Futurama News all the latest things happening in the year 3000 now

[Reply #520 on:]

Mom may not even be the villain - she could offer her facility to help Leela reverse the mutation. For a fee, of course...

Yes, or she knows she can make money off of mutating the mutants further by studying Leela (maybe mutate regular folks too) and then she sells them an insanely expensive cure she developed from Leela's one of a kind dna.

I have a feeling this episode will also explore why Leela was the most normal mutant of all, she may have special dna, like Fry and his brain waves.

[Reply #521 on:]

Countdown to Futurama: Fry Licking Seymour

Well, look who’s coming back to Futurama in the upcoming episode “Game of Tones.” It really takes you back to “Jurassic Bark,” doesn’t it? Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to figure out who is chopping onions around here.

[Reply #522 on:]

Didn't expect that scene to be from "Game of Tones," interesting.

Could this be the super sad episode Eric Rogers has mentioned quite a few times?

[Reply #523 on:]

Could this be the super sad episode Eric Rogers has mentioned quite a few times?

Most likely, if it's something like "Jurassic Bark 2". Of course they could have taken different approach with happy ending, but I'm not sure if it would be so good then.

[Reply #524 on:]

What's this episode actually about? I don't remember hearing anything about it.

[Reply #525 on:]

Yes! Seymour is back! Why they haven't included the plot  ?!?

[Reply #526 on:]

What's this episode actually about? I don't remember hearing anything about it.

Mike Rowe wrote it, that's all we know.

I really think that Fry must travel back to see his dog, looking at the background anyway.

[Reply #527 on:]

Please be only a flashback,please be only a flashback and not the actual plot...I don't know they would do something really good or really dissapointing for all the people who loved and cried with Jurassic Park.

Personally think is a really well written episode,but sometimes makes me angry that people thinks "Futurama=Jurassic Bark".

And now about "Leela and the Genestalk" sounds really interesting,at first Leela with tentacles scared me in the trailer,but I have to admit it,she looks really cool!

[Reply #528 on:]

Please be only a flashback,please be only a flashback and not the actual plot...I don't know they would do something really good or really dissapointing for all the people who loved and cried with Jurassic Park.

Indeed. The tragic loss was the major theme in JB. Undoing it will deprive the episode of it's meaning...

[Reply #529 on:]

Please be only a flashback,please be only a flashback and not the actual plot...I don't know they would do something really good or really dissapointing for all the people who loved and cried with Jurassic Park.

Indeed. The tragic loss was the major theme in JB. Undoing it will deprive the episode of it's meaning...

If that's the case, then it was done a long time ago in Bender's Big Score.

[Reply #530 on:]

So, the episode will either involve time travel or flashbacks.

I thought the scene was from "Meanwhile" and that that episode would be the super sad one, I envisioned Fry going back to the 21st century with the gang and saying a final goodbye to his family, and it ties in with him and Leela getting married somehow.

Time for some over-analysing: notice the little patches of snow in the image? The scene must take place around late winter/early spring.

[Reply #531 on:]

Please be only a flashback,please be only a flashback and not the actual plot...I don't know they would do something really good or really dissapointing for all the people who loved and cried with Jurassic Park.

Indeed. The tragic loss was the major theme in JB. Undoing it will deprive the episode of it's meaning...

If that's the case, then it was done a long time ago in Bender's Big Score.

That fossilisation scene and 2 second montage clip didn't undo crap. It just made the timeline make no damn sense at all which is why many people (myself included) like to mentally erase that from the movie.

 Anyway, I'm hoping it's just a minor callback that they don't dwell on for too long. Focusing on Seymour again would be a bad move IMO.

[Reply #532 on:]

That fossilisation scene and 2 second montage clip didn't undo crap. It just made the timeline make no damn sense at all

Well it could make sense, it would just cause a lot of paradoxes. Wasn't everything put back straight at the end though, considering Bender created even more paradoxes?

[Reply #533 on:]

Please be only a flashback,please be only a flashback and not the actual plot...I don't know they would do something really good or really dissapointing for all the people who loved and cried with Jurassic Park.

Indeed. The tragic loss was the major theme in JB. Undoing it will deprive the episode of it's meaning...

If that's the case, then it was done a long time ago in Bender's Big Score.

