Futurama Officially Announced!!
Greg Brobeck
Cartoon channel has a 'Futurama'
Reruns skedded for Sunday Adult Swim block
By JOHN DEMPSEY
The Cartoon Network has engineered the most elaborate off-network purchase
in its 10-year history, buying the cable-TV rights to the 72 half-hours of
the Twentieth TV's primetime animated series "Futurama."
Deal represents an investment of about $10 million for Cartoon, which will
schedule "Futurama" somewhere in its weekly Adult Swim animated block from
10 p.m. to 1 a.m. on Sundays, starting in January.
"Futurama" reruns "will take our Adult Swim programming to a whole different
level," said Jim Samples, executive VP and general manager of Cartoon
Network. Each half-hour of "Futurama," created by Matt Groening ("The
Simpsons") and David X. Cohen, costs well over $500,000 to produce.
Established a year ago, the three-hour Sunday Adult Swim block has vaulted
into the top 10 among all cable networks in the time period among men
18-to-34, the demographic target of the programming.
Previously, Cartoon had bought limited-run off-network animated series for
Adult Swim such as "The Oblongs" and "Mission Hill," two shows that failed
to capture a primetime audience on the WB Network, and "Home Movies,"
canceled after 13 episodes by UPN. Cartoon has commissioned another 13
half-hours of "Home Movies."
A Sunday-night success on the Fox Network since it made its debut in March
1999, "Futurama" has slipped in the ratings in the last year or so. Fox
hasn't made it official, but the show is unlikely to come back after it
burns off its final original episodes during the 2002-03 season, where it's
scheduled Sunday at 7.
Cartoon has the cable rights to "Futurama" for five years. But the deal is
not exclusive: Twentieth reserves the right to sell it in syndication if TV
stations should show an interest at some point in buying the rerun episodes.
Richard Bensam
To confirm that this is not some cruel hoax, the URL for the article is:
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117872510&
categoryID=14&cs=1
Nonsubscribers to Variety.com will only see the first paragraph, so a 31st
Century thank you and a hearty bowl of Admiral Crunch to Greg for providing
the full article!
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 9:22:48 -0400, Greg Brobeck wrote
(in message <ali7au$1q7425$1...@ID-159521.news.dfncis.de>):
Nickdisk
theres a news article on Animation Magazine online about this as well
- http://www.animationmagazine.net/television/9_9_02.html :)
~Stewart :)
My Futurama Message Board - http://azure.bbboy.net/futurama
My Nickelodeon TV, Nicktoons, Classic Nick, Nickelodeon UK & AU, Nick
At Nite message board - http://bb.bbboy.net/nickdisk
(Now with an added Nick shows & Nicktoons characters RPG)
Richard Bensam <rabe...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<0001HW.B9A251F4...@news.earthlink.net>...
Joe Bevilacqua
the airwaves after the first episode.
And is it just me or does every voice Billy West does sound like
Stimpy? I can always tell it is him.
nickd...@yahoo.co.uk (Nickdisk) wrote in message news:<95c31d00.02091...@posting.google.com>...
Robert Hutchinson
> Whoopee! More chances to watch a boring series that should have left
> the airwaves after the first episode.
>
> And is it just me or does every voice Billy West does sound like
> Stimpy? I can always tell it is him.
The only time he's ever surprised me was his narration for those Screen
Gems rerun bumpers. Is that sad?
--
Robert Hutchinson | "[Destiny's Child] got booed at the NBA
| playoffs. Even men in plush animal costumes
| don't get booed at the NBA playoffs."
| -- Fametracker.com
TheShredder
> > And is it just me or does every voice Billy West does sound like
> > Stimpy? I can always tell it is him.
>
> The only time he's ever surprised me was his narration for those Screen
> Gems rerun bumpers. Is that sad?
Oh well, no worse than Jim Cummings. Great VA, great impressionist, but I
can almost always spot out his voices, because he has that same distinctive
voice for each character.
Luxury Yacht
On 11 Sep 2002, Joe Bevilacqua wrote:
> Whoopee! More chances to watch a boring series that should have left
> the airwaves after the first episode.
Then why are you here? To tell us how cultivated your tastes are, or
something? O.K., I bow down in humble reverence for your obviously
superior intellect. Now go away and play Klingons with your friends.
-- L.Y.
Robert Hutchinson
> >And is it just me or does every voice Billy West does sound like
> >Stimpy? I can always tell it is him.
