FOX screws the show again UPDATE: Everybody's signed

[Reply #200 on:]

No matter how this ends, the original cast is going to be voicing their characters for the new series. Groening and Cohen are not morons, in fact you could say that Cohen, with his Harvard degree in 'Wanton Burrito Meals' is about as far from that as is possible. They understand the true value of voice talent, and they would not make this show without those people who are pivotal members of a group that made Futurama one of the best animated programs ever to hit the airwaves.

Agree 100%, theres not a chance that cohen will let this happen (hope not anyway)

[Reply #201 on:]

I guess an argument to contest is that Cohen and Groening is legally bound to do it anyway, but then it would not be the package that Comedy Central purchased, and I don't think they would be willing to finance it any more, making it a complete loss for Fox in the long run.

The Futurama package is the same writers, the same producers, the same animators and damn well the same voice actors.  That's what Comedy Central is paying for, not some cheaped down version of it.

[Reply #202 on:]

The Futurama package is the same writers, the same producers, the same animators and damn well the same voice actors.  That's what Comedy Central is paying for, not some cheaped down version of it.

Yes, is that awesome team what makes Futurama great, and like I said somewhere, that team creates synergy.

[Reply #203 on:]

I think 40-50k per episode (as mentioned above) is very reasonable and wouldn't eat too much into FOX's profits, especially if the episodes are gonna air on FOX as well. That would give them even more money from advertisers (if they keep it in a decent timeslot and don't shuffle it around like last time).
Considering the backlash if they didn't it would be better overall for them to just give in.
As for why they claim the actors want 75k....I got nothing....
anyway...still hoping it's all a joke that's going to be revealed at ComicCon

[Reply #204 on:]

Topless Robot's Opinion of The Situation

Read the comments section also.

[Reply #205 on:]

speedracer: I agree with you on point 1 of your argument, but on point 2 I don't think free agency (in baseball or any sport) is the best analogy here.  If a free agent insists on getting paid fair value after getting underpaid for so long, he has the option of going to another team if his current team laughs in his face.  This happens all the time - a player becomes an unrestricted free agent and then jumps to the team that's the highest bidder.  In this case the Futurama actors don't really have the option of going to another "team", since the show is really a unique entity.  Also, Fox can't just replace the "shortstop" of this team with another "shortstop" of equal skill - they can try but they're gonna end up with one of the worst teams of all time, as well as a rather crowded dugout, as they'll have to trade someone like Billy West for several guys.

If the actors don't like the proposed deals, they can work on other shows.

If TCFT can't replace the actors, they can invest their money in a movie/crappy reality show/crappy Macfarlane show/soybeans/whatever.  Obviously show biz and baseball aren't totally fluid markets, but all parties have options.

P.S. - It is also a very poorly veiled stunt (played on the actors) that this show is going to be carried only on Comedy Central. You can bet that the second a deal is signed, an announcement will fortuitously be made that the show will be returning to the FOX Network, thereby pumping millions more, with its higher ad revenue stream, into the show.

P.P.S. - Please ask your PEEL friend to do the math on 50K per ep, and also 40K, to see the profit margin for FOX. That's more in the region of what they're asking. I have it on the best authority"

EDIT:  Sorry to erase a post, but I have to.

[Reply #206 on:]

speedracer: I agree with you on point 1 of your argument, but on point 2 I don't think free agency (in baseball or any sport) is the best analogy here.  If a free agent insists on getting paid fair value after getting underpaid for so long, he has the option of going to another team if his current team laughs in his face.  This happens all the time - a player becomes an unrestricted free agent and then jumps to the team that's the highest bidder.  In this case the Futurama actors don't really have the option of going to another "team", since the show is really a unique entity.  Also, Fox can't just replace the "shortstop" of this team with another "shortstop" of equal skill - they can try but they're gonna end up with one of the worst teams of all time, as well as a rather crowded dugout, as they'll have to trade someone like Billy West for several guys.

If the actors don't like the proposed deals, they can work on other shows.

If TCFT can't replace the actors, they can invest their money in a movie/crappy reality show/crappy Macfarlane show/soybeans/whatever.  Obviously show biz and baseball aren't totally fluid markets, but all parties have options.

Yeah, but you know what, these actors in question love this show.  They wouldn't abandon all hope for themselves.  It's like one of those community things.