That fossilisation scene and 2 second montage clip didn't undo crap. It just made the timeline make no damn sense at all which is why many people (myself included) like to mentally erase that from the movie.

The timeline still makes sense, but the montage from the end of JB loses some of its emotional impact.

That fossilisation scene and 2 second montage clip didn't undo crap. It just made the timeline make no damn sense at all

Well it could make sense, it would just cause a lot of paradoxes.

With regards to JB, there are no paradoxes. Seymour's fossilization as shown in JB actually resolves a minor discrepancy in the episode (Seymour's death pose) and provides an ass-pull explanation for the dog's flash-fossilization.

Wasn't everything put back straight at the end though, considering Bender created even more paradoxes?

You don't undo a paradox by creating more paradoxes. Paradoxes from BBS aren't really resolved, except in the sense that duplicates of living organisms are killed by the doom field.

I'm not going to pull a gigantic timeline map out of my backside to explain this to you. If you persist in arguing, Danny, I'll just type a wall of text and then berate you like a retarded puppy every time you get something wrong that I've explained somewhere within that wall. So there's no point in arguing the toss. Just accept that there are no paradoxes with respect to Seymour and his appearances in JB/BBS, and proceed on that basis.

The fossilization scene doesn't mess with the timeline - it only lessens the emotional impact of the montage scene at the end of Jurassic Bark, since we know that this ended up not happening (and indeed, never happened - the best explanation for it is that it took place in Fry's head, rather than real life). With that, there's no paradox either.

Since the version of Fry that would become Lars did spend a lot of time with Seymour that we never got to see, there's potential confusion for any flashbacks that we do end up seeing  - are we looking at Fry with his dog before he got frozen, or Fry¹ with his dog, after travelling backwards in time?

[Reply #534 on:]

First of all, I wasn't even trying to start an argument or an in-depth discussion, so yet again you've taken a harmless comment and turned it into an attack.

Second, I'm pretty sure the only thing that would have been changed about JB is that the entire montage of Seymour waiting for Fry would never have happened, as you said.

Third, Bender stopped all of his past selves from coming out of the limestone cavern when they were meant to, meaning the scammer aliens would have never gotten rich, thus never gotten much power besides owning Planet Express, which kind of messes up the timeline of the entire movie. Fry would have probably still gone back to 2000 though, with the scammers getting on his nerves and Lars being around, further evidence that he still must go back to become Lars.

So I guess in the end everything happened except for the part were the scammers take over Earth and the big space battle goes down? Again, I'm not trying to start an argument or say that you're wrong, just saying what I think.

Since the version of Fry that would become Lars did spend a lot of time with Seymour that we never got to see, there's potential confusion for any flashbacks that we do end up seeing  - are we looking at Fry with his dog before he got frozen, or Fry¹ with his dog, after travelling backwards in time?

Probably the original Fry before he got frozen, since Sarah Silverman is a guest star in the upcoming season, most likely voicing Michelle. Michelle froze herself not too long after Fry went missing and her life went to shit.

Which raises the question, why was she still frozen when Lars went to freeze himself in 2012? Technically Fry never went missing, but I guess she disliked him that much (and her life still went to shit, with or without Fry) that she froze herself anyway.

[Reply #535 on:]

First of all, I wasn't even trying to start an argument or an in-depth discussion, so yet again you've taken a harmless comment and turned it into an attack.

You're quite the picker of non-existent nits. I assumed that whatever I said, you'd take issue with it. Oh boy, look at the rest of your post. I was right. It's not so much the initial "harmless comment" that's been taken and turned into an attack here, as your tendancy to jump on the smallest thing, grossly misinterpret it and spend a page or seven arguing that black is white in the face of all logic and evidence.

Second, I'm pretty sure the only thing that would have been changed about JB is that the entire montage of Seymour waiting for Fry would never have happened, as you said.

Yeah, it hasn't changed. It never happened in the first place. Seymour's death pose shows that the timeline always happened the way that we eventually saw it in BBS. The montage was in Fry's head all along (which I suppose counts as a twist-reveal). Of course, if you were sure about that, then I have to question your assertion that there were "a lot of paradoxes" caused by that scene.

Third, Bender stopped all of his past selves from coming out of the limestone cavern when they were meant to, meaning the scammer aliens would have never gotten rich, thus never gotten much power besides owning Planet Express, which kind of messes up the timeline of the entire movie.

