Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    General Disscussion    The Future's News Today (Futurama News Thread) « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: The Future's News Today (Futurama News Thread)  (Read 65319 times)
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 Print
MuchAdo

Professor
*
« Reply #680 on: 04-24-2013 02:46 »

Denial... the sales are bad.
SolidSnake

Professor
*
« Reply #681 on: 04-24-2013 04:31 »

I like your avatar, MuchAdo. It explains my feelings of this situation right now.

I never knew they might cancel the Futurama Comics too! This is bad.......I was going to use those to filter in on what we're all desperately missing out on!

Like first the figures, now the SHOW, and then the comics/calenders.....Are they trying to erase Futurama from the face of the earth??

Even though Futurama isn't the glory we all came to love in 1999-2003, it is still a darn good show. It sure as hell beats all of them filthy reality shows that are just disturbing to watch, and strangely knows how to multiply. I mean it seems like just anybody directs those shows and call it amazing, while the people who worked on Futurama had these degrees and stuff that not many people have. A writer of the show even created his own theorem. That's a record. Some good things must come to an end though. Personally, I think that maybe, this deserves to be the last season. 7 Seasons, 140 episodes is enough.

But don't get rid of the comics!! It's going to be the last of any Futurama Merch to ever be sold internationally anymore, for a while.
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #682 on: 04-24-2013 06:17 »

It may be that Eric just genuinely doesn't know. Bongo itself may have no idea until they see sales figures and can come to a real conclusion about what to do. Obviously they continued doing them during the show's long hiatus, but the show's disappearance from television (especially with there being a lot more episodes now and less fan desperation for more than there was in 2003-2007) may or may not impact sales figures.

I was never a fan of any of the Bongo comics anyway, but regardless that's an overreaction to what Eric's tweet said.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #683 on: 04-24-2013 08:35 »
« Last Edit on: 04-24-2013 08:38 by totalnerduk »

Honestly, if they think that the new run was up to the standards of the original, they're in need of a reality check. a clear downward trend becomes evident.

Or maybe we all have different opinions? tongue

Maybe an averaged opinion of the fanbase will suit you:



The ratings are from CGEF, a couple of side projects that Svip has on the infosphere, and my own database of episode ratings (I'd forgotten how much of this stuff I've done, until I opened the folder up and saw it all). I've normalised them as far as possible, and you can quite clearly see the slip in quality between S1 and S7, as well as the shift from S6 to S7 in terms of a narrower range, but lower average for the score.

"Exceptionally High Quality Episodes" is basically the top 20. Exceptionally low scores bottom out at around 40%, and the best episode ever comes out as TLPJF. Here's the top 5:

The Late Philip J. Fry
The Series Has Landed
Space Pilot 3000
The Luck of the Fryrish
Roswell that Ends Well

Now take a look at the bottom 5:

The Cryonic Woman
In-A-Gadda-Da-Leela
A Leela of Her Own
Futurama Holiday Spectacular
Yo Leela Leela

The highest-ranked S7 episode is "Fun on a bun", at 29/111,
The lowest-ranked S1 episode is "Fry and the Slurm Factory" at 71/111,

The ones that average out right on the 80% line for the mean overall score are:

Put your head on my shoulder
Mother's Day
Amazon Women in the Mood
Crimes of the Hot
The Mutants Are Revolting

Here's the full list, for anybody who cares: Click.

Figures don't lie (unless you make them lie). Overall,the last season just hasn't been as good. S6 was hit-and-miss (with good being really good and bad being really bad as a general trend), but the original run were more cohesive in terms of quality (with the possible exception of the end of S2, and S3. They're all over the place).

So, S7 is quite clearly not the staff's best work. No matter what they might think of their own efforts, they aren't the people who get to judge it. That's up to the audience, and the audience disagree.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #684 on: 04-24-2013 08:54 »

I'm not sure if it's fair to compare reviews from 2001 to reviews from 2012. People's standards and expectations change over that time, not to mention the fact that it's not even the same people reviewing them.

Regardless, The average looks somewhat aligned with my opinion; The Half-season was good, but unremarkable. It lacked amazing episodes while also lacking in poor ones.

Also, I'm somewhat puzzled by that list, tnuk. I know you said it's not just CGEF ratings, but some of the rankings don't seem right. "Fry and the Slurm factory" is the lowest rated season one episode, yet it's the highest-rated on CGEF. Similarly, "A Farewell to Arms" and "Viva Mars Vegas" are sitting on pretty impressive ratings on CGEF while sitting right near the bottom of this list.

Do some of the other sources hold vastly different opinions or something?
Quantum Neutrino Field

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #685 on: 04-24-2013 08:58 »

On thing that might affect, is the fact that Futurama is changed over time and people who watched the series from the beginning, value older episodes more, because new episodes are different. Usually older and classic is more appreciated due to fans from the beginning.

However, I can see downward trend and I know that 6B and 7A weren't overall that good. But, we're talking about 7B and it could be really good.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #686 on: 04-24-2013 09:20 »

Do some of the other sources hold vastly different opinions or something?

Not vastly different. Overall, CGEF's ratings have been shown to be a little skewed though. So one step in normalising the data was to go through the episode list and give a rough rating out of 20 to each episode for the jokes, the nerd bonus, the emotional resonance, the art, and the story execution. Where an aggregated rating exists elsewhere for the episode, this was averaged with mine.

These values were then compared to the CGEF rating, and where the two differed, a "bias" value was obtained. This ranges from one to eleven.

The average bias value for a season is 1 for the original run and 3 for the new run. I was actually surprised at how much my quick-and-dirty numbers agreed with CGEF's ratings (and a little surprised at how much my own taste appears to have shifted over time).

The bias for FATSF is 7. This indicates that the review on CGEF is skewed compared to other data, but not grossly (bias values under 5 tend to have negligable effects, and over 10 indicate that somebody may have spammed CGEF with either positive or negative reviews. There is only one over 10, and only a dozen episodes in total exhibit a significant bias value).
Also, I'm somewhat puzzled by that list, tnuk. I know you said it's not just CGEF ratings, but some of the rankings don't seem right. "Fry and the Slurm factory" is the lowest rated season one episode, yet it's the highest-rated on CGEF. Similarly, "A Farewell to Arms" and "Viva Mars Vegas" are sitting on pretty impressive ratings on CGEF while sitting right near the bottom of this list.

