What is your favorite Futurama movie?

[Reply #360 on:]

*stares at long post abovegoes to the bottom of the previous page of this thread and stares longingly at FistfulOfAwesome's post, doesn't have time to read it and assumes it's beauty because it's FistfulOfAwesome*

*sigh* I shall revoke my title of "Shiny the Second" and place it unto FistfulOfAwesome's worthy breast.

*walks away in defeat as tear drops from cheek*

[Reply #361 on:]

*Bashful* Oh please! I'm just some guy with way too much time on his hands (among other things).

[Reply #362 on:]

Well, Fistful, It appears that you've won with those long posts, congrats!

(And I wasn't paying much attention. I will now)

[Reply #363 on:]

Into The Wild Green Yonder all the way

[Reply #364 on:]

Let me clarify a bit (Ha!) on what I mean by BBS feeling stretched. What I mean is that I don't believe it's various plot threads belonged together. I don't think the Scammers, the F/L story, or the Time Travel compliment each other very well. While this certainly could mostly be due to the film's pacing, I have to judge it as is. The Time Travel comes out of nowhere and doesn't serve the Scammers story in a way I find necessary (sure, they bought all of NNY and eventually Earth from their earnings off the artifacts, but aren't they called "The Scammers" for a reason? I believe they could have just as easily scammed everybody without needing to complicate the story with time travel), and the F/L story, while having its moments, seems regressive compared to the growth F/L had by S4 (which, for the most part, was pretty sweet when it came to character development). Maybe Keeler's 2nd or 3rd or whatever draft would have fixed the issues I have with the story, but as it stands I feel it's a bit sloppy.

I agree that the different elements of the plot don't really go hand-in-hand but I like that. A sub-plot doesn't necessarily have to have any relevance to anything so long as it links to the main plot at the end and everything plays a part in something in BBS. That's not to say they don't in ITWGY but I don't see how every plot element being of a similar theme makes things any better. Plus, personally, I think the time-travel complimented the Fry/Leela storyline perfectly.
The time-travel makes the plot much more interesting that just something about the scammers. That wouldn't have been interesting enough for a full episode, let alone a movie.

I think you misunderstand the main goal of The Madfellows. While they certainly want to revive the Encyclopod to revive extinct species (they are basically environmentalists), the main goal is to stop The Dark Ones from destroying any further species. Only the Encyclopod is capable of dealing with The Dark Ones powers. Once the Encyclopods went "extinct" due to their preservation efforts, The Dark Ones were once more free to abolish every other species in the universe.

But Mr Wong wiped out every Dark One except for the last one that we see in the film with a bit of concrete. They just weren't enough of a threat for me to take them seriously.

Again, I don't think the writers mean for the film's message to be that natural selection is bad. I think the film's message is that an advanced species shouldn't continue to drive out other species. Get it? The Encyclopod's represent the part of humanity that can mostly fend for itself (basically us today and for the past 200 years or so) and doesn't need to drive out other species, while The Dark Ones represent the part of humanity that to this day is driving other species to extinction, even though we don't have to. The writers message seems to be that we should let nature take its course and no longer interfere.

I get that but I think the film's message is contradicted by how they go about it.

I'm not so sure. While the original episodes happened as they did in a previous version of the timeline, it really does kinda nullify their dramatic weight if you have BBS to tell you it's all gonna be O.K. Some fans will be able to let it go while watching those episodes, but I can't. I simply disregard BBS (I don't watch it that often, and when I do I treat is a What-If) since I prefer the old events. Actually, that parentheses sentence is why I prefer the original events. Let's remember that the past events in Luck of the Fryrish and Jurassic Bark are unknown to Fry (hell, that's kinda the point). We, as the audience, get to see how Fry's disappearance affected his loved ones, and we are the only ones privy to that knowledge. Fry will never know how much his brother truly loved him, or how truly faithful Seymour was. So it really bites me to have those events changed to happy endings. Sure they were bittersweet and heartbreaking respectively, but that's what made them so good. To have them nullified (essentially made What-if's by the events of BBS) is really annoying, especially since I don't consider BBS as great an episode as the two mentioned, and thus I feel it an unwelcome intrusion. If BBS had added something worthwhile to the original episodes then I could have let it go or even supported it. As it is... Eh, I don't like it.

