What is your favorite Futurama movie?

[Reply #200 on:]

I really enjoyed all of them, even Bender's Game. It took a little to grow on me but I really do enjoy Bender' s Game. My favorite is Bender's Big Score, I love the Fry, Leela, Lars story line. Also all of the time travel mumbo jumbo. Good stuff.

[Reply #201 on:]

I'm bored so I'm posing this:

Best to worse

Into the wild green yonder
Benders big score
Bender's game   
Beast with a billion backs

I still liked the episodes better. The plots didn't go in 3 or 4 different places like the movies did.

[Reply #202 on:]

You're right. They only go in two and occasionally three places considering they're 22 minutes long and the movies are 88 minutes long.

[Reply #203 on:]

I really enjoyed Bender's Game.  It might even be my second favorite after Into the Wild Green Yonder, but I'm also a huge Lord of the Rings fan.

Plus, while I hate dream sequences I absolutely love alternate dimensions/worlds.  It's weird.

[Reply #204 on:]

jeez. as if the four movies didnt screw up the plotlines and characters enough... i can just imagine it now...

this new season airs in mid 2010.. and has less writers then before... so itll be wack... but this is what it will look like

theyll ofcourse change bender into being some raging homo because they saw stewie of family guy go that way, and theyll be like "hehehe.... thats funny"... but THEYRE WRONG!!! ITS RETARDED!!!!

fry will rarely remember that he is in love with leela, and whats worse, shell be more of a b***h about it...

kiff will probably die for some reason, which might be fine with me, except they will only be doing it so they can add some new love interest in for AMY, and that person will probably be more annoying and a gayer character than kiff was

zapp branigan will get with leela for a moment, which is okay, but theyll figure some way out to make it gay, like leela will also fall in love with the professor

leelas parents will rarely have a roll in this season, even though they should by now become semi reoccuring characters

theyll try to touch on peoples hearts like the third and fourth season, but theyll really just be trying to win an emmy or something, so they will lose sight and make the episodes shitty

theyll bring the stupid non funny globe trotters back too many times

nibler will come back for no reason, and never be explained.. much like in those retarded movies

zoidberg will have more abilities that were never explained, but mightve helped in other situations, and they will all be stupid and have no real purpose except for a funny joke

i could go on, but ill stop. you get the point...

they should hire me as a writer so i can oversee and make sure they dont do anything stupid

[Reply #205 on:]

Oh look at that he's spamming up the place with the same stupid post as in the other thread...

[Reply #206 on:]

Ya know, when i watched the first movie i was very dissapointed... although it still was the only decent one out of the four. but they screwed up everything. Fry went back to 1999, so he never went missing, so now his nephew wouldve never been named after him.. but yet he was.. thats stupid.... his dog waited and waited and waited and fossilized because lack of motion... but NO.. they screw that up because his dog never waited... i need to take my tears back now!!! leela feel in love with larz, which was fry.. so she should realize she loves fry... but no.. (and for some reason in the second movie fry doesnt even care about leela (GAY!!!!) ) ... and many many many other flaws that i found.. like all the benders in the basement! he had to come up every time to go back in time, so he would not have been down there... maybe if they went back two years ago, then all them wouldve been down their, but at that point in the story.. NO!!! they were not down there....

oh and i got stuff on the other movies too!! you better believe it....

sadly, the only way they can redeem themselves is if they wake up and these movies were a dream

[Reply #207 on:]

Oh look at that he's spamming up the place with the same stupid post as in the other thread...

i want to get my point across

[Reply #208 on:]

your point is bad and you should feel bad

[Reply #209 on:]

To paraphrase Farnsworth, roosevelt: That second post was less stupid, although you phrased it in a profoundly stupid way.

You're not the only fan who was disappointed with the retcons in BBS, as well as Fry's characterization in TBWaBB. And you're not the first person to notice that some of the movies were lacking in the quality department (although, if you ask me, they all had their good points, and ItWGY was just about series-perfect). There's nothing wrong with criticizing the show and the movies, but, 1.) this is the wrong thread to in which to provide us with your (misguided, IMO) theories about what the new season will hold*, and 2.) storylines don't have a sexual preference, so it might do you well to stop using "gay" as a derogatory adjective. Just sayin'.