>
> pretty easy( for me atleast) to spot people like Jeff Bennett, Tress Macneille,
> EG Daily, Jim Cummings etc. But it doesn't mean they're bad IMO.
I couldn't pick out Bennett's voices until I'd heard about six of them.
They seem to form something of a circle.
200...@wongfaye.com
: And is it just me or does every voice Billy West does sound like
: Stimpy? I can always tell it is him.
honestly i hear a little stimpy every now and then but i like the show it
shows the varying morals of the future
gee do you hear freddy flat everytime you hear bart simpson
Rob T Firefly
news:FYNf9.421$TE4.32...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Two words: Cam Clarke.
-- RTF
http://bounce.to/rtf
http://phonelosers.net
AIM - Rob T Firefly
Heavyarms
"Luxury Yacht" <san...@nospam.please.net> wrote in message
news:3d7fea1c$0$1426$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
No, Joe B is just one of those folks that, while disliking Futurama so much,
finds The Simpsons refreshingly funny and unique.
Michael Zaite
"Heavyarms" <jent...@screwspam.att.net> wrote in message
news:eRcg9.10776$1C2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Yes I know I never laughed harder then the time Homer was Raped by a panda.
So sophisticated and hip.....
--
Mike Zaite ICQ:25758172
Larry
<san...@nospam.please.net> wrote:
>
>Then why are you here?
He's not here, he's there and we're here. Now he might say that he is
here and we are there, but he's wrong. So there!
This is the problem with cross posting. He posted a reply on the
cartoon network board (there), where his opinion is valid, even if I
disagree. You read the reply on the Futurama board (here) where his
reply would be out of place.
He may seem like a jerk for coming to a Futurama fan board and putting
the show down. However, that's not what he did.
It is almost impossible to cross post without some kind of
misunderstanding / flame war breaking out.
--Larry
Matthew W. Miller
> Whoopee! More chances to watch a boring series that should have left
> the airwaves after the first episode.
Whoopee! More Bevilacqua whining.
> And is it just me or does every voice Billy West does sound like
> Stimpy? I can always tell it is him.
And is it just me or does every article Joe Bevilacqua writes sound like
sour grapes on not making it big in the voice-acting profession?
P.S. Reply goes *after* quoted material.
--
Matthew W. Miller -- mwmi...@columbus.rr.com
Legion1979
at least in every Klasky Csupo show.
Luxury Yacht
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Larry wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:12:59 -0500, Luxury Yacht
> This is the problem with cross posting. He posted a reply on the
> cartoon network board (there), where his opinion is valid, even if I
> disagree. You read the reply on the Futurama board (here) where his
> reply would be out of place.
D'oh!
> He may seem like a jerk for coming to a Futurama fan board and putting
> the show down. However, that's not what he did.
>
> It is almost impossible to cross post without some kind of
> misunderstanding / flame war breaking out.
Aye Carumba!
-- L.Y.
Joe Bevilacqua
I was in the Cartoon Network group and did not realize the message I
was responding to would be cross-posted to the Futurama group.
Naturally, I am entitled to my opinion about the show... and, of
course, people should not be resorting to personal attacks of me just
because they don't agree with my opinion... but I also should have
been more careful and not cross-posted my opinion to the Futurama
group in the first place.
Joe
Larry <residen...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<a3h4oug011blqo44a...@4ax.com>...
Benjamin Robinson
Larry wrote:
>It is almost impossible to cross post without some kind of
>misunderstanding / flame war breaking out.
That's why I configured my newsreader to insert the newsgroup from which I'm
posting in the introduction line.
--
Benjamin Robinson bj...@freenet.tlh.fl.us
This message may or may not contain sarcastic content; your burden to decide
"Nobody *ever* suspects the butterfly." -- Bart Simpson
Joe Bevilacqua
> sour grapes on not making it big in the voice-acting profession?
>
Matt, there's a big difference between what I have been posting and
your response. My posts are just my opinion about a show or a voice. I
never personally attack anyone. Your response to me is a personal
attack. Not only that, you are wrong. My career is doing just fine,
thank you. You might want to check out my recent work at my website:
www.comedyorama.com, before you make claims that are untrue.
> P.S. Reply goes *after* quoted material.
There is no such rule, Matt. They can go before or after. Read other
posts and you will see this. Generally, if you are responded to a lot
of scetions of someone's post it is best to put the reply after their
quote. But if you are only adding one paragraph and you need to leave
a longer quote in for reference, it is perfectly acceptable to put
your response before their quote so that the reader does not have to
scroll down past it to get to the new material.