It's important to note that in addition to the above skew values, the difference between the aggregated rating and the ranking. There are lots of episodes with rankings in the low eighties, and AFTA/VMV are in this group. The line between VMV and TDK marks the point where episodes begin to drop steeply, in fact.

Since the ranking tries to account for the bias value (I'll be the first to admit that any algorithm I apply to these is going to be crude and might be prone to errors), some of the episodes ended up placing differently than I expected or would have preferred.

I might have a go at coming up with a better sorting method, but this was literally something I threw together so as to demonstrate that S7 isn't as much the staff's best work as the staff's most recent work. So it's pretty rough-and-ready. But hey, I made some effort.
BlueZoidberg1

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #687 on: 04-24-2013 12:50 »

Even if you think the episode are not as good as the Fox run, there is still very few TV shows that are enjoyable as Futurama right now.
futz
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #688 on: 04-24-2013 12:52 »
« Last Edit on: 04-24-2013 15:19 »

I didn't see it noted anywhere on first glance but what is the sample size (number of people responding)? If the sample is less than 40 then the survey cannot be considered statistically significant. Basic Statistics 101 stuff. Not that I'd disagree with the survey results in general.

One thing that everyone on the network and production side seemed to overlook was that Futurama thrived and generated the bulk of it's fan base when it was a late night show on Adult Swim. Not sure if it's the nerd hour or Futurama is preferred by viewers after the kids are in bed and the evening's web surfing and emails are done. It may be that people can actually pay attention to it then. But it may be it's production costs can only be justified if it's made for a prime time slot.
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #689 on: 04-24-2013 15:49 »
« Last Edit on: 04-24-2013 15:52 »

If you did a chart like that back in season 4 of The Simpsons, based on Internet ratings at the time, I absolutely guarantee you that it would clearly look like the show was clearly declining and already a long way off from its "prime" in season 1. Every single season from that show's golden years would have looked worse than the one before it (gotta love those reviews saying the show was going downhill fast in season 2).

Initial reviews are not going to be as critical because it's a new show and people are just enthusiastic that it's there. That gets warped over time. As well, now you have people voting on threads that are over a decade old, and they're picking out their favorite episodes to review because they remember them the most fondly, so they are inflated compared to newer episodes that don't (yet) have the veneer of nostalgia and the benefit of countless viewings in reruns and DVD releases.

All this, of course, doesn't even touch how retarded it is to assume that reviews on one small niche comment board/fan site can be extrapolated to the wider opinion of the show's general audience.
Eternium

Professor
*
« Reply #690 on: 04-24-2013 17:40 »

AAAARRGH! Comedy Central did it again -.-'
Every year they don't broadcast any futurama for half a year, and that time is next monday... But what they did do is replace it with Married With Children and Friends. And Psych is not on for half a year either! No HD futurama for me until next January 1st. cry
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #691 on: 04-24-2013 19:29 »
« Last Edit on: 04-24-2013 19:53 by totalnerduk »

All this, of course, doesn't even touch how retarded it is to assume that reviews on one small niche comment board/fan site can be extrapolated to the wider opinion of the show's general audience.

Which is why I didn't take the reviews from CGEF as the ultimate truth, and have aggregated results from other sources. I even looked at places like IGN. The aggregated scores are a little more reliable than "one small niche fan site" (and I didn't take any of my data from PEEL, because PEEL is skewed further than the axial tilt of Uranus).

I'm feeling generous. Have another graph representing decline.



The trendlines are not arbitrary, they're supplied by an Excel function that was kind enough to interpret the data for me as having larger numbers clustering to the left, and smaller numbers toward the right. It doesn't have an enormous amount of meaning, but it's a nice visual interpretation of my earlier statements.

I didn't see it noted anywhere on first glance but what is the sample size (number of people responding)?

The sample size varies with the episode. The review scores on CGEF are aggregates with a minimum sample size of 51, and then you've got the dozen or so other scores on top of that which come from the rest of the web (some of those are aggregates too, but I can't be bothered looking for the minimum sample size of those. I think it's safe to assume that they won't be too different from CGEF). Most of the episodes have been scored by at least 300 individuals even if you only count CGEF and TV.com's reviews (both are aggregates which bottom out with sample sizes in the fifties, and can have several hundred people scoring a single episode). As I've stated previously, this is to be regarded as an aggregate score that attempts to correct for any bias in CGEF's audience by casting a much wider net. Sample sizes are large enough to be significant.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #692 on: 04-24-2013 19:34 »

Even if you think the episode are not as good as the Fox run, there is still very few TV shows that are enjoyable as Futurama right now.

Correct.
futz
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #693 on: 04-24-2013 20:20 »

I'm a bit confused by what the term "Quality" is referring to. I can't fault the animation or the illustration within it. You might argue that the earlier rougher pre-HD style might have suited the rough style of the shows content, but I don't think so. Sort of points it on the themes and writing of the episodes as the source of dissatisfaction.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #694 on: 04-24-2013 21:03 »
« Last Edit on: 04-24-2013 21:05 by totalnerduk »

I'm a bit confused by what the term "Quality" is referring to.

The Free Dictionary defines quality in several ways, of which 3b is probably the most fitting: Degree or grade of excellence. The term "Quality" is used in conjunction with the word "episode", leading most reasonable people to assume that it is therefore used to refer to the "degree or grade of excellence of an episode". roll eyes Episodes which are visually stunning like Mobius Dick or Naturama deserve points for that, even if they end up losing points for things like their story or themes, their jokes, their lack of "nerd bonus" content, or their casual contempt for canon and continuity.

Honestly, I think that I might be casting pearls before swine here by taking the time to illustrate my words graphically, but I do have another picture to show you in closing:



Just in case you don't quite get it, or think I'm being overly hostile, I'll explain. I stated that the writers are incorrect in asserting that they've been doing their best work ever on Season 7. Danny responded with a comment, and I decided to illustrate my reasoning via the graphical treatment of data.