*Although, seeing as how you've posted the same thing in about three other threads, I guess you're just hedging your bets... 

[Reply #210 on:]

i need to take my tears back now!!!

This is the stupidest thing that I've ever heard! Regardless of what happened in BBS the endings of Jurassic Bark and Luck of The Fryrish were still very emotional and touching. And the whole point of Fry going back to 1999 was that he got to spend time with his family that he missed so much after he went to 3000

[Reply #211 on:]

To paraphrase Farnsworth, roosevelt: That second post was less stupid, although you phrased it in a profoundly stupid way.

You're not the only fan who was disappointed with the retcons in BBS, as well as Fry's characterization in TBWaBB. And you're not the first person to notice that some of the movies were lacking in the quality department (although, if you ask me, they all had their good points, and ItWGY was just about series-perfect). There's nothing wrong with criticizing the show and the movies, but, 1.) this is the wrong thread to in which to provide us with your (misguided, IMO) theories about what the new season will hold*, and 2.) storylines don't have a sexual preference, so it might do you well to stop using "gay" as a derogatory adjective. Just sayin'.

*Although, seeing as how you've posted the same thing in about three other threads, I guess you're just hedging your bets...

kudos to calling me out... and that is good to hear that someone else realized a little bit of the gay.. um... the not goodness of the movies.. id liek to meat whoever your talking about because i have never

[Reply #212 on:]

Just read through the thread, man. There's a lot of heated, nerdy debate between myself and several other posters (FistfulOAwesome, I'm lookin' at you), particularly concerning "Bender's Big Score" and "The Beast With a Billion Backs." It's possible to be an enthusiastic fan of the show and still have issues with some of the choices the writers made.

[Reply #213 on:]

What up? (reads through last posts) Hey roosevelt, you mind taking the time to use some grammar and spelling in your posts (along with using the word "gay" less)? It's not that you don't have good points (ahem: http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=17266.msg1021789#msg1021789), it's that nobody is going to want to read malformed sentences to get to that point (The Professor quote that Gorky referenced works here).

Also, look up the thread title before you post. There is plenty of discussion on this board (lots of people such as yourself have been joining up thanks to the new season) so you don't have to make the same post in multiple threads to get responses.

[Reply #214 on:]

If the writers have another movie idea, there can always be a 2-part or 3, or to be exact with the movies, a 4-part feature like Who Shot Mr Burns?

[Reply #215 on:]

Since CC wants to split up future seasons into two parts (like SouthPark), it might be better for them to release future movies during the break (sort-of like the first X-Files movie). Something to tide us over while we wait. Plus, it wouldn't waste the time of a casual series viewer, who might not want to go through a 3 or 4 part episode (we don't need to be losing any fans now because of annoyance).

[Reply #216 on:]

Bah, I hit the wrong movie and voted for it.

[Reply #217 on:]

A Futurama movie should come out in theaters. Now that would be EPIC!

[Reply #218 on:]

And if it was live-action, there's a teaser poster all ready to go:

http://www.markpascua.com/wp-content/real-life-futurama.jpg

[Reply #219 on:]

I'd love to see a true blue actual movie, written as a movie, and not three episodes put together, though I'm at a loss for how epic it could be.  They've already traveled through time, visited another dimension, met a being of (probably) higher consciousness, and discovered the origins of life (the energy that keeps life going).

Where do you go from there?

[Reply #220 on:]

Ancient Rome.

[Reply #221 on:]

Speaking of Ancient Rome, "Joey, do you like movies about Gladiators?"

Name the film

[Reply #222 on:]

They've already traveled through time, visited another dimension, met a being of (probably) higher consciousness, and discovered the origins of life (the energy that keeps life going).

I don't get it. Why are you mentioning Roswell That Ends Well, The Farnsworth Parabox, Godfellas, and A Taste of Freedom (AROOH! Charleston Chew!)?

[Reply #223 on:]

I would never want to see Futurama as a live action movie! lmao
 Watching a Futurama movie on the big screen would be the best day of my life.

