Talk:Futurama

This page is in need of a category. Any ideas on which one(s) it's in?

That thing
Regarding the recent edit, perhaps we should have a note on here somewhere about the show's rating. In the US, I think most eps are TV-14. Are any of them TV-MA? Do other countries have oppressive TV ratings? If so, what are they for Futurama? --Buddy 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the editor meant that the show(s) were aimed at a more mature audience unlike regular cartoon shows. --SvipTalk 23:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it's technically true. It's in the same category as the Simpsons, Family Guy, and most of the stuff on [adult swim]. But if that's to be noted, it should be worked in in a more natural place, indeed. --Buddy 23:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC) [edit]: And if we are to include it, I think better wording would be "...is aimed at a more mature audience than traditional animated shows (in the United States)." --Buddy 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "PG" rated in Australia... I suppose we could say it is targeted at teens, adults and nerds of all ages. - Quolnok 11:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

'Appeal' Section
I don't think it is correct to say that most of the audience are 'self described nerds' or that most of the jokes in the show are based on the topics mentioned. There are obviously quite a few jokes like that but I think that most of the jokes are jokes that most people will get. The main (television) audience are people who enjoy other sitcoms which don't have as much detail as Futurama, as well as people who are 'self described nerds'. Pointw4 10:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Concept hints in The Simpsons?
In the episode where Bart & Lisa write for Itchy & Scratchy, under Grandpa's name, after his speech, one guy says "I'm gonna write that sitcom about the sassy, backtalking robot.". Then in the Poochie episode: "So you want a down to Earth, real life show... that's completely off the wall, and swarming with magic robots?!"

Outdated

 * This article's content is outdated. The contents in this article is not up to date, and does not reflect the current knowledge and/or affairs of the things it describes. Editors are encouraged to update its content.

Is this a remnant from a time when it was outdated, or is it just me missing something? I'll remove it until anyone comes with a reason not to. Aki 13:10, 3 December 2010 (CET)