The original timeline was exactly what happened up until the events of Bender's Big Score came along and changed them though. So everything you see, 'happened', but then it got changed with a new time-line being created and so forth. I suppose this just comes down to how much you can 'live in the moment' when watching something.

I agree that fanwank material is okay as long as it either doesn't get in the way of new material, or is used to further the new material. That is why I don't like the fan thing at the beginning of BBS or the in-the-past parts, since I don't feel either of them is a credit to the film. I guess you might feel the same way about the Robot Mafia in ITWGY (and maybe most of the first chapter of ITWGY in general (which I understand)). However, I do feel that the Waterfalls served an important, irreplaceable part in ITWGY's story, Number 9 Man's part made his inclusion worthy, and the shot of the characters at the end of ITWGY doesn't slow it down (it's wink, not a yell).

See, I love the in-the-past bits of BBS. I'd say it did nothing but add to Futurama's back-story and provide some nice emotional elements to the plot.

I really don't see it apart from a couple of good sign gags. They seemed woefully immature to me, what with all the sex jokes and dismembering and such.

I suppose it comes down to how humour is subjective. Little things like the reciept in the suicide booth or Coleen's reaction to Fry asking to move in with her in the 2D fun-fair attraction were absolutely hilarious for me. Plus, the less intelligent stuff was still funny. Pretty much everything Stephen Hawking said or Zoidberg's double-whammy joke with how Fry told him about how he met Coleen for example. Into the Wild Green Yonder on the other hand had only a handful of moments I found genuinely funny.


I think ultimately I just don't find Into the Wild Green Yonder very funny. It is funny but nothing on Futurama's usual output. I also didn't find Bender's Big Score very funny but I enjoyed the plot enough to let it go. I found BWABB's plot really enjoyable purely thanks to how interesting and quirky it was. I don't think it played out that well, and the ending was almost an afterthought, but I still find a lot more to enjoy in it than ITWGY. BG is pretty much the same; the structure is poor but I still find a lot more to enjoy than ITWGY.

[Reply #365 on:]

BBS's various plot threads don't really go together

I agree that the different elements of the plot don't really go hand-in-hand but I like that. A sub-plot doesn't necessarily have to have any relevance to anything so long as it links to the main plot at the end and everything plays a part in something in BBS. That's not to say they don't in ITWGY but I don't see how every plot element being of a similar theme makes things any better. Plus, personally, I think the time-travel complimented the Fry/Leela storyline perfectly.
The time-travel makes the plot much more interesting that just something about the scammers. That wouldn't have been interesting enough for a full episode, let alone a movie.

The thing is that the plots in BBS don't really play a part into each other. The various plots seem like they tie into each other because that's what's in the script, and not because they should have. It's like a long story told to you by a friend with many asides that doesn't feel like it's going anywhere until the very end when the various asides tie together in an ultimately meaningless way.

The Madfellows' main goal was to stop The Dark Ones from wiping out all life in the universe

But Mr Wong wiped out every Dark One except for the last one that we see in the film with a bit of concrete. They just weren't enough of a threat for me to take them seriously.

The writers probably thought that any more than one would be unnecessary. The point is that The Dark One provides a threat big enough that Fry has to get involved, since he is the only one who can stop it, and too add backstory to life, the universe, and the Encyclopods (why the went extinct), all of which has great story potential for a future plotline. Sure, making them (The Dark Ones) appear weak by killing them off with the cement was not the best way to handle it (it would actually have been a lot more poignant if there was only one left, and it planned to use the Encyclopod to respawn its species (that way, The Dark Ones had been affected by their own evil and would be using The New Green Age and their long-time enemies to reign supreme once again)), but I still think it provides enough of a purpose as it is. Plus, even if The Dark One appears weak, we still have Leo Wong more obviously representing Humanity's own mistreatment of other species and nature, which I honestly think carries the film more than The Dark One himself (even though I still think he was used well (even if not great)).