You're missing the point of the scene. The scammer aliens did get rich, the movie timeline did happen, but Bender's interference with it caused his actions to form a paradox which ripped a hole in the universe (presumably because it was at this point far too complex for the doom field to simply patch it by causing the duplicates to die).

Fry would have probably still gone back to 2000 though, with the scammers getting on his nerves and Lars being around, further evidence that he still must go back to become Lars.

Which shows us that the events of the movie did happen as shown, and that the paradox was the ending, when Bender performs his little act of sabotage. So, the timeline is intact. But the fabric of spacetime is ripped apart instead. Which makes a little bit of sense when you consider that space and time are linked inextricably. You can squash space, which will stretch time. Or you can condense time, which will stretch space. Or you could, if you had the knowledge and equipment to do so... so, if you were Rassilon or Omega. Anyhow, what I'm saying is that since the timeline couldn't be unravelled and de-paradoxed, it all had to have happened... which means that the damage was done to space instead. The space near Earth ripped open, exposing the way through to Yivo's universe.

This fits well enough for a cartoon reality, I think.

So I guess in the end everything happened except for the part were the scammers take over Earth and the big space battle goes down?

That happened too. It all happened. If the scammers hadn't taken over Earth and the big space battle hadn't "gone down" as you put it, then Nudar wouldn't have been at Applied Cryogenics, and Lars would not have died. You have to accept that everything you saw on screen occurred. The only episode that has involved time travel spontaneously "undoing" events has been "Decision 3012". The least said about the problems with that, the better. Really.

Probably the original Fry before he got frozen, since Sarah Silverman is a guest star in the upcoming season, most likely voicing Michelle. Michelle froze herself not too long after Fry went missing and her life went to shit.

Which raises the question, why was she still frozen when Lars went to freeze himself in 2012? Technically Fry never went missing, but I guess she disliked him that much (and her life still went to shit, with or without Fry) that she froze herself anyway.

Presumably Fry hid out above Pannucis until people stopped caring that he was gone. From what Michelle said in "The Cryonic Woman", it wouldn't have taken very long. His parents didn't want the police to waste their time and money looking for him, remember. That could mean that he "turned up" fairly quickly and they wanted to avoid any embarrassment, or it could mean that within a couple of days of realising that Fry was missing, they stopped worrying about it.

Don't forget that Fry also "went missing" again in 2012, when he went on his expedition. So, she might have frozen herself during that period instead. It's not a question that requires one to defy logic in order to answer.

[Reply #536 on:]

Well I'd try and give my opinions on "Decision 3012," but what's the point? You obviously know everything and anything about time travel in Futurama and how it works within the show, every other explanation is bullshit to you, so I'm not going to bother.

[Reply #537 on:]

Well I'd try and give my opinions on "Decision 3012," but what's the point? You obviously know everything and anything about time travel in Futurama and how it works within the show, every other explanation is bullshit to you, so I'm not going to bother.

[Reply #538 on:]

You obviously know everything and anything about time travel in Futurama and how it works within the show,

Not everything. But I'm better at making sense of it than many PEELers appear to be. Honestly, the vast majority of people can't seem to wrap their head around time travel in any form. The fact that there are multiple different ways that time travel can be accomplished in Futurama, the fact that it's got different consequences and it those consequences follow different mechanisms depending on what's done to the timeline and by which method... that's not helpful. It makes coming up with a consistent model rather challenging.

So far, Decision 3012 is the one that really makes it difficult to maintain a consistent model across the series. But I did have a go here, and here, and it seems that time travel using the Time Sphere is both subject to bugs, and will or may compensate in unique ways for unique paradoxes (such as Travers' alteration of the timeline). I mean, Travers has so far been the only person actually attempting to screw with established events in that way, and we've seen that if you're not trying to screw with established events in the Futuramaverse, you'll end up with minor-at-most differences, which tend to get wiped out by the cumulative effects of temporal inertia.

I'm by no means convinced that I know everything about any one thing, but I have done quite a bit of looking at time travel within the context of Futurama, and I've managed to glom together bits and pieces that do make consistent sense.

First of all, I wasn't even trying to start an argument or an in-depth discussion

Hopefully you've learned a lesson about throwing the word "paradox" around where it doesn't belong.

