'Simpsons in Space'

[Reply #40 on:]

Correction.  You had an American version of Coupling.  The latest i've heard is that the show's been canned by NBC, who are getting so desperate they may renew Frasier for a 12th season.

I agree about remakes being a bad idea though.

TOTP sneer at The Rear Guard

[Reply #41 on:]

 

Originally posted by PCC Fred:
 
*checks on Internet*

UK's "Full House"

USA's "Full House"

It's a coincidence.  They're two different shows that just happened to have the same name.

phew! an anything version of "Full House", would be a world gone Topsy-Turvy! My faith in humanity restored! (excluding Gail Berman)

[Reply #42 on:]

 

Originally posted by David A:
 And vice versa.  We have an American version of Coupling now.

No we don't.

[Reply #43 on:]

 

its also hard to relate too because no one living today has been cryogenically frozen
for 1000 years.

I'm growing skeptical on FOX using their "can't relate to real life" attitude to cancel their show because they're showing all this reality TV crap that you can't relate to either.

They just want to save money by buying non-scripted shows. I guess they can't look through people's clues. Mostly everyone who has a brain don't want to watch that. FOX sounds autocratic in that they're only there for themselves but not everyone else. We must try to change them into a network that listens to the proletariat.
What did I just say?

[Reply #44 on:]

 

Originally posted by PCC Fred:
Correction.  You had an American version of Coupling.  The latest i've heard is that the show's been canned by NBC, who are getting so desperate they may renew Frasier for a 12th season.

It was canned already?  Well, that shows you how much I pay attention to what's on network television these days.  That would also explain why I've been watching Scrubs at 9:30 for the past couple of weeks, huh?

[Reply #45 on:]

 

Originally posted by Just Chris:
 I'm growing skeptical on FOX using their "can't relate to real life" attitude to cancel their show because they're showing all this reality TV crap that you can't relate to either.

Reality TV is pointless. It's not even entertaining - and as you said, it's hardly "realistic." My television is right in front of a window - if I wanted to see real life, I'd look out that window, wouldn't I? Needless to say which one I go to for entertainment...

[Reply #46 on:]

 

Originally posted by PCC Fred:
"Three's Company" became "Man About the House"

Actually, it was the other way around.

[Reply #47 on:]

 

Originally posted by davierocks:
@DoTheBartman:  I think the argument that people are making is that the less lovable characters affected ratings rather than directly affecting fox's opinions on the show.

Eh, maybe.  I somehow just get the feeling that the characters weren't compelling enough at all to people in seasons one and two, so that combined with declining Fox support resulted in the huge ratings dip by the end of season two and the beginning of season three.  If the show had started out at season three levels in the first episodes, people might have been more compelled to watch each week, as opposed to simply watching once in a while.

[Reply #48 on:]

 This is following on from DTB's comments on the first page.

 Whilst I obviously love the show, I think the biggest downfall with Futurama was that the writers were often too ready to forsake a character's personality and sense of realism for the sake of a parody or a cheap joke. For instance, the Married With Children parody in ABBF2: good for a cheap laugh perhaps but not much use in developing the characters and plot.

Obviously there hasn't been quite as much character deviation as in The Simpsons, but considering the much more fantastical environment of Futurama, it would've helped if they could've kept the characters more consistent throughout their adventures. Sure, the title of "comedy" to describe the show would be less summarary of the show's function were it like this, but I personally see no reason why a show can't make you laugh and have you engrossed in its characters too.

[Reply #49 on:]

Somebody mentioned Reality TV programmes are lame, that's what the people watch/want. In the UK alone we have over 1 million just watching Big Brother, that's just because people like to see people lose their minds!  If your confused that's because i taking the pee out off Reality TV programmes.
 Simpsons In Space though, come on Fox, not ever show can be like The Simpsons. Futurama had a lot to look up to and if you read through most of the old threads, your see what other peelers have heard that FOX have said about the difference between the 2.