[Reply #224 on:]

To paraphrase Farnsworth, roosevelt: That second post was less stupid, although you phrased it in a profoundly stupid way.

You're not the only fan who was disappointed with the retcons in BBS, as well as Fry's characterization in TBWaBB. And you're not the first person to notice that some of the movies were lacking in the quality department (although, if you ask me, they all had their good points, and ItWGY was just about series-perfect). There's nothing wrong with criticizing the show and the movies, but, 1.) this is the wrong thread to in which to provide us with your (misguided, IMO) theories about what the new season will hold*, and 2.) storylines don't have a sexual preference, so it might do you well to stop using "gay" as a derogatory adjective. Just sayin'.

*Although, seeing as how you've posted the same thing in about three other threads, I guess you're just hedging your bets...

kudos to calling me out... and that is good to hear that someone else realized a little bit of the gay.. um... the not goodness of the movies.. id liek to meat whoever your talking about because i have never

Okay bro, you've met him and that's me.  I hated BBS so badly I almost got banned from this board for acalling it the sticking crock of crap it was.  I posted on Billy's West's site , the RDS site and even an e-mail to DXC (don't ask how I got his 2007 e-mail addy other than if you used USENET, a little hunting and you'll find it).

So you're 1 year and 8 months behind me.  Things ain't looking good for ya.

Now listen closely and use the three brain cells you have to comprehend this:  The movies were written with a lot of caveats against them.  The cut-them-up-into-four-episodes, the reduced budget and yes, the writers were rusty and the characters were way out of character.  (Personally, I have no idea why Fry is so obsessed with that neurotic, psychotic, self-centered, shallow one-eyed witch.)

So if you're not going to give Futurama 2.0 a try, then pull your little panties up and watch King of the Hill repeats on Adult Swim and let the rest of us judge the revival with an open mind.

[Reply #225 on:]

Speaking of Ancient Rome, "Joey, do you like movies about Gladiators?"

Name the film

Another clue:

"Joey, have you ever seen a grown man naked?"

[Reply #226 on:]

"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

[Reply #227 on:]

"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

"Joey, have you ever sucked a grown man's c*ck?"

Alright, that one was edited out but was in the original script.

[Reply #228 on:]

I also remember the red zone being for loading and unloading only!

Er wazzit the white? EH, PARK WHEREVER.

I have not often posted in General Discussion properly in some time, but I guess since this is a Futurama message board I should talk about what I thought about the movies so I can get into an argument over the internet?
Hey, that was five personal pronouns in one sentence! A. PERSONAL. BEST. 

Overall I liked them, but here are the rankings and the petty complaints:

#1. The Beast With A Billion Backs - the sex gags were probably the most juvenile of all time on Futurama ("teeny greeny weinie" is especially "don't show your friends as an example if you want to convert them"-worth) and the characterisation was weird, at best, but I remember enjoying it the most, especially the second quarter? Calculon's remarks about the hideous, yet strangely familiar door and Bender's son cutaway alone made it my favourite.

#2. Into the Wild Green Yonder - Probably the most faithful to tone of the series as a whole, and by the far the most consistently funny, I think this was a great way to end the movies, and until recently, the whole show.

#3. Bender's Game - Two big things against it: the plot made nonsense, and even though the plot revolved around D&D, most of the jokes were more about Lord of the Rings films. That would have been fine if they were made ten years ago - it would have been endearingly nerdy, like Edward the Less. If they were made five years ago, they would have been topical. Made in 2008, they were painfully dated. I'm not saying it was awful, but it did make me more than once.

#4. Bender's Big Score - On first viewing I hated it - I have never enjoyed watching simulations of romance at all, much less in comedies, and I never will, so the whole "Fry realises what he has to become, blah blah schlemiel schlimazel Hasenpfeffer Incorporated to make Leela love him" just aggravated me. The

Show spoiler

Lars is Calculon

twist was obvious, and it overall followed the tone of the fourth season too much, which I honestly never really liked. Watching it over a few more times, the jokes have grown a bit, but there are two things that still sour it for me:

• the relentless Al Gore cameos. Not knowing him, I have personal nothing against the guy and his politics are irrelevent to me; his first appearance in Anthology of Interest was funny, the second was tolerable, but this was basically thinly-disguised propaganda. VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE AND REINVENTION IS THE HEART-SMART COOKING OIL.
• the "Torgo's Executive Powder" joke. Okay, Futurama was cancelled by Fox. It was kind of unfair, but networks do that - it's not usually a personal reason, or they wouldn't have aired it at all. I'm no fan of the FOX network (or any network) but the "stupid executives" joke just seemed really tactless and childish. I would have been more impressed with their integrity if they had shown just a little bit of restraint.

