David X. Cohen Talks About Futurama's New Season 246
joelkeller writes "I spoke to David X. Cohen, executive producer of Futurama, about the upcoming season, which premieres on June 24 on Comedy Central. He talks about the season finale (!) and how the show is always on the precipice of cancellation."
Good News Everyone! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good News Everyone! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a 20th Century Fox production now for Viacom's Comedy Central... so international rights belong to Fox, which most likely means this would go to Global when they get around to it.
Re:Good News Everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tomorrow? The second episode [eztv.it] is already out. Watched it yesterday.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First two were funny, can't wait for more! :) Pre-release ftw!
Yes, because everyone pirating a show like this will surely ensure it will get an another season.
If there is one time you should watch it legitly, do it now. Even from Comedy Central's website so they get the advertising revenue. Otherwise Comedy Central wont be doing another season (and no, DVD sales don't help much - if they just get DVD sales revenue, it's back to Futurama Straight to Video movies again)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My RSS feeds from That of which we do not talk grabbed it automatically. When I heard it was coming back I added it to the list of TV shows to get and I just got an message from XBMC that it was done.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/5645267/Futurama_S06E01_DVDSCR_XviD-MSPAiNT_%5Beztv%5D.5645267.TPB.torrent [thepiratebay.org]
http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/5645275/Futurama_S06E02_DVDSCR_XviD-MSPAiNT_%5Beztv%5D.5645275.TPB.torrent [thepiratebay.org]
Re:Good News Everyone! (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way they can tell if you watch it is if you are selected for a Nelson survey. If you are part of one be sure to put down you watched Futurama in every time slot available.
I guess there is some damage you do to overall commercial value by pirating, but you would do the same damage by watching TV and not changing your purchasing habits.
Re: (Score:2)
Beautiful. Now I wish I hadn't all ready commented, so I could mod you up.
Dumb TV (Score:3, Interesting)
That I think, is the root cause of why TV is generally so terrible.
Busy interesting people don't have time for Nielsen surveys. People good at math realize that the time and effort spent will yield about the same results as voting. People who love really good mysteries (or insert your favorite type of show) likely have nothing to watch and comment on during the time of the survey. Really, imagine all
Re:Dumb TV (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I really don't get this. With the relative sophistication of fios set-top boxes, you'd think they'd gather every channel change, data link is taken care of, and Verizon would be frothing at the mouth to sell some of this data, no?
Not sure why the world is still relying on Nielsen ratings in this day and age.
Re: (Score:2)
TiVo had this as part of their business model since Day One. They log every action you take with the box, and even IR signals not meant for it so they can tell if you muted the TV. They then summarize that data to make their recommendation-engine system, but offer randomly selected atomic per-user reporting to the TV types if they're willing to pay for it. This can also be used to dispute small-audience ratings if there are more TiVos watching than the estimated total of everybody watching, that's proof som
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL and that was modded INFORMATIVE!
Re:Good News Everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
A Nelson survey?
HA-HA!
Re: (Score:2)
That being said. I'm completely in favor of cable/sat/tivo collecting as much data as they want on what I'm watching and when. If it's DVR or if I'm watching live. Any/all ir signals.. the works.. I have a feeling more accurate data will only help the good stuff that dies quickly to stick around.
Re: (Score:2)
SPOILER ALERT. MOD PARENT DOWN.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Re: (Score:3)
So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Simpson continues to be funny. It does not, however, really change. Luckily for them there keep being new people and so this isn't too much of an issue.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Simpsons has a broad appeal to the typical soccer mom family. Futurama is a nerdy show which was a Leela/Fry romance about as awkward as The Big Bang Theory with a lobster from outer space. Futurama has to hit home runs with their target demographic because it's small, the Simpsons haven't done that in years. They keep being sufficiently successful because they don't age, every year there's a new year's worth of children identifying themselves with Bart and Lisa. Live actors won't be the same, for example right now we have the Harry Potter generation, people that grew up alongside the actors but the next generation will find someting else. They might still watch the Simpsons though.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say the exact opposite there. The big bang theory has romances that are awkward because they don't fit. There's no reason for the people dating in that show to be dating. There's no chemistry, and the writers just never seem to know what to do with them together. Fry/Leela are great because the characters are well written. Each has issues of abandonment and isolation within the greater society at large which act as a common bond.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Funny)
So the problem remains that the general public doesn't get it. The general public won't get anything with more depth than the Simpsons, unfortunately.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Right, she's a one-eyed mutant with an ancient alien for a pet, and he's his own time traveling grandson. You'd think they'd have more to talk about.