  Fox are stupid in the fact that:

1)They Cancelled Futurama.
2)They cancelled Family Guy (That has done extremely well since it's death)
3)Asking for more animated shows (Why get rid of Futurama then?)

[Reply #50 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
 Eh, maybe.  I somehow just get the feeling that the characters weren't compelling enough at all to people in seasons one and two, so that combined with declining Fox support resulted in the huge ratings dip by the end of season two and the beginning of season three.  If the show had started out at season three levels in the first episodes, people might have been more compelled to watch each week, as opposed to simply watching once in a while.

i agree with everything you just said

[Reply #51 on:]

 

Originally posted by PCC Fred:
  No joke.  The UK sometimes remakes American comedies.  "Three's Company" became "Man About the House", and "Who's the Boss" became "The Upper Hand".

Actually Three's Company was a remake of Man About the House. Also All in the Family was a remake of british sitcom Till Death Us Do Part.

[Reply #52 on:]

I think i found a show that even fox would like.
 http://www.geocities.com/madmovies77/simp.html

[Reply #53 on:]

 

Originally posted by Vamsi:
To quote from the Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show episode, courtesy of SNPP.com:


 Man: How many of you kids would like Itchy & Scratchy to deal with
          real-life problems, like the ones you face every day?
    Kids: [clamoring] Oh, yeah!  I would!  Great idea!  Yeah, that's it!
     Man: And who would like to see them do just the opposite -- getting
          into far-out situations involving robots and magic powers?
    Kids: [clamoring] Me!  Yeah!  Oh, cool!  Yeah, that's what I want!
     Man: So, you want a realistic, down-to-earth show... that's
          completely off-the-wall and swarming with magic robots?
Kids: [all agreeing, quieter this time] That's right.  Oh yeah,
          good.

I watched that episode a couple days ago and when I heard that line, I turned to my dad and said "Doesn't that sound familiar to you?". That's exactly what Futurama is.

"A realistic, Down-to-earth show that's completely off the wall and swarming with magical robots."

[Reply #54 on:]

It's all part of David S/X Cohen's continual desire to lay in "secrets" in animated shows. 

[Reply #55 on:]

 

Originally posted by spacepilot3000:
 I watched that episode a couple days ago and when I heard that line, I turned to my dad and said "Doesn't that sound familiar to you?". That's exactly what Futurama is.

"A realistic, Down-to-earth show that's completely off the wall and swarming with magical robots."

yes i already said that, not quite sure the robots are magical though,futurama trie to be more logical

[Reply #56 on:]

The Simpsons has been stale for over 5-6 years. I can't believe that mindless audiences still tune in to that crap. The Simpsons are hardly even a family and more. It sickens me.Futurama is the way of the future! Why can't everybody else see it?

[Reply #57 on:]

wow never seen a post like that before.

hmm normally my sarcasm is wittier and less obvious than that.
 oh well

[Reply #58 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
 Eh, maybe.  I somehow just get the feeling that the characters weren't compelling enough at all to people in seasons one and two, so that combined with declining Fox support resulted in the huge ratings dip by the end of season two and the beginning of season three.

Excusez-moi, but wasn't it Fox's shitty scheduling with Futurama being put on at 7:00 pm at the end of season two and onwards that resulted in a rating's decline?  That's what I always thought, anyway.  Anyway, I think that having likeable characters has nothing to do with the popularity of a show.  Namely, if a crap show like Friends can be one of the most popular shows ever, than it most certainly must be a top factor with regards to what makes a show popular.  Oddly enough, I got really attached to Futurama about halfway through watching the pilot episode, just because I thought the characters were more likeable than, say, The Simpsons characters.  I am firmly convinced that all this is a matter of opinion, rather than fact like some people are making it out to be (i.e. that audience like/don't like loveable characters, or character who they can identify with).  Too bad we don't have someone here who works for Nielsen Media, because somebody like that might know what causes audience trends.