The data and the treatment of it have been questioned by a couple of people, and I have responded to those questions. Now one of those people is questioning my use of language in describing the purpose of the data treatment... it's a little much. I've made the point that I wanted to, I've demonstrated that the grade or degree of excellence in individual episodes of Futurama has been declining (note that I have not said to what degree that decline has taken place), and I've done so by combing through statistical data (and providing a full, ranked list of episodes that supports my statement as effectively as the graphs do). If you're going to be petty enough that you require me to defend and define each word that I've used in order to do this, then fuck you. Fuck you with a thousand rakes, buddy. I don't mind laying information out as clearly as possible in order to help people digest it, but I draw the line at providing information that should be available to people as a function of common sense.

I've made graphs and lists. Either enjoy them or don't, and if you feel that the data or execution are flawed, then go away and collect your own data, then treat it and present it. I'll be first in line to pick nits at that point, and you can bet that when I decide to pick a nit, I do so thoroughly, comprehensively, and with a dedication that possibly borders on the psychotic. If you're not willing to perform such toil and to suffer the slings and arrows that will be your only reward for it, then you can do what the .gif says (and STFU whilst you're at it).
Inquisitor Hein
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #695 on: 04-24-2013 21:10 »
« Last Edit on: 04-24-2013 21:12 »

I didn't see it noted anywhere on first glance but what is the sample size (number of people responding)? If the sample is less than 40 then the survey cannot be considered statistically significant. Basic Statistics 101 stuff. Not that I'd disagree with the survey results in general.


Depends what information you seek with 40 participants.
Certainly not sufficient data to credibly put all 100+ episodes in an appropriate order.
But should e.g. 36/40 person all consider TLPJF and TDHAIP as Top 3 episodes, that estimate is most certainly a much safer guess.

Well...not that my post does question your post about an sufficient sample size's necessity. I just had some time, and felt like adding that nitpicky detail smile
TheAnvil

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #696 on: 04-24-2013 21:33 »

The petition is getting signatures slower and slower. Please help spread it around.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/648/940/save-futurama-again/

A lot of people aren't even aware that it has been cancelled, much less that there's a petition.
PhoffiFozz
Crustacean
*
« Reply #697 on: 04-24-2013 21:45 »

If you did a chart like that back in season 4 of The Simpsons, based on Internet ratings at the time, I absolutely guarantee you that it would clearly look like the show was clearly declining and already a long way off from its "prime" in season 1. Every single season from that show's golden years would have looked worse than the one before it (gotta love those reviews saying the show was going downhill fast in season 2).

Initial reviews are not going to be as critical because it's a new show and people are just enthusiastic that it's there. That gets warped over time. As well, now you have people voting on threads that are over a decade old, and they're picking out their favorite episodes to review because they remember them the most fondly, so they are inflated compared to newer episodes that don't (yet) have the veneer of nostalgia and the benefit of countless viewings in reruns and DVD releases.

All this, of course, doesn't even touch how retarded it is to assume that reviews on one small niche comment board/fan site can be extrapolated to the wider opinion of the show's general audience.

Brilliant post.  Thank you.
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #698 on: 04-24-2013 21:52 »
« Last Edit on: 04-24-2013 22:03 »

What I said stands. Even taking into account stuff like IGN (which....ugh. They are fine for telling you whether a DVD has a good transfer, but their critical reviews of pretty much anything are among the worst in the business), this still isn't factoring in that people have a tendency to be less critical of a show a season or two in, and more critical as there is more to compare new episodes to and the veneer of a hot new show begins to wear off. Not a tremendous amount of sites even review shows like this and those that do are in the business of trying to spot and call "declines" because that generates traffic. And regardless, you can't use "data" to prove something completely subjective. The staff is not "wrong" to think they are doing their best work; they simply happen to hold a different opinion than SOME of their viewers. It happens.

Oh, and breaking down each episode into different categories (animation, jokes, whatever) is not only also subjective but just completely ridiculous. These shows are art and meant to be taken as a whole (for better or worse). Even IGN wouldn't dock some standard rate from an otherwise beautiful, hilarious episode if they thought the animation was off in a couple scenes. I mean....christ.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #699 on: 04-24-2013 22:40 »

What I said stands.

It's wobbly. There are shows that mature over time and end up generating more positive reviews once they become established, there are also fans that come into a fanbase "late" in the game and will look at earlier seasons with a more fairly critical eye. That's the wonderful thing about clumping a bunch of reviews made over a long period together; it's almost self-correcting.

Quote
people have a tendency to be less critical of a show a season or two in, and more critical as there is more to compare new episodes to and the veneer of a hot new show begins to wear off.

For every set of posts on PEEL panning a newer episode of Futurama by longstanding fans, there are posts by newer members of the fan community, for who Season 7 was their introduction, saying that Season 1 isn't as brilliant as people make it out to be, and there's nothing wrong with Season 7. For every PEELer saying that the original run was the show's peak, there are posts absolutely slamming some of those episodes, from around the time that they originally aired. There's no real bias towards "oh, this is new. I love it or hate it on that basis" amongst the fan community for this particular show. Some people love certain episodes, some people hate others. Some people give everything nine out of ten, some people give everything one. Look at some of the rankings of Season 2 episodes in the list I posted. Half a dozen or so are in the bottom half of the list, and one is (deservedly, IMO) in the bottom five episodes of all time.

Quote
Not a tremendous amount of sites even review shows like this and those that do are in the business of trying to spot and call "declines" because that generates traffic.

Yes, people do analyse data. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make... I'm not seizing on anybody else's suggestion of a decline here (most people outside of PEEL don't seem to feel that there's been an appreciable drop in the quality of episodes, to be honest), I'm simply pointing out that I have seen a decline both in terms of how much I'm enjoying the later episodes and the scores that they receive from the fanbase as a whole. The latter is something I can demonstrate visually in terms of treated data. I notice that so far, you've not managed to produce any visual data treatments that support what you're saying, or suggesting any method for improving the available data pool to make future treatments more reliable. You're essentially just saying over and over that the data and its treatment is meaningless.

Quote
And regardless, you can't use "data" to prove something completely subjective.

