with Archie comics characters...none of it exactly in the background.
That's my favorite joke in the segment, which overall had too many nude politicians for my taste. But I also love the visual of the ending, with the spaceships invading and the humans chained up as slaves. That was outstandingly detailed and a perfect creepy sci-fi mood.
I think Futurama is doing that. There's definitely a mix of high-level jokes and "ass" jokes.
No, that last line is from The Simpsons. "If loving my kids is lame..." from the Christmas shoplifting ep.
Yes, but, they're mainly quotable because you've seen the eps in rerun so many times that you have memorized them. The same thing will happen with Futurama if you see them enough probably. This is just kind of a universal fact of fandom. The quoting doesn't come from being a fan but from a combination of being a fan and seeing the eps a lot of times.
Yeah and everyone on this group and so forth. But I'm not talking about all the people who are like us. I'm talking about the people that make Home Improvement a ratings champion. There are people in my county who were interviewed by the news at a visiting Ku Klux Klan rally who said they were there because they felt the KKK had a worthwhile message they believed in. These are some examples of the type of viewership I'm referring to.
The ones criticizing TV viewers, politicians, college professors ("I can't teach, I'm a professor!"), shallow girls, insensitive males...
It's been discussed on here and there are articles on snpp.com.
It was a good idea, but not executed in a very nuanced way. Just kind of a one-two-three run-through of the obvious way to do it. The writing seemed at the level of a play project the second-best group in a small high school class would put together.
It didn't really flesh her out, but it had meaningful transitional scenes where she expressed what she was feeling, showed it in her facial expressions, and her reactions made sense based on the events we saw. This type of logic was not evident in the Marge ep, in which the things that supposedly transformed Marge would not have been enough to fool anyone but a sitcom character.
You remind me of when I watched the movie "Hair" back in 1978. There were a lot of folks in the audience only a few years younger than I was who were laughing in the wrong places. The Vietnam draft was discontinued just before I turned 18 -- but I spent the years from 14 to then assuming that I would sooner or later be conscripted and condemned to die in a swamp. The kids only four or five years younger than me hadn't grown up with that fear. Major generation gaps can take much less than a generation to form.
That si entirely possible. However, I was captivated by TS when i first started...it took me all of about an episode to warm up to it. I was eagerly anticipating Futurama, and I really liked the first episode. It was after that, though, that I started to kind of go, "Hmmm...this isn't quite as good as I had hoped."
reading
Well, I'll keep watching when I can, so perhaps I'll still get to that level with Futurama...and I'd love to, since TS may not be long for this world...and the great Simpsons are dead already.
liked
faint
I thought the Halloween episodes were awesome...as exceptions, not as an every show. With the rare moments, those Halloween episodes, IMO, were very short on satire and long on sight gagas and wacky humour. Funny as a yearly thing, to see the Simpsons' characters in strange situations, like abducted by aliens...but as a weekly thing, I wanted to see who they'd spear with pointed, yet innocent-seeming, satire.
light
up
Dont get me wrong. TS had *lots* of sight gags. they didn't carry the show though. They were complimentary...enhancing...*not* the primary purpose. Maybe you disagree, but currently I see sight gags as carrying Futurama. Which is fine, for a cartoon, and can be plenty entertaining. However, as long as that is the state of things, I, personally, cannot put them on the level of TS.
example
I was thinking of mentioning that episode...to me, the singular line of the episode was when Rush Limbaugh asked SSB something like, "How do you respond to Senator Winan's accusations of <something>" and SSB said, "I think Senator Winan should start talking and stop whinin'!" Everybody laughed and moved on. Another perfect, somewhat exaggerated, glimpse of what political debate has become.
with
Sure, as I said, sight gags are omni-present in TS. However, IMO, they very much take a backseat to the plot and the dialogue.
Parts of the act were a little weak. However, that great two-party system slash and some other non-satirical jokes made the segment emminently memorable.
Yeah...Halloween episodes go into sci-fi and also some fantasy (I'm surprise, personally, not to have ever seen any medieval segment on one of those episodes). Halloween episodes are great for that. Homer's enhanced toaster taking him back in time, where any tiny change wreaked massive changes in his "present," was also great sci-fi, in fact, a parody of the Back to the Future or some other time travelling movie, and nicely done. I absolutely love the part where Homer gets sick of the whole thing, goes crazy and starts smashing things in the past, and killing things, determined to do as much damage as possible. So, even when TS chose to go sci-fi, I think they did it beautifully.
jokes
To some extent, I agree. The "jacking on" was a great example of low-brow humour done nicely.
from
I'm confusing it with a Newsradio quote...I can't recall the exact quote, but it's when Dave's Wisconsin college friends come to visit (the episode that makes such cool use of the word "sagacious")...one of his friends is talking to another, and he says something similar, regarding something. I haven't seen it recently...if any major Newsradio buffs know what I'm talking about, I'd be glad to be refreshed.
Actually, it is much less that. Five or six years ago, I used to watch two Roseanne re-runs per day, and I knew that show like that the back of my hand. However, I never quoted the show...there was no reason to, and they had little relevance to any real life conversation.
universal
I think that's the phenomenon when talking to other fans. However, I think a show needs to have relevant quotes to bring up in everyday life, even with non-fans.
all
Well, they made TS ratings champs, too...
They made "In Living Color" a ratings winner for quite a while, too, and, whether you liked the show or not, that's quite a feat for a show that admittedly made fun primarily of white people.
They also made "Married With Children" one of the longest-running shows ever, despite their total determination to be as politically-incorrect as possible.
I think people are perfectly willing to watch and enjoy shows that are provocative and push the controversy envelople.
I meant a specific joke. I was curious what precisely you meant.
Very new to this newsgroup, and I don't go to snpp.com very much. I wasn't aware of religious groups praising TS. I still don't know on what grounds they would.
a
at
I disagree with that. Their tremendous use of mixed metaphors and silly transitions was quite impressive. Even their parody of the shallow, nearly-meaningless lines that these rock stars say during the show.
Homer: The fame was almost like a drug. What was even more like a drug, though, was the drugs.
a
Well...that way, you must've had a problem with TS all the way through its run. I mean, chartacters like Homer naively believed lots of far-fetched things.
Occassional lines can elicit a chuckle. "Save me Jebus!"
I don't know about disgust...I do find my attention wandering to tother things during an episode, sometimes.
All of which also applies to Futurama, also. That Lost City of Atlanta episode was a creative idea...but Fry's interaction with the mermaid and stuff bored me.
good,
Well, if given a choice, I'd rather watch pre-Lovitz Newsradio episodes over Futurama. Much rather watch Futurama over Lovitz episodes, though.
Yes, season 9 still had some real winners.
now
intelligence
I don't think TS is childish. Kill the Alligator and Run was a snooze, but it's not indicative of TS, even now. That was the worst episode, potentially, of the season.
To
from
Yep, that's what I think, too. Homer has always been boorish towards other cultures, but in an engaging way. It's a credit that they were able to make Homer that way, without it ever being offensive. I'm of Indian descent, but I never had any problem with Apu of Homer's attitudes towards Apu and Indian culture.
Indubitably.
Which is nice, sometimes, but bad if it's the only humour a show uses.
how
Well, I think the people who appreciate movies or shows like that the best are the ones who both enjoyed the satirical elements *and* the toliet humour. The LCD (lowest common denominator) humour is a large part of Austin Powers' charm and Jim Carrey's charm.
Well I felt that too. The second episode was the worst one for lots of reasons...pretty season 9-ish. But then they started doing some classics like the Roommate ep and anchovies ep and bot planet ep. The big difference between season 2 and 1 is I think a faster pace in season 2, and Fry doesn't start every other sentence with, "back in the 20th century."
I would take Treehouse of Horrors every week.
Yeah, that is my favorite Simpsons. It's written by David Cohen who runs Futurama, I don't think that's a coincidence. The crux of that short though is not the sci-fi. It's just a device that lets the show make jokes based on continual variations in the scenes and setting.
I know part of it..."If wanting to make a singing career out of a style of music that most people find extremely gay is crazy, then fine, I'm crazy." Or something like that.
"If that's corny, then corn me up."
Well I think that appealed to lowbrow audiences too. It was politically incorrect in the lowest common denominator way, with bikini babes in every ep and such.
I don't think that line is a parody. "Like a drug" is a common metaphor. You don't need familiarity of the show to get it. It's just a half-decent one-liner the way they wrote it. Just kind of a chuckle at best for me.
The Marge thing wasn't done as a joke. It wasn't a satire of how dumb moms are or anything. That's what makes Homer and Fry funny, when they make a mistake it's because they fell for something people commonly do, like three-card-monty hustlers or something. They just fall a lot harder than real people.
I thought the mermaid scenes were the most fascinating ones. "Oh, Mr. Fry, you do go on." "We have those. They're called land sea lions. I tame them." Then that funny romantic interlude music scene...just all really oddball parodies of romantic movies that are equally dumb but don't realize it.
And sometimes Homer doesn't even notice, like when he calls Apu a regular American Joe not realizing he is an immigrant.
-Eric Sansoni ([email])
"What I'm trying to communicate is that I'm willing to do nudity, no extra charge!" -Bill McNeal, Newsradio, 1998
Season 9-ish? Season 9 was still pretty good. I think Season 10 was the real slide.
difference
doesn't
I'll agree that that was one of the most over-used "gags" in the show, comparing the future with the 20th century. *Except* for an awesome part of episode one, where they go underground into "Old New York" and Fry points to a fetid pool and says, "That's where <whatever her name was> and I had our first date," and you see him imagining the ice rink with him and her skating together and staring into each other's eyes...then it flips back to the present and some huge tenticled monster comes up out of the pool. Very funny.
Therein, I think, lies the crucial difference between us. You prefer, it would seem, the "wacky humour and sight gags," whereas I prefer the satire and social commentary. That is probably why I will never like Futurama as much as you do, or as much as I like the Simpsons.
Probably not. Although, I still think that segment was done more cleverly than Futurama. I think he just had better characters to work with in TS.
on
I still prefer the sci-fi parody aspect of it. In those types of movies, everyone is so careful not to make any changes in the past. It was beautiful to watch Homer, in a fit of pique, wreak as much havoc as possible.
