IFC announces the amazing voice cast for its new animated show, Out There

The incredibly fun-sounding new animated series from IFC, Out There, has assembled a heck of a great cast to voice its characters. In addition to series creator Ryan Quincy, who is providing the voice of the lead role of Chad Stevens, here is who else has come on board and who they'll be playing (via press release):

Out There chronicles the coming-of-age misadventures of socially awkward Chad (Ryan Quincy), his little brother Jay (Kate Micucci) and his best friend, Chris (Justin Roiland). Living in the small town of Holford, the boys wander its surreal, bleak landscape waiting out their last few years of adolescence. Along the way, viewers meet Chad’s conservative parents, Wayne (John DiMaggio) and Rose (Megan Mullally), as well as Chris’s single mother, Joanie (Pamela Adlon) and her disastrous boyfriend, Terry (Fred Armisen). They also meet the object of Chad’s affection, Sharla (Linda Cardellini).

I don't know about you, but where John DiMaggio and Pamela Adlon go, I'll follow, to say nothing of Armisen, Micucci, and Mullally. Here's to a brand new year of more silly, weird cartoons! Out There premieres on Friday, February 22 on IFC.


  1. Isn’t putting a cartoon series on the Independent Film Channel a bit like putting wrestling on a channel devoted to science fiction or like putting a period drama on a channel for classic American movies?

  2. This is a strong recommendation that you check out http://sockpuppettheatre.com because:
    Rob Paulsen
    April Winchell
    Pamela Adlon
    Billy West
    Fred Tatasciore
    Kari Wahlgren
    Bob Joles
    Maurice LaMarche
    (“And Many More”)

  3. Not all cartoons are created equal, though all are presented in film format. IFC’s self-description and mission statement leaves ample room for animated programming, provided it is “authentic,” “original,” and “slightly off.” The equivocation to wrestling seems to imply that any cartoon is by definition puerile or unsophisticated, an assumption with which I would disagree.

    That said, I can’t actually judge whether or not IFC is off-mission with this since their preview clip is not working. Could be good, could be bad, but it would have to be really awful to reach TLC-levels of off-mission.

    1. They’ve been doing original programming for better than a decade at this point. I don’t think it will likely go to TLC lengths since original programming is largely necessary and far more profitable for cable these days. “Home Box Office” isn’t off mission just because the bulk of their notable stuff never has anything to do with a box office in the first place. Besides IFC tends to throw most of their money behind producing or distributing actual independent film and TV.

      As for “film format”. No. Most movies at this point aren’t even presented  (and frequently aren’t shot) in film format, and nothing on TV has ever been. Its on video. Film as a format refers to actual physical film stock. Additionally the independent film movement/business starting in the 1990’s that inspired IFC was largely driven by the democratizing effect of better and cheaper video production. So if the semantics and pedantry of “film” in their title is the sticking point that was a lost cause a very long time ago. 

  4.  There is not a single thing in that blurb that’s original or even remotely appealing. The composition of the cast is so dull and uninspiring that even the addition of space travel or dragons wouldn’t save it. I mean, it’s 2013. Is anyone even remotely interested in a series featuring a all-white boy main cast full of insecure writer-stand-ins in which girls’ only defining characteristic is to be the unreachable love-interests  — I thought we moved beyond that.

    Also: how do quality voice actors prove the show’s writing must be good?

  5. Living in the small town of Holford, the boys wander its surreal, bleak landscape waiting out their last few years of adolescence

    when my daughter started taking IB psych as high school senior one of the first things her teacher noted was how psychology used to be interested almost entirely in pathologies, but in the last few decades has become much more focused on every day, non-pathological behaviour.

    every time i come across another media/cultural item that derives its entire existence from navel gazing a semi-pathological existence, i am reminded of that teacher’s remark.

    it was not very good when we derided and ridiculed kids whose adolescence left them feeling isolated, confused, angry, etc. i get that. but its also not very good when the only stories about adolesence are all presentations of just how freakin’ wierd it all is, or just how bleak and surreal the landscape is. grow up writers, and get a grip on the fact that there are other perspectives on the life period between 12 and 20, some of which don’t require it to be some kind of bizarre hellhole that nobody else gets.

Comments are closed.