[Reply #539 on:]

A paradox here and a paradox there.  Here a paradox, there a paradox.  Everywhere a paradox.

Oh no, I threw the word paradox around where it doesn't belong.

[Reply #540 on:]

[Reply #541 on:]

Regarding Lars' 2012 expedition, we can't consider that a period where he was considered "missing" because his nephew knew exactly where he was when Bender asked.

And I'm still not convinced that the timeline of BBS isn't completely any utterly broken. I may possibly be misinformed regarding some details, but from what I understand the time sphere does not create an alternate timeline like the one used in TWOF, which is why we saw Bender destroy New York in the pilot. And by this logic, Fry's family "missing" him and the montage of Fry spending time with them can't exist in the same timeline.

Also, I'm pretty sure the D3012 time sphere is consistent with the one in BBS. The undoing of the stuff in the former episode were caused by Travers triggering an event that prevented the same event from happening, which never happened in BBS as far as I'm aware.

Another plot hole regarding the single-universe time travel is Hermes' body. If Bender went back in time to decapitate Hermes for his body, then that should've been how he lost his body in the first place.

Again, I'm probably wrong about something. Cue the flashing red gifs.

[Reply #542 on:]

Get used to it Snake because he isn't going to change or go anywhere.  The rules here don't apply to him.

[Reply #543 on:]

I may possibly be misinformed regarding some details, but from what I understand the time sphere does not create an alternate timeline like the ones used in RWTEW and TWOF

Not that this has much to do with the point you're trying to make, but the time travel in "Roswell That Ends Well" isn't an alternate timeline, but a closed loop.

[Reply #544 on:]

I may possibly be misinformed regarding some details, but from what I understand the time sphere does not create an alternate timeline like the ones used in RWTEW and TWOF

Not that this has much to do with the point you're trying to make, but the time travel in "Roswell That Ends Well" isn't an alternate timeline, but a closed loop.

Good point. I'm not sure why that episode came to mind.

[Reply #545 on:]

JUNE 19th... THE END BEGINS... YET AGAIN.    

[Reply #546 on:]

Regarding Lars' 2012 expedition, we can't consider that a period where he was considered "missing" because his nephew knew exactly where he was when Bender asked.

I meant that Michelle probably had no idea where he was.

And I'm still not convinced that the timeline of BBS isn't completely any utterly broken. I may possibly be misinformed regarding some details, but from what I understand the time sphere does not create an alternate timeline like the one used in TWOF, which is why we saw Bender destroy New York in the pilot. And by this logic, Fry's family "missing" him and the montage of Fry spending time with them can't exist in the same timeline.

Yeah. This is why I said he can't have been gone for all that long. Either that, or they missed him after he froze himself in 2012, when they'd have presumed him killed by Bender's assault on Pannuci's. It's a stretch. But I'm actually past being bothered about the ways that continuity has been fucked up the arse by now. I've accepted that post-S4, continuity took a pounding and there's nothing I can do about it. Still, that hasn't stopped me from trying to reconcile things where I can, using the show's internal logic.

Also, I'm pretty sure the D3012 time sphere is consistent with the one in BBS.

It's the only time that we see a portion of established time "reset", so I suppose unless something contradicts that, there's nothing to definitively set it apart as inconsistent. What bothers me is that it's yet another set of circumstances in which time travel has another different set of rules, and applying one consistent model therefore becomes a lot harder as possibilities are narrowed out of existence by it.

Another plot hole regarding the single-universe time travel is Hermes' body. If Bender went back in time to decapitate Hermes for his body, then that should've been how he lost his body in the first place.

Funnily enough, that's bothered me before as well. I can't come up with an explanation that is consistent with the internal logic of the show, except that with time travel, it would have been possible for Bender to duplicate Hermes. All he would have had to do would be to take Hermes back in time a few moments. There are then two copies of Hermes extant until the moment that Bender grabs him for a quick backwards trip. If Bender then grabs the Hermes that hasn't gone backwards and decapitates him, then secures the corpse in stasis or cryogenic suspension, the Hermes that went back a few minutes is the Hermes that gets decapitated the next day (or whenever) by the falling sword (since he's effectively a time-paradox duplicate at that point). Of course, his original body is a time-paradox duplicate whilst that one's effectively dead, so that one ends up being destroyed as well.