Re: (Score:2)
Good or bad, that plot point was absolutely beaten to death... to the point of absurdity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We really appreciate your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of references that require considerable education at times to really appreciate.
Nerd alert.
The problem is that the general audience quickly grows tired of being bombarded with inside jokes - at the expense of story, action and character.
You only have twenty minutes or so of screen time to deliver the goods.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Futurama definitely takes a much keener intellect to really appreciate.
I know what you mean. Like when Bender's drinking a beer, at first I'm like "WTF, robots drink beer?!? That does not make sense!" But then after subsequent viewings, I come to the realization that his internal power source must be some sort of combustion engine, so really he's just refueling, but sometimes the waste water from his internal distillation process leaks onto his circuitry, which makes him behave erratically. Only then do I really appreciate the joke.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Bender goes into his "drunk" mode when he isn't drinking enough... it's part of the running gag.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that anybody who watched the early 90s episodes is still watching today. It's a target audience that you grow into and then out of... but the show's still going because for every person that grows out of watching, there's another kid who starts watching. Remember, today's 18 year old wasn't even alive when The Simpsons first aired.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure we can say that's categorically true. Both have hidden depths, the Simpsons is prima facie a show about a goofy guy and his family and friends and Futurama is prima facie a sci-fi show about a goofy guy and his family and friends, one of whom is a crazy space lobster, but while Futurama has lots of in-jokes and hidden references, these are mostly related to the fields of science and sci-fi culture. The Simpsons has just as many clever references, but they're pretty evently spread spread over po
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
I was going to mod you down, but instead I wasted your time by making you read this and the original poor post.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to mod you down, but had already posted.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I did mod you down, so take that!
Oh, oops.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
first two episodes... (Score:2, Informative)
I saw the first two episodes last night, and they were just okay. *shrug* I'd say the second episode is better than the first, though, especially Amy's reaction to the potential end of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean when she realizes she's a ghost?
Re:first two episodes... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree the second was better than the first, though I also thought the double take by the guys *after* Amy's reaction was even better ("Oh wait, will you guys be there too? Ummm maybe not!").
I love Futurama, but not just for the intellectual side. How many comedy cartoons have had really good tear-jerker moments? Fry's dog, the story of his five-leaf clover, Leela's parents, etc. That's a damned rare thing for me, and like most guys pretty hard to admit, but Futurama's been able to pull it off more than a couple times.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw the first two episodes last night, and they were just okay. *shrug*
Bite my shiny metal ass.
Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:5, Informative)
The reason why Fox ruined the original airings of Futurama was because they slotted it at 7:30pm on Sundays... a time slot that got murdered by NFL runovers in the Eastern and Central time zones. Fans couldn't reliably tune in because they didn't know if the episode would air, if the episode would be joined in progress, or if the entire airing would be deleted by an overtime NFL game. Fox's policy of running Sunday primetime as soon as possible... either at 7pm sharp if there was no NFL game, or as soon as it concluded if there was one, made whether Futurama's slot would air and when dependent on which NFL game your city saw that afternoon.
What a mess... since getting the NFL, Fox never had a successful Sunday 7pm hour. A few years after repeated throwing good shows into a bad time slot, they finally got the clue. Fox Sports now produces a postgame show called The OT (a play-on-words based on The OC, which this show has outlasted) that is joined like the halftime show as each game concludes, and can show bonus coverage of games still going to stations that get stuck with an early finish, and always ends at 8pm ET sharp. Thanks for watching Fox NFL Sunday, The Simpsons is next.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fox hasn't learned anything. Remember, this is the network that cancelled Firefly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about that. I suspect that Firefly was the victim of the fact that not many people enjoyed it. The fanbase is devoted, but pretty damn small.