If something is enjoyed by a large number of people, it's safe to say that it's enjoyable. It's not "completely subjective" just because a smaller number of people don't enjoy it. There's an element of personal taste, but the thing itself can be labelled as "enjoyable" without too much fear of people burning down your house in response (unless the thing in question is seal clubbing, and the people who don't enjoy it are lunatics like PETA).

You can use data to demonstrate trends, even if something is completely subjective. Notice that I'm not talking about "proving" anything. All I'm doing is demonstrating that a trend exists... I haven't even commented on the subjectivity of said trend.

Quote
The staff is not "wrong" to think they are doing their best work; they simply happen to hold a different opinion than SOME of their viewers. It happens.

If the work in question is not held by the audience to be of a higher standard than the previous work (the standard of which was previously judged by the audience), then producers of said work are not performing to a higher standard than before, and so are not doing their best work. Their opinion is irrelevant when they are not the judge of its merit, and in the case of works such as Futurama, the judge is the audience. The  audience is an effective judge of what the audience enjoys, and if the work is of a higher standard, then the audience will enjoy it more. This is arguably (not provably, just something that can be argued from the evidence) not the case, and therefore the production staff are wrong.

Despite what you might have been told, it is possible for somebody's opinion to be wrong. For example, if you were of the opinion that walruses are secretly controlling the US government via mind implants, then your opinion would be wrong. Opinions are difficult to judge objectively, and often hard to place an absolute value of right/wrong onto, but that doesn't mean that every opinion has the same validity.

Oh, and breaking down each episode into different categories (animation, jokes, whatever) is not only also subjective but just completely ridiculous. These shows are art and meant to be taken as a whole (for better or worse). Even IGN wouldn't dock some standard rate from an otherwise beautiful, hilarious episode if they thought the animation was off in a couple scenes. I mean....christ.

Funnily enough, I had thought initially that this wasn't a brilliant way to evaluate episodes. But I had a go at it for the first season, and I came up with scores eerily similar to the aggregated ones (which seem to be rather similar across the board. There's some variation, but not much. There's a good correlation between values from one site, and values from another).

The breakdown of scoring into sections actually does two things. It's intuitive and easy to rate a small subset of something on a small scale. It makes it easy to score something out of 100 if you can break it down into five chunks of 20, with each chunk taking account of a particular area. You're less likely to over-or-under-estimate how much you enjoyed the thing overall. Plus, it helps to eliminate a little of the subjectivity that's naturally part of rating how much you enjoyed something, if you focus on things that might deserve praise regardless of whether they were part of something that you didn't really care for.

If the animation isn't particularly stunning, an episode is not deserving of the top score. It's not a matter of "docking points", it's a matter of deciding whether the episode's animation was outstanding and deserves a 20, or was mediocre (with nothing that leaped out as amazing) and deserves a lower mark. Something between 15 and 18, perhaps.

Art is never meant to be taken as a single, unified whole. Art is meant to be examined from different angles, it's meant to be something you can find new perspectives on. It's meant to be something you can write a list of things you like and a list of things you hate about. It's meant to be something you can look at one area of and be enraptured, look at another area of and feel enraged (I picked those two emotions because they both begin with "e". Feel free to use any two others).

With all that said, I shall certainly think twice in the future before bothering to try and illustrate data for the benefit of PEEL. It's quite clear that you (among others) will have scorn to pour on anything that doesn't perfectly mesh with your own notions, regardless of however much information or data might be behind it. This sort of nonsense is why I don't tend to contribute much to On-Topic these days - any time I have something to add to a discussion, people are likely to try arguing that black is white if I'm not somehow echoing their own thoughts perfectly (and the reality of the matter be damned).
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #700 on: 04-24-2013 23:29 »
« Last Edit on: 04-24-2013 23:37 »

The reason I haven't produced a chart to demonstrate my point is that it would be a completely retarded thing to do, especially regarding something as subjective as the quality of a television show.

Also I'm aware that opinions can be wrong, kthnx. I can almost assure you I've spent more time debating the merits of various dumb conspiracy theories with idiots who don't get that they are factually wrong for believing them. This does not apply to the quality of a television show; that is a purely subjective thing and open to opinion from anyone, including those creating it (I would certainly hope they would have strong opinions about a show they're making). Contrary to what you suggested before backtracking, it is just not something you can "prove" through a chart. Sorry.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #701 on: 04-25-2013 01:26 »

Contrary to what you suggested before backtracking, it is just not something you can "prove" through a chart. Sorry.

I didn't say I had "proved" anything. I have not used that word. I have not "backtracked". If you think that treating data graphically to demonstrate a trend is retarded, then I think that "debating conspiracy theories" is right where you belong. Go battle the hordes of people marginally more stupid than you.

As for the quality of a TV show being subjective, that doesn't mean that it's impossible to determine the best based on audience consensus, which is something that I think I mentioned earlier. If I didn't I'm saying it now: the quality is judged by the audience. The majority of the audience should have roughly similar opinions, and a picture will emerge of how good it is. There will be outliers who think that it is better or worse than the average viewer does: these are not statistically significant, and we can derive a somewhat less subjective value for quality based on the average rating given by a large number of people.

If this value is less than the value of previous work, the work is not the "best yet". Whilst the value itself is subjective, the comparison of subjective values that share a common perspective can be termed objective as long as an absolute scale can be applied. A numerical ranking for Futurama episodes is one such comparison.

The audience do not share the writers' opinions, and the audience are the judge of quality for the work. It's not subjective to say that. An artist doesn't get to say whether he's created a masterpiece. It is the audience with whom the piece resonates who get to say that (and only if they're the majority. Otherwise it's simply controversial).

The fact of the matter is that there is data to support Season 7 being a lower quality of work than previous seasons have been, and the data is not (despite your continued assertions that everything I have said/produced on the matter is retarded) completely meaningless. It is evidence, and if you wish to refute it, you must provide evidence of your own to counter it.