In this diagram, Bender's timeline is in red, Hermes' in black (X being his decapitation as shown). Bender goes back at (1), arrives at (2), and drags Hermes back a few moments at (3). He drops Hermes off at (4), and picks up the other version of Hermes, decapitating and storing it until (5).

Hermes goes forward from (4) to (X) as normal. Bender would have had to have taken Hermes whilst sleeping, or found another way of making sure that he was unaware of his (Bender's) meddling. In order to prevent the Hermes left on the normal course of events at (4) from going missing at (3) and not being around during the time period from (3) to (5), I suspect that there would have to be at least one other iteration of the loop (and I can't be arsed diagramming that out and making it simple enough to follow at 3am, but I think that one more snatch-and-switch would fill that hole with a duplicated Hermes who would be unaware of his duplicatehood).

[Reply #547 on:]

Get used to it Snake because he isn't going to change or go anywhere.  The rules here don't apply to him.

We're simply having a discussion here. The person you disagree with is allowed to say you're wrong if you fail to produce a more convincing argument than they do. Everything's been civil enough so far, from what I see.

[Reply #548 on:]

I think that image of Fry and Seymour looks adorable; even though I don't want the bulk of the plot centered on Seymour, as a dog-lover, I would love seeing some more sweet moments with him and Fry.

Also, isn't "Game of Tones" the one that Scruffy is supposed to play a major part in?

[Reply #549 on:]

Also, isn't "Game of Tones" the one that Scruffy is supposed to play a major part in?

I don't think so? I've heard nothing to suggest that they're linked. I'm pretty sure that Scruffy episode isn't happening.

[Reply #550 on:]

I'm hoping that this episode will just have flashbacks of the 20th Century in the vein of Luck of the Fryish and Cold Warriors, but if it does end up being a time travel episode, hopefully it's more about Fry returning to his own time instead of it entirely being about Fry's relationship with Seymour. As much as I love Jurrasic Bark, I honestly can't see what could possibly added to their relationship that we haven't seen before and wouldn't hurt Jurrasic Bark in anyway upon future viewings.

[Reply #551 on:]

Hopefully you've learned a lesson about throwing the word "paradox" around where it doesn't belong.

Jesus Christ, I wasn't even being that serious. I was speculating, guessing. I wasn't like "YEP THIS 100% CAUSED A PARADOX I'M CERTAIN THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION," I was just assuming and trying to figure it out.

But I'm better at making sense of it than many PEELers appear to be.

In your opinion.

[Reply #552 on:]

But I'm better at making sense of it than many PEELers appear to be.

In your opinion.

You really ought to have more faith in my opinions than you do in most people's empirical evidence by now. It would save you quite a bit of time and effort, and might help you to avoid being struck by a wall of text now and then for 5d6 damage.

For all your casual blasphemy related to not want to make a big deal out of something, you're sure making a meal out of this, Danny boy. You're not even making a cursory attempt to argue over interpretations of Futurama anymore - you're now arguing about the argument.

I think I'll leave it here, before you pull an Onuki and derail the thread completely.

[Reply #553 on:]

But I'm better at making sense of it than many PEELers appear to be.

In your opinion.

You really ought to have more faith in my opinions than you do in most people's empirical evidence by now. It would save you quite a bit of time and effort, and might help you to avoid being struck by a wall of text now and then for 5d6 damage.

For all your casual blasphemy related to not want to make a big deal out of something, you're sure making a meal out of this, Danny boy. You're not even making a cursory attempt to argue over interpretations of Futurama anymore - you're now arguing about the argument.

I think I'll leave it here, before you pull an Onuki and derail the thread completely.

Too late, you already pulled an ONKI and derailed the thread with your supposed superior opinions.

But anyways we have 16 days to go to the new season.  Wahoooo.

[Reply #554 on:]

But anyways we have 16 days to go to the new season.  Wahoooo.

Yeah! Ignoring tnuk and his "everything I say is the logical truth" opinions, LESS THAN 3 WEEKS TO SEASON 7B, WOOP!

[Reply #555 on:]

Too late, you already pulled an ONKI and derailed the thread with your supposed superior opinions.

Y'know, with the exception of the post you quoted, all my posts were on-topic and contributory. They were certainly of more value to the discussion than the following:

But anyways we have 16 days to go to the new season.  Wahoooo.