[Reply #207 on:]

I am shocked, SHOCKED!

Well, I'm not that shocked. It is FOX we're dealing with. They're more into shit like "Glee" which they're raving about and it's not even on the air yet. Can anyone say "High School Musical on a cheap TV budget"? (I could go on for hours how much I hate HSM and think it's utter cow turds, but I'll leave that for another day)

I still think FOX wants to deny that Futurama's a good show and it pleases the crowd. I find it odd that they keep pushed this show away after the last season, yet want to snatch it up when it does good with the four movies, then starts pushing it away again because it costs too much for the actors?

I believe that losing even one actor would completely devastate the fans and in turn doom the show [again], especially if it's one of the more prominent actors like West or DiMaggio.

Now if you'll all excuse me, I'll go back to occasionally lurking about. Oh, and it seems I'm a Urban Legend now. *shifty eyes*

[Reply #208 on:]

I still think FOX wants to deny that Futurama's a good show and it pleases the crowd. I find it odd that they keep pushed this show away after the last season, yet want to snatch it up when it does good with the four movies, then starts pushing it away again because it costs too much for the actors?

I feel the same way sometimes about FOX. It's like they're the big kid in the schoolyard fighting a smaller kid. Futurama keeps trying to win, but FOX just keeps kicking them in the face, hoping they'll give up and give them their lunch money.

[Reply #209 on:]

It's like they're the big kid in the schoolyard fighting a smaller kid. Futurama keeps trying to win, but FOX just keeps kicking them in the face nuts, hoping they'll give up and give them their lunch money.

Fixed.

[Reply #210 on:]

speedracer, that last figure say sit all. 53% ROI, not factoring syndication. And, given that this is a pretty reliable source saying that a deal with FOX Network is probable, I'd say that they're banking on getting loads off of syndication. Amazing the 20CF thinks they can cheat themselves like this...

[Reply #211 on:]

EDIT:  The other question I have is this:  why did the writers agree to crummy deals (not very high pay, less staff, tighter deadlines) if Futurama is on the cusp of a return to network TV?  Surely their agents are evaluating all the same information about the value of the show, and Futurama writers aren't super easy to replace.

Hmmm interesting question... I guess they were so happy to have been given a deal on bringing Futurama back that they just agreed to do whatever it took. Also maybe they thought that the money saved could go towards paying for other things such as the 3d animation or voice actors.

[Reply #212 on:]

In the end, the original cast members _will_ continue to do the voices!   We just have to have faith. 

[Reply #213 on:]

EDIT:  The other question I have is this:  why did the writers agree to crummy deals (not very high pay, less staff, tighter deadlines) if Futurama is on the cusp of a return to network TV?  Surely their agents are evaluating all the same information about the value of the show, and Futurama writers aren't super easy to replace.

Writers and voice actors are two very different industries.  Writers rarely get the same credit as voice actors do, and they may not have the same amount of agents if any at all.  In addition to that, the writers are genuinely more passionate about a show, they was willing to cut their salary for a run.  I mean, if anything, if it returns to a network run, couldn't they just argue for a higher pay for season 7?

[Reply #214 on:]

EDIT:  The other question I have is this:  why did the writers agree to crummy deals (not very high pay, less staff, tighter deadlines) if Futurama is on the cusp of a return to network TV?  Surely their agents are evaluating all the same information about the value of the show, and Futurama writers aren't super easy to replace.

Are the deals with the individual writers already in place and have they hired the particular writers that they are going to hire?  Or is it that DXC and Matt Groening agreed to a smaller writing budget in order to get 20th Century TV and Comedy Central to sign off on the deal.  If the latter (and correct me if I'm wrong here) then they might not be able to get some of the former writers to return either...they might have to settle for "write"-alikes.

[Reply #215 on:]

I'm operating under the assumption that the same writers who worked on the movies (Keeler, Verrone, Kaplan, Rowe, Horsted--in addition to, obviously, DXC and MG) are going to be writing season six. I can't imagine the budget allows for them to hire any more writers (if anything, the staff would probably be cut). If the first 13 episodes go over well, though, I'm assuming Fox might be able to accommodate a larger writing staff. Everyone who works on Futurama is so passionate about it, I can't imagine the writers involved with the movies wouldn't want to come back (unless they have other obligations, of course), so I don't think we'll have to worry about some hacks coming in and ruining our show.