Again, I don't think the writers mean for the film's message to be that natural selection is bad. I think the film's message is that an advanced species shouldn't continue to drive out other species. Get it? The Encyclopod's represent the part of humanity that can mostly fend for itself (basically us today and for the past 200 years or so) and doesn't need to drive out other species, while The Dark Ones represent the part of humanity that to this day is driving other species to extinction, even though we don't have to. The writers message seems to be that we should let nature take its course and no longer interfere.

I get that but I think the film's message is contradicted by how they go about it.

I don't think so. I understand your problem with the Encyclopod essentially being a life museum, and the idea that evolution doesn't matter, since that would mean that there is no difference between a good species and a bad species, but I still don't think the film undermines evolution. It acknowledges it. I don't think the writers are implying that dumb/inferior species are meant to be given a free pass to continue existing. I think they simply mean that no species should be driven out to extinction on purpose, like The Dark Ones did to much of the universe's species and like Humans have done in our past (and even today with Elephants for Ivory or Dolphins just cause).

BBS ruins the events of previous episodes by essentially nullifying them

The original timeline was exactly what happened up until the events of Bender's Big Score came along and changed them though. So everything you see, 'happened', but then it got changed with a new time-line being created and so forth. I suppose this just comes down to how much you can 'live in the moment' when watching something.

It's not even living in the moment, it's that the film didn't add anything significant to the earlier episodes to justify what it did. All the time we got of Fry reconnecting with his family was shown in a montage, and it wasn't even our Fry. It was Fry 2, the one who became Lars, the one who died with these changed events not being passed on. It didn't affect Fry 1 (our Fry) in the slightest. He remains completely oblivious, and thus the changes completely irrelevant.

Well, not completely irrelevant. If a future episode decides to tackle Fry's past they'll (the writers) never be able to go past 12:30 A.M. on January 1st 2000 without having to acknowledge the changes. They've certainly got they're work cut out for them to make us care again.

Nods to the fans are okay as long as they are non-intrusive to a new plot or add to it (which I don't think a lot of in-the-past stuff in BBS was or did)

See, I love the in-the-past bits of BBS. I'd say it did nothing but add to Futurama's back-story and provide some nice emotional elements to the plot.

As I've said above, I disagree.

I really don't see much intelligent humor or good character humor in BWABB or BG apart from a couple of good sign gags and a few moments. They seemed woefully immature to me, what with all the sex jokes and dismembering and such.

I suppose it comes down to how humour is subjective. Little things like the reciept in the suicide booth or Coleen's reaction to Fry asking to move in with her in the 2D fun-fair attraction were absolutely hilarious for me. Plus, the less intelligent stuff was still funny. Pretty much everything Stephen Hawking said or Zoidberg's double-whammy joke with how Fry told him about how he met Coleen for example. Into the Wild Green Yonder on the other hand had only a handful of moments I found genuinely funny.


I think ultimately I just don't find Into the Wild Green Yonder very funny. It is funny but nothing on Futurama's usual output. I also didn't find Bender's Big Score very funny but I enjoyed the plot enough to let it go. I found BWABB's plot really enjoyable purely thanks to how interesting and quirky it was. I don't think it played out that well, and the ending was almost an afterthought, but I still find a lot more to enjoy in it than ITWGY. BG is pretty much the same; the structure is poor but I still find a lot more to enjoy than ITWGY.

There is nothing much to say here. Humor is subjective, and a laugh can't be argued with. If you find the middle to movies funnier than ITWGY, and thus more entertaining (all to you have bad plots, but at least the middle two are funny enough to make up for the plot), there's isn't much I can argue against you. I will mention again that I don't find the middle movies funny per Futurama's usual output, which is the reason I don't find them funny ('cept the first part of BG, which is underrated). They are unrecognizable as Futurama to me, as in they are Futurama In-Name-Only.

[Reply #366 on:]

   It's not even living in the moment, it's that the film didn't add anything significant to the earlier episodes to justify what it did. All the time we got of Fry reconnecting with his family was shown in a montage, and it wasn't even our Fry. It was Fry 2, the one who became Lars, the one who died with these changed events not being passed on. It didn't affect Fry 1 (our Fry) in the slightest. He remains completely oblivious, and thus the changes completely irrelevant.