The reason I haven't produced a chart to demonstrate my point is that it would be a completely retarded thing to do,


Oh wait, you think that producing evidence to support your position is retarded. Yeah. That's right. It couldn't possibly be that somebody might recognise that a data set and the graphical treatment of such is of limited value but does so anyway because it is an interesting exercise, could it? Subjective values enter working datasets all the time anyway. Without them, psychology would be stuck in the days of Freud. If you can chart a relationship between values, it matters not one jot whether those values were subjectively determined. There's still merit in observing a trend there, even if that trend only exists in the minds of a certain subset of the population. It's determining just who that subset encompasses that's important, and I believe that I've already mentioned several data sources. I believe that the values I gathered were representative. Subjective or not, a representative value should always be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand.

Well, whilst you frame another response that calls me a retard, I think I'll go sleep. Oh, and in anticipation of you deciding to call me names and accuse me of saying things I haven't, I should probably mention that it doesn't matter how many times you say something is ridiculous or retarded...

MuchAdo

Professor
*
« Reply #702 on: 04-25-2013 02:13 »

Either way.. all thats left now of Futurama is 13 episodes... and 100 bickering nerds.

THE END.
Kataang102

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #703 on: 04-25-2013 03:12 »

Hi I'm Tori and I am new to PEEL but I don't think this is the place for introdutions, so I will stick to the topic

well I really think these last 13 will be great. I really am looking forward to finale because mainly I just want to see what they can fit in 20 minutes, but I don't doubt it will be amazing
futz
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #704 on: 04-25-2013 03:13 »

Stuck in analysis or just nothing real to do, nerd?
Kataang102

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #705 on: 04-25-2013 03:17 »

Stuck in analysis or just nothing real to do, nerd?

are you talking to me XD
I'm just new here it's hard to think of what to say
did any of you see that JohnDiMaggio tweeted a picture of save futurama
The Sophisticated Shut In

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #706 on: 04-25-2013 03:50 »
« Last Edit on: 04-25-2013 03:52 »

totalnerduk : As much as I hate (really can't stress that enough, hate hate hate) to get in the middle of something which has already provoked such strong feelings in you, I have to say . . . I think you're confusing "quality" with "popularity".

With any work of art, quality is largely subjective. You can judge aspects of it with complete objectivity - clever wordplay, difficult animation etc - but when you get into things like opinions on the plot, what's "funny",  or what feelings the episode engenders in the viewer (which is what the vast majority of people end up actually rating an episode on) you're completely in the realm of the subjective.

You say the artist (writers, voice actors, other contributors to the show) can't judge the quality of the work. I'm guessing this is because you think their emotional involvement in the show renders their opinion biased, but that's not a completely effective argument. You could argue no-one knows the quality of the work better than the writers. Again, this assumes you're talking about quality as a tangible thing, not mere popularity. A casual viewer may miss elements of the show the creators are aware of, and as such, may not fully appreciate its quality. Take Fry and Leela's orbital kiss in Fun on a Bun as an example. An audience member might view that only thinking about it in terms of the dialogue or how it made them feel, and rank the episode up or down on the basis of "I'm a huge shipper!" or "Ew, it's too mushy". But they might not ever stop to think of the sheer amount of work it took to create that scene. They wouldn't appreciate the difficulty of animating it and wouldn't include that in their judgement - despite it being a far more concrete measurement of "quality" than their own feelings.

You can't even argue that the "quality" of the episode is in whether or not it makes the viewer feel a desired emotion - because the viewer is always biased, unless they're in a coma. Everyone has their own feelings and preferences which will play into their enjoyment of an episode. Someone in the midst of a break-up might loathe a romantic episode, while someone falling in love themselves would rave about it. We never react completely objectively to an artwork, however much we might like to think we do. No-one is a completely blank slate.

So I would disagree that the only (or best) judge of an episode's quality is the viewer. And an audience? All that is is a bunch of viewers brought together. When you measure their favorites,  the only thing you're measuring is popularity.

That disproves what you're measuring, and I would also debate the method of measurement. Data is interesting, and a poll is worth considering as representative of the audience, but it's not the whole picture. It's a small snapshot of the whole picture. Say you're judging the show's popularity by how many people tune into an episode on Comedy Central. You could look at that data and say the show is declining in popularity - but it might simply be that your method of gathering information is limited. If you were to factor in dvd sales, repeat showings, online viewings, illegal downloads etc, you might find it's never been more popular. Same if you're measuring only viewers in America, or only a target audience of young males. The data is worth considering, sure, but it's by no means absolute. Even if it was, what it's really measuring is . . . you guessed it . . . popularity. Which is based entirely on opinion. Which is subjective.

So when you say this : "Honestly, if they think that the new run was up to the standards of the original, they're in need of a reality check . . ." and "you can clearly see the slip in quality between S1 and S7" , you don't get to state them as definitive fact and tell everyone who disagrees they're wrong. Change your argument to "you can clearly see decreasing popularity by one method of measurement over seasons 1-7" and I'll clap my hands and say brava. Otherwise it doesn't matter how many charts you make - you haven't proven anything.
meisterPOOP

Professor
*
« Reply #707 on: 04-25-2013 04:13 »

So... Classic Animation is not a bad thing?
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #708 on: 04-25-2013 04:54 »
« Last Edit on: 04-25-2013 04:57 »

To Sophisticated Shut In: YES, thank you. TNuK is coming off like one of those people that uses Rotten Tomatoes scores in an argument to "prove" whether a movie is good or bad. Those scores and that sort of data can certainly be interesting in many ways and even useful at times, but it's still just a sample of subjective opinions and nothing more. Earnestly appealing to it in an argument would just be idiotic.

I also think there's something strangely entitled and frankly kind of snotty about saying that the producers of the show don't have a say in whether it's "good" or not. It's a piece of art and they are making it on their own terms. They are allowed to decide for themselves whether they think it is good. Others are allowed to disagree, and that's fine. But that is part of what I was getting at. Producing a chart and saying "if they think the show is good, they are WRONG" (and yes, the word "wrong" implicitly implies "proof," TnuK, sorry. You backtracked) is just ridiculous and completely removes subjectivity from a subject that is inherently so.