Honestly, there is no element you can really eliminate--cast- or crew-wise--without messing up the show entirely.

[Reply #216 on:]

They're all just trying to get our blood pressure up.  This matter will most likely end with a huzzah.

[Reply #217 on:]

3.  Regarding syndication:  Fox can already just sit on their ass and let Futurama run during syndication -- there's nothing magical about 100 episodes, considering that CC currently has a rerun deal.  It's a commonly thrown-around figure, but plenty of shows hit syndication with fewer episodes.  The question is, how much value would two seasons add to the prospective syndication deals?  I could be wrong, but I really don't think it'd be that much (and syndication will certainly not generate value for the show "forever", given rapid changes in technology).

Okay, I haven't posted in...wow, years, literally, but I've reading this with great interest and I think this needs a reply which I'm not seeing.

I'm just a layman with perhaps more television knowledge than most, and not an insider (so this is all just based on what I've read and understood in the past), but you really need to make a distinction between "syndication" as it's traditionally known and cable reruns, which is what Futurama has been in for years.

Both are moneymakers.  But syndication in its traditional sense makes FAR FAR more.  When a cable network buys the rights to show a particular show, they're really generally just paying a flat fee to show the episodes for a set number of years (e.g. Adult Swim paying ten million dollars to show the first 72 episodes for five years, back in 2002/2003).

Syndication is very different.  Individual stations pay the rights to broadcast the episode packages and this goes to the highest bidder...not just among networks, but among the individual stations in ALL markets.  Furthermore, because local channels are less "niche" than cable channels, they can pay more...not an individual station, perhaps, but collectively.

Furthermore, 100 is in fact the "magic number"...this is well known and not in contention.  A rare show like the original "Star Trek" or "The Honeymooners" with fewer episodes will occasionally hit the syndication market if the initial price is right and the show has a strong enough following, but this is exceedingly rare...most stations will flat out REFUSE as a policy to carry a syndication show with fewer than 100 episodes, because the thinking is that they need to have enough episodes to play daily without having to repeat them too quickly.  It's standard practice, and it is why you almost NEVER see a show with fewer episodes in standard syndication.

Let's compare it this way, using an example of a show with a similar cancellation and comeback: Family Guy.  Now, Family Guy did quite well after the initial cancellation...getting picked up by Time Warner (leading to Adult Swim/TBS airings) and of course selling incredibly well on DVD.  However, it never hit syndication.  Why?  Simple...50 episodes.  It was hugely popular, but even with all the t-shirts suddenly flooding the malls, no station would have bought a package of episodes fewer than 100.

When it hit that "magic number" about a year or so ago (I forget exactly when), it hit syndication very shortly thereafter...and I can guarantee you it is now making FAR more money than it ever was from cable reruns.  Far, far more.  FOX is already shopping around "American Dad" for syndication, in anticipation of the 100 episode mark...but it will not enter syndication before that, period.  "King of the Hill" was, by some reports, ultimately canceled (albeit resurrected again, briefly, before being canceled again recently) because it was decided that it may have made about as much as it could in syndication and didn't need more episodes.  Syndication is a powerful force in the television industry.

26 episodes is about a fourth of the entire current series (factoring in the 16 "movie" episodes).  And they're about to make the show hugely more profitable, which no doubt played a part in the number of episodes that were ordered to begin with.  I don't know who I.C.'s contact is, but I'm sure he's right...what the voice actors are asking for is more than reasonable considering the @$$load of cash Twentieth Century Fox is about to make on this show.

[Reply #218 on:]

What is it with you people?  Are you fucking dumb?  Do you not read these threads before posting?

They are not going to replace the Futurama cast.  It is just a negotiation tactic or some sort of joke.

Calm down. Nothing's "official". Until this matter is resolved, there is nothing wrong with a general feeling of hostility all over the internet towards the people trying to screw over the cast. We need them to come to the overwhelming conclusion that the show will fail without the original cast... just as long as werebackbaby and everybody else becomes aware when they do work out a deal.
And there's always a possibility, hopefully very small, that they don't work out a deal. It's certainly more plausible than it being some sort of joke.