That's the line I was thinking of. Something to that effect
All I'm saying is that TV audiences don't just make standard, "safe" shows popular. They make shows that they find funny popular. I wouldn't blame Futurama's rating woes on an audience too dull to appreciate Futurama's envelope-pushing cleverness. Maybe it has to do with time slot, maybe enough people just don't find it so funny...
ep
Sometimes. Sometimes it was very funny, their unapologetic willingness to blast males and females.
You don't *need* familiarity with Behind the Music. I still think it was a good exaggeration of the superficial, unenlightening types of things that the rock stars often said.
Fry,
Land sea lions. I didn't think that was very funny. I just thought the interaction between the two was boring, it didn't have any snap.
Or his blatently "offensive" stuff, like, after looking at a statue of the Hindu god, Ganesh (elephant visage, multiple arms), saying, "Man, Apu, when gods were being handed out, you must've been in the bathroom," or something similar.
On Thu, 25 May 2000 21:06:59 -0700, "Minstrel" wrote:
I liked the finale. I have seen similar approaches before, but not as an entire episode. The first was in an old (Warner bros?) cartoon where the starving wolf is trying to steal a sheep and the sheep dog keeps stopping him. Then a bell rings and they stop fighting and eat lunch together while making small talk like "How's the wife and kids?". Then the bell rings again and they go back to being a starving wolf (who just ate lunch) and a sheep dog fighting.
Another example was on Duckman. After a commercial break, Duckman, Cornfed and Bernice are calmly discussing what projects they have lined up for the off season. When they "notice" the camera is on, they jump back into character and begin fighting again.
I have also seen Bugs Bunny discussing his cartoons in a retrospective as if he were an actor in them.
Although not animated, Shakespeare used the device of having an actor leave character, talk to the audience, then return to the scene. This was a staple of the old Burns and Allen show.
I don't think that any of these parallel made the show any less enjoyable.
While I like both the Simpsons and Futurama a lot, they are clearly very different shows. Despite some similarities, which you'd expect, the style of humor is quite different. The world the Simpsons lampoon is the one we all live in, whereas Futurama lampoons a sci-fi world. The cliches that they make fun of very familiar to sci-fi fans, but less so to others. Much of sci-fi consists of placing some issue in an alien setting to allow the reader/viewer to see it more objectively. Thus the target is still the "real" world of today and the parody is still a parody of today, but a bit more abstract.
For example, The Prime Directive in Star Trek was not about other planets, but major powers (US / USSR / UK etc) interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. In Love's Labor Lost in Space, they parody the Prime Directive and indirectly the current foreign policies of UN nations.
One common thread that makes both shows great is that they pick on both sides. The characters of Free Waterfall Jr and Mom represent the political extremes of an industrialist and a hippy. Both are, in there own way, trying to make the world conform to there vision of the future.
Possibly the closest thing to Futurama I can think of is the illustrious Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Take a weird or particularly unlikely idea, then root it in a plausible world and play with the consequences, like how a human would respond if it turned out that his best friend wasn't from Guildford after all, but actually from a small planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse, or that the planet Earth was created for the benefit of a few white mice performing a particularly difficult calculation. And I haven't seen anyone describe HHGTTG as anything other than science fiction, although Douglas Adams freely admits that he doesn't particularly like SF, and wasn't attempting to parody it in any way.
Futurama has some vaguely similar extrapolations, like ethanol-fuelled robots, a Matrix of old people, soft drinks produced by aliens, etc etc etc. Weird ideas, rooted in a plausible, self-consistent universe, which is what I like.
And as for people not liking Futurama, I suggest that they watch more of it. I must confess that the first time I read the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I didn't really enjoy it at all, and wondered what all the fuss was about. I read it again about a year later, and absolutely loved it - it's now one of my favourite books. And unlike many people, I understood the ending to Mostly Harmless. :-)
Another confession - a few years ago, I wasn't that keen on the Simpsons. Now it's my second favourite television show. Fortunately, with Futurama I started at the beginning, and loved it from the start. I watched the entire first series, and some of the second, in less than 24 hours, thanks to the glories of the internet. Futurama is by no means perfect, but it has moments that are, IMHO, utterly sublime[1], comparable with my favourite moments of the Simpsons.
Anyway, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Even if they're wrong. ;-)
Adam Foster
NB: What is 'Newsradio'? Is it a radio programme? Here in the UK we've got lots of great, old radio shows like the News Quiz, I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue[2], Just a Minute etc, so I'm wondering if the USA might have something similar. Although somehow I doubt it.
[1] Most of 'Escape from a Bot Planet', the beginning of 'When Aliens Attack', the first glimpse of NNY in 'Space Pilot 3000', the Near-Death Star in 'A Clone of my Own', and so on. Which is considerably more than the first two series of the Simpsons, IMHO. :-)
[2] ISIHAC (as it's more usually known) is virtually a national institution. Either that, or the people on it are in an institution; I forget which. It has such classic games as Cheddar Gorge, One Song to the Tune of Another (the rules of which are very complex and would take several pages to explain) and, of course, Mornington Crescent (the rules of which are fairly straightforward but which are forever being amended and improved). Unfortunately, you can't get it over the internet - the Radio 4 feed apparently doesn't carry it. Bastards... :-(
newsradio was an old tv sitcom featuring dave foley and phil hartman. it quickly when down the can after phil hartman was murdered.
as far as great radio shows go, they dont really exist anymore. i mean, the top rated radio shows in the country are howard stern, don & mike and dr. laura. not the best radio around..
Newsradio was an American sitcom set at an all-news radio station. It had an incredibale cast of comedy veterans, including Dave Foly (Kids in the Hall), the late Phil Hartman (SNL, the Simpsons), Andy Dick (the Ben Stiller Show), and Stephen Root (Bill Dautrieve on KOTH). After Phil's death, Jon Lovitz (The Critic) joined the cast, in time for the final season. They're still showing reruns late-nite on WWOR in my area. It's one of the funniest sitcoms ever made, especially in later seasons, when it started getting more and more surreal. Favorite episode: the air- conditioning breaks down, and the cast experiences strange halucinations. There's also a very funny "Titanic" parody (Phil's last episode) and a science fiction parody.
i agree with you completely, it was a shame to see the show go. my favorite episode was when jon lovitz (before he was on the cast) was threatening to commit suicide by jumping off the building and phil hartman saw this as a chance to get great ratings so he strapped on a harness and interviewed lovitz. great stuff.
Mine had to be "Our Fiftieth Episode" Where Bill goes into a mental ward, "Super Karate Monkey Death Car" Where Jimmy has his book translated from English to Japanese then back to English, "The Secret of Management","Balloon" where Jimmy tries to balloon around the world,and of course "Space"(the what if News Radio was in space) and "Sinking Ship"(the What if News Radio was the doomed luxury liner Titanic.)
"Super Karate Monkey Death Car" Where Jimmy has his book
"Donkey donkey donkey!"
Love it.
This one sucked. (just kidding!)
Both classics. I also loved the one where Bill starts imitating that guy who sings political song parodies on PBS, whatshisname? And the episode where Bill's the boss. ("You like to say 'farce', don't you? Farce farce, farce, farce farce")
Funny is in the eye of the beholder. Come on; your little passive- agressive tactics won't make me mad. I told you that Futurama wasn't funny. That's my opinion. Yours, obviously, is different.
Well--honestly--good luck. But, as I've stated--I don't feel it deserves a prime slot. Maybe it should be given the Simpsons time slot-- then we'd have a satisfactory end to this argument (is it the timeslot? Or, is the show just not good enough (for most)?)
week-
How so? If I can turn on my TV at 7--so can anyone else in the country.
My original point was--if the show was good enough, an audience would follow it anywhere. Do you honestly think that any serious Simpsons fan _hasn't_ seen at least one episode of Futurama? I think we can assume that 95% of the Simpsons core audience at least gave Futurama a try.
Simpsons--
Just because something is original doesn't mean it's better. I mean-- hamburger earmuffs?
A fairly unsupported argument.
Fantasy; an establishment of a fairly unrealistic future. The show is not inherently "adolescent" because it is a futuristic show. The statements this show makes about what effects our present time has on the future are narrow. Shows about the future always represent someone's best "guess"--or dream. It's this "dream" of the future that seems adolescent to me. Dreams are all well and good--but you have to be willing to almost "live" in this new setting. You have to agree that future robots will/might look/act/smart-off like Bender, for example.
The "role playing" aspect is what is childish. I know Simpsons fans who'd give their shoes to live in a Simpsons universe. Proof positive these people exist? How about the smashing success of The Simpsons house replica, built in Nevada? Hardcore role-playing (the attempt to escape into the make-believe) is a childish trait.
Of course, you know this is false. Where did you learn your insult methodology? You imply that I didn't like the "middle seasons" of the Simpsons (they've been PROVEN the best), and thus insult my intelligence. As Krusty said "YOU, sir... are an (the) idiot." I say this (unexplained, as well) because you fail to explain (without using opinion) why I am an idiot.
Crude attempt to insult me further.
There you go again. Another under the table jab. I hope you feel better.
The crude finger lengthener invention. Here's the professor (an inventor of highly sophista-ma-cated doowhackies), inventing a decidedly low-tech gadget. Bwah hah. And from there, comedy ensues.
I think it "peaked" somewhere around 2F03--one of the better THOH eps.
A convenient excuse, implying "insight" on your part (because Futurama works for "anyone with a brain"), as you clutch to Groening's leg. Pardon me while I get sick in the Stanley Cup.
The cutaways are a very funny device. The current Simpsons couldn't hope to layer jokes and references as deftly as The Family Guy does/did.
Amazing. That's how I feel about Futurama. Bottom-of-the-barrel. Hey kids! Fry's drinking that slug's poop! He thinks it's disgusting, but he's still drinking it! Tee hee!
Now THAT shows a lack of viewing on your part. My point made again-- Family Guy had no coat-tail of any previous show to arrive on--and thus, is largely ignored by the TV audience in general. I was very skeptical at first about FG. Some people called it a cheap rip-off of The Simpsons. The first several episodes were kinda bad. But, then I saw the Dennis Franz/William Shatner episode--and I was hooked. Literally ROTFLMAO.
