The LAST Futurama News Thread... Forever? (Caution: Spoilers)

[:]

... Now it's appropriate to create a new News thread.

As of today, June 13th, 2013, we have less than one week until the final season premiere. The season will premiere on Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 (CE for all you time-travelers) at 10:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time/7:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on Comedy Central with an hour-long double premiere of "2-D Blacktop" and "Fry and Leela's Big Fling." The series is currently slated to conclude for the second or third time (depending on what you define as a 'cancellation') on Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 with the episode written by seasoned Futurama series-finale writer Ken Keeler, "Meanwhile."

[#1 :]

... Now it's appropriate to create a new News thread.

Old one is not locked yet.

[#2 :]

... Now it's appropriate to create a new News thread.

Old one is not locked yet.

It's at twenty pages, though! It's on death row!

[#3 :]

You knew the rules.  <Judge Whitey> "Ah hereby sentence you to 300 years of playing in the Robot Devil's orchestra".

[#4 :]

I'd say it's fine to create a new thread around about now, premiere in less than a week, old thread on 20 pages...

[#5 :]

Only problem is:

If there's an existing thread that's open, stick your post in there, rather than starting a new thread (including when the "current" thread is on/near page 20 but still open).

[#6 :]

Now Frida Waterfall is on death row... But I suppose she should have seen it coming, what with her lineage and all...

[#7 :]

Frida can't have left PEEL unless her last post is "EAT ONLY NATURAL WHOLE-GRAIN BREAD."

[#8 :]

I'd say it's fine to create a new thread around about now, premiere in less than a week, old thread on 20 pages...

It's not, though. It's only fine to create a new one once the old one is locked. Threads are generally locked once they hit 20 pages, but we've had longer threads in the buildup to a new season before - it means that once the new season starts, we can have the new thread begin at the same time.

The rule is not that we don't post in a thread once it hits page 20, but that after page 20, the probability that it will be locked by a member of the PEEL staff rapidly approaches 1, unless there are mitigating factors. Until a thread has been laid to rest, it should be counted as the "current" thread, and a new one should not be opened whilst a current thread exists. What's so fucking hard to grasp about that? Has the board undergone a shift from an intelligent population to being a cage full of screaming idiots, flinging their own shit around?

Frida really ought to have known better than to create a new thread, especially after seeing what happened the last time she cloned a thread that already existed. Between the amount of butthurt she got and the number of people who rightly chastised her, one would think that she'd learned a lesson.

Anyhow, this should probably be closed/deleted, rather than allowed to fill up until the current thread is closed, and then a new new thread should probably be created by the moderator who closes that one. Just so that everything is nicely in order.

[#9 :]

NOW that the other topic is locked, this one is go. Although I'd rather agree with tnuk. Starting afresh might be better, I think it's unfair to call this the last Futurama news thread. As long as there is fans, there will be Futurama news.

[#10 :]

Looks like there's a new thread now, despite this one still being open.

Which one will be the new thread? We'll have to wait and see for the "thrilling" conclusion of this incredibly tedious saga.

[#11 :]

This should be the new thread. Regardless of it's immature birth, it was still the first to appear (and the one that got the most replies in it), so on many levels it should be kept open. Carry on, old chaps!

[#12 :]

Maybe by the second page we'll even be dicussing Futurama news in it, rather than simply talking about the thread itself.

Or perhaps that will take until page three.

[#13 :]

Dewey Defeats Truman and I declare this thread wins (because obviously I have that authority).

Or perhaps that will take until page three.

You know it will...

[#14 :]

You're all wrong. I'm going to talk about Futurama right now!

*Ahem*

"What!?"

[#15 :]

Maybe by the second page we'll even be dicussing Futurama news in it, rather than simply talking about the thread itself.

Or perhaps that will take until page three.

In fact, discussing the thread itself might be a valid strategy.
With the show on hiatus after the 2013 run, Futurama news will be a scarce ressource. While infos about the thread (who opened it, does the thread have a valid title, was it opened too soon or late, should someone else have opened the thread, etc...) will come in unlimited supply.
Therefore, we should save the scarce ressource "Futurama News" as much as possible, and stretch the thread by using the unlimited ressource "Info about the Thread ifself".

To bring up a subject for discussion:
I suggest we enter a new Poll category, POM style:
NFNTOM= New Futurama News Thread Opener of the Month.

[#16 :]

To bring up a subject for discussion:
I suggest we enter a new Poll category, POM style:
NFNTOM= New Futurama News Thread Opener of the Month.

I agree, we have to have that.

[#17 :]

Hmm, yeah I could agree with a POM

[#18 :]

TV's 'Futurama' Launches Final Episodes Tonight.

[#19 :]

Nice article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/arts/television/futurama-begins-its-final-season-on-comedy-central.html?smid=fb-share

[#20 :]

Nice article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/arts/television/futurama-begins-its-final-season-on-comedy-central.html?smid=fb-share

But some of its problems have been self-generated.

For one thing, it’s been both ahead of and behind its times. In 1999 it was prescient, an early adopter and parodist of the geek sensibility, its combination of science-fiction high jinks and rapid-fire pop-culture references foreshadowing a significant chunk of 21st-century TV comedy. As the 2000s progressed, and sitcoms descended into easy snarkiness, however, “Futurama” began to look old-fashioned because it was still telling complete stories and delivering clear, comprehensible jokes.