I totally concur. No one has the ultimate truth.
I don't see what would be the point in organizing a "joke" like this one. And I don't [want to] believe for a second that the actors and/or MG and DXC have a hand in it. 20th Century Fox maybe, but I don't think they're stupid enough to mess with an already annoyed fanbase.
Afterall, there are many other ways to publicize a believed-to-be-oscure* show.

I still think FOX wants to deny that Futurama's a good show and it pleases the crowd. I find it odd that they keep pushed this show away after the last season, yet want to snatch it up when it does good with the four movies, then starts pushing it away again because it costs too much for the actors?

I feel the same way sometimes about FOX. It's like they're the big kid in the schoolyard fighting a smaller kid. Futurama keeps trying to win, but FOX just keeps kicking them in the face, hoping they'll give up and give them their lunch money.

This. * FOX doesn't want to give it a chance and keeps considering it junk, without realizing - or better yet, refusing to believe - that Futurama has indeed a huge fanbase (counting all those who watch regularly but don't partecipate in Internet forums/communities).

[Reply #219 on:]

3.  Regarding syndication:  Fox can already just sit on their ass and let Futurama run during syndication -- there's nothing magical about 100 episodes, considering that CC currently has a rerun deal.  It's a commonly thrown-around figure, but plenty of shows hit syndication with fewer episodes.  The question is, how much value would two seasons add to the prospective syndication deals?  I could be wrong, but I really don't think it'd be that much (and syndication will certainly not generate value for the show "forever", given rapid changes in technology).

Okay, I haven't posted in...wow, years, literally, but I've reading this with great interest and I think this needs a reply which I'm not seeing.

I'm just a layman with perhaps more television knowledge than most, and not an insider (so this is all just based on what I've read and understood in the past), but you really need to make a distinction between "syndication" as it's traditionally known and cable reruns, which is what Futurama has been in for years.

Both are moneymakers.  But syndication in its traditional sense makes FAR FAR more.  When a cable network buys the rights to show a particular show, they're really generally just paying a flat fee to show the episodes for a set number of years (e.g. Adult Swim paying ten million dollars to show the first 72 episodes for five years, back in 2002/2003).

Syndication is very different.  Individual stations pay the rights to broadcast the episode packages and this goes to the highest bidder...not just among networks, but among the individual stations in ALL markets.  Furthermore, because local channels are less "niche" than cable channels, they can pay more...not an individual station, perhaps, but collectively.

Furthermore, 100 is in fact the "magic number"...this is well known and not in contention.  A rare show like the original "Star Trek" or "The Honeymooners" with fewer episodes will occasionally hit the syndication market if the initial price is right and the show has a strong enough following, but this is exceedingly rare...most stations will flat out REFUSE as a policy to carry a syndication show with fewer than 100 episodes, because the thinking is that they need to have enough episodes to play daily without having to repeat them too quickly.  It's standard practice, and it is why you almost NEVER see a show with fewer episodes in standard syndication.

Let's compare it this way, using an example of a show with a similar cancellation and comeback: Family Guy.  Now, Family Guy did quite well after the initial cancellation...getting picked up by Time Warner (leading to Adult Swim/TBS airings) and of course selling incredibly well on DVD.  However, it never hit syndication.  Why?  Simple...50 episodes.  It was hugely popular, but even with all the t-shirts suddenly flooding the malls, no station would have bought a package of episodes fewer than 100.

When it hit that "magic number" about a year or so ago (I forget exactly when), it hit syndication very shortly thereafter...and I can guarantee you it is now making FAR more money than it ever was from cable reruns.  Far, far more.  FOX is already shopping around "American Dad" for syndication, in anticipation of the 100 episode mark...but it will not enter syndication before that, period.  "King of the Hill" was, by some reports, ultimately canceled (albeit resurrected again, briefly, before being canceled again recently) because it was decided that it may have made about as much as it could in syndication and didn't need more episodes.  Syndication is a powerful force in the television industry.

26 episodes is about a fourth of the entire current series (factoring in the 16 "movie" episodes).  And they're about to make the show hugely more profitable, which no doubt played a part in the number of episodes that were ordered to begin with.  I don't know who I.C.'s contact is, but I'm sure he's right...what the voice actors are asking for is more than reasonable considering the @$$load of cash Twentieth Century Fox is about to make on this show.

Fair enough.  Will it still be a viable candidate for broadcast syndication if the new episodes are stuck on CC, though?