Ooo, another bad call on your account. Should I lower myself and call you brainless? Sorry, I can't bring myself to do it.
The point I was _obviously_ making was there was at least a built-in market for Futurama before it ever arrived. The Simpsons core audience! Now, who can argue with that? Family Guy had no such precursor--thus, having to really do battle on its own... Apparently, it has failed-- though I've heard rumors it might get picked up by UPN.
Really. Someone should smear _you_ with feces. Your childish insults to my intelligence are really proving my point about Futurama's "adolescent" audience.
I see a spaceboat that looks like Titanic. I see a plot that bares slight resemblance to the original. I see a thoroughly unlikable character (the captain)-- someone so uninteresting, I'd rather shut off the TV than watch his "caperings." What's left? Space fantasy, once again. That's fine, I guess, if you can't get enough of "the Sci-Fi."
Oh, I understand the concept. But your insults will only make you look like the stupid one, here.
Well, once again. Bwah-hah. On the one hand, if Futurama is criticizing (some may say "satirizing") the Christian belief of hell--what is it trying to accomplish? Is it trying to make the viewer believe that maybe--just maybe--some sort of real "hell" might not exist? Satire is funny, because of the revealed truth in the middle of the distortion. Some people might not agree that the "truth" about hell is that it really might not exist.
On the other hand, if it's just delving into the Christian belief in hell for a story idea, why is it compelling? Why do I need to learn about some robot hell which doesn't exist? If I _don't_, then I've proven my point that "the story is just fantasy."
Ooh. Now you're making up stuff. I never said, or implied that. Just because something is "original" or "imaginitive" doesn't mean it's interesting. Who looks like the brainless idiot now?
Pure fantasy. Which is fine, if you like that.
You've really perfected this technique of 1) jump to (false) conclusion A, 2) based on that, insult adversary's intelligence
If you can't understand that there was already an audience, ready and waiting, to give Futurama a chance--before it even aired--then who is the monkey of moderate intelligence? The Simpsons had a meager built-in audience from a failing Tracey Ullman show when it first aired. Family Guy had no precedent, or parent. It had to attract its own audience.
I think when comparing the current audience for both the Simpsons and Futurama--yes. My guess is that the vast majority of Futurama fans are also hard core Simpsons fans.
You may as well be speaking in tongues. I say "Futurama is the Simpsons' child. It had an instant audience when it began." And you say "Oh yeah? How come the current Simpsons sucks, then?" You refute an argument with a statement that shows you don't even come close to understanding what I said.
By stating this, you imply I love the current Simpsons. Obviously, you've come to a realization (after reading it in my posts several times) that this is not the case. This statement also demonstrates that you don't understand the concept of "child/parent" that I've explained. The Simpsons retains its viewers, simply because it was once a great show. People wait around for the flashes of brilliance it once showed.
The Simpsons doesn't have to attract a new audience every year--even from the ranks of "past" Simpsons fans; if you think this is true, then obviously any viewing of the current Simpsons is hypocritical on your part. Sadly, many of us still watch in hope of a transformation--maybe a new episode that will transcend the recent slump.
Your logic: The inventors of stuff I do like must be more intelligent than the inventors of stuff I don't like
You place yourself as a reference point for all that is intelligent/unintelligent in the entertainment universe. What a head- case.
The relevant factor isn't the number. It's that in both cases they are asking people to tune in an hour earlier than they usually do.
I know them. I know people who still watch The Simpsons and won't watch Futurama once. They just don't seem to put much thought into the names in the credits or other factors that would tie the show together. They would rather watch Family Guy than Futurama, because they are only comparing the shows based on concepts. They assume they might like another show based on a satire of a family, but not a sci-fi satire.
That wasn't the point. All I did was agree to you it wouldn't get the same audience. That has nothing to do with whether its better or not.
Now you're stretching. I don't think any fan of Futurama expects a Bender-like robot to exist! It's just a funny tweaking of robots we have gotten to know from other sci-fi epics like Star Wars.
I watch Futurama, I don't escape into it. If all Futurama viewers played Futurama role-playing games you'd have a case. But as you indicate there are a similar number of hardcore escapists for any show. More perhaps for sci-fi with the legacy of the Trekkies, that's true, but animated programs like The Simpsons are also way up there for that type of fan. All of them are fantasy oriented, detached more from the real world than office or roommate comedies.
I think it peaked almost exactly a year later, with Mother Simpson.
It was a satire on the mindlessness of addictive behavior. That's why the joke worked for me. The fact that it was cola he was addicted to was even funnier, since it's sort of an exaggeration of how our society is obsessed with caffeine without it being considered as addictive as other things.
I can. I know plenty of people who simply won't watch the show. I don't really know why, but they just don't see it as similar to The Simpsons at all based on the concept alone. They either don't know nor care who Matt Groening is.
To me he's a funny parody of macho cowboy space captains, military headcases, and womanizing egomaniacs, and one of the best characters for rolling that all into one.
If there is any satire in the robot hell, it is pretty abstract. Mainly it was just an aspect of the plot. I found it amusing the robots would create an actual, factual hell to make their religion work. It could be a satirical point of how our own human hell is simply a form of punishment we imagine to rationalize our own sense of morality.
That's what doesn't make sense. If you want to genre-bash, you could do that, but it just makes you look small-minded and biased. If you just don't like sci-fi, then you're hardly qualified to decide whether Futurama is a good show in its genre or not.
And apparently you don't. So of course you wouldn't like Futurama any more then you would like Star Wars.
Absolutely, but the converse is not true. All Simpsons fans did not add Futurama to their menu.
No, it's you who does not understand the statements in question here. You're saying people just watch Futurama because of its parentage. You're saying there would be no good reviews of it otherwise. And I'm saying then why do the very same fans dislike, criticize, and in some cases stopped watching the current Simpsons? Sure the parentage gave Futurama some built-in audience, but it's the quality of the show that has made it famous and well-liked among its fans.
I'm simply claiming Futurama is a smarter show. It hits the mark more times than other shows. I don't like dumb shows. Futurama has more intelligent and insightful observations about culture than other comedy entertainment shows.
"Her idea of wit is nothing more than an incisive observation humorously phrased and delivered with impeccable timing."
I'm simply saying the Futurama writers have more of that in their show than any other group going now, so they must be the most collectively intelligent lot. That seems like a logical extension of my opinion about the show. If you want to claim they're dumb and wrote a clever show by luck, well it just doesn't seem likely.
-Eric Sansoni ([email])
"What I'm trying to communicate is that I'm willing to do nudity, no extra charge!" -Bill McNeal, Newsradio, 1998
Which isn't a problem, if you like a show enough. I'd probably watch a new Monty Python's Flying Circus episode at 3AM Tuesday (well, I'd tape it, at least) If a good show is on at a reasonable hour, I'll make time to watch.
Satire uses distorted reality to expose a hidden truth about something. I've come to the conclusion that "sci-fi satire", or "space fantasy satire" doesn't really have the same "ring of truth" to it, as something based on a real society. I'm not convinced that by "satirizing" something in the future, you're talking about "today" in any way.
I think a better word than "satire" in this case is "parody," since parody makes fun of other fiction. Stuff that's not "real." Satire is what it is, because it makes fun of real-life stuff. Maybe that's why I prefer the Simpsons to Futurama (at least the classic Simpsons). I love to see our society torn to bits, our jerkass "white males" receive their comeuppance, our stereotypes made fun of--to the extremes. It's Bart's "social commentary," using action, instead of words.
Whatever few similarities Futurama has to our present society seem to offer very little opportunity for real "satire," such as it is. (At least, to me)
Family Guy at least attempts to layer the comedy somewhat like early Simpsons episodes did. It retains paper-thin stereotypical characters, because those are what work in a true satire. People think of the word "stereotype" as something bad; but, I think the reason the Simpsons lost its satirical edge long about 1F20~2F01 was that the writers started fleshing out some of the greatest stereotypical characters on the show. Smithers, the ultimate lackey, disappeared, in favor of a guy who stands up to Burns, and gets fired in 2F16. That's when I noticed the change in the show, and it's the first I ever considered complaining. I hated the fact that satire was being replaced with character development.
Also in defense of Family Guy: it doesn't go for the obvious joke; the pace is lightning quick; references, though seemingly extraneous, add to the satiric feel of the show; and it does a great job tearing down everything that needs "torn down." That's the irreverent feel The Simpsons had, when satire and iconoclasm were still in the mix every week.
This goes back to what I said about parody--it's still a tweaking of fiction, and not the real world. It might be a great parody, but it's not satire. The robot idea still comes from someone's idea of a robot.
What I was trying to convey was this need for people to _almost_ accept Futurama as part of the real world. If Futurama were realistic, or could be thought of as a natural progression from the present, it would be a science fiction--therefore, any "satirical" jabs would be satire. There are just too many aliens, spaceships, and the like with no basis in science on Futurama. It's based on fantasy. This isn't a bad thing; it just means, like I've been saying, that Futurama is space fantasy, not science-fiction.
Star Wars was space fantasy; based in an unknown universe, with unexplained space travel possibilities, strange aliens, and the like-- all written without the need for explanation. Story was the focus.
Star Trek, in contrast, always tried to explain this future world in the context of our own--strange technologies had plausible explanations. Though, it does seem a bit "fantastic" to me, in light of all the strange aliens on Star Trek.
Totally OT, but something I've always noticed about the UFO seekers. To them, UFOs=aliens, no doubt about it. They jump to the conclusion that saucers prove the existence of green men, or "greys". They never consider that the technology may be right from our own planet; right from our own society. Aliens might not even be in the mix.
Well, since I've more an appetite for the "dead ringer" type satire, that lambastes everyone in the real world, anything resembling "satire", making fun of (parodying) future beings, is less interesting to me. It's also not nearly as funny to me. The only way I could imagine (at least before our discussion) that people might relate to Futurama, and still call it "satirical", was that they'd accept (on some inner level) Futurama as part of the real world. (Not literally) This could be explained as "role-playing."
This "role-playing" approach to TV is why so many like-minded Simpsons fans desperately want to know where the real Springfield is. It would allow them to believe that the Simpsons universe exists inside our own.