[Reply #59 on:]

Well even so something about the show meant people were less devotional to it then the simpsons, i wouldn't know about shitty scheduling in the u.s ther were no problems in the u.k.

but say if the simpsons had been played around with its scheduling when it came around i'd imagine people would have made more effort.

its really just a variety of factors combing being relative to different people in different situations.

[Reply #60 on:]

 

Originally posted by Evil Fox Exec
 Excusez-moi, but wasn't it Fox's shitty scheduling with Futurama being put on at 7:00 pm at the end of season two and onwards that resulted in a rating's decline?  That's what I always thought, anyway.  Anyway, I think that having likeable characters has nothing to do with the popularity of a show.  Namely, if a crap show like Friends can be one of the most popular shows ever, than it most certainly must be a top factor with regards to what makes a show popular.  Oddly enough, I got really attached to Futurama about halfway through watching the pilot episode, just because I thought the characters were more likeable than, say, The Simpsons characters.  I am firmly convinced that all this is a matter of opinion, rather than fact like some people are making it out to be (i.e. that audience like/don't like loveable characters, or character who they can identify with).  Too bad we don't have someone here who works for Nielsen Media, because somebody like that might know what causes audience trends.

Can't argue that Friends is crap.  However, for some reason people "relate" to the characters.  People had trouble relating to the characters, especcially with their bland early characterizations, in Futurama, simple as that.  My take is that the characters weren't really unlikeable neccasarily (well, they often were, especcially Bender, but that's not the issue), but people just didn't care about them one way or the other.  Honestly, when watching episodes from the first two seasons I very rarely care about what's going on or particularly like any of the characters.  Most of my enjoyment (and I do enjoy those episodes a lot for the most part) comes simply from the humor.  But humor is not enough for most people, they need characters that hook them in some way, and in the early days Futurama's characters tended to have one basic character trait each and little else.  Simple as that.  Fry was stupid (and from 1999), Leela was a nagger who everyone bickered with, and Bender was crass.  In regards to your mention of "Space Pilot", that was one of the better early episodes character-wise, but remember that the show started to drop off considerably after those strong initial ratings.

For the record, I'm not blaming the show entirely here.  I agree, Fox fucked up seriously.  In fact, the most ironic thing is that it was in season three, when the show suddenly got ridiculously good, that Fox's support started to really bottom out into a near lack of support.  Still, the show was basically dropping continuously ever since "Space Pilot", and Fox can't take all the blame for that even if they obviously aren't good about sticking with their shows.

[Reply #61 on:]

also there wasn't enough done to make people care about these charcters. yet it would you seem you were expected to. i found it annoying that it was supposed to move me i just found it cheesy at first.
also a lot of the plots were kind of
' what KERAZY adventures will the gang get into this week,

[Reply #62 on:]

 

Originally posted by Evil Fox Exec:
 
 Oddly enough, I got really attached to Futurama about halfway through watching the pilot episode, just because I thought the characters were more likeable than, say, The Simpsons characters.  I am firmly convinced that all this is a matter of opinion, rather than fact like some people are making it out to be (i.e. that audience like/don't like loveable characters, or character who they can identify with).   

I liked Futurama's characters right off that bat from day 1.  I totally agree that whether the characters were likeable from the beginning or not is opinion, not fact as is being assumed by some (actually by the next two posts after your statement!).

[Reply #63 on:]

Its opinion but I'm stating as best as I can why most people's opinions were negative regarding the character depth.

[Reply #64 on:]

 

Originally posted by User_names_suck:i wouldn't know about shitty scheduling in the u.s ther were no problems in the u.k.

What? Have you watched the show on Channel 4? Neither has just about anyone else given their random time slots (often something like 2am), needless and often bizarre censorship and the decision to stop showing it after McSeason 3 (unless the timeslots were so well hidden that I missed them entirely). Sky did a good job though and thank God for the DVDs.

[Reply #65 on:]

i watched it on sky one

2am c4 slots are now just repeats anyway, for it gets played around with as well as things like familgy guy, south park, king of the hill, and currently the pj's

so sorry i never had to consider c4 scheduling