[Reply #220 on:]

Fair enough.  Will it still be a viable candidate for broadcast syndication if the new episodes are stuck on CC, though?

I thought that was the point of the whole Comic-Con affair, that FOX (the network) would announce that it was going to broadcast it.  I dunno if it was you, but someone else made the point that in the entertainment industry they make a clear habit of distinguishing FOX (the network) from 20th Century Fox, this is usually done by writing FOX in full capital letters.  Which is evident from the Comic-Con description.

Why else would he be there?  A FOX executive would not have any control over the production of the show right now.

[Reply #221 on:]

Fair enough.  Will it still be a viable candidate for broadcast syndication if the new episodes are stuck on CC, though?

I thought that was the point of the whole Comic-Con affair, that FOX (the network) would announce that it was going to broadcast it.  I dunno if it was you, but someone else made the point that in the entertainment industry they make a clear habit of distinguishing FOX (the network) from 20th Century Fox, this is usually done by writing FOX in full capital letters.  Which is evident from the Comic-Con description.

Why else would he be there?  A FOX executive would not have any control over the production of the show right now.

FOX wouldn't be controlling syndication, though.  Individual stations in each city would be airing them.  WNYW in New York City might air it daily at 7 pm or something like that, KCAL in LA might air it at 5 pm, etc.

(Actually, that first sentence isn't totally true, as I think News Corp, FOX's parent company, actually does own a good number of FOX-affiliated local stations.)

I fully agree that if the new show does air on the FOX network, the show will pull in a lot of money from the new episodes and the possibly syndication deals.  My concern is that if the new show only airs on CC, it may still be perceived as a nerdy cult classic and still be stuck on reruns on cable.

[Reply #222 on:]

I do recall my local CW affiliate airing South Park reruns on, like, Saturday nights a few years ago. I know that's nowhere near as profitable as strip syndication (which is reserved for those series that hit 100 episodes, anyway), but I use it as an example of a cable show's reruns making their way to a network affiliate. I do feel that if Comedy Central airs these 26 episodes first, syndication would work differently (if it was discussed as an option at all. My thinking is that, since CC currently has the rights to the first 72 episodes (and the movies), they can make a pretty nice profit running them daily on their own network. Sure, it's not as lucrative as syndication, but I don't think Comedy Central would necessarily have the right to sell all 100+ episodes into syndication--only the 26 episodes that have been commissioned for possible airing on their network in their first run. Which is why I'm thinking that these new episodes are going to air on FOX first.)

[Reply #223 on:]

Syndication stuff.

Thanks for laying it all down like that.  I knew there had to be a difference between syndication and the Comedy Central reruns.

[Reply #224 on:]

Fair enough.  Will it still be a viable candidate for broadcast syndication if the new episodes are stuck on CC, though?

In a word: yes.  A lot of shows like "Family Guy," "Scrubs," "King of the Hill," "Malcolm in the Middle," and (soon) "30 Rock" re-run on both cable and local syndication.  A lot of cable-exclusive shows don't become syndicated, but this is usually a function of episode-numbers (going back to that), because most cable shows produce fewer episodes per season than network shows do, and often never reach the 100-mark.  Regarding "South Park," I believe it does actually run in local syndication here too, and daily...I know it was for a while.  In any case, I remember reading that it was a big challenge to get it ready for syndication because of content-issues, and a number of episodes couldn't be used at all, plus most markets had to designate it to late-night times...so it's a special case, though also the rare cable show that's lasted long enough to get syndicated (and it took it longer than a network show, due to the lower episode orders per season).  Futurama presumably wouldn't have this problem, because the majority if not all of the episodes are already deemed suitable for broadcast and most of them in fact have been broadcast on free-to-air.

And anyway, if that source is correct....we could be seeing the show back on the FOX network too, which would negate the whole issue.

[Reply #225 on:]

I do recall my local CW affiliate airing South Park reruns on, like, Saturday nights a few years ago. I know that's nowhere near as profitable as strip syndication (which is reserved for those series that hit 100 episodes, anyway), but I use it as an example of a cable show's reruns making their way to a network affiliate. I do feel that if Comedy Central airs these 26 episodes first, syndication would work differently (if it was discussed as an option at all. My thinking is that, since CC currently has the rights to the first 72 episodes (and the movies), they can make a pretty nice profit running them daily on their own network. Sure, it's not as lucrative as syndication, but I don't think Comedy Central would necessarily have the right to sell all 100+ episodes into syndication--only the 26 episodes that have been commissioned for possible airing on their network in their first run. Which is why I'm thinking that these new episodes are going to air on FOX first.)