Exatron
Actually, there is such a rule. Quoted text should be placed above new
text or snipped in order to maintain the thread's chronology. It is not
acceptable to put your response before someone else's quote, no matter how
long it is or if the poorly written newsreader (Outlook in particular)
does it by default. If you're that concerned about people too lazy or
ignorant to scroll down, you should snip text instead of top quoting.
--
Exatron
"Strive for perfection even if others must suffer," - Hook
The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
Michael Zaite
"Exatron" <exa...@NOhotmSpAMail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.09.19.15...@NOhotmSpAMail.com...
> text or snipped in order to maintain the thread's chronology. It is not
> acceptable to put your response before someone else's quote, no matter how
> long it is or if the poorly written newsreader (Outlook in particular)
> does it by default. If you're that concerned about people too lazy or
> ignorant to scroll down, you should snip text instead of top quoting.
I always wonder about this. Because Originaly quoted text went beneath new
text. I think on a couple of the really old News Groups out there in comp.*
rec.* etc...Still use the reply over quote. And most news clients still want
to put new text on top. So what really is the deal? Why,when, and how was
the switch made?
Matthew Miller
>I always wonder about this. Because Originaly quoted text went beneath new
>text. I think on a couple of the really old News Groups out there in comp.*
>rec.* etc...Still use the reply over quote. And most news clients still want
>to put new text on top. So what really is the deal? Why,when, and how was
>the switch made?
There was no switch -- replying after (and in context) has always been the
usenet way. See RFC1855:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize
the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the
original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when
they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is
possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original.
Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
News clients put you at the top of a message so you can go through the
quoted text and trim it appropriately.
See also <http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html>.
(note i'm not matthew w miller. to keep the thread confusion at minimum)
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Exatron
The switch from bottom to top quoting was made when software companies,
like Microsoft, released newsreaders that put the cursor before quoted
text. The natural influx of newbies led to people top quoting because
that was what their newsreader implied they should do.
--
Exatron
"There's no such thing as too much information." - Rewind
Jym Dyer
>> There is no such rule, Matt. They can go before or after.
=v= There is of course no way to enforce a "rule," but it makes
no cognitive sense to reply to something that shows up later.
=v= The real issue is the practice of including the *entire*
quoted message. From early on, newsreaders inserted the quoted
message and the idea was that you'd edit it down to only the
excerpts that you'd be replying to. *Not* including the whole
thing.
=v= Despite "Emily Postnews" etiquette guides and desperate
pleas, people persisted in leaving entire quoted messages in,
even if it was to put a remark or two at the bottom ("I
agree!"). This practice was called "bottom-posting." At
some point someone figured out that nobody was slogging through
a whole quoted message to read their one-line replies, so they
"solved" this problem by putting replies on the top, and this is
called "top-posting."
=v= I've read that a Microsoft newsreader helped top-posting
along by locating the blinking cursor above a quoted message.
More brilliant engineering. :^\
=v= There is nearly never a need to include a whole message. A
good newsreader will follow the message-ID in the "References:"
header so that you can see the whole referenced message if you
really want to.
> Originaly quoted text went beneath new text. I think on a
> couple of the really old News Groups out there in comp.* rec.*
> etc...Still use the reply over quote.
=v= Well, comp.* and rec.* aren't really old; *really* old
newsgroups, from before The Great Renaming, started with fa.*,
net.*, or something local.
=v= The oldest program I know of is "postnews", from the early
1980s, which definitely put quoted messages at the top. A funny
thing happened during an "improvement" to this program, though.
Somebody added fixes that would put the string, "*** REPLACE
THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***", where you were supposed to
type your message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=646%40t4test.UUCP
This led to a bunch of articles with that string embedded in
it, before and/or after the actual messages. But that was
fixed ages ago, and nobody uses that old software anymore.
<_Jym_>
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Jym Dyer
| Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire
| original!
=v= Exactly. Might I add that it's possible to give context
just by writing, rather than quoting.
<_Jym_>
Joe Bevilacqua
> like Microsoft, released newsreaders that put the cursor before quoted
> text. The natural influx of newbies led to people top quoting because
> that was what their newsreader implied they should do.
I don't see what the heck difference it makes. As long as the post is clear.
I'm not a newby by the way. I've been on the Internet since 1989.
