Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

No New Series of Futurama 176

Nikoth writes "It seems that Billy West got it wrong when he announced that there are 26 new episodes of Futurama on the way, and instead there will only be the 4 movies as planned. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No New Series of Futurama

Comments Filter:
  • by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Monday March 20, 2006 @01:09PM (#14957739)
    When you're dealing with the people who watch nerdy niche programming, you're dealing with an uncommonly tech-savvy crowd that owns TiVos, refuses to watch commercials and never pays for anything anyway.

    Well, except for TiVos, HD sets, fancy home theater gear and the like.

    You've got a fan base of freeloading music and software and movie pirates. Just look at the ads that run during reruns of Star Trek. It's all penis enlargement and debt relief. It's pretty obvious that this isn't a crowd that has much disposable income to squeeze out of it.

    Now that's just a gross generalization. Geeks are perfectly willing to pay for good content. Also: I see tampon ads during the Simpsons. What does it prove? Not much, other than the advertisers sometimes have targeted spots, and sometimes they don't, and sometimes they mix both pools together.

    Besides I think Star Trek is a terrible example anyways.

    There's a lot of demand for the 18-35 male population, because it spends a lot of money. But our niche, for whatever reason, is VERY undesirable.

    This might be true, but only because they tend to be more difficult to sell pablum to. You can get practically any idiot to watch American False Idol but if you need to actually hire (for example) sci-fi writers that are competent, or license Sigur Ros for the soundtrack, it costs more and you still get less viewers. I don't think the group is any less desirable, just a harder 'get'.

    Note: I am not suggesting that everything in the first paragraph is TRUE,

    Oh, good.

    ... and certainly not of every single person who watches Futurama. But look at the commercials that run on Spike and during Next Gen rebroadcasts...

    There's your answer. Look at the commercials Spike and NG run any time. Its the same. More to do with the network than anything else.

    Anyway ... there's some assumptions being made about their demographics and those assumptions fuel the types of advertisers they get and thus their revenue off broadcasting. I think some of those assumptions can be borne out, as uncomfortable as that may make some of you.

    I think your larger point is probably correct but that does not make me uncomfortable. Sure it would be better to have high-quality, engaging entertainment shoved down my throat than the guano that suffices for pop culture we actually get, but just the same I'm ok seeking out my own enjoyment. It is the geek ethos, after all. I mean its not like we make it real easy either; how do you advertise to a group of people who desperately would like to take your product home, bust it open, re-wire it, add several capabilities it that were never intended, and a blue LED? Some have pulled it off (see Robosapien) but it is 'incompatible' with the 'consumer lifestyle'.

    Just don't read too much into the ads. I wouldn't judge you by your spam folder. :)

  • As an animator... (Score:3, Informative)

    by AllenChristopher ( 679129 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2006 @02:41AM (#14962260)
    No way.

    A student film typically runs about 45 seconds to 2 minutes. It takes one person about four months to storyboard, do layout, animate, clean up and colour. You need a 12-field scanner, which isn't cheap. You need thousands of dollars worth of proprietary software licenses if you want to actually distribute your film. Student films also tend to be simple... 20 cuts at most.

    Now, you can knock out a flash film in much less time, but Futurama it won't be. Futurama had very high-quality traditional animation. It's about as close to feature quality as you'll see made for TV. The jokes relied on surprisingly subtle and complicated staging. The cost of making it was huge.

    You might do Family Guy in flash without losing much. The scenes in Family Guy that have the most action are often the least entertaining.

    Live action is much easier for an amateur. You roll cameras. Anywhere you invest less time or effort will reduce the quality, but it won't prevent the footage from getting made. You can make a film in a weekend. It won't be good, but it will exist.

    In animation, if you don't put in the effort, the footage doesn't get made.

The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square of the number of participants. -- Adam Walinsky