Comedy Central wouldn't have the rights to syndicate them regardless, since they don't own the show to begin with.  They've ORDERED the episodes, but they don't own them...Twentieth Century Fox Television does, and they have the rights to syndicate them as they wish.

On network television it's actually common for shows from other studios to air on different networks, so a Fox Television show can air on ABC or NBC for instance.  In that case, ABC or NBC wouldn't have the rights to syndicate, just to air them on network broadcast...Fox Television would still own them.  This sometimes plays into network decisions, though, as a network whose studio doesn't own the show may decide it isn't worth the investment for that reason; case in point, "My Name is Earl" was recently canceled partially because NBC didn't own the show - Fox does -and therefore couldn't milk it in syndication as Fox can.  It's the studio that produces the show that owns it, not the network that simply orders the show for broadcast.

[Reply #226 on:]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHmfEM8JbtI
*groans*

[Reply #227 on:]

DotheBartman:

1) Welcome back
2) You're making some damn fine points; please continue.

For however much it helps, here's my letter (apologies to Otis P. Jivefunk for basing it slightly on his/hers):

Dear Sir or Madam,

             I regretfully write to inform you that if the vocal cast of Futurama is changed, I will not watch the new episodes, or indeed buy the ensuing box set(s). I was very excited to hear the news that Futurama will be brought back for a further season(s). I am a dedicated fan of the show, and have been for years; I have found it to be one of the most consistently entertaining shows on television, and watch my box sets regularly. I have also enjoyed the PlayStation game and have amassed a fair collection of the comic books - not to mention the new feature-length episodes, all of which I have enjoyed immensely. I am therefore very disappointed to hear that the original voice cast may be changed, ostensibly due to cost concerns. The voice artists are an integral part of the show, and give life to truly interesting and funny characters, with significant followings. By changing them, I think it highly likely that you will alienate most of the Futurama fan base who made the show so popular, and do so permanently. In doing that, you would be cutting away at a fan-base that has patiently waited and worked (albeit purely through the spending of money on DVDs and other merchandise) towards the show's return.

          I urge you to re-consider. The unfortunate financial climate notwithstanding, it is still the case that you have to pay for quality, and spend money to make money. Consider the revenue these episodes will bring for years to come - as well as the revenue that the show has already brought in, most recently through the new feature-length episodes, the renewed interest in other merchandise. An example of this is that even now, nearly four months after its release, 'Into the Wild Green Yonder' is still in the top 30 most popular purchases at the WH Smith chain of retail stores in the UK. Any future revenue that Futurama may make will be irrevocably reduced if 'hardcore' fans abandon the show due to a change in casting - and new or casual fans will not be able to replace said numbers. While re-casting, even temporarily, may result in short-term savings, I respectfully submit that the decision will end up hurting both the quality of the show produced, as well as the revenue derived therefrom.

          Thank you for your attention, and please re-consider the decision to re-cast Futurama.


If they're still alive after reading all of that (which I really, really hope they do) , I hope it helps. I have a distinct feeling that July 24th is going to be an interesting time... :/

[Reply #228 on:]

DotheBartman: I can tell you that this source is very trustworthy.

I wouldn't be surprised that after/during Comic-Con that 20CFT changes their stance on the voice actors, as hundreds thousands of screaming fans can usually change opinion quite quickly. The problem for them is when they decide to announce the change; no matter when they decide to change their stance, it'll make any subsequent demands by them to not be taken seriously just because of how they've dealt with this thus far. It'll be most interesting to hear when FOX Network decides to act; their Sunday night line-up is full now through Spring 2011 with all shows to be on the air this fall, including the new Cleveland Show, all have contracts at least through then. If they want the most bang for their buck, they'll want to air the new episodes before Comedy Central does. The question becomes whether they'll kill The Cleveland Show despite contract, put Futurama or one of the other animation shows on another night, or put one of the shows at a death slot before 8pm.

[Reply #229 on:]

Link

Apparently TCFT has a new head of its "publicity and talent relations department".  Dunno how likely it is that this is related to the Futurama spat, but it would be pretty hilarious if somebody has already been demoted/canned as a direct result of it.