I don't understand why people get so hung up on what BBS 'changed' from earlier episodes. Whatever the description of a different (and mutually exclusive) set of events may have 'undone' from the episodes, it 'undid' again right at the very end.

By having Bender convince all the other (treasure bearing) Benders to not "come up when they were logically supposed to" he essentially 'undid' the story which had just 'undone' people's favourite memories from the show.

Net result: whatever you want it to be.

   Well, not completely irrelevant. If a future episode decides to tackle Fry's past they'll (the writers) never be able to go past 12:30 A.M. on January 1st 2000 without having to acknowledge the changes.

[Cubert] Uh, no. [/Cubert]

If, in the course of further storylines, the writers feel the need to contradict earlier work, I have no doubt they'll just do it. Is the first act of The Sting set in a Space Wasp nest?

   They've certainly got they're work cut out for them to make us care again.

The only person who can (or ever could) make you care is you.

[Reply #367 on:]

I don't understand why people get so hung up on what BBS 'changed' from earlier episodes. Whatever the description of a different (and mutually exclusive) set of events may have 'undone' from the episodes, it 'undid' again right at the very end.

By having Bender convince all the other (treasure bearing) Benders to not "come up when they were logically supposed to" he essentially 'undid' the story which had just 'undone' people's favourite memories from the show.

Net result: whatever you want it to be.

How does that work? The point of the Machine-Language-Time-Code is that it corrects paradoxes. If anybody messes with events in time, it doesn't make it so they simply go along the original path. It changes the events so they fit what was changed. It's confirmed by having several things happen directly because of the film's time-traveling, like Bender destroying part of NNY with a fleet of ships, the backblast from Bender's gun fast-fossilizing Seymore, and Michelle being frozen till 3001 (instead of much earlier) because of Lars. BBS goes out of it's way to canonize itself. It happened, unless, like the super nerd some people are (ahem!), you deny it happened (see also: what Star Wars Prequels?).

[Cubert] Uh, no. [/Cubert]

If, in the course of further storylines, the writers feel the need to contradict earlier work, I have no doubt they'll just do it. Is the first act of The Sting set in a Space Wasp nest?

That was a minor change (from wasp to bee). To change the events of BBS would be a major reset, which while I wouldn't mind it (don't like its events anyway),  would be a major spit on the face of continuity. Fans could let go of something small or inconsequential, but something major like the events of BBS is far too noticeable of a reset. It certainly would make me feel less great about a new season if the writers were so willing to go back to the resetting ways of the series (i.e. keeping the show in a certain limbo).

The only person who can (or ever could) make you care is you.

Alright, I spoke too much for other people, instead of only for myself. Let me try again: The writers certainly got their work cut out for them to make me care again. The changed events of BBS make me think that it'll be difficult to make another Fry's past episode without interfering with the events of BBS. Before, we saw how Fry's family dealt with his disappearance. Now, we've got 12 years of "him" spending more time with them, and "his" "death" by explosion, while still something sad for them to deal with, offers closure that his disappearance didn't. Even if they (the writers) decided to work off of grief from accidental death (they'd probably blame it on a gas leak that was ignited) over the original disappearance, they'd be talking about Fry 2 (Lars) instead of Fry 1 (ours (ohh, the parentheses parts rhyme!)). I certainly don't want anything to suck, but I just can't comprehend how the writers could pull off another story that's as great as Luck of the Fryrish or Jurassic Bark with the changed events of BBS.

[Reply #368 on:]

BBS was funny but it just wasn't the Futurama we're used to. I agree, Fistful BBS messed with too many great episodes.

[Reply #369 on:]

So Fistful doesn't like that BBS messed with the Fry's past episodes but doesn't want any new Fry's past episode to mess with BBS?

[Reply #370 on:]

Such are the contradictions of a fan!