Sad but true.
Why can't everyone like great things!

[#21 :]

SETH MACFARLANE IS VOICING SEYMOUR, YES YOU READ THAT RIGHT

Also, "Game of Tones" plot revealed!

the Planet Express crew journeys into Fry’s dreams to pull off a mission in the year 1999. Sarah Silverman also pops up in her old role as Michelle, Fry’s girlfriend from the 20th century.

Guess it makes sense why Seymour is talking then.

[#22 :]

I really like the plot, even though I'd rather see the writers make another canon Nibblonian episode. Still, this episode seems like it could have a lot of fun things happening and possibly some emotion from Fry relieving his past life in his dreams.

Also, the only reason I made another Futurama News thread was because totalnerduk suggested a new new thread should be made to replace the old thread and this prematurely made thread. Though I guess this thread works still, so meh.

[#23 :]

Sounds similar to a plot they wanted to do for the 200th episode.

[#24 :]

Interesting to see how the plot turns out, dreams are always interesting.

Also, the only reason I made another Futurama News thread was because totalnerduk suggested a new new thread should be made to replace the old thread and this prematurely made thread. Though I guess this thread works still, so meh.

I guess, even if this was prematurely opened, you shouldn't start new thread when there is any news thread open.

[#25 :]

Also, the only reason I made another Futurama News thread was because totalnerduk suggested a new new thread should be made to replace the old thread and this prematurely made thread.

So you didn't read the part about this one needing to be closed first?

Until a thread has been laid to rest, it should be counted as the "current" thread, and a new one should not be opened whilst a current thread exists. What's so fucking hard to grasp about that?

What indeed, I wonder. What indeed.

[#26 :]

The other thread was locked, let's get back to newsworthy discussion..I saw some mixed in here somewhere

[#27 :]

So you didn't read the part about this one needing to be closed first?

Sorry, I must've read your post wrong. I thought you only meant the 23 page thread and that a new thread should be made to start anew or something, but this thread is okay then.

Anyway, lets get back on topic. Seth Macfarlane is the voice of Seymour. That's...not good.

[#28 :]

I don't think it's a problem; for one thing, he's just "dream Seymour." Also, I think Macfarlane is very capable of doing a good job as Seymour. Though I'm not a fan of his shows, I believe he's still an excellent voice actor.

[#29 :]

The other thread was locked, let's get back to newsworthy discussion.

Do you mean newsworthy discussion, or Futurama news? I mean, I could talk about plenty of things that are making the headlines locally or globally, but none of them are relevant to the fate or content of Futurama.

Also, I think Macfarlane is very capable of doing a good job as Seymour. Though I'm not a fan of his shows, I believe he's still an excellent voice actor.

I have to agree with you there. He's a shitty writer/showrunner, but does some pretty good VO/VA work. It's all too easy to simply think of him as "that putz who does Family Guy", but he wasn't always that putz and he's got the potential to be much more valuable to the entertainment industry if only he'd quit insisting that he be taken seriously as some kind of mogul.

Still, he's no Frank Welker or Billy West.

[#30 :]

Agreed, Seth MacFarlane is a good voice actor yet he is totally awful when it comes to writing. If he makes a new show in The Cleveland Show's place, we can all bet that it will be another family like 'The Smiths' and 'The Griffins'.

But since this is a Futurama news thread, let's keep the thread going with some talk on the expectations of the potential of each episode.
I feel like "Fry and Leela's Big Fling" will have some potential in the end of the episode.

[#31 :]

There's not really much time left for "potential" to grow, is there? Or do you mean the ending could be potentially good?

[#32 :]

I'm kinda pissed about Macfarttank voicing Seymour.

See.. it's b/c Seymour is iconic and Seth is trash.

I don't think he's a good VO artist, that man can sing well... and thats that.

[#33 :]

He's good for a voice actor. He's not really that good of a singer.

[#34 :]

Now this is just awful, seymour needed a voice from one of the original cast in my opinion.  Not mcbuueeeghh

YAy, only a few hours (I believe) when I wake up it's there!

[#35 :]

Regarding the ratings, Seth appearing in Futurama is rather a honor he bestows upon others, than a honor that is bestowed upon him

[#36 :]

well seth mcfarlen insulted the simpsons on his show Family Guy, and it wasn't the normal type of offense

I don't know why matt greoing would want him on the show

[#37 :]

Well...I do not know which Family Guy scene incorporated the Simpsons in another way than a Cameo/Gimmick covered by the "Fair use Policy".
The worst I have seen is Stewie in a "Naked Gun" like intro sequence, running Homer over, with Peter asking "Who the heck is that?"
The "12 laughs a year" calendar in Futurama is imhO more offensive than that scene (and still acceptable).

[#38 :]

He's good for a voice actor. He's not really that good of a singer.

Dude, he can do, like, 5 1/2 voices total.
Ted is just Peter's voice.. but lazy, and also Stan's voice is just Brian but louder.
And Brian is almost his normal voice!
That ain't very good.
But he can sing his lungs off, back when he still cared too!

[#39 :]

The "12 laughs a year" calendar in Futurama is imhO more offensive than that scene (and still acceptable).

I guess I'm missing something about the calendar being offensive but either way, I'm pretty sure one of the Family Guy characters (I'm not sure whom) raping Marge on the bottom of the screen oversteps the mark by a fair margin...