The Simpsons, as you have stated, at least represents today--(an admittedly twisted) snapshot of the American family, today. However yellow their skin, pronounced their overbites, and animated their lives, they represent(ed) a satirical view of society. The one- dimensional characters allowed us to laugh at everyone--even ourselves. They were exaggerated, and simplified--and somewhere inside all the sarcastic jabs, something was being said. "There seem to be too many dumbass, jerkass, white male simpletons in society. Want to see them get _theirs_?" That's something routinely said through the character of Homer, when he's in one-dimensional "jerkass" mode.
Sci-Fi, I believe, at least has a basis in science--thus, the name. But there's also space fantasy, where less emphasis is placed on explaining the future, and more emphasis goes into the story.
eps.
Mother Simpson was truly a great episode; but, the show hit the skids too many times during season 6 for me to include all of seasons 6 and 7 in my classic list.
I think what you have is Fry--a displaced dimwit from 1999--who acts much like many people might act today. In this case, I suppose you could call this joke satirical. It was just too potty-related for me to laugh at, for some reason.
I guess, with the phrase "our society", you're saying that Futurama really isn't about a future society; it's about today's society, with a thin layer of goofy robots, gross aliens, and spaceships pulled over it. Hmmm. Never really saw it that way. I guess I feel it's still someone's imagination of what will happen in the future, given our present time. Maybe I'm unwilling to accept crazy aliens or talking lobsters in my view of the future, or something. That sort of thing prevents me from seeing Futurama as a thinly disguised "America, in the year 2000"
Ah, I guess I just simply disagree. If you're any sort of Simpsons fan (speaking to the world), you had to have given Futurama a peek.
Well, it's obvious you relate these future beings to people of today. I guess Futurama can approach "satire" with specific character types; but "satirizing" today's society on Futurama isn't really possible, IMO (given my earlier misgivings about its interpretation of the future).
Naturally, the humor lies in their mimmickry of the human Christian religion; their "hell" ultimately fails; the inner truth revealed about Christian "hell"? It won't/doesn't work, therefore it can't exist.
That could be a conclusion drawn, after the inner reality of the situation was exposed (There really is no hell. It's a sham) I know there are intelligent people who would refuse to accept that as a possibility; therefore, the whole point of "robot hell" (to prove there really is no Christian hell) seems like a failed attempt at satire, to them.
Fantasy, meaning more concerned with story, than reality.
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm mincing words, but again--I think Futurama is best discribed as space fantasy, and not science fiction.
Story (fantasy) is fine; the main reason (which goes back to my original reason for posting) that I tape TV shows is for satirical humor. I haven't found that much humor in Futurama (call it a difficulty in relating Futurama to today's society; I don't agree with many of Futurama's conclusions about where our "present" time took us) Star Wars was fine; it was a good story about good and evil. I'm just not that interested in watching Futurama for the story.
I agree. That's why I said what I said about the ratings.
My exact words (above) are "many people watch (Futurama) because of its parentage." I didn't say they watch it _only_ because of that.
No, I didn't. I was implying that Futurama gained its audience principally from hard core Simpsons fans. Many didn't stay Futurama fans. The people who stay with Futurama obviously like it a lot. I never said it should be done away with. I just feel like its not quite the show the Simpsons (was). Thus, the disparity in Neilsen ratings.
Because the current Simpsons is nothing like its old self. We've agreed many times about that. I keep watching the Simpsons--not because it's still the greatest thing since sliced bread--but, because it occasionally reverts to its brilliant self. The first five minutes of BABF02 had me laughing (and hoping) we'd finally get another classic episode. Al Jean is certainly capable of that deed; maybe the staff, once they got hands on his BABF02 script, crammed it a little too full of wackiness for people to even call it a good episode.
I don't dispute that. It's not my cup of tea, but that's not because I'm stupid--it's because the society presented on screen doesn't mesh well enough with today's society for me to enjoy what you've termed as "satire" on Futurama. That's not my lack of IQ--it's my difference of opinion as to how the future will look in 1000 years.
It just has that same, "wacky" flavor to me as the current Simpsons-- because there are far out aliens, crazy talking lobsters, and retro- looking, binge-drinking robots. I can sit back and take it all in, but the straight-to-the-point, overly simplified satirical references become clouded in the futuristic details. Simplification is the best method to satirize something.
I can't refute that. It's the whole idea of averaging IQs and such... I think work, as well as brains, contribute to a good TV product. If the Simpsons writers cared at all (nowadays), they might be capable of writing the next 3F02.
I think writing a clever show has more to do with effort than no effort. Writing is re-writing. It's not being satisfied with the first several drafts. Both shows have staffs of several people; why can't several reasonably intelligent human beings come up with a great show? I think the lack of effort, and care, has its place in explaining why some shows are written better than others.
That's one of the great benefits of setting the show in the future. You have a built-in device for distorting our present reality into something satirical. You can take some current problem and extrapolate it to what it might become if not dealt with in the present-day, as a form of exaggeration.
That's the opposite conclusion most literary critics would say about sci-fi. What the critics always seem to say is that sci-fi never describes the future in any fundamental way. It always is a representation of the morals, values, fears, prejudices, etc. of the time and place at which it is written. The superficial, surface elements show the future, but the values and ideas at hand provide some comment on present-day society.
Both shows have both parody and satire. But clearly when Futurama shows things like the political campaign in Head in the Polls, with John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson, or the PETA-style vegetarian extremist in the Popplers episode, they are commenting on present-day culture, not some other fictional work. Futurama may have more parody than satire compared to some Simpsons seasons (probably not 5 and 6 with episodes like Marge on the Lam, Cape Feare, Bart of Darkness, Deep Space Homer, and Bart's Comet), but it definitely does have both.
Well, maybe you should just look a little closer. Bender is not always just a robot, but in episodes like I Second That Emotion, is written as a satire of the jerkass, insensitive male. It doesn't matter that there's a tin shell on him. His voice, dialogue, attitude, personality, all reflect what a human is. If the show had no connections to our reality, it would be incomprehensible to to us. The show is a complete mix of sci-fi, fantasy, realism, plot, gags, satire, parody, one-liners, sight gags, etc. There's no way to argue that some of that stuff makes it impossible to have some of the other stuff, because one way or another it's obvious they put it all in there.
-Eric Sansoni ([email])
"What I'm trying to communicate is that I'm willing to do nudity, no extra charge!" -Bill McNeal, Newsradio, 1998
Before responding, I'd like to say that after all of the flaming was removed from our discussion--I've quite enjoyed it. It seems, judging from the first few lines of your response, that I've finally understood your position (given the last several lines in my previous post). It's also entirely possible you've understood mine.
In article , [email] wrote:
something.
Yes! This is exactly the problem I have with Futurama. But at least conceptually, we agree. My problem is with accepting Futurama as an accurate extrapolation of our present time. I don't see any talking lobsters, or many exotic aliens in our future at all. (Go back to my discussion of UFOs & aliens). Thus, I see these unexplained beings as fantasy characters, instead of (albeit exaggerated) possible future co- inhabitants of human society. (I don't think UFOs today predict aliens tomorrow. I think UFOs are earth-made vehicles.)
Since I can't agree with the premise (the underlying Futurama universe), I can't really accept something you'd call "satire" as satire. I realize you probably feel this future society is a pretty good send up, criticism, or satire of what the present time will lead us into--but I don't feel that way. There are more than a few reasons.
I just see an 1000-years-into-the-future world, or universe (a fictional universe), one of an infinite number of possible universes given our present time. If it makes fun of its inhabitants, or its society, or anything inside of it, the jokes can only be understood in terms of that fictional universe itself--in its own context.
What you're saying (and what I admitted I understood in the last post) is that you actually accept Futurama as an accurate representation of our world in 1000 years--at least with respect to society, and humanity. Since I feel this imaginary universe (which supposedly actually represents the present) isn't that good of an extrapolation of today, much of what you see as satire misses the mark for me. The most simple, direct, and exaggerated criticisms (satire) taken from our most familiar experiences in the present time, in our society, seem to work best (for me). It's not because I have trouble understanding what Futurama's trying to do; it's because I don't agree with its portrayal of the future (even as an exaggerated future). I don't believe in exotic aliens, for one.
And from your perspective, that works. These commentaries on society work for you, from the imaginary future world in Futurama, because you accept their interpretation of the future as a possibility (on some level).
Pretty cool that I finally understood your viewpoint, huh?
I recognize those traits, but I can't reconcile his universe to mine, because of the problems I have with the show's premise (exotic aliens exist; interplanetary travel without time-warp effects, etc.)
Since I can't reconcile today's society with the Futurama society, it's a difficult proposition to relate to much of your "satire".
Well, the characters speak English. Most characters in any story want the same things for themselves; they want sustenance and security. Once these are obtained, they want their lives to have some meaning.
Right here at the end, it seems you're unwilling to believe that I can't reconcile the fantasy stuff (exotic aliens, etc) with today's world. Somehow, the satire you speak of short circuits, and I'm unable to agree with the reavealed "truths", because so much of the show's premise is an unrealistic guess at the future (for me)
Which isn't a problem, if you like a show enough. I'd probably watch a new Monty Python's Flying Circus episode at 3AM Tuesday (well, I'd tape it, at least) If a good show is on at a reasonable hour, I'll make time to watch.
Satire uses distorted reality to expose a hidden truth about something. I've come to the conclusion that "sci-fi satire", or "space fantasy satire" doesn't really have the same "ring of truth" to it, as something based on a real society. I'm not convinced that by "satirizing" something in the future, you're talking about "today" in any way.
I think a better word than "satire" in this case is "parody," since parody makes fun of other fiction. Stuff that's not "real." Satire is what it is, because it makes fun of real-life stuff. Maybe that's why I prefer the Simpsons to Futurama (at least the classic Simpsons). I love to see our society torn to bits, our jerkass "white males" receive their comeuppance, our stereotypes made fun of--to the extremes. It's Bart's "social commentary," using action, instead of words.