[Reply #230 on:]

I believe that those are the names of the people who caused the Futurama Folly. Email the hell out of them!

[Reply #231 on:]

I wouldn't be surprised that after/during Comic-Con that 20CFT changes their stance on the voice actors, as hundreds thousands of screaming fans can usually change opinion quite quickly.

Yes exactly...hopefully they'll bow to the sheer number of fans and realise what a bad idea changing the actors would be....

The question becomes whether they'll kill The Cleveland Show despite contract, put Futurama or one of the other animation shows on another night, or put one of the shows at a death slot before 8pm.

So long as they don't put Futurama in the death slot obviously....Hasn't American Dad only been renewed for the next season? That frees up a space for Futurama then... 
Obviously I'd prefer them to just cancel Family Guy or the Simpsons already

[Reply #232 on:]

Here's FOX's 2009-2010 schedule as of May.

If FOX does air Futurama, I'm pretty sure they aren't planning on airing stale episodes in 2011.  For Spring 2010, maybe FOX might can Sons of Tucson or Brothers if one of those shows underperforms.  The Seth's shows aren't going anywhere.  If no show gets canned, Futurama or Tucson gets the Sunday 7:00 death slot.  Anybody have the schematics for a Nielsen box?

[Reply #233 on:]

Since likely none of the Sunday shows will get their positions changed (American Dad if we're lucky), does anyone think FOX will consider airing Futurama on a different night? I know they have their whole Animation Domination thing, but maybe letting Futurama get lost in the shuffle isn't a great idea.

[Reply #234 on:]

I'm pretty sure FOX has no wiggle room on weekday nights, only the Sunday 7:00 slot and late night Saturday.  To get it on a weekday night, some existing show would have to die.

[Reply #235 on:]

I'm pretty sure FOX has no wiggle room on weekday nights, only the Sunday 7:00 slot and late night Saturday.  To get it on a weekday night, some existing show would have to die.

Well American Dad is getting lower viewer numbers than the rest (and probably the Cleveland Show too when it comes), which is a shame as its probably the best animated show on FOX at the moment...

I can only see Futurama being given the deathslot or shuffled around (again)...which is a shame but that's what Comedy Central is for, right? They'll definitely give it a prime time slot  

[Reply #236 on:]

They'd probably put The Cleveland Show in the 7:30 slot. It's said to not be very good and FOX is stuck with it for two years. I think they'd want to keep Futurama with The Simpsons and Family Guy, the two shows with which it's most associated.

As there are two 13-episode seasons ordered, Futurama would be a midseason show (only airing either in the fall or the spring). Also, Sons of Tucson is a live-action show, so if it's popular they could push it to weekdays to keep Sunday animation only. Thus, they could keep the deathslot reserved for NFL in the fall, and put TCS at 7:30 and put Futurama into the primetime line-up in the spring. Everybody wins!*


*Except The Cleveland Show...

[Reply #237 on:]

*Except The Cleveland Show...

 

[Reply #238 on:]

I wonder why JavieR removed his story about the audition thing not being a prank from TFP.

The story "Futurama Voice Cast vs. 20th Century Fox TV. Who do you trust?" still appears in his list of "important Futurama news" in the top right of his site.

Does he know something we don't?!

[Reply #239 on:]

They'd probably put The Cleveland Show in the 7:30 slot. It's said to not be very good and FOX is stuck with it for two years. I think they'd want to keep Futurama with The Simpsons and Family Guy, the two shows with which it's most associated.

As there are two 13-episode seasons ordered, Futurama would be a midseason show (only airing either in the fall or the spring). Also, Sons of Tucson is a live-action show, so if it's popular they could push it to weekdays to keep Sunday animation only. Thus, they could keep the deathslot reserved for NFL in the fall, and put TCS at 7:30 and put Futurama into the primetime line-up in the spring. Everybody wins!*


*Except The Cleveland Show...

Really?  The purchase of Cleveland's first season was announced November 2008, and the purchase of the second season was annouced May 2009, way before it was necessary but probably after they'd seen a decent amount of the work.  If FOX has a Futurama deal in place now or is close to it, then presumably they were at least thinking about the Futurama deal in May.  If FOX is already having buyer's remorse about Cleveland now, they really bunged up this deal.