LESS THAN 3 WEEKS TO SEASON 7B, WOOP!

Although, I do have to admit that for some, Futurama's swansong drawing closer will probably be cause for celebration.

Not I, though. At this point in the series' lifespan, I'm going to watch without expectations of enjoyment, and maybe be pleasantly surprised if one or more of this final batch of episodes turns out to be really good.

[Reply #556 on:]

Can't understand why people who no longer enjoy the show still watch it? It's like forcing yourself to eat something you find digusting but used to love the taste of.

They were certainly of more value to the discussion than the following:

But anyways we have 16 days to go to the new season.  Wahoooo.

LESS THAN 3 WEEKS TO SEASON 7B, WOOP!

I think you'll find they were a bit more ontopic than your posts, plus the discussion had ended by that point. Even you said so:

I think I'll leave it here,

[Reply #557 on:]

Please be only a flashback,please be only a flashback and not the actual plot...I don't know they would do something really good or really dissapointing for all the people who loved and cried with Jurassic Park.

Indeed. The tragic loss was the major theme in JB. Undoing it will deprive the episode of it's meaning...

If that's the case, then it was done a long time ago in Bender's Big Score.

That fossilisation scene and 2 second montage clip didn't undo crap. It just made the timeline make no damn sense at all which is why many people (myself included) like to mentally erase that from the movie.

The timeline still makes sense, but the montage from the end of JB loses some of its emotional impact.

That fossilisation scene and 2 second montage clip didn't undo crap. It just made the timeline make no damn sense at all

Well it could make sense, it would just cause a lot of paradoxes.

With regards to JB, there are no paradoxes. Seymour's fossilization as shown in JB actually resolves a minor discrepancy in the episode (Seymour's death pose) and provides an ass-pull explanation for the dog's flash-fossilization.

Wasn't everything put back straight at the end though, considering Bender created even more paradoxes?

You don't undo a paradox by creating more paradoxes. Paradoxes from BBS aren't really resolved, except in the sense that duplicates of living organisms are killed by the doom field.

I'm not going to pull a gigantic timeline map out of my backside to explain this to you. If you persist in arguing, Danny, I'll just type a wall of text and then berate you like a retarded puppy every time you get something wrong that I've explained somewhere within that wall. So there's no point in arguing the toss. Just accept that there are no paradoxes with respect to Seymour and his appearances in JB/BBS, and proceed on that basis.

The fossilization scene doesn't mess with the timeline - it only lessens the emotional impact of the montage scene at the end of Jurassic Bark, since we know that this ended up not happening (and indeed, never happened - the best explanation for it is that it took place in Fry's head, rather than real life). With that, there's no paradox either.

Since the version of Fry that would become Lars did spend a lot of time with Seymour that we never got to see, there's potential confusion for any flashbacks that we do end up seeing  - are we looking at Fry with his dog before he got frozen, or Fry¹ with his dog, after travelling backwards in time?

Is this post on topic?  No.

You obviously know everything and anything about time travel in Futurama and how it works within the show,

Not everything. But I'm better at making sense of it than many PEELers appear to be. Honestly, the vast majority of people can't seem to wrap their head around time travel in any form. The fact that there are multiple different ways that time travel can be accomplished in Futurama, the fact that it's got different consequences and it those consequences follow different mechanisms depending on what's done to the timeline and by which method... that's not helpful. It makes coming up with a consistent model rather challenging.

So far, Decision 3012 is the one that really makes it difficult to maintain a consistent model across the series. But I did have a go here, and here, and it seems that time travel using the Time Sphere is both subject to bugs, and will or may compensate in unique ways for unique paradoxes (such as Travers' alteration of the timeline). I mean, Travers has so far been the only person actually attempting to screw with established events in that way, and we've seen that if you're not trying to screw with established events in the Futuramaverse, you'll end up with minor-at-most differences, which tend to get wiped out by the cumulative effects of temporal inertia.

I'm by no means convinced that I know everything about any one thing, but I have done quite a bit of looking at time travel within the context of Futurama, and I've managed to glom together bits and pieces that do make consistent sense.

First of all, I wasn't even trying to start an argument or an in-depth discussion

Hopefully you've learned a lesson about throwing the word "paradox" around where it doesn't belong.