In whole, I don't think they matched the peak of the series, but it's definitely an improvement over the fourth production season and I wish them the best for the world of tomorrow. :)

[Reply #229 on:]

I've recently been mulling over Ralph's assertion that the first three movies were written by the writers for themselves. I wonder if the writers were relatively bored writing ITWGY?

The writers probably had a lot more fun writing the first three movies. They got to talk about Time Travel theory with each other and make as complicated but still working a plot as possible (like a big puzzle for themselves), they got to make a bunch of sex jokes at each other (let out their inner twelve year-old's) and talk phylosophically about what love is and how it relates to relationships, and they got to let out their other nerd by embracing their love of fantasy (Tolkien and Gygax references all around).

What did they get to do for ITWGY? Nothing. ITWGY is a simple, uncluttered plot. It has no real theme other than some slight environmentalism, and that in no way steals the focus of the story. It's not even comparable to the other movies, as much as it's more comparable to being a big episode. It's absolutely classic in every way and doesn't really clash with the feel/style of the series (generally).

What I'm trying to say is that what is fun for the writers (the producers of the show) won't necessarily be fun for the fans (the people they are supposed to be writing for), and vice-versa. That's not to say that all fans disliked/hated any/all of the first three (for evidence, read this thread), but as much to say the fact that these movies have been polarizing and are generally not as well liked as the series. ITWGY seems to escape this fate because it isn't an exploration of a style of movie, but rather a big episode.

When Futurama returned, fans wanted the series classic humor, writing, and characters to be at the forefront. Essentially, we wanted new episodes. The Writers instead wanted to use this chance to explore their own ideas and use Futurama as the basis for these ideas. That's not to say they were bad ideas, as much as they shouldn't have used Futurama (at the very least not the movies that were it's return and possibly once more it's demise (Thankfully not) to explore these ideas. Fans didn't want to pay for the writers to use Futurama to masturbate their story ideas. They wanted Futurama episodes, Futurama being a show that just happens to have a SF backdrop.

Quick aside- Why are SF and Westerns counted as a genre? They aren't genre's, they are backdrops. What is Star Wars? Would you say SF movies? But what about the Force, which is basically magic? Star Wars are adventure movies. SF is the backdrop of that adventure. Action, Adventure, Drama, Comedy: these are all genres. Science-Fiction, Western, WWII, Now: these are backdrops. It'd be nice if people stopped mixing those things up.

Anyway, if there is a point in this, it's that I hope that the movies taught the writers that Futurama isn't defined as a Sitcom with a Science-Fiction Backdrop. That is description, but not what it is. Futurama is much more than that to fans. It is a hilarious satire, it is an extreme Fish-Out-Of-Water story, it is occasionally touching, it is everything that could be good in a TV show. It's mostly fantastic characters, which without this series wouldn't have ever been popular enough for it to return (when you come right down to it, stories are about characters). I hope the various criticisms of the first three movies, and the lack of criticism of the last one has taught the writers what Futurama is, and hopefully they'll use their relearned knowledge to craft the very best return possible.

Damn! I hope within that rambling I managed to make a valid point.

[Reply #230 on:]

Oi, I'll have to disagree on your genre point.  You are talking about the basics of genres.  I assume you'd say that post-modernism and the romance are just backdrops rather than genres.

In fact, if I were to follow your assertment, there are only 4 or 5 genres and a million backdrops.

That does not make sense.  Science-fiction is a genre.  Star Wars is a subgenre of science-fiction and fantasy; namely "science-fantasy", but is also labelled a "space opera" at times.

Futurama on the other hand?  Science-fiction situation comedy.  Long title, but it describes it.