Joe
Rob T Firefly
news:1ea01e9f.02092...@posting.google.com...
Your phone bill must be huge by now. (Ba-dum, CHING!)
Joe Bevilacqua
certain circumstances to add your comments at the top and then let the
reader see part of the thread you are commenting on below it. Like I'm
doing right now. Is it any less clear this way?
Anyone so concerned by this that they need to continuing arguing about
it needs to seriously reconsider their life's priorities.
Joe
See the messages I am commenting on BELOW:
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote in message news:<Jym.wzvg5...@econet.org>...
Matthew Miller
>This entire discussion is ludicrious. It makes perfect sejse under
>certain circumstances to add your comments at the top and then let the
>reader see part of the thread you are commenting on below it. Like I'm
>doing right now. Is it any less clear this way?
What if someone wants to respond to what you're saying *and* something in
the earlier thread? It becomes almost impossible. On the other hand, if what
was said before isn't real relevant or necessary, why include it at all?
>Anyone so concerned by this that they need to continuing arguing about
>it needs to seriously reconsider their life's priorities.
You're making usenet less useful. That's important to me. It's not the most
important thing in my life, but it *is* worth a few minutes every now and
then.
Bart Van Hemelen
rumoured that Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> spake thus on the subject of
"META: Top-Posting, Etc. (was: Futurama Officially Announced!!)" in
alt.tv.futurama:
>=v= Despite "Emily Postnews" etiquette guides and desperate
>pleas, people persisted in leaving entire quoted messages in,
>even if it was to put a remark or two at the bottom ("I
>agree!"). This practice was called "bottom-posting." At
>some point someone figured out that nobody was slogging through
>a whole quoted message to read their one-line replies, so they
>"solved" this problem by putting replies on the top, and this is
>called "top-posting."
a.k.a. Jeopardy-style posting. ;-)
--
Bart Van Hemelen
http://pr1nc3.com/BVH/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for answer? Why not try:
http://www.prince.org/faq/
http://www.prince.org/
http://pr1nc3.com/google.asp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"History has shown that one of the best deterrents to pirated product is
providing legitimate product at appropriate prices. In the music industry,
we have already seen that people will gladly pay fair prices for
legally-produced product even when it can be easily reproduced and
unlawful copies can be easily acquired."
-- excerpt from a holiday message by Walt Disney CEO, Michael Eisner,
to a vast number of Disney employees, 2000
Full text @ http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=326
Yohan the Lost
rather a way to propose a standard. In fact, RFC 1855 specifically states it
isn't a standard.
"Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is
unlimited. "
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
--
Yohan the Lost
"Matthew Miller" <mat...@mattdm.org> wrote in message
news:slrnaokac7...@jadzia.bu.edu...
Yohan the Lost
I agree. Too often people get obsessed with posting a certain way and then
act like assholes when everyone else doesn't follow their lead. What bothers
me the most is it is casual users with little experience, not professionals,
who come up with these so-called rules.
--
Yohan the Lost
"Joe Bevilacqua" <Joe...@comedyorama.com> wrote in message
news:1ea01e9f.0209...@posting.google.com...
Exatron
> See the messages I am commenting on ABOVE:
See where your comment should have gone?
> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
> news:<Jym.wzvg5...@econet.org>...
>> Quoting RFC1855:
>>
>> | Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire |
>> original!
>>
>> =v= Exactly. Might I add that it's possible to give context just by
>> writing, rather than quoting.
>> <_Jym_>
>
> This entire discussion is ludicrious. It makes perfect sejse under
> certain circumstances to add your comments at the top and then let the
> reader see part of the thread you are commenting on below it. Like I'm
> doing right now. Is it any less clear this way?
This discussion is not ludicrous. It makes no sense under any
circumstances to top quote someone. Just don't quote them instead. It
will be much less annoying and significantly clearer that way.
> Anyone so concerned by this that they need to continuing arguing about
> it needs to seriously reconsider their life's priorities.
Can't you just follow one simple rule?
--
Exatron
"Strive for perfection even if others must suffer." - Hook
Matthew Miller
>RFC stands for "Request for Comments". It is in no way a standard, but
>rather a way to propose a standard. In fact, RFC 1855 specifically states it
>isn't a standard.
In reality, RFCs act as standards. They're not enforced by anyone, but they
serve as guidelines for making the internet work.