Alright, let me explain. It's about how hypocritical I would be if I did. I've made it no secret that outside of the first half of BG (which is totally underrated, and the best episode of the movies outside of ITWGY), I don't accept the first three movies as part of my personal canon. But, as someone is sure to mention, it doesn't matter what I think. If I had it my way, they wouldn't be canonized. But if that happened, what about all the people who do like those events, or who don't care that those events happened and consequently want to keep it simple by simply accepting them (like say, new fans or old fans who don't take the show that seriously).

Ultimately, I'm trying to act unselfish by not uncanonizing BBS in general (not that I have the power to do that anyway). I mean, it's not like there aren't people who don't like ITWGY (they are few, but they are there), and why should they get shunned? It's a call to simplicity and cohesiveness, away from my selfish wants. There is no point in confusing everybody and what is or isn't canon (as I'm sure somebody else will mention, if it happened in an episode, it's canon). I could always not watch those episodes I find so disagreeable and shut my ears (hands?) everytime somebody mentions them. Watch and let watch. That's what I should do. That is what I will try to do.

[Reply #371 on:]

      I don't understand why people get so hung up on what BBS 'changed' from earlier episodes. Whatever the description of a different (and mutually exclusive) set of events may have 'undone' from the episodes, it 'undid' again right at the very end.

      By having Bender convince all the other (treasure bearing) Benders to not "come up when they were logically supposed to" he essentially 'undid' the story which had just 'undone' people's favourite memories from the show.

      Net result: whatever you want it to be.

   How does that work? The point of the Machine-Language-Time-Code is that it corrects paradoxes. If anybody messes with events in time, it doesn't make it so they simply go along the original path. It changes the events so they fit what was changed.

Exactly!

Bender ("from way at the end") used the time-code to go back in time and stick the tatoo on Fry's butt. While he was waiting out the next 1000 years in the cavern under the Planet Express building he 'met' all the copies of himself who were doing the same thing after having each, throughout the course of the movie, used the time code to go back in time and either steal something or (in one case) kill Fry.

Somehow he convinced them to not 'go up' and report back to the scammer aliens ("when they were logically supposed to") but to stay down with him and all go up together at the end. Since the multiple Benders didn't end up doing what we saw them do in the movie this means that Bender's (from way at the end) last use of the time-code changed the events of the movie itself.

If none of the treasure-bearing Benders returned to the scammers then A) the was no Bender to go back and steal the next thing and B) with none of the world's treasures in their possession, there would be no cause for them to try and kill Fry, thus not forcing him to use the time-code himself.

If you can claim that the use of the time-code changed the events of one (or more) episodes to fit what we witnessed during the course of BBS then I claim that the (final) use of the time-code changed those newly 'changed' events as well.

Where that leaves the original events I have no idea but if the time-code can actually change things that we saw then you can't 'trust' ANYTHING that the last use of a time-code may have affected.

Well, that's how I see it, anyway.

[Reply #372 on:]

My take on this controversy. And this explanation has probably been espoused before.
The movies are separate entities and do not connect anything to anything or change or impact in any way what has been in the past or what will go on in the future.
They are, simply movies created by the production team using the Futurama characters as one would use any actor to create any movie. The actors are unaware of anything that went on in any previous movie or episode. There are certain plot devices that connect the characters to other episodes, like Seymour and Mr Panucci. The head museum and Robot Santa.
The only connection between movies is the anomaly. And that, in my opinion, is a red herring. It was in BBS a crack in the universe cause be repeated use of the timecode, but in BWABB it was a portal to another universe and cause was not discussed.
I believe after thinking about this whole reboot debate that there may not be a continuation of the relationship between Leela and Fry, as was suggested in ITWGY. Just another "Bring 'em together/ force 'em apart" scenario we've endured/enjoyed for the past 88 episodes.


I've had my say
Now flame away

[Reply #373 on:]

I could buy the four movies being separate from each other, but to watch them with the understanding that they are in no way connected to the original 72 episodes seems like a waste to me. Why should I bother caring about these characters if their pasts (as I know them) for all intents and purposes did not actually, well, happen? I don't think any of the movies are so awful that they should be erased from canon.