I personally couldn't stand it, and I was predisposed to enjoy it, because I generally enjoy sci-fi (unlike most people). It's not that difficult to believe that the masses saw nothing to like, and the show was canceled as a result.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So what exactly killed arrested development and family guy?
Re:Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure that arrested development was killed by a yacht explosion.
Re:Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:5, Interesting)
Arrested Development had too many big-name stars, and therefore a bloated budget. It was popular, but not popular enough to justify its production costs. Remember, the object of the TV game is to make money, not keep fans happy.
Family Guy was also on the Sunday post-NFL schedule and not given right-of-way over The Simpsons, and therefore also killed by the same factors that did in Futurama.
Re:Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:4, Interesting)
Fortunately now that shows are available on DVD shortly after or even while still being produced, people do have some ability to say that they want that show back. Which is sort of what has given Family Guy the ability to come back from the dead twice.
Re:Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seinfeld was given an starting order of only four episodes in order to hold Jerry under contract so he couldn't start a competitor to The Tonight Show and still be in the running for the job that eventually went to Jay Leno. NBC was going to burn them off... then they hit it big and the rest is history.
Re: (Score:2)
FOX should had used Futurama after The Simpsons instead of King of the Hills. It would had been Matt Groening's animated hour! Also, this was way before Family Guy, American Dad, and [shudders] Cleveland Show were shown.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I don't even remember seeing Futurama at 8:30 PM PDT. FYI, this was in L.A. so maybe it was different in other cities/time zones?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only the case with the Super Bowl and conference championship games where they're required to visit the winning locker room to show off the logo clothing that will be on sale in the morning all over the team's area. Most post-game shows have been banished to cable networks where it's sports talk pre-empting talk of other sports....
Re: (Score:2)
If I recall correctly, King of the Hill aired in that time slot, immediately before The Simpsons, for quite a while. That show is still going strong. Of course, I also tend to think that King of the Hill is probably one of the funniest cartoon comedies, especially as it goes on. It's much more satirical than most and not as over-the-top in its humor or references. It feels more organic and doesn't degrade itself with random bits of "wtf humor" as Family Guy (and most others to some extent) so famously does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, there are plenty of shows that deserved to die. You don't generally hear much about them because they deserved to die. Nobody invests time and effort begging to have them back, and for the most part they are so forgettable that you never hear about them again.
The reason that most canceled shows that you do hear about are spoken of as being canceled unfairly is simply a selection bias. To throw out one that I do remember - SeaQuest. I think it was a good premise, but by the third season it had gone so far from what they had originally intended that they lost off of their fans, but never managed to attract their new target audience. No amount of scheduling games would have made up for the sheer badness of some of the episodes. Scheduling games didn't help the continuity when a character was mourned, got killed off and then was alive and well, never to be seen again. Still, the show wasn't all that dependent on the continuity, so the executives who rearranged the episodes didn't have a huge negative effect.
OTOH, for Firefly they refused to show the damned pilot at any point in the original broadcast run. If "Lost" had been treated as badly as Firefly, it never would have made any money either.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with SeaQuest DSV was season 2. Season 1 was promising, but season 2 went all mid-90s-telepathy on us, like B5 season 5. As you noted season 3 wasn't the same show at all, but IMHO it was by far the best. I think they should have re-launched it as a spin-off instead of pretending it was the same show.
Re:Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:5, Funny)
>You don't generally hear much about them because they deserved to die.
How often do you hear, "Would you like to sign my petition to bring back Tru Calling and Fish Police?"
Re: (Score:2)
This was a show that found its audience after Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block picked it up and the DVD sales shot through the roof. People who had seen an episode or two but didn't know where to see another saw the series played in its entirety there. (And btw... I have some inside info that a well-placed showing of a certain episode and having it be quoted to the right CBS execs led to the planning of soap cancellations now going and that "Game shows are back!")
Re:Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. First, "Slashdot" isn't an entity which expresses opinions of the type you describe, different groups of individual slashdot posters express such opinions, and the opinions you describe have been expressed on slashdot regarding a handful of programs that have been cancelled over a period of very many years, out of the dozens of series that are cancelled each year.