But hey, if we want to get into data, I think we all have access to plenty that "proves" that Futurama was a bad show from seasons 1999-2003. That data is the ratings, which were poor for much of that time. And that was data that actually mattered and actually affected the life of the show; ratings on fan websites and web reviews did not. Yet, I think we can all agree that we're allowed our own opinions and most of us agree that seasons 1-4 were genius. No matter what somebody's chart said.

But hey, I gotta go. I've been compiling a bunch of data on the usefulness and quality of TNuK's posts, based on the rates of response, the specific reactions, style and word choice, and whether my pet dog licks his own ass while I read those posts to him. I'll have charts shortly. Be aware that anyone who argues with my analysis will get a novel-length response and I will probably have big, bold moving red letter gifs that will definitely prove just how wrong they are. Fair warning.
Quantum Neutrino Field

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #709 on: 04-25-2013 13:37 »

One thing that bothers me: I've always thought that trend of quality/popularity for first 4 seasons was upwards. At least I've perceived that season 4 is considered very high in quality with episodes like The Sting and Fransworth Parabox.
Benderino

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #710 on: 04-25-2013 17:47 »

Agree with bartman. Also, I signed the petition.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #711 on: 04-25-2013 21:59 »

It's over 4000 signatures now. big grin I think it'll reach 10000. It just takes time. We need a way of getting the petition out to an area where many, many fans will see it.
Eternium

Professor
*
« Reply #712 on: 04-25-2013 22:05 »

PRINT OUT POSTERS!  wtf?
not really ^^
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #713 on: 04-25-2013 22:57 »

10 Favorite FUTURAMA Episodes
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #714 on: 04-25-2013 23:23 »

totalnerduk : As much as I hate (really can't stress that enough, hate hate hate) to get in the middle of something which has already provoked such strong feelings in you, I have to say . . . I think you're confusing "quality" with "popularity".

Popularity here is a measure of quality. If something is of a high quality, it will be popular with the audience. Yes, it's an assumptive leap. But it's a logical one, in that the audience of Futurama is likely to be intelligent enough not to waste their attention on something of low quality (ie: something that they are not enjoying), and thus it becomes unpopular.

You say the artist (writers, voice actors, other contributors to the show) can't judge the quality of the work. I'm guessing this is because you think their emotional involvement in the show renders their opinion biased, but that's not a completely effective argument.

No. It's because if you create something intended for public consumption, you are intimately familiar with it, and will not have the same experience that a member of the actual audience will. When you make a film or write a book, you know the plot twists. You came up with the characters. You're going to have a different reaction to those than the set of reactions that will emerge from the audience (different reactions will emerge from different individuals, but the majority will fall into clear types or trends). This is generalisation of the most gross sort, I'll admit. But by and large, the audience will have one of a small number of variations on a theme as far as their experience of the artwork is concerned. The artist has a completely different reaction due to their intimacy with the work. Since it is intended for the consumption of the public, it is they and their reactions to it that must stand as the judge of quality (or popularity, if you prefer to think of it that way).

Take Fry and Leela's orbital kiss in Fun on a Bun as an example. [The audience] wouldn't appreciate the difficulty of animating it and wouldn't include that in their judgement - despite it being a far more concrete measurement of "quality" than their own feelings.

Such quality will obviously translate to a well-polished piece of work that can be enjoyed by the audience. Enjoyment translates to popularity. Popularity might be a crude measure of quality, but in the case of entertainment like Futurama, it's still a useful metric because one influences the other.

[The] only thing you're measuring is popularity.
Useful metric. See above. You're free to disagree. But when you say this...

That disproves what you're measuring,

... you're barking up the wrong tree. Woof. You cannot "disprove" a measurement. You don't "disprove" that somebody has a height by measuring it as the difference in air pressure between their feet and their forehead. It's simply not the most direct way to measure it, and useful data can be derived from this measurement if you view it in the appropriate way.

Quote
and I would also debate the method of measurement. Data is interesting, and a poll is worth considering as representative of the audience, but it's not the whole picture. It's a small snapshot of the whole picture. Say you're judging the show's popularity by how many people tune into an episode on Comedy Central. You could look at that data and say the show is declining in popularity - but it might simply be that your method of gathering information is limited.

Sure, it's limited. But that's due to the fact that it is difficult to qualitatively measure the worth of a piece of entertainment, as you've alluded to.

Quote
If you were to factor in dvd sales, repeat showings, online viewings, illegal downloads etc, you might find it's never been more popular. Same if you're measuring only viewers in America, or only a target audience of young males.

The show as a whole, yeah. But individual episodes within that umbrella? You need to start looking at smaller bites of that whole picture. It's not just popularity of the show that's being measured, after all. It's the quality of individual episodes of the overall work, using their popularity as determined by a review score (this is likely to happen after the purchase of the material), and this is by necessity only a snapshot. The whole picture here would distort the measurement. It might be an accurate indicator, but it lacks precision. It's difficult to home in on what's enjoyable to the viewer by simply looking at download statistics. It might be that people download it and hate it, which is where review scores start to become a useful tool even though they are a limited slice of the information available.

Quote
The data is worth considering, sure, but it's by no means absolute. Even if it was, what it's really measuring is . . . you guessed it . . . popularity. Which is based entirely on opinion. Which is subjective.
Not just popularity. Quality based on enjoyment, as indicated by popularity, which is a slightly different animal. Sure, it's not absolute. But it's an indicator. It's an indicator which ought to be given more weight than "well, that's just a collection of opinions", because those opinions together add up to whether the work will experience sustained popularity.

The popularity of particular things may be high for a brief period, but only things of higher quality (ie: more enjoyable and thus perceived as having a higher worth) will experience a sustained period of popularity. Over time, the average reviews for an episode that was only briefly popular (one that is less enjoyable, lower quality, etc) will normalise at a lower level than for episodes of sustained popularity (ones that are enjoyable, worth watching, of higher quality, etc). So the benefits of aggregation after some interval of time has passed can be seen in that the degree of apparent overall popularity becomes indicative of quality.

Again, this is all based on generalisations. But statistical treatment of data is often about looking at huge populations of data in order to find a general trend.

Quote
So when you say this : "Honestly, if they think that the new run was up to the standards of the original, they're in need of a reality check . . ." and "you can clearly see the slip in quality between S1 and S7" , you don't get to state them as definitive fact and tell everyone who disagrees they're wrong.