Is this post on topic?  No.

Regarding Lars' 2012 expedition, we can't consider that a period where he was considered "missing" because his nephew knew exactly where he was when Bender asked.

I meant that Michelle probably had no idea where he was.

And I'm still not convinced that the timeline of BBS isn't completely any utterly broken. I may possibly be misinformed regarding some details, but from what I understand the time sphere does not create an alternate timeline like the one used in TWOF, which is why we saw Bender destroy New York in the pilot. And by this logic, Fry's family "missing" him and the montage of Fry spending time with them can't exist in the same timeline.

Yeah. This is why I said he can't have been gone for all that long. Either that, or they missed him after he froze himself in 2012, when they'd have presumed him killed by Bender's assault on Pannuci's. It's a stretch. But I'm actually past being bothered about the ways that continuity has been fucked up the arse by now. I've accepted that post-S4, continuity took a pounding and there's nothing I can do about it. Still, that hasn't stopped me from trying to reconcile things where I can, using the show's internal logic.

Also, I'm pretty sure the D3012 time sphere is consistent with the one in BBS.

It's the only time that we see a portion of established time "reset", so I suppose unless something contradicts that, there's nothing to definitively set it apart as inconsistent. What bothers me is that it's yet another set of circumstances in which time travel has another different set of rules, and applying one consistent model therefore becomes a lot harder as possibilities are narrowed out of existence by it.

Another plot hole regarding the single-universe time travel is Hermes' body. If Bender went back in time to decapitate Hermes for his body, then that should've been how he lost his body in the first place.

Funnily enough, that's bothered me before as well. I can't come up with an explanation that is consistent with the internal logic of the show, except that with time travel, it would have been possible for Bender to duplicate Hermes. All he would have had to do would be to take Hermes back in time a few moments. There are then two copies of Hermes extant until the moment that Bender grabs him for a quick backwards trip. If Bender then grabs the Hermes that hasn't gone backwards and decapitates him, then secures the corpse in stasis or cryogenic suspension, the Hermes that went back a few minutes is the Hermes that gets decapitated the next day (or whenever) by the falling sword (since he's effectively a time-paradox duplicate at that point). Of course, his original body is a time-paradox duplicate whilst that one's effectively dead, so that one ends up being destroyed as well.



In this diagram, Bender's timeline is in red, Hermes' in black (X being his decapitation as shown). Bender goes back at (1), arrives at (2), and drags Hermes back a few moments at (3). He drops Hermes off at (4), and picks up the other version of Hermes, decapitating and storing it until (5).

Hermes goes forward from (4) to (X) as normal. Bender would have had to have taken Hermes whilst sleeping, or found another way of making sure that he was unaware of his (Bender's) meddling. In order to prevent the Hermes left on the normal course of events at (4) from going missing at (3) and not being around during the time period from (3) to (5), I suspect that there would have to be at least one other iteration of the loop (and I can't be arsed diagramming that out and making it simple enough to follow at 3am, but I think that one more snatch-and-switch would fill that hole with a duplicated Hermes who would be unaware of his duplicatehood).

Is this post on topic?  No.

But knowing that you are "special" you can't seem to understand that you derailed the topic and are now acting like you didn't.  

SMH

[Reply #558 on:]

Can't understand why people who no longer enjoy the show still watch it? It's like forcing yourself to eat something you find digusting but used to love the taste of.

Completionism. It's not that we don't find it enjoyable any more, it's that we don't find it as enjoyable, and are now obtaining most of our enjoyment from seeing the thing through to its conclusion.

As to my previous posts being on-topic, I think you'll find that they were Futurama related, relevant to the discussion at the time, and generated replies that furthered the line of conversation which had spawned them. That's pretty fucking on-topic. Danny, your comment in particular seems to indicate some sort of chronological confusion on your part. Manwich, your comment seems to indicate some sort of commitment to being as wrong as you possibly can. I won't go into this, because I'm actually hoping that you two don't end up derailing this thread further, and don't want to give you any more material than that which is necessary for the sake of clarity. I hope you chaps are having fun with that though.

[Reply #559 on:]

How does the universe’s oldest species get around? Judging by this Nibblonian ship drawing from the upcoming Futurama episode “Game of Tones,” it’s in a spacecraft as adorable as they are.