Showing episodes out-of-order, when they are written with a broad story arc, clearly interferes with developing an audience(the Firefly issue), as does not showing a show consistently at all (the Futurama issue, which wasn't about timeslot so much as about following NFL football and thus frequently being either cancelled entirely or joined "in progress".)
The Futurama scheduling decision is clearly the kind of thing a network does because it doesn't think a show has that much value to start with -- it is treating the show as disposable filler and isn't even pretending to try to market it effectively. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that that kind of behavior interfered with the show reaching an audience that it otherwise would have. In fact, the DVD sales which evidenced that there was such an audience that the original broadcast schedule had failed to reach is the reason the show was renewed after the first time it was cancelled, and the fact that it has remained on the air since (whether in danger of being cancelled each season or not) pretty clearly indicates that even Fox thinks that the show is viable, despite it not having appeared to be under the initial treatment Fox gave it.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. It's not the time slot, it's that shows like Futurama target niche audiences that are hard to market to.
It's a common pattern with these types of shows: its target audience doesn't find out about it, so it doesn't become popular, so the network neglects the show. Then fans of the show do the network marketers' jobs for them, the general public finds out what an awesome show it is, and the network regrets treating the show poorly, after it is too late.
Off the top of my head, this happened t
Re:Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:4, Interesting)
Have there ever been any shows other than Futurama, Firefly and maybe Family Guy that Slashdot has ever given a rat's ass about getting canceled? I don't remember timeslot arguments coming up in Firefly or Family Guy.
And don't waste breath promoting Legend of the Seeker around a lot of us here, we're still pissed at how badly they destroyed the Sword of Truth books in this show. They turned an epic story into a Hercules/Xena style corny weekly show. Hell, every plot point that gave the first book such a good ending was completely destroyed in the first episode.
Re: (Score:2)
Destroyed the books!? This was a show, I was telling my friends who hadn't seen it yet, that was a rare case of being better than the books!
It's obviously subjective, but wowzers...
Which clearly demonstrates why "great" shows don't stay on, because shows that aren't pablum, lose too much audience.
Re:Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:4, Informative)
You forgot Farscape!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
/. (and me, personally) cared a lot when Jericho got cancelled.
Re: (Score:2)
Fox is notorious for killing shows that have huge audiences and ratings (which seems kind of redundant). Dark Angel was a critical success and it had huge ratings, but they axed it during the second season. Titus was another critical success with good ratings, considering the time slot, but didn't make it past season 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Before Titanic, Sci-Fi was THE genre. All the highest grossing films in the past few decades were Sci-Fi. And before that, it was all westerns.
Now what's the genre? Gay vampires? Even if you think you can name one, Sci-Fi is still going to be at least #2 on any list of top genres.
Re:Penalty: Intentional Grounding. (Score:4, Interesting)
But most of the big-name "Sci-fi" these days is just "blockbuster action movie, IN SPACE! (Also, we threw in some comic relief for the kids and some romance for the ladies, enjoy!)", there is little sci-fi to sci-fi in hollywood these days.
Or how about "Knowing", a friend of mine called it the best new sci-fi movie in ages, I watched it and concluded they went with the much-overused "Alien horror" genre which then turned into some sort of "Jesus as an alien (who just seemed bad because we're idiots who wanted to make a cool trailer) saves the innocent and righteous and brings them all to a new garden of eden while everyone else dies horribly".
I have to agree on Futurama and time slots (Score:4, Insightful)
When I launched, I checked it out. I was a Simpson's fan at the time so made sense. I was amazed at how good it was. Very rare to have a show that polished out of the gate. If you watch the first season of most animated shows you'll discover that it takes awhile for the voices to get in their groove, for the animation style to solidify and so on. Not Futurama, it was dynamite out of the gate.
However, I found it very hard to keep up on. The fucking thing was never on when it was supposed to be. I'd try and tune in and it wouldn't be on the air. Then they seemed to start shuffling it around. They'd move it to a time slot, I'd learn that, and it'd vanish and move.