Actually, I get to state that you can clearly see something, if I can demonstrate it so that it's obvious. Which is what the graphs were for. I've not been "telling everybody who disagrees" that they're wrong, just the people who've been saying that the data analysis is "retarded" or "ridiculous" or suggesting that it's fundamentally flawed (and without giving any hint of how they think the approach to data collection and treatment could be improved). All I ever set out to do was demonstrate the reasoning behind my statements. The statements themselves are opinion. The reasoning behind them takes the form of absolutes, derived from the treatment of data. So far, people have been attacking not only my treatment of said data, but even the fact that I've bothered to collect and treat data at all.

It's not as though I said that Futurama sucks. It's not as though I expressed any opinion on the current overall quality and enjoyability of the show, which I still feel is high compared to a lot of TV. But people seem to be taking it as though I had, and are telling me that my reasoning is worthless, the data itself is meaningless, and that I cannot "prove" anything.

I am well aware that none of this is "proof" of anything, and have never claimed that it is. I have simply put forth a case, and instead of anybody trying to argue against it, I'm getting what amounts to "it's all just opinion, you can't prove an opinion!!" back. roll eyes

Quote
Change your argument to "you can clearly see decreasing popularity by one method of measurement over seasons 1-7" and I'll clap my hands and say brava. Otherwise it doesn't matter how many charts you make - you haven't proven anything.

As I've stated above (and in previous posts), I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm quite happy to admit that I've only used one method of measurement, and I'm perfectly happy to admit that I shamelessly went for the absolute easiest thing to turn into a graph. So pretend that my original wording was "you can clearly see the slip in quality between S1 and S7 as measured by review scores". The graph doesn't change as a result - it still shows a decline in the scores received by individual episodes. It's only one method of measurement, yes. If you like, you can come up with a different set of metrics, and see how the results compare. I suspect that this is more effort than you're willing to invest in the discussion though.

As long as that method of measurement is the only one that's available, you don't really get to use it as a nitpick. When you come up with a better way to qualitatively measure the worth of a piece of entertainment, we can revisit this.

To Sophisticated Shut In: YES, thank you. TNuK is coming off like one of those people that uses Rotten Tomatoes scores in an argument to "prove" whether a movie is good or bad.

For what I hope will be the last time: I am not trying to use graphs or aggregate review scores to "prove" one thing or another. I have been attempting to demonstrate the reasoning behind my statement that the quality of the show as a piece of entertainment is not the best that it's ever been. Which is in itself, I feel, rather evident to anybody who watched Season 7A. I have provided evidence, and all that I've seen from you is a moderately-lengthy diatribe calling it "retarded" and "ridiculous" to even collect data to support such a viewpoint. I have never claimed to "prove" anything. I've just pointed out the evidence for a general trend. "Proof" is something that only those ignorant of the basic principles of the scientific method talk about. There's no such thing as proof. There is only evidence, and if you wish to reject evidence that is in favour of something, you must either provide evidence that this evidence is flawed (this would normally be stronger than simply repeating "that's just your opinion, man!" or trying to deny the objectivity of the data), or you must provide a logical alternative conclusion that the evidence given, as well as any evidence you may have, supports just as strongly. If denying the objectivity of the data is what you're hanging your case on, then you need to come up with (at minimum) a more objective metric and data collection method in order to show that there is a better way to gather the data. Otherwise it's simply a case of "working with the best data available". Which can be utterly wrong but still win you a Nobel Prize as long as nobody's able to beat it.

I am not trying to "prove" anything, and yet you keep harping on about it. Which is the sort of thing that tends to make me break out the bouncing red text.

Those scores and that sort of data can certainly be interesting in many ways and even useful at times, but it's still just a sample of subjective opinions and nothing more. Earnestly appealing to it in an argument would just be idiotic.
When opinions are the basis by which de facto judgement of a work is rendered, the weight of those combined opinions is something that you'd have to be truly idiotic to try and argue against.

I also think there's something strangely entitled and frankly kind of snotty about saying that the producers of the show don't have a say in whether it's "good" or not. It's a piece of art and they are making it on their own terms. They are allowed to decide for themselves whether they think it is good. Others are allowed to disagree, and that's fine.
Yeah, they're allowed to have their opinion as to the quality of their work, but it's the audience that get to say whether it's of high quality. One can put a lot of effort into something, and still not manage to produce an item of high quality. The result could be something that the artist has poured their soul into, and still not be as engaging to the audience as a piece which is of higher quality (greater entertainment value, in this case) as something that another artist has spent all of five minutes and no effort on. The audience are the people who will decide which is the greater quality, and which is therefore the "better" work. This goes back to a piece being more popular if it is good, and less popular if it is bad. But it's also a function of the fact that this is work intended for the public attention. It'd be entitled and snotty to tell a sculptor that a piece not intended for display was crappy. But if he's done a shitty job of something that's going to grace a park or museum, then the feedback is no less than he deserves, and he doesn't get to say whether it is an unappreciated masterpiece or simply shit. He has to accept that feedback, because he opened up his work to public criticism.

Quote
But that is part of what I was getting at. Producing a chart and saying "if they think the show is good, they are WRONG" (and yes, the word "wrong" implicitly implies "proof," TnuK, sorry. You backtracked) is just ridiculous and completely removes subjectivity from a subject that is inherently so.



No. Firstly, that's not what I did. Any of it. I produced a graphical treatment of data, and rather than say "if they think the show is good, they are WRONG", I said that if they think they are doing their best work yet, they are wrong. As evidenced by the visual interpretation of the data that I put forth. I said nothing about the show not being "good". I didn't say Futurama wasn't good. I didn't say it was bad. I merely commented on a decline in relative quality. As I've said, I still mostly enjoy Futurama, and think it's certainly better than the majority of television. I'd take my least favourite episode over Coronation Street or The X Factor any day.