[Reply #374 on:]

It would seem that you must treat BBS as just an entertainment vehicle as it flies against the timeline that most of us consider real (for a cartoon,real}.I think they are setting us up for "business as usual" hit the reset, reset, reset.
As I read most posters feelings, they are happy with the concept pf episodic Futurama and not progressive storyline Futurama.
Any further discussion about storyline should probably be done on another thread.

[Reply #375 on:]

My take on this controversy. And this explanation has probably been espoused before.
The movies are separate entities and do not connect anything to anything or change or impact in any way what has been in the past or what will go on in the future.
They are, simply movies created by the production team using the Futurama characters as one would use any actor to create any movie. The actors are unaware of anything that went on in any previous movie or episode. There are certain plot devices that connect the characters to other episodes, like Seymour and Mr Panucci. The head museum and Robot Santa.
The only connection between movies is the anomaly. And that, in my opinion, is a red herring. It was in BBS a crack in the universe cause be repeated use of the timecode, but in BWABB it was a portal to another universe and cause was not discussed.
I believe after thinking about this whole reboot debate that there may not be a continuation of the relationship between Leela and Fry, as was suggested in ITWGY. Just another "Bring 'em together/ force 'em apart" scenario we've endured/enjoyed for the past 88 episodes.


I've had my say
Now flame away

That is dumb. If the Futurama writers wanted to make four movies that simply used the characters without affecting continuity they would have said so from the beginning and called them the what-if chronicles or something like that. For better or worse, the movies are part of the series canon (much as it pains some of us), and were always meant to be. Nothing in the movies suggest they didn't happen. They take place after the classic series run and before the new TV run. They reference previous events and their own will be used for new stories in the next TV run (such as Amy and Kif having marriage troubles, likely some mention of Igner as the Professors son, and 3/4TH'S OF THE CREW BEING DEAD DIRECTLY FROM THE EVENTS OF ITWGY!).

It would seem that you must treat BBS as just an entertainment vehicle as it flies against the timeline that most of us consider real (for a cartoon,real}.I think they are setting us up for "business as usual" hit the reset, reset, reset.
As I read most posters feelings, they are happy with the concept pf episodic Futurama and not progressive storyline Futurama.
Any further discussion about storyline should probably be done on another thread.

I don't know where you read that. It's certainly true that nobody wants Futurama to turn into a serial like Lost or Battlestar Galactica, but I also don't think anybody wants the show to turn into a reset-a-thon either. Progressive is what I think most fans want (even if they don't know it). All progressive means is that there is growth in the characters and world as it goes on, i.e. an episode in S6 isn't interchangeable with an episode in S2. There is no need to lose the self-contained nature of the episodes in order to accomplish this. It already has been to an extent, since the original TV run did a good-enough job of it (although I certainly think they could do better in the 2nd TV run).

Your "business-as-usual" statement about the writers relationship with the reset button isn't giving enough credit to what growth there was in the original TV run and the stories we've already heard that will build upon previous events in the new season (Amy and Kif have marriage troubles, the first episode of S6 will take place directly after ITWGY, the forward-in-time episode will involve Fry and Leela on a date). The writers certainly seem to have heard the complaints about the reset button's use in the original run and the movies (especially) so they seem to be trying to hold off on using it in the new season. Give them a little credit, would ya?

Exactly!

Bender ("from way at the end") used the time-code to go back in time and stick the tatoo on Fry's butt. While he was waiting out the next 1000 years in the cavern under the Planet Express building he 'met' all the copies of himself who were doing the same thing after having each, throughout the course of the movie, used the time code to go back in time and either steal something or (in one case) kill Fry.

Somehow he convinced them to not 'go up' and report back to the scammer aliens ("when they were logically supposed to") but to stay down with him and all go up together at the end. Since the multiple Benders didn't end up doing what we saw them do in the movie this means that Bender's (from way at the end) last use of the time-code changed the events of the movie itself.

If none of the treasure-bearing Benders returned to the scammers then A) the was no Bender to go back and steal the next thing and B) with none of the world's treasures in their possession, there would be no cause for them to try and kill Fry, thus not forcing him to use the time-code himself.