Whatever few similarities Futurama has to our present society seem to offer very little opportunity for real "satire," such as it is. (At least, to me)
Family Guy at least attempts to layer the comedy somewhat like early Simpsons episodes did. It retains paper-thin stereotypical characters, because those are what work in a true satire. People think of the word "stereotype" as something bad; but, I think the reason the Simpsons lost its satirical edge long about 1F20~2F01 was that the writers started fleshing out some of the greatest stereotypical characters on the show. Smithers, the ultimate lackey, disappeared, in favor of a guy who stands up to Burns, and gets fired in 2F16. That's when I noticed the change in the show, and it's the first I ever considered complaining. I hated the fact that satire was being replaced with character development.
Also in defense of Family Guy: it doesn't go for the obvious joke; the pace is lightning quick; references, though seemingly extraneous, add to the satiric feel of the show; and it does a great job tearing down everything that needs "torn down." That's the irreverent feel The Simpsons had, when satire and iconoclasm were still in the mix every week.
This goes back to what I said about parody--it's still a tweaking of fiction, and not the real world. It might be a great parody, but it's not satire. The robot idea still comes from someone's idea of a robot.
What I was trying to convey was this need for people to _almost_ accept Futurama as part of the real world. If Futurama were realistic, or could be thought of as a natural progression from the present, it would be a science fiction--therefore, any "satirical" jabs would be satire. There are just too many aliens, spaceships, and the like with no basis in science on Futurama. It's based on fantasy. This isn't a bad thing; it just means, like I've been saying, that Futurama is space fantasy, not science-fiction.
Star Wars was space fantasy; based in an unknown universe, with unexplained space travel possibilities, strange aliens, and the like-- all written without the need for explanation. Story was the focus.
Star Trek, in contrast, always tried to explain this future world in the context of our own--strange technologies had plausible explanations. Though, it does seem a bit "fantastic" to me, in light of all the strange aliens on Star Trek.
Totally OT, but something I've always noticed about the UFO seekers. To them, UFOs=aliens, no doubt about it. They jump to the conclusion that saucers prove the existence of green men, or "greys". They never consider that the technology may be right from our own planet; right from our own society. Aliens might not even be in the mix.
Well, since I've more an appetite for the "dead ringer" type satire, that lambastes everyone in the real world, anything resembling "satire", making fun of (parodying) future beings, is less interesting to me. It's also not nearly as funny to me. The only way I could imagine (at least before our discussion) that people might relate to Futurama, and still call it "satirical", was that they'd accept (on some inner level) Futurama as part of the real world. (Not literally) This could be explained as "role-playing."
This "role-playing" approach to TV is why so many like-minded Simpsons fans desperately want to know where the real Springfield is. It would allow them to believe that the Simpsons universe exists inside our own.
The Simpsons, as you have stated, at least represents today--(an admittedly twisted) snapshot of the American family, today. However yellow their skin, pronounced their overbites, and animated their lives, they represent(ed) a satirical view of society. The one- dimensional characters allowed us to laugh at everyone--even ourselves. They were exaggerated, and simplified--and somewhere inside all the sarcastic jabs, something was being said. "There seem to be too many dumbass, jerkass, white male simpletons in society. Want to see them get _theirs_?" That's something routinely said through the character of Homer, when he's in one-dimensional "jerkass" mode.
Sci-Fi, I believe, at least has a basis in science--thus, the name. But there's also space fantasy, where less emphasis is placed on explaining the future, and more emphasis goes into the story.
eps.
Mother Simpson was truly a great episode; but, the show hit the skids too many times during season 6 for me to include all of seasons 6 and 7 in my classic list.
I think what you have is Fry--a displaced dimwit from 1999--who acts much like many people might act today. In this case, I suppose you could call this joke satirical. It was just too potty-related for me to laugh at, for some reason.
I guess, with the phrase "our society", you're saying that Futurama really isn't about a future society; it's about today's society, with a thin layer of goofy robots, gross aliens, and spaceships pulled over it. Hmmm. Never really saw it that way. I guess I feel it's still someone's imagination of what will happen in the future, given our present time. Maybe I'm unwilling to accept crazy aliens or talking lobsters in my view of the future, or something. That sort of thing prevents me from seeing Futurama as a thinly disguised "America, in the year 2000"
Ah, I guess I just simply disagree. If you're any sort of Simpsons fan (speaking to the world), you had to have given Futurama a peek.
Well, it's obvious you relate these future beings to people of today. I guess Futurama can approach "satire" with specific character types; but "satirizing" today's society on Futurama isn't really possible, IMO (given my earlier misgivings about its interpretation of the future).
Naturally, the humor lies in their mimmickry of the human Christian religion; their "hell" ultimately fails; the inner truth revealed about Christian "hell"? It won't/doesn't work, therefore it can't exist.
That could be a conclusion drawn, after the inner reality of the situation was exposed (There really is no hell. It's a sham) I know there are intelligent people who would refuse to accept that as a possibility; therefore, the whole point of "robot hell" (to prove there really is no Christian hell) seems like a failed attempt at satire, to them.
Fantasy, meaning more concerned with story, than reality.
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm mincing words, but again--I think Futurama is best discribed as space fantasy, and not science fiction.
Story (fantasy) is fine; the main reason (which goes back to my original reason for posting) that I tape TV shows is for satirical humor. I haven't found that much humor in Futurama (call it a difficulty in relating Futurama to today's society; I don't agree with many of Futurama's conclusions about where our "present" time took us) Star Wars was fine; it was a good story about good and evil. I'm just not that interested in watching Futurama for the story.
I agree. That's why I said what I said about the ratings.
My exact words (above) are "many people watch (Futurama) because of its parentage." I didn't say they watch it _only_ because of that.
No, I didn't. I was implying that Futurama gained its audience principally from hard core Simpsons fans. Many didn't stay Futurama fans. The people who stay with Futurama obviously like it a lot. I never said it should be done away with. I just feel like its not quite the show the Simpsons (was). Thus, the disparity in Neilsen ratings.
Because the current Simpsons is nothing like its old self. We've agreed many times about that. I keep watching the Simpsons--not because it's still the greatest thing since sliced bread--but, because it occasionally reverts to its brilliant self. The first five minutes of BABF02 had me laughing (and hoping) we'd finally get another classic episode. Al Jean is certainly capable of that deed; maybe the staff, once they got hands on his BABF02 script, crammed it a little too full of wackiness for people to even call it a good episode.
I don't dispute that. It's not my cup of tea, but that's not because I'm stupid--it's because the society presented on screen doesn't mesh well enough with today's society for me to enjoy what you've termed as "satire" on Futurama. That's not my lack of IQ--it's my difference of opinion as to how the future will look in 1000 years.
It just has that same, "wacky" flavor to me as the current Simpsons-- because there are far out aliens, crazy talking lobsters, and retro- looking, binge-drinking robots. I can sit back and take it all in, but the straight-to-the-point, overly simplified satirical references become clouded in the futuristic details. Simplification is the best method to satirize something.
I can't refute that. It's the whole idea of averaging IQs and such... I think work, as well as brains, contribute to a good TV product. If the Simpsons writers cared at all (nowadays), they might be capable of writing the next 3F02.
I think writing a clever show has more to do with effort than no effort. Writing is re-writing. It's not being satisfied with the first several drafts. Both shows have staffs of several people; why can't several reasonably intelligent human beings come up with a great show? I think the lack of effort, and care, has its place in explaining why some shows are written better than others.
Apparently, when Futurama was created, they wanted something a little different. Once, a lot of science fiction was like the Jetsons; a technological utopia set in the future, with gadgets, robots and a perfect society. Then, science fiction turned into Blade Runner - a corrupted society, dark, dingy and with dripping pipes. Apparently, with Futurama they aimed for the Jetsons universe, but with dripping pipes.
So, we've got robots that are supposed to do the work of humans but actually sit on the couch all day drinking beer, a starship captain whose incompetence has caused no end of trouble, a world government led by an insane, cyborg Richard Nixon, hover cars that still get stuck in traffic jams, and so on. At first glance, it looks wonderful, but it's actually just like the present day underneath. :-)
Bender has been described as a heterosexual C3P0. A traditional science fiction robot, with a couple of undesirable new character traits. Kind of like Marvin the Paranoid Android, in a way.
[more snippage]
In a way, the 'from the makers of the Simpsons' label is both a blessing and a curse - people watch the show, expecting the Simpsons, and find something else which most definitely isn't the Simpsons.
I like both shows for different reasons - the Simpsons is (or at least was) great for really incisive comedy about American society, while Futurama is an affectionate tribute to science fiction with some great ideas and subversive twists behind it. But to tune into one expecting the other is bound to end in disappointment.
[yet more snippage]
Perfectly sensible really - make new members of the 'religion' sign some contract stating that if they ever go against their new religion, they will be shipped off to what is effectively hell. So, money can be siphoned from devout believers, while heretics who might reveal the 'truth' behind the religion or otherwise give it a bad name are dealt with in a traditional manner. And since the believers signed the contract, it's all perfectly legal as well.
The afterlife, as brought to you by Mammon. :-)
Well, I like Futurama and actively dislike things like Star Trek and Star Wars. I'm more into really hard, brain-bending SF - Stephen Baxter's 'Raft' is one of my favourite books, for example. For some reason, I also like slightly insane, humorous science fiction, like HHGTTG and Futurama.
Let's end the argument by deciding that everyone's different and has different tastes and opinions. Ratings are only relevant when it comes to renewal of a show, otherwise they don't matter. Some really dire shows have great ratings, and vice-versa. And so on... :-)
Right, of *your* opinion about the show. There's certainly no objective argument you've made to "prove" that Futurama is the cleverest show on TV, and I don't think there *is* any objective argument you are going to be able to find.
However, the way you phrase your opinion certainly makes it seem like you feel it is a *fact* that Futurama is the cleverest show on TV.
just
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you act like it is a fact that Futurama is a clever show. This statement, in essence, says, "Let us start with the fact that Futurama is a clever show. Now, do you really think they made that clever show by luck?"
Maybe lots of people don't think Futurama *is* a clever show. That is what I've heard from people. Kind of cute, with some amusing sight gags...but nothing particularly clever.
Here is the only truth: *Your* opinion is that Futurama is a clever show.
There's certainly no *objective* argument for that assertion. It would be nice if your phrasing reflected the idea that it is *only* your opinion, and not some truth, that Futurama is a very clever show.