Secondly, simply to say that somebody is wrong does not "imply proof" (and I think you meant to say "explicitly implies". To implicitly imply something would be to make an implication that itself contains an implication. Impliception? Which I'm not even certain is possible. To explicitly imply would be to make an extremely obvious implication). To state that somebody is wrong is nothing more than that - a statement that somebody is incorrect. It doesn't mean that you're claiming to have proved something one way or the other. I can say that any number of things are wrong without having proof of it, without mentioning proof, and without even bothering to consider whether or not they're wrong at all. To imply something is to suggest it via the assumed logical deduction of the observer, from the wording, facts, opinions or other material, supplied.

A quick example: I could state that I will post red bouncy text in response every time that you post a stupid statement, and that you never post without making a stupid statement. I would not have directly stated that every response I make will contain red bouncy text, but it is implied. Similarly, as this example is a hypothetical scenario, I have not actually directly accused you of making a stupid statement in every post. Nevertheless, it is clearly implied.

I have not "backtracked". I never tried to say I could "prove" anything. You started throwing that word around, not me. Just because you don't understand something until it's been explained slowly to you doesn't make the explanation "backtracking". It just means that you're a bit thick. There's no shame in this, as long as you're willing to admit to it, and work to overcome it. I'm sure that you have other qualities anyway, which will make up for your general lack of intelligence.

Please learn to use words properly. People really shouldn't be allowed to play with things that they don't understand.

But hey, if we want to get into data, I think we all have access to plenty that "proves" that Futurama was a bad show from seasons 1999-2003.

I've not been trying to prove anything. Besides which, that data would simply provide evidence, and it would be a simple matter to provide both evidence to refute this, and an alternative, logical, explanation for both sets of evidence.

Quote
Yet, I think we can all agree that we're allowed our own opinions and most of us agree that seasons 1-4 were genius. No matter what somebody's chart said.

Nobody has made a chart that says seasons 1-4 (or in fact any season of Futurama) was bad. In fact, my graph shows that many of the best episodes of the entire run occurred within seasons 1-4. Take a look. The second graph I posted shows (if you look at the wobbly green line) that the show's output quality was relatively steady during that period (the steepness of the line is what's indicative. Shallow curves don't mean a decline, even if they are tending downwards. Curves that dive steeply are what you're looking for to indicate decline here, which is seen in the region that corresponds to S7. The initial steep curve is merely an artifact of the clustering of the first few episodes high up in the rankings).

Oh my God. It's almost as if I weren't bashing the show or anything, but drawing a relative comparison. Um, wait. That's exactly what I was doing.

But hey, I gotta go. I've been compiling a bunch of data on the usefulness and quality of TNuK's posts, based on the rates of response, the specific reactions, style and word choice, and whether my pet dog licks his own ass while I read those posts to him. I'll have charts shortly. Be aware that anyone who argues with my analysis will get a novel-length response and I will probably have big, bold moving red letter gifs that will definitely prove just how wrong they are. Fair warning.

If you're going to abbreviate my username, capitalise all of it or none of it.

As for your charts, I look forward to them, and will naturally produce graphically treated data that has slightly more grounding in reality with which to counter them. At which point I shall graciously accept your apology for being such an unremitting little stain.

One thing that bothers me: I've always thought that trend of quality/popularity for first 4 seasons was upwards. At least I've perceived that season 4 is considered very high in quality with episodes like The Sting and Fransworth Parabox.

The graphs support this. They're pretty highly rated episodes overall in Season 4. If you take a look at the ranked list, a few of them are in the top 20. The graph also shows relatively few dips into the zones that fall outside the "average" and "high quality" areas.

Of course, if you're in the "tnuk's graphs are worthless because he's a big subjective meanie!" club, this won't mean a great deal to you. But if you're willing to concede that they have at least some merit, you now have evidence to support your theory.


Careful. Bartman's probably going to point out that this is one person's entirely subjective "top ten" list, and that you haven't proved anything. Beware!
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #715 on: 04-26-2013 00:28 »

tl;dr
jabalong

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #716 on: 04-26-2013 01:00 »

Even if you think the episode are not as good as the Fox run, there is still very few TV shows that are enjoyable as Futurama right now.

You've hit the nail on the head!

I'll never understand how supposedly diehard fans turn on shows and franchises because they don't think the quality of later episodes is as good as earlier episodes.

But surely as important or more important is how it stacks up against other shows to watch. And in this regard, with so much crap on TV, I don't get how there isn't room for more Futurama.

As a big scifi fan, it really irked me how "fans" turned on Trek, Stargate and Battlestar, when I could never understand how having none of these on TV was preferable to the new shows.

It's probably not the same phenomenon here, as don't think I'm hearing many Futurama fans wishing the show to end, but my feeling is the same that no Futurama is not preferable to new shows, even with quibbles over quality.

Personally, I enjoyed Trek (Enterprise), Stargate (Universe) and BSG (Caprica) to the end, just as I have Futurama as it now winds down. They were/are certainly preferable to most of the other alternatives on TV.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #717 on: 04-26-2013 01:02 »
« Last Edit on: 04-26-2013 01:03 by totalnerduk »

I still miss Stargate, but I never got into Universe. I was more annoyed when Atlantis was cancelled.

tl;dr

Your insightful and detailed post has added so much value to this thread.
futz
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #718 on: 04-26-2013 02:18 »

I'm still not sure what usefulness all the graphing and analysis has. It just seems to say less people want to watch the show the more shows they make. And that just seems to say they succeeded in not having to bother with it anymore, ever.

I would think that it's the "typical" TV viewer that you have to convince there is something to watch if you want to get sustainable ratings. The niche fans (sci-fi, toons, comedy, etc.) probably don't exist in numbers large enough to justify making or continuing a show. But I think Futurama even drove the niche fans away (too many different small niches to satisfy at once?) if I understand the falling down the stairs of quality rating part of your analysis.

I don't think it's a matter of "turning" on a show or being loyal, etc. It's a product that someone is trying to sell you. If you don't want to buy it that's their problem and it's not the viewer or fan's job to figure out what they're doing wrong. Most likely you'd be told that they know better than you anyway.
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #719 on: 04-26-2013 03:39 »

Show of hands who actually read that novel-length TnUK post? I need it for my graph.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 Print 
 Topic locked! 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.397 seconds with 17 queries.