I finally gave up.
I suppose it makes less difference now what with DVRs but pre DVR and pro digital cable, it took some effort to track down a show that got moved all the time, and it was real annoying to be on the correct channel at the correct time according to the guide and not see what you want.
Since the opener "Good news everyone!!" was taken (Score:5, Funny)
Wait...how long's this been on? (Score:3, Funny)
Futurama's been on the air so long they should name the season-1 DVD's "Pastarama".
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm...pasta...
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I saw too. Maybe "Yesterama".
Everyone now senteced to... (Score:5, Funny)
Death,
By snu snu!!
Carry on.
Re:Everyone now senteced to... (Score:4, Insightful)
The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised.
Re: (Score:2)
And which one rocked your world?
Re: (Score:2)
:)
:(
:)
:(
...
:D
(Stupid lameness filter.)
Yay same universe (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For me it was the other way around. I thought: Yes! Finally we’ll have a chance to get rid of that horrible horrible part of the world for good! Really. More Zoidberg and weirdness! Less Brannagan & co!
Good News Everyone! Comedy Central just cancelled (Score:2)
the season premier.
That's not good new at all. also, it's a lie.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Fox yet? (Score:2)
David brings up Fox a few times in the interview and seems to imply that they still are a part of this new season? Do they somehow still hold some of the rights to Futurama and are just 'leasing' them to Viacom right now? (Forgive my lack of knowledge if there is a better word to be used there.)
He also goes so far as to talk about Fox when discussing a real feature length movie. So given that Viacom easily has the resources, if they were so inclined, and are no stranger to movies themselves further makes
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That show is total soul-fluff. Meaningless. (Score:2)
Remember waaaay back when the Simpsons offered stirring emotional and psychological insights into the world and its people through humor? When the show had a soul and used satire with a light hand?
I do. That was a long, long time ago.
Futurama never had a soul. -Which is a shame, because it could have done. It offers a huge and fun world to explore, but it never gets serious for even a second, none of the characters speak to me. Sure, it's clever and witty, and it made me chuckle a few times, but that's
Re:That show is total soul-fluff. Meaningless. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That show is total soul-fluff. Meaningless. (Score:4, Insightful)
Futurama never had a soul. -Which is a shame, because it could have done. It offers a huge and fun world to explore, but it never gets serious for even a second
Are you fucking *kidding* me? Have you never watched "Jurassic Bark", "Luck of the Fryfish", or "The Sting"? The Simpsons had some brilliant, emotional moments in it's golden years, but Futurama is easily its equal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it was canceled, and rightly so.
It may make me unpopular, but I fully believe that it's important to bow out before you're useless. Far too many shows wait until they're beyond all hope before bowing out.
It may not have been the choice of the Futurama crew to bow out when they did, but they had one of the best endings I've ever seen in my TV viewings. It was emotional and inspiring.
Then Comedy Central comes along an tries to bring it back to life. It's like Frankenstein, creating a monster that is, but
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all those same writers, Actors, animations studio, sound guys. With everyone back, how could they possible hope to be as good as before~
It ended way to soon. Too much story left, and it's setting allows it to be more topical.
300 Big Boys shows how spot on the creators can be, and I seen no evidence there skills have been diminished.
If they gt different actors, and made a stronger, faster, smarter, but uglier Futurama, you might have a point.
Re:precipice? (Score:4, Insightful)
You, and whoever modded me troll, seem to misunderstand me. I'm in no way saying that Futurama will never be good again.
What I'm saying is that it died a good death. Perhaps it died far too early, but it had the best death imaginable.
I know that we all are left wanting more, but it ended at exactly the right time.
Re:precipice? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't really like the second episode much at all... The ending was a little too cruel to Fry, after everything. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but it also felt a little out of sorts for the show as a whole. The first felt like a "Well, lets pick ourselves up again and get going.", so it wasn't bad. A little roundabout-confusing, but I think that was the point.
Also, some of the humour felt a little... Forced? Blatant? Over-explained? Like the reference to CSI Miami -- I mean, the joke worked fine, but havin
Re: (Score:2)