I don't mean to attack this newsgroup, as I've been a reader
since its inception and a reader of alt.tv.simpsons for years before
that ... but I've come to the conclusion that, despite all our
devotion to the show, we've become the exact antithesis to the
creative spirit that makes the shows themselves what they are. We are
followers who grasp at the next new episode like hungry birds and feel
good that we appreciate the satire or recognize a previous-episode
reference. We talk about nonsense such as "which episode is better?"
or "which show?" We argue and argue about why _other_ people are or
aren't watching the show and try to hard to put our ideas of the humor
into words, where they do no good at all.
I think we all need to get a life.
I agree with you, it's a balancing act to participate in a newsgroup of your favorite show. If you post nothing but gushing plaudits you come off as little more than a fan boy. Then you have the inverse of it, tearing apart the show, partially in a attempt to show that you are on the cutting edge and your hyper-criticism translates to a sort of intellectual cache. I appreciate the approach of those like Haynes Lee, more pointing out some of the more subtle things and filling in some background so an episode can become more rich in appreciation. All this *that sucked* or *this was awesome* is nothing more than apples and oranges and boring to read. I once asked noted alt.tv.simpson poster Benjamin Robinson why he didn't participate in the more intellectually oriented a.t.s. discussions anymore, and what he said translated (at least to me) to that he was all talked out about the subject matter and after being at Usenet for a while I finaly have begun to see his point.
[This is a.t.f.-specific; a.t.s. removed from the "Newsgroups" line.]
In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: FOX Ratings for Sunday 5/21" thread, Jordan Eisenberg wrote:
After reading this group for awhile, I don't sense this level of desperation on the part of its members. Sure, there is a healthy anticipation of the next new episode, but this is no different than looking forward to an important ball game, a good movie, or even the next episode of "The Simpsons."
Well, isn't that the reason the producers insert them in the first place? We spot a reference, think, "Hey, that was a clever reference to the season premiere," and hopefully enjoy the show a little more because of it. What's wrong with that? If people didn't respond to references, DYNs, and the like, the capsules at <http://www.frcr.com/> wouldn't exist.
I wouldn't say the words do "no good at all." In reading this thread, I've found it interesting how two intelligent people could watch the same show and come away with such diametrically opposite opinions of it. Well, okay, it's overwhelming to read all 78 messages in this thread in one sitting, but that's a problem of quantity, not quality.
What I'm arguing is that the debate itself has some intrinsic value, even if it isn't likely to change Groening & Co.'s strategy with respect to making "Futurama."
I think that either I have misunderstood your post, or you've misunderstood the reason for a newsgroup.
Stardate Sun, 04 Jun 2000 01:11:24 GMT ... written on Mars by the contented [email] (Benjamin Robinson):
I misunderstood. I posted on impulse when a wild idea struck
me, and now that I'm reading it again I think the idea was a little
cruel.
Well, live and learn.
Ok well that makes you sound alot better than just seeing 2 episodes.
Sorry I was quite appreciative of The Simpsons in it's first two years because I couldn't compare it to later seasons because they didn't exist yet. Looking back they were weak compared to The Simpsons in it's prime. I suppose you also think the Tracy Ullman shorts were genius too?
Yes but Prime time always starts for you at 7 PM. East+west coaster's dont hit prime time untill 8pm so it's still the same margin of diffrence.
I agree many viewers are simply too simpleminded to get the show. That's why I like it.
Adolescent? It deals with modern issues encountered by the 18-29 set with a Sci-Fi twist.
No sorry your thinking of Famly Guy.
What? Al Gore, Stephen Hawking, Nechell Nicoles, and the creator of Dungeons and Dragons. being a crack team of defenders of causality? Yea I'v seen that so many times before on TV.
What summer was this? It Premiered in March. And who the hell watches T.V. (especialy FOX) in the summer? It's all reruns.
Oh yea good argument......
It's horrible now. How can you pretend that Mike Scully's Simpson wacky fun joke time show. is anything like the early Simpsons?
No the fact that FOX is slowly ignoring the show hopeing it will die a quiet death because they don't want to oughtright dump it and piss off Matt Groening.
Yea all the people who watch "THE NETWORK THAT BROUGHT YOU THE SIMPSONS!!!!!" FOX can't shut up with that damn line. Face it Famly Guy was there riding the exact same format as the Simpsons. FOX even said so during all the hype before the show started. Talk about uninspired. And then theirs that fetid pile of cellulose they call Malcom In the Middle. or Famly Guy Mk.2 :The kids perspective.
Theirs plenty of people who would agree with me when I say the show is good. Their just not sinking to new depths of sleaze to grab a big share of the audience.
Robot's aren't as inventive as humans. it was designed for Robots.
Roast that was a masterful spoof. Incorporating all the best parts of the movie and still keeping the characters in their proper place.
No better than it does now.
Yea with the people who hated The Simpsons. Everyone who wasn't trilled with Cosby went over to The Simpsons. The Simpsons filled a space that was missing in the superwholsome sunday line ups of all the other networks.
So you don't appreciate his work? Just respect it? If you only like the simpsons you have a very watered down view of Matt Groening.
The fact that your earlier post led people to believe you had only seen 2 episodes.
Actualy Matt had Futurama in his mind way before he scribbled down OFF moments before his meeting with FOX.
No there was a group of possible fans from The Simpsons who may or may not like Futurama.
Scraping bottom? For it's time slot its doing pretty well. Not spectacular but it's paying the bills.
That's cause everything else sucked compared at the time.
And the quality of the viewer.
That was when your post made it seem lie you only watched 2 episodes.
;;> Futurama is the equivalent of a celebrity's child--instantly famous, ;;> without effort. Many people watch the show because of its parentage. As ;;> Joan Rivers pleaded "Help! HELP! My daughter's not talented!" ;; ;;Yea but nobody liked Joan River's kid. There are people who like the show.
;;compare Futurama to other shows scheduled at 7:00pm Sunday, it's holding ;;it's own.
To change the topic I like Malcolm in the Middle a lot. It's centered on a smart character for once, which is more than we can say about a lot of shows that would never write someone like that into the show unless it was to make him into an Urkel-like nerd for the other characters to pick on. Not to mention the smart character is a boy, after so many shows are stuck into writing males as dumb jocks or insensitive in some way, and the only characters allowed to have respectable intelligence are female. Like The Simpsons then, it has that contrast between the smart, the dumb, and the mean characters. It also has an inventive cinematic camera style which just points out how uncreative those acres of network sitcoms with the camera locked down in front of a 3-wall stage are. It took me a long time to warm up to it due to the good reviews enough to watch it after those horrible FOX promos...but the show is really nothing like those at all, and one of the more creative and clever live action shows on the air now by far.
-Eric Sansoni ([email])
"What I'm trying to communicate is that I'm willing to do nudity, no extra charge!" -Bill McNeal, Newsradio, 1998
If you consider non-conventional ideas "inflamitory"--then, by all means, yes.
Translation: I liked the first two seasons of The Simpsons because I couldn't compare them to any newer seasons at the time. The later seasons were better. I'm going to totally change the subject, but I suppose you now think the Tracey Ullman shorts are classics?
Meaning--what a fool I was for liking the Simpsons its first two years. If only I'd known about future episodes!
Translation: If someone doesn't like what I like, they're simpleminded. That makes me feel special.
Sorry ;) You're speaking to a guy in his early thirties.
BTW, I
Yes--dump on a show you've probably never seen. That works best.
You're speaking in context of "story." I could write a story about monkey men from a 16-planet solar system that infiltrate human brains using Britney Spears albums. I could cram it full of interesting people. Just because I can write something imaginative doesn't mean it's quality stuff.
And it was hyped AAAAAALLLL summer before that.
You're making up stuff, again. Naughty naughty. (I never said that, or implied that)
Crystal ball acting up again? How do you know all this stuff (I'm amazed, actually)
Fox never gave Family Guy the chance (or hype) it gave Futurama--but that's OK. Family Guy was given an even worse time slot than Futurama (on Tuesday, of all nights). At least Futurama has a Sunday slot.
The show, Mike. Simpsons, the actual "show" came before Futurama the "show"
You've just repeated what I said, in a different way.
shows
And TV doesn't suck right now?
famous,
parentage.
(Mike reposted stuff about Joan Rivers, and commented)
The point made: Futurama had a head start on all other shows of its kind, because the core Simpsons audience was there--ready to give it a chance--before episode 1 even aired.
Give many other quality shows this opportunity, with quality spin-offs-- and it's much likelier the spin-off will gain a large enough audience to keep it on the air. IMO, Futurama might need a new audience--one that might even prefer sci-fi to Simpsons-type comedy.
All right, we all know you don't like futurama and no amount of arguing is going to change that. But I'll have to disagree with you on why it's getting bad ratings, you say that it is a bad show and the timeslot doesn't matter. That's pretty presumptuous of other people tastes in television, I doubt that you know what all the people who watch or used to watch the show think about it. The sad truth that I have encountered (at least in my school) is that half of the people who used to watch it don't even know it's on anymore. If I mention it to someone, most of the time they get a surprised look on their face and say "that show is still on?"
The other thing I disagree with is that family guy had no built in audience. It had the same on as the built in audience as futurama. Most of the fans of the simpsons would have watched it after the super bowl (no promotion?) thinking it would be like the simpsons because it's animated. Most people in America haven't seen much prime time animation other than the simpsons so they assume it would be funny too. I agree that fox screwed around with it's time slot enough to kill the show, but I hated it so I don't really care. Sorry I just can't enjoy a show that hinges on gross out gags and still tries to have emotion. Add a completely unlikeable main character to that list and you've got a show i can't stand to watch. Maybe if it was like south park and disregarded story altogether I would have continued watching it, but it just kept trying to use the cheap excuse for a plot in episodes.
Well hmm. let's see you come on and say. "I hate Futurama and here's why. Blah Blah Blah Blah!" You were trying to evict a response from the people here on A.T.F. with the sole intent to continue bickering back and forth. degrading from an actual argument about the show to pretentious little "Translations:..." of what other people are saying. that is Inflammatory. did you post here cause you assumed people would go "Well I guess he's right. My opinion is worthless in the shadow of his divine greatness" NO. You posted here to get people upset and have them respond to you.