Joe Bevilacqua
Since it is not really a rule, only a suggested guideline, no. I still
contend there are times when placing comments above the quoted section
is a better and more clear way to post... and I will continue doing so
when I feel it makes sense to do so. I have been responding above or
below (as I am now) for 13 years now without any complant or problem
until this one thread. Many others do it as well and I see nothing
wrong with it. It is perfectly legimate.
I've wasted enough time on this completely ridiculious non-problem.
You all can debate it until Hell freezes over. I'm not resnded to this
anymore.
Joe
Joe Bevilacqua
> Your phone bill must be huge by now. (Ba-dum, CHING!)
Ouch!
Kevo
> Yohan the Lost <yo...@poee.org> wrote:
> >RFC stands for "Request for Comments". It is in no way a standard, but
> >rather a way to propose a standard. In fact, RFC 1855 specifically states it
> >isn't a standard.
>
> In reality, RFCs act as standards. They're not enforced by anyone, but they
> serve as guidelines for making the internet work.
Actually their are basically no guidelines are laws for the
internet.Basically,there is no internet goverment.
Robert Hutchinson
> Matthew Miller wrote ...
> > Yohan the Lost <yo...@poee.org> wrote:
> > >RFC stands for "Request for Comments". It is in no way a standard, but
> > >rather a way to propose a standard. In fact, RFC 1855 specifically states it
> > >isn't a standard.
> >
> > In reality, RFCs act as standards. They're not enforced by anyone, but they
> > serve as guidelines for making the internet work.
>
> Actually their are basically no guidelines are laws for the
> internet.Basically,there is no internet goverment.
So, they're not enforced by anyone, but they serve as guidelines, then?
--
Robert Hutchinson | "[Destiny's Child] got booed at the NBA
| playoffs. Even men in plush animal costumes
| don't get booed at the NBA playoffs."
| -- Fametracker.com
drumslut
<ser...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Kevo says...
>> Matthew Miller wrote ...
>> > Yohan the Lost <yo...@poee.org> wrote:
>> > >RFC stands for "Request for Comments". It is in no way a standard, but
>> > >rather a way to propose a standard. In fact, RFC 1855 specifically states it
>> > >isn't a standard.
>> >
>> > In reality, RFCs act as standards. They're not enforced by anyone, but they
>> > serve as guidelines for making the internet work.
>>
>> Actually their are basically no guidelines are laws for the
>> internet.Basically,there is no internet goverment.
>
>So, they're not enforced by anyone, but they serve as guidelines, then?
Yes. In other words, they serve as guidelines, but they're not
enforced by anyone.
ds
Joe Bevilacqua
> internet.Basically,there is no internet goverment.
Thank you. I rest my case.
petben
mat...@mattdm.org wrote on 9/21/02 12:18 PM:
> Joe Bevilacqua <Joe...@comedyorama.com> wrote:
>> This entire discussion is ludicrious. It makes perfect sejse under
>> certain circumstances to add your comments at the top and then let the
>> reader see part of the thread you are commenting on below it. Like I'm
>> doing right now. Is it any less clear this way?
>
> What if someone wants to respond to what you're saying *and* something in
> the earlier thread? It becomes almost impossible. On the other hand, if what
> was said before isn't real relevant or necessary, why include it at all?
>
>> Anyone so concerned by this that they need to continuing arguing about
>> it needs to seriously reconsider their life's priorities.
>
> You're making usenet less useful. That's important to me. It's not the most
> important thing in my life, but it *is* worth a few minutes every now and
> then.
No it's not. It's pedantic prattling!
Benjamin Robinson
Officially Announced!!)" thread, Yohan the Lost wrote:
>RFC stands for "Request for Comments". It is in no way a standard, but
>rather a way to propose a standard. In fact, RFC 1855 specifically states it
>isn't a standard.
This is something of a "legal fiction." RFCs aren't standards mainly
because there is no organization that imposes them on people. Despite this,
the often become *de facto* standards. If your e-mail program doesn't
comply with the RFC for e-mail headers, for example, then you won't be able
to send messages to your friends, and they're not going to have much luck
sending anything to you. Crying, "but the RFC isn't a standard" won't help
you one bit.
The "nettiquite" RFC isn't as strict as the e-mail one, of course, so you
can go against its recommendations, if you want. Although I prefer
top-posting, I would not complain *only* because someone top-posted their
reply. A bigger problem, in my opinion, is the people who the text of a
long message (either at the top or the bottom), just to add a two- or
three-line reply.
> [snip rest of long message]