If you can claim that the use of the time-code changed the events of one (or more) episodes to fit what we witnessed during the course of BBS then I claim that the (final) use of the time-code changed those newly 'changed' events as well.

Where that leaves the original events I have no idea but if the time-code can actually change things that we saw then you can't 'trust' ANYTHING that the last use of a time-code may have affected.

Well, that's how I see it, anyway.

Hey, sorry I took so long to respond.

Why are you using classic Time-Travel logic in an episode that only uses it when it feels like it? You think that when Bender convinced his earlier selves to break causality he also undid the events of the movie. By that same claim, then Michelle shouldn't be in the year 3001 (frozen by Lars), NNYC shouldn't have been partly destroyed around the 22nd century by Bender, Seymour shouldn't have been fast-fossilized, The Time Travel shouldn't have existed at all (no past Bender's means the Bender who went back to put the time-code in the first place wouldn't exist either), yadda yadda yadda.

The MLTC works like this: See the shiny! Look at the shiny! It doesn't make any sense. The basic rules of the MLTC are set but then aren't followed or elaborated, and those rules don't make sense anyway.

Anyway, my point isn't even completely how dumb the MLTC is. My complaints about the changed past are that the changes were worthless. Fry getting to spend time with his family, thereby undoing their original grief over his disappearance should have been a major plot point, not something barely recognized in a freaking montage. Two of the best episodes of the series (along with its beginning) should have had more of a purpose than just being set dressing for a sort-of Fry/Leela story. Imagine if a TV episode did the same thing. Fry is allowed to go back in time to live his life and instead it focuses on something completely different. It would be hated! The way BBS treats the original episodes is an insult to them (or more accurately, fans who love those episodes) and a waste of something that should have been important.

[Reply #376 on:]

Ha I had my doom-proof underpants on, so I barely felt a thing. Call it dumb if you like, It's my opinion.
If you expect the writers to explain plot and story line, That's dumb. A written story is a work of art and usually left to the viewer to decide meaning.
I've decided, you don't agree, you say dumb. That's dumb.


-30-

[Reply #377 on:]

You have an opinion on a fact?

The movies were made as a continuation of the series. That is a fact. If you don't like what they did, I can understand that. If you prefer to simply ignore their plots, I can understand that too (ask anyone here). But you can't say that they weren't set up as a continuation of the series or that the writers didn't mean them to be. They are and they did. Don't watch them if you don't like them, erase them from your personal continuity if it makes you happier, but don't pretend that writers somehow meant for them to be taken as what-if's.

[Reply #378 on:]

I like Benders Big Score,,
even though it messes some episodes,,

[Reply #379 on:]

Beast with a Billion Backs!!!! YEVO!!!!!  David Cross!!!!

[Reply #380 on:]

I think the first one had the most interesting story (closely followed by the last one) but the second was the funniest. I didn't really like Bender's game although it did have some great lines ("Deepak Chopra taught us that according to quantum physics absolutely anything can happen at any time for no reason. Also Animals never had a war)

[Reply #381 on:]

After briefly reading through a FistfulOfAwesome's and hobbitboy's (I still don't like you) posts on the "Bender's Big Score" time-travel legitimacy controversy, all I've got to say is, by jov, I think you two gents have found a plot hole/loop hole!

Both of you made concrete arguments, but let's face it- the Futurama writing team for "Bender's Big Score" was not foolproof, and it's got to be admitted, "Bender's Big Score" was a f*%k-@p. They probably didn't analyze the plot to see that it would make sense to the uber-fan- they had three other movies to focus on!

[Reply #382 on:]

^I don't have time in my busy schedule to actually READ the message boards I post in so i don't know what fist and hobbit said, but I think BBS makes perfect sense.^

It uses the Terminator/lost/twelve monkeys rules - there's only one timeline and everything that happens in that timeline happens in that timeline. Bruce Willis can't prevent the plague because it happened. He can go back in time and try and find a cure though, because that happened too.

[Reply #383 on:]

^Nothing like real-life time travel. Nothing at all.

