Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    Re-Check/Weird Scenes    The Late Philip J. Fry Goof (SPOILERS, big 'uns) « previous next »
Author Topic: The Late Philip J. Fry Goof (SPOILERS, big 'uns)  (Read 13286 times)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7 Print
Kryten

Space Pope
****
« on: 07-30-2010 04:56 »

Fnord
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #1 on: 07-30-2010 05:59 »


Spluh. Our heroes just didn't run into them.
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #2 on: 07-30-2010 16:24 »

I disagree with the premise of the original spoilerized post, since we have only witnessed the creation of linear universes that happened to follow the exact same course of history. These universes follow on from each other, they are not parallel or branching from the result of changes to the past.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #3 on: 07-30-2010 16:58 »


No, because the time machine is not part of the universe.  That is a change to the universe from its beginning.  The Hitler thing shows you can change stuff, but on rerun, it remains the same.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #4 on: 07-30-2010 17:37 »

No, there should be, but as someone already pointed out in the episode's thread, it makes sense that it'd work with them killing the third universe's Fry, Professor and Bender and replacing them and the 2nd universe killing the 4th's, etc. Basically, it skips a universe each time.
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #5 on: 07-31-2010 04:50 »

Artistically, "The Late Philip J. Fry" is practically the equivalent of "The Sting".

Logically, "The Late Philip J. Fry" leaves me with so many time traveling questions.

Okay, I know I'm not very well-to-do in the sciences, but I still find many flaws with the time traveling as done in this episode.

Just to start out: How come killing the fish walking on land and Hitler didn't change their future? I can somewhat understand the second time they went around- the Professor may have killed Eleanor Roosevelt while she was nearing her natural death. But, shouldn't killing a single organism 300 million or so years ago and killing the most influential person on the planet during the 20th century have caused at least drastic changes for that future?

But, I digress, as I must admit everything with time traveling will always have it plotholes. Even "Roswell that Ends Well" still remains under fire for the mystery of the Y-chromosome...
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #6 on: 07-31-2010 05:19 »

It's impossible to know if the killing of the fish or Hitler did anything to Universe Two because they didn't get to stop in the 31st Century to find out.

This is a chart that JoshTheater and I discussed and he made. It shows our theory of how the time travel in the episode happened, given the premise that the Universe Two, Three, etc. are exactly the same as the original, per what the Professor said:

Not noted on here is the deaths of the fish in both Universe Two (by Prof 1) and Three (by Prof 2). Thus, with the first legged fish, Adolf Hitler, Eleanor Roosevelt, and the Third Universe's Trio all killed, the Third Universe (the one we now are watching) is the most screwed up in the cycle. Of all the universes in the cycle, the Third is the most likely to have possible changes due to time travel (then comes the Second, Fourth, and First). However, it's also possible that nothing at all changed. We may never know.
Smarty

Professor
*
« Reply #7 on: 07-31-2010 05:26 »

Just to start out: How come killing the fish walking on land and Hitler didn't change their future? I can somewhat understand the second time they went around- the Professor may have killed Eleanor Roosevelt while she was nearing her natural death. But, shouldn't killing a single organism 300 million or so years ago and killing the most influential person on the planet during the 20th century have caused at least drastic changes for that future?

I said this somewhere else, but maybe Hitler didn't have a super profound effect on the 31st century. There were terrible people 1000 years ago that seemed to have made a huge difference but for all we know we could be in the same place without them. I mean, as we saw in Space Pilot 3000, civilization was destroyed and rebuilt multiple times. They've forgotten about some things as seen in other episodes, changed others. It was rebuilt, and usually after severe destruction people aren't worrying about their history and just trying to survive.

Also many people believe there still would have been a WWII, even though Hitler never pushed it on.

So maybe Hitler not being a problem anymore changed the year 2000, but it may not have necessarily have affected the year 3000. But, of course, we won't know for sure since there was no stopping there. Maybe they'll say something on the commentary.
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #8 on: 07-31-2010 06:44 »

Just to start out: How come killing the fish walking on land and Hitler didn't change their future? I can somewhat understand the second time they went around- the Professor may have killed Eleanor Roosevelt while she was nearing her natural death. But, shouldn't killing a single organism 300 million or so years ago and killing the most influential person on the planet during the 20th century have caused at least drastic changes for that future?