You Universal Untranslator seems to be stuck in pretentious ass mode. I said I liked the simpsons at the time because it was all that was good then. you'd have to pay me to sit and watch most of the early episodes again now days. But it developed in to something great. Futurama comes out with all this great TV out there and you refuse to even give it a chance because your used to 12 years of progressivly better Simpsons shows and you expect nothing less then that level of familiarity and quality from a brand new show.
No Knowing Ill never have to meat you in person. That makes me feel special. It takes a certain type of person to like a show like Futurama. Your average TV viewer is not that type of person and think about this. Consider the Average t.v. viewer and then realize half the t.v. viewers are stupider than that.(yes I took that from George Carlin)
Ahh so you'v mistaken FOX for CBS then. I see. Now I see why you don't like the show. Well the point of the show is for people in their Late Teens and Twenties. If you had said this from the beginning we (people of all ages who are capable of seeing Futurama for what it is) would have known and Ignored your posts.
Never seen? What magical bathroom fixture did you use to figure this out? I watched the show plenty. I didn't like it. it was just a string of jokes and parodies. When I wanted to see that I'd turn on Dr. Katz.
What are you humor impaired? College kid's eat that shit up with a biscuit. That would be hilarious. If you don't find that funny or disturbingly amusing that's the root of your Futurama dislike. Stop watching now and never watch another episode again because the show isn't at all designed for you. It makes sence now.
What? I didn't hear about it until about October '98 when I stumbled on an article at the Simpsons archive. Sorry I don't spend much of my summer planted in front of the T.V. watching Repeats.
"This is your opinion, of course. There's a reason why I continued to watch the show, after first seeing it in March of 1990... it was really good." It's not good now. Not copaired to what it was.
No it's called paying attention to not just the fancy colored pictures but the politics and goings on of television as a media. And hearing first hand remarks from interviews made by the people who make the show (Matt G., Rich Moore and David X.Cohen)
Bull shit. I saw more Family Guy commercials than I did World's Blankyest Blank commercials between the Super bowl and the end of the spring season in June. Family Guy got more breaks than Futurama did and it still died as horribly as Capitol Critters.
So? Star Wars came out before Indiana Jones does that make Indiana Jones an offspring of Star Wars even though George Lucas has Indiana Jones in his mind before Star Wars? No their just two unrelated things produced by the same guy.(and so you dont make a fool of your self Lucas gave the movie to Spielberg to direct)
No I didn't Their not automaticaly an audience. their a potential audience. Your living proof that not all simpsons viewers became Futurama viewers.
Other than FOX and CBS no. It's doing quite well. NYPD Blue, Homicide, ER. These are great Television that compares to nothing we'v ever had before. Except maybe M.A.S.H. but even they pulled a lot of punches that nowadays are explored. this is a great time for T.V.
Oh come on. You yourself said it was supposedly Hyped. The Simpsons viewers are the FOX viewers theirs no doubt of that. so every one who watched FOX was prepared to give it a chance like they do with most of the new FOX shows.
Yes Here I agree. The producers know that. FOX knows that. But FOX wants those Viewers. That's what was so great about the 8:30 slot not the Simpsons but X-files. These to shows are much more closely related than Futurama is with The Simpsons. If you Like X-files, and you like funny. you'll probably like Futurama more than If you like the Simpsons and you like T.V. Comedy.
Are we done with the bickering now? Can we all accept that the Simpsons and Futurama shouldnot be compaired just because they have the same Animation style and the same producer? Have we learned? I writing this I have.
What great TV? The only shows I think are consistantly good, these days, are Frasier and Sports Night (though I haven't had a chance to watch Sports Night in a while, so I dunno if it's as goos as it was). Plus I watch the Simpsons for it's occassionally brilliant lines.
than
Pretty arrogant view to take.
I hope you don't represent Futurama fans' views...because from what you say, you seem to think that most people are too dumb and bland for the clever satire of Futurama, which is why it isn't hailed by everyone as the greatest show on television.
If what you say were true, The Simpsons would have only been a cult favourite, rather than a hugely popular show, in mainstream. Ditto any show that pushed the envelope, whether you liked them or not, like In Living Color or Married With Children.
like
I'm in my early twenties. I know a lot of college students and others in their early twenties. Most I know, if I ask what they think of Futurama, they usually liken it to the quality of the Simpsons *now*. I've heard nobody, besides Futurama fans in this thread, suggest it has the same quality of The Simpsons in their prime, or close to their prime.
biscuit.
College kids eat up cleverly-done imaginative things...not any random thing.
"That *would* be hilarious." (Emphasis mine.)
At this point, I don't even know what you are referring to. Are you talking about that Stephen Hawking-Al Gore-D&D Creator thing or the previous poster's example of monkey men infiltrating people's brains with Brittany Spears music?
I hope you're not comparing that made-up example to Futurama...I'd give Futurama more credit that that exaggeratedly stupid plot idea.
for
It really wasn't designed for those who don't find it funny. I find it moderately funny...so I guess it was moderately designed for me.
Those aren't shows that compete with Futurama, they are completely different types of shows.
That's like saying, I think football is so much better now than that it was, so television is great nowadays.
You have to look at the types of shows that Futurama would copete with, thirty minute humour shows. Those who like ER or X-Files or whatever, probably wouldn't watch Futurama, regardless of quality, if they had to make a choice. Those people probably like the one-hour dramas or mystery shows more.
However, someone who prefers the thirty minute humour shows would pick the best of those types to watch, so quality of Futurama *would* matter to those people.
I disagree, but then, I'm not a big fan of one-hour format shows.
Simpsons
probably
Well, I don't agree with *that*. I think Futurama is much more clsoely related to TS than to the X-Files. Of course, as I said before, I certainly wouldn't consider Futurama "sci-fi." It's a pop culture show set in the future, IMO.
I'm not bickering, personally. I just find this conversation interesting. I like Futurama...I just wouldn't consider it of equal brilliance to TS in its prime.
If it's interesting to compare them, they should be. ;^)
"Well, I learned that college is about hard work and studying." "No, you didn't! You cheated to get good grades!" "True..."
Sadly from what I heard ABC dropped Sports Night. But HBO may pick it up. To bad I don't waste my money on HBO.
No these are my own Hyper-cynical views.
Hey I loved Both shows even when they were way past their prime. And the simpsons is such a hit because it works on so many levels. and is familiar to viewers as Family comedy gone wrong.
I don't liken it to the Simpsons in it's prime because the format is too different for that.
Not the Pot smoking College Kids I always seem to run into.
The Latter.
No but Im saying That would be hilarious on it's own as say a short animated thing on Comedy Centeral or Liquid Television.
He was talking about TV in general. Not just Shows competing with Futurama.
No cause I like both shows and still love futurama. But maybe I have a really wide area of entertainment.
Not necessarily. It also depends on Schedule. If Futurama was up against all the other great comedy shows at the same time then that would just suck. that's why tv stations broadcast 7 days a week.
Just think of em as 1 hr serial films with commercials.
Believe me most of the time I didn't turn the TV on until 8:30 because I had grown tired of The Simpsons. I think you underestimate the viewers depth of taste. Futurama does mesh better with X-files then The Simpsons.
I was talking to "The Rack" who was getting snotty and rude.
Well then you might as well compare The Simpsons with say Frasier or Becker because Futurama is just as distantly different to The Simpsons as these shows. The only think that makes people want to compare it so badly is that they look the same.
"Hate" is too strong a word. I don't find Futurama funny. Pure and simple. And believe me, I understand the jokes.
As you read in the original post, I was just responding to a note (the weekly ratings) crossposted to ATS as well. If my opinion upset some people, that just shows I don't fall in with the majority.
More people should learn to go off on their own and discover their own opinions, instead of ganging up on people who post "inflammatory" things--I responded to your response, as well as Eric Sansoni's, because you felt the need to personally insult me.
Yes; I'm getting tired of that (admittedly smart) tactic of people posting partially-thought out responses to what I post, and then tossing a little "you're a monkey of moderate intelligence" stuff my way. On the one hand, if I respond, (with any self respect) I tend to flame back. This doesn't make me feel too good. On the other hand, if I let some poor argument refute my original post--people can misunderstand what I've said.
I was trying to understand what you were saying. The post, to me, seemed to have little to do with what I had said.
If that's how you want to feel, after reading a reasonable argument, fine. This--and all other alt usenet groups are for opinions. It's not just a place for people to come, join into their little cliques, and run off hand in hand--reaffirming each-other's paper-thin "opinions" with their own.
No; I posted something I feel is true. If nobody else does, who cares? You can either refute my opinion with your own, add insight, or agree with me--civilly--or you can get upset and flame me. That's the nature of usenet.
years
Well, it seems you were saying "can you honestly call season 1 good?" Future seasons grew out of season 1--I could hardly call it bad. Compared to season 4, episodes 7G01 & 7G03 stick out like a sore thumb; but, you had to give the series time to develop. Many major characters had yet to be introduced.
My original point was: I watched the first season of the Simpsons, because it was good--it was a weekly satire of real life. I watched several episodes of Futurama (somewhere around 20) and it's missing alot more than the Simpsons were--even since season 1. Satire, like electrocuting a family when they can't get along (in electric chairs, no less!) What did that say about society? It said "your family problems might not be this bad, but would you resort to getting shocked to fix them? Hell, no."
The best Futurama can hope for are sight gags, one-liners, and parodies. It can't be satire (or iconoclastic), since it's based in a fantasy world. The underlying truth about life, or connections to life, cannot be made manifest in Futurama, since it's based on fantasy. And that's fine; space fantasies like Star Wars, and science fiction like even Red Dwarf are good--but, they're just not the same recipe as The Simpsons. The Simpsons allows at least one more layer of comedy (the one comedy layer I miss, from seasons 2-5)--satire and iconclasm.
You really have to show me a good TV show for me to watch, now. I can't really be bothered to dedicate much time to anything else on TV.
Sorry you're so bitter about me. You'll hardly change my mind.
I think the ideal Futurama viewer is one who likes animation, likes role-playing, and who likes sitcom-type jokes with no laugh track. A person who, on some level, accepts (or, wishes to accept) the Futurama universe as part of the real world. Mind you--I said "on some level."
That really has nothing to do with me, or Futurama.