If "drama" and "action" is all we have.  Then you have just rendered the point of genres useless.  Sure they are they generic genres, but genres are also about describing the story in a few words; where readers may consider it or not.

Some people like Star Wars and some people like Lord of the Rings, and some people may not necessarily like both.

But to you, they are both "adventure" stories.

"What?  You don't like "adventure"?  But you like Star Wars, what's wrong with Lord of the Rings then?"

"Oh, I don't know, I guess there is not a word for it."

[Reply #231 on:]

Svip could you please draw me a map to that post?

[Reply #232 on:]

They've already traveled through time, visited another dimension, met a being of (probably) higher consciousness, and discovered the origins of life (the energy that keeps life going).

I don't get it. Why are you mentioning Roswell That Ends Well, The Farnsworth Parabox, Godfellas, and A Taste of Freedom (AROOH! Charleston Chew!)?

Hahahaha, got me there.  The writers set the bar too high even before the movies.

[Reply #233 on:]

@Svip: I think there are overall about 5 genre's: Action, Adventure, Drama, Comedy, Horror. These are about all there is. Let me illustrate my point like this:

Die Hard: It's about Action
Indiana Jones: It's about Adventure
The GodFather: It's about Drama
CaddyShack: It's about Comedy
The Exorcist: It's about Horror
Star Wars: It's about Sci-Fi? This one seems odd-out of a description.

I never said any movie/show is mutually exclusive to any of the genre's (Star Wars is overall adventure, with gripping action scenes, a couple of funny moments (particularly between Han and Chewie, and some heavily Dramatic scenes (do I even need to mention them here). But that doesn't mean that there aren't primarily about 5 genre's which are further subbed from there. Star Wars would have worked in a different backdrop because the gist of the story and characters would have remained the same (see Hidden Fortress and Eragon (not so much Eragon (RIPOFF). Sci-Fi is a backdrop, not the genre itself (I think David X. Cohen once said this about Futurama in an interview). The storytelling remains generally the same throughout stories, it's the backdrop that changes.

Other example: Blazing Saddles and Unforgiven are both Westerns. Yet Blazing Saddles is a Comedy while Unforgiven is a Drama. What do these two movies share? The backdrop (Old West). What sets them apart? The Genre (Comedy vs. Drama).

Genre is the candy where as Backdrops are the wrapper.

P.S. Again, I really hope there was a legitimate point somewhere in there.

[Reply #234 on:]

I still do not agree.  I mean, what does qualify action, adventure, drama, comedy and horror to be the only genres (by the way, no apostrophe in plural)?

You know what, "this is not the word you're looking for".

Wikipedia lists the following as the generic genres with the following reasons:

* Historical:  About a real event or person.
* Adventure
* Action
* Science-fiction:  A story about technology or set in the future.
* Fantasy:  A story about magical or supernatural things.
* Romance:  A story about a romantic relationship between one or more people.
* Crime fiction:  Stories about criminal investigation or criminals.
* Comedy
* Documentary
* Horror
* Thriller
* Western: A story set in the Wild West.

Why you ask?  I am writing a science-fiction/fantasy novel.  You might be able to list it as adventure or perhaps action, but generally it is about science-fiction/fantasy.  Adventure is just a backdrop for the story.

A story can easily be more about the setting it is in rather than a generic genre of a story.

You have yet to provide me something I consider solid though.  I suppose it is just your interpretation of the word, "genre".

Also, David X. Cohen mentioned that Futurama is foremost a "backdrop for humour" and then as a tool to make fun of science-fiction and events of today (mentioned on the commentary for "Space Pilot 3000").

[Reply #235 on:]

I suppose it is just your interpretation of the word, "genre"

I think that's it. I've got nothing to counter the rest of your statement. All I've got is truthiness.

[Reply #236 on:]

ITWGY and bender's game were the funniest but i liked BBS for the plot

[Reply #237 on:]

I think I would kind of agree with that, dot. BBS had a very good storyline.

[Reply #238 on:]

   <stuff>

Aw, man! I wish I'd thought of using that account name! 

[Reply #239 on:]

It's okay, you can take ,