I said this somewhere else, but maybe Hitler didn't have a super profound effect on the 31st century. There were terrible people 1000 years ago that seemed to have made a huge difference but for all we know we could be in the same place without them. I mean, as we saw in Space Pilot 3000, civilization was destroyed and rebuilt multiple times. They've forgotten about some things as seen in other episodes, changed others. It was rebuilt, and usually after severe destruction people aren't worrying about their history and just trying to survive.

Also many people believe there still would have been a WWII, even though Hitler never pushed it on.

So maybe Hitler not being a problem anymore changed the year 2000, but it may not have necessarily have affected the year 3000. But, of course, we won't know for sure since there was no stopping there. Maybe they'll say something on the commentary.

You're forgetting how fragile the past can be due to the "butterfly effect". Let's just say, for example, that some Nazi couple that was going to conceive their future child that night did not perform the act of procreation due to being upset over the loss of their great leader. Therefore, that child will not exist. That child may have been a customer for, oh, let's say Toyota. Toyota had the car that being would've owned bought out by another person. The person that buys the car instead dies in a car accident. And, let's just say that person was Bob Saget and his acting career never took off from then since he was unable to do the news for some news station. And let's pretend Saget got Madonna's career started. And, let's say that if it weren't for Madonna's later hits, the awesome city dance crews would still be around and not wearing their underwear outside their pants. And, well, you get my point. The butterfly effect almost always grows to huge proportions- in theory chances are against it for the same future to come.
Smarty

Professor
*
« Reply #9 on: 07-31-2010 09:23 »

Well at least the Planet Express crew's experiences were the same.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #10 on: 07-31-2010 11:56 »

-sigh- Once again, I find myself reading posts by people who fail to grasp the essential facts of time travel. Let's lay some things out logically.

1) The past is the past. Whatever has happened stays happened.
2) The future isn't quite finished yet. Whatever is going to happen can be altered or might not happen at all.
3) Any time the future and the past cross paths (ie, time travel), we have either a paradox, an alternate timeline, or a closed loop.

Now, with this in mind, the cyclical nature of time in the Futuramaverse strongly implies that whilst there's a little "wiggle room", the timeline is more or less fixed. By the end of time, the only thing that's left is the past, and so everything that has happened, has happened. If something is changed during one cycle, it won't have a drastic effect on anything else, because everything else that it effects has already happened, and would need to be manually altered to fit. So if Farnsworth kills Hitler, somebody else will step into his role, and WWII will play out as before.

If he kills Eleanor Roosevelt on the next cycle, then it's not going to affect too much either. If he kills himself at an earlier point in time by dropping a time machine on him, then since he's already made the trip forward, he's already survived that point in time and it doesn't matter what he does to any version of himself in the past. Because whatever he changes, the things that have already happened to him have already happened, and are not affected by the changes. Think of it as a cartoon, where each frame would have to be manually altered to produce a noticeable difference. This is one of the irritating implications of cyclical time: that a paradox can go unnoticed, and in fact not be paradoxical at all, because it was always going to happen, has already happened, and doesn't change anything that happened instead, because that's already happened as well. Which is itself paradoxical.

It fits with the closed loops caused by BBS and RTEW, though, so I suppose it's not as tremendously upsetting and annoying as it could be. Still, it might futz with some people's heads.

Josh, weiner, as inventive as your diagram is, it is wrong. It's in violation of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that time actually is a cyclical phenomenon, and that there is only one universe, but it runs on a cycle - around and around with one default setting (the usual outcome). Farnsworth, Fry and Bender change it a little during a couple of cycles, but eventually arrive back where they left, and finish their own extracyclical loop. Whatever happened, happened. Whatever changes were made, happened - but didn't affect anything else that had already happened, because it has obviously already happened. In this model, the butterfly effect is cancelled out by a general and overall (but presumably subtle) determinism. Let's call it the destiny field, as a counterpart of BBS's doom field.

Paradoxes by their very nature have a had time existing. Things tend to want to fit together. Also, the universe can handle a fairly large amount of strain before the fabric of reality begins to come apart, as seen in BBS/TBWABB. Imagine that the universe is a doughnut, and holes are automatically plugged by delicious jam oozing to the surface and forming a delicious dried crust with the powdered sugar.

I have to stop typing now. I really need a doughnut.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #11 on: 07-31-2010 18:55 »

Just to start out: How come killing the fish walking on land and Hitler didn't change their future? I can somewhat understand the second time they went around- the Professor may have killed Eleanor Roosevelt while she was nearing her natural death. But, shouldn't killing a single organism 300 million or so years ago and killing the most influential person on the planet during the 20th century have caused at least drastic changes for that future?
1.It may have drastically changed the future, we barely see any of the