I meant to refute that--modern issues... That's a real question mark...
Don't trust anyone over thirty!
I was assuming. That's where the word "probably" comes in.
Well, that's what you got out of it. And, I can accept that. The fast- paced editing, layered humor, and satire (about the American family) is quite a bit fresher than the current Simpsons, IMO. It's not an uneducated show; it doesn't go for the obvious joke, and many humorous situations take place--instead of 80% people just sitting around in the living room, cracking one-liners.
Well, shit. Maybe I should write for Fox ;) I mean, I can be at LEAST as wacky as Larry Doyle.
You implied I like the current show. I said I kept watching the show, even after seasons 1 & 2 (that you don't like) because it was really good. You're taking my quote out of context. Well, despite occasional flashes of brilliance, the show isn't nearly what it used to be. Is that clear enough for you?
If they're thinking of cancelling it, and they own The Simpsons, why do they care if they piss off Matt? They can tell him to take a hike, and cancel the show tomorrow, if they wanted to. It doesn't make sense that they'd leave a Million Dollar-plus an episode show on the air week after week. They might not be trying their hardest to cram a show down everyone's throat, but Fox Network is only on the air 4 hours a day. (from 6 to the late local news) They've got about 20 other shows to promote, too.
Those guys are professionals. They use words to get what they want. It's all politics. If Fox finds out Matt is unhappy, they'll bend over backwards to help him (my opinion).
Family Guy was a mid-season show. Futurama started hand-in-hand with the Simpsons. Maybe the programming department didn't know what it was doing, because even right after the Simpsons (at 8:30), Fox wasn't pleased with Futurama's audience. So, they moved it around a bunch.
Actually, there's an episode on tonight. There will be some comedy on a Fox Tuesday, after all.
You're comparing oranges & apples. Futurama wasn't shy about its link to the Simpsons--it was even marketed as "from the creators of The Simpsons". Bender finds a Bart doll on a junk heap. And other references (of which, I'm sure I'm largely unaware) have to tie the shows together. Futurama isn't a spinoff in the sense that it came from the storyline of The Simpsons; it's just Matt's next project, also animated, which is supposed to have the same humor as The Simpsons. Clearly, Fox pitched Futurama directly at the core Simpsons audience, thinking if we liked The Simpsons, we'd love Futurama.
You're mincing words. The word "audience" meant a group of people, sitting in front of their sets at 8:30 PM, that first Sunday night, after the Simpsons--to watch the very first Futurama. This is implied by the phrase "before episode one even aired."
The audience may or may not have stayed faithful to the show; I didn't say Futurama had an instant "core" audience, that would watch week in and week out. Futurama, and all other shows on television, have to earn their own core audience.
I was for the first several weeks (a core Futurama watcher). I never really found the show that special, so I've just kind of abandoned it (for the most part)
Well, okay--we part ways again. I think 90% of television is junk. I'll watch documentaries, Discovery channel, and (if I'm lucky) reruns of Monty Python and other quality shows. I don't like 99% of TV drama.
Yes, in addition to the fact that the Simpsons viewers (I'm guessing nearly all the core audience) tuned in for several weeks--until a group of them decided it wasn't their "thing."
I have a remote control; I change the channel when I don't like what's on (when, and if I watch). I seriously doubt people tune in to one network and watch every night.
Our opinions are closer than you think.
Who was bickering? If you got upset at what I posted, how can I help that? If I posted "I love Futurama! I can't get enough! I want to have relations with the show!" people like you may have laughed; called me a nut, but never would you have called my post "inflammatory." That's because it goes with the largest percentage of ATS posters--they love the show, and can't stand criticism of it.
Even after all that--my original message was crossposted, because I was answering a crossposted message. I only answered the posts, because of personal attacks on me--and misunderstandings.
This is a new idea; you never said this in any previous response to my posts. I'm not saying I agree.... but... the original idea was that I thought the weekly ratings gave creedence to my opinion that Futurama wasn't as good as The Simpsons (the classic Simpsons). Now; that's my opinion.
Know what? Im sick of your Prattle. And frankly dont give a damn about this topic anymore. This is the absolute last post Im making in response to you. This thread is dead to me.
;) Aw, come on. I'm sorry if opinions different than the prevailing ones rattle you. (hey. Rattle and prattle rhyme...) Don't be offended by different opinions; maybe all you should do is realize that two differing opinions can both be right, from different points of view.
In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: FOX Ratings for Sunday 5/21" thread, Mike Zaite wrote:
I don't know how The Rack feels about it, but the Ullman shorts were ingenious in their way. The shorts had to define the characters, set up at least a minimal plot, and solicit laughs -- all in less than two minutes. This was laudible economy of in storytelling. The writers also had to focus tightly on the core family, since there wasn't enough time to introduce many supporting characters. It's an almost intimate look at the Simpsons' lives that give the shorts (for me) an almost domestic feel, despite the family's obvious dysfunctional qualities.
Don't discount the primitive animation, either. By today's standards, it looks badly drawn, but it got the job done. One of the primary reasons to do animation is that you can give your show a unique look that holds audience attention. Groening's drawing style and the animation team's bright, simple (as compared to, say, Looney Toons) colors provided a lasting visual style for "The Simpsons."
For many people, the "Simpsons" shorts were even more memorable than "The Tracey Ullman Show" itself, no mean feat since Ullman and crew (some of whom went on to careers on "The Simpsons") were a talented bunch. I'd say shows like "House of Cards (MG12)," "Space Patrol (MG13)," "Grandpa & the Kids (MG19)," and "Family Therapy (MG47)" stack up well against the full-length episodes that followed.
Actually, I think 'The Rack' is suffering from sophisticated humor coupled with an appreciation for political satire and feminist tendencies. I've never seen Futurama, but I have seen Murphy Brown many times over and it does sparkle with a rare wit that frequently reached comic nirvana and beyond.
Hey! I *liked* Fish Police, although my favourite "Post- Simpsons" show was Family Dog. At the time, I used to look forward to it so much, more than I looked forward to the Simpsons, even. Capitol Critters wasn't as good as either of them, but it was pretty decent.
The Rack wrote in message news:8gd0ku$orq$[email]...
After two episodes? Christ. Well, at least you gave the show 48 minutes of your valuable time to prove itself. I remember when The Simpsons hit the ground running with such unforgettable classics like 'Homers Odyssey'. How could anything possibly compare to *that*? ;-)
At least you're in a light-hearted mood--not like others responding to what might be called "my troll."
The Simpsons was truly one-of-a-kind. By the time Futurama hit the airwaves, they had at least a grasp of how to write a 22-minute comedy cartoon with no laugh track. IMHO, Homer's Odyssey was indeed Season 1's lowpoint--but the whole approach to a prime-time cartoon for adults sans canned laughter was brand, spankin' new at the time. I had to keep watching. There was just no good modern-day satirical send-ups anywhere to be found in 1990.
I did TAPE the first two episodes of Futurama--of course I've watched more. But, I don't faithfully watch every week, because after a dose of Slurm soda--straight from the colon of some obese alien--I lose interest.
WHY THE FREAKING HELL DOES EVERYONE HATE THIS EPISODE???? I don't think it's one of the greats, of course, but everyone seems to have this complete and utter vendetta against that particular episode. I don't see any "Kill The Alligator and Run" or "Principal and the Pauper" 'qualities' in it that would elicit such a widespread response.
It was funny in parts; but, as you may have noticed, the animation was poor--and the color was faded. Not to mention the fact that after a few good jokes, the episode was very comedy-dry. Episodes focusing on story first, character development second, funny third are not going to be favorites with the majority.
No, that was "Call of the Simpsons." "Homer's Odyssey" was the one where Homer lost his job (the first time that happened, anyway), and then became sort of a safety inspector for the town.
Not to mention The Simpsons had 50 Tracey Ullman shorts to test and establish its characters and style of humor before starting the series. Just think of what the average person could accomplish with 50 of Tracey Ullman's shorts?
I thought that this chart would be interesting. I copied the figures from this week's Entertainment Weekly, and computed the fourth column from the second and fifth columns.
The first column is the overall rank in the just-completed season, Sep 1999 - May 2000, between ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, and WB. The second column is the average number of viewers, in millions, during this season. The third column is the overall rank in the previous season, Sep 1998 - May 1999. The fourth column is the average number of viewers during the previous season. The fifth column is the percentage change in viewers between the two seasons.
AVERAGE RANKING AND VIEWERSHIP OF FOX TELEVISION PROGRAMS
1999-2000 1998-1999
19 15.3 - - - Malcolm in the Middle
24 13.9 25 13.5 +3% The Simpsons
31 12.5 12 15.2 -18% The X-Files
T39 12.0 20 13.8 -13% Ally McBeal
T65 9.9 - - - Titus
T75 9.1 85 9.1 0% AMW: America Fights Back
T75 9.1 49 11.7 -22% That 70's Show
T79 9.0 74 9.8 -8% Cops 2
T79 9.0 - - - Greed
T82 8.8 89 8.9 -1% Futurama
T84 8.7 104 7.9 +10% King of the Hill
T99 7.8 93 8.5 -8% Cops
T99 7.8 75 9.7 -20% Beverly Hills, 90210
T101 7.6 77 9.6 -21% World's Wildest Police Videos
104 7.1 - - - FOX Thursday Night Movie
109 6.3 33 12.9 -51% Family Guy
110 6.2 - - - Ally
111 6.1 70 10.2 -40% Party of Five
113 5.6 - - - Time of Your Life
114 5.4 - - - Harsh Realm
115 5.1 - - - Get Real
121 4.3 - - - Action
124 3.7 - - - Ryan Caulfield: Year One
The first thing I noticed is that FOX's best evening is Sunday. (Duh) The three hours of shows from 7:00 PM to 10:00 Pm have 8.8, 8.7, 13.9, 15.3, and 12.5 million viewers on average.
The second thing I noticed is that only one show that was carried over from the previous season had had less than 8.5 million viewers in that season. So everything below 'King of the Hill' is in trouble.
And hey 8.8 Million viewers isn't so bad either. Their probably doing pretty good on ad revenue. Why the hell is malcom doing so well? How can it be better than the simpsons and X-files. People are really just turning on FOX for 1/2 hour?