[Reply #384 on:]

   … and hobbitboy's (I still don't like you) posts …

   Huh?  What did I do now then?

[Reply #385 on:]

^I don't have time in my busy schedule to actually READ the message boards I post in so i don't know what fist and hobbit said, but I think BBS makes perfect sense.^

It uses the Terminator/lost/twelve monkeys rules - there's only one timeline and everything that happens in that timeline happens in that timeline. Bruce Willis can't prevent the plague because it happened. He can go back in time and try and find a cure though, because that happened too.

The Paradox-Correcting Time Code makes this completely not possible. There is certainly not one unchanged timeline used in the movie. If there was, we wouldn't have Paradox copies but instead always have things going in one swoop. For example, if BBS did use one unchanged timeline rules (also known as Predestination Paradox Time Travel), where everything that should have happened did and time travel was part of the course of events, then there would have always been two Fry's in the cryo-tube chamber and the one who kicked Bender into the tube would have traveled back to become the one who ate the pizza and not have been able to "choose" to not do so. Bender also would have always seen a version of himself ask him to hold his spot while he drained his mechano-lizard (and have not been able to hold in the beer himself thus also having to make a trip to ask an earlier version of himself to hold his spot, repeat until infinity). That's only a few of the things that would have happened had BBS used Predestination Paradox Time-Travel rules rather than the ones that govern it's Paradox-Free Time Travel (which it breaks anyway).

   … and hobbitboy's (I still don't like you) posts …

   Huh?  What did I do now then?

Whatever you did, just remember that candy is real cheap after Christmas (I've heard human women are often fond of candy).

[Reply #386 on:]

   Whatever you did, just remember that candy is real cheap after Christmas (I've heard human women are often fond of candy).

Unfortunately I too am fond of candy (too fond, in fact) and very little of the candy which enters my possession ever makes it to the other side.

[Reply #387 on:]

^^forgot about the paradox doubles. I guess it doesn't make sense^^

[Reply #388 on:]

into the wild green yonder w/o a doubt

[Reply #389 on:]

benders game, but it's real close between that and benders big score

[Reply #390 on:]

Freinds, friends. I think we're all missing the point. The real question that needs answering is "Why aren't the movies listed in order (in the above poll)?"

[Reply #391 on:]

Because zoidbergrulzs has a very short memory and spelling disorder... Apparently.

[Reply #392 on:]

Anyone who didn't say the beast with a billion backs should just shoot themselves right now ::waiting:: however I haven't seen Bender's Game yet.............so if you didn't commit suicide yet I'll get back to you

[Reply #393 on:]

I think those people who didn't say "The Beast With a Billion Backs" may have already shot themselves, seeing as how they were subjected to the stupid movie in the first place. (I kid: I don't hate TBWaBB with as much vigor as some other posters, but it is a pretty weak movie when you compare it to the likes of, say, "Into the Wild Green Yonder.")

At any rate, we're all entitled to our opinions. Welcome to PEEL, jlas.

[Reply #394 on:]

I think jlas01 might want to torture me if she ever got around to reading my posts on that movie.

[Reply #395 on:]

This thread seems to be viewed/posted on quite often, and what I'd like to post is relating to the movie "The Beast with a Billion Backs", so I thought that I could post that.

Whenever I first saw the previews, I imagined Colleen to look like this:

[Reply #396 on:]

Ah, very nice! She looks a lot cooler that way...

[Reply #397 on:]

1 Benders Game
2 Into the Wild Green Yonder
3 Benders Big Score
4 Beast with a Billion Backs

[Reply #398 on:]

This proteins (sp?) to a movie, "Bender's Big Score" to be exact, so I thought I'd note this here.

"Bender's Big Score" will be airing again on Comedy Central at 6:00 EST tomorrow. Those movies haven't been on for a while, so you'd think this is a good thing. In reality, following the quote in the introduction of "The Series has Landed" by the Professor, it will be airing during the time of the Superbowl game. That's almost like a reference to Fox's preemption of Futurama for games in overtime.

[Reply #399 on:]

they were all crap, as are most of the episodes with the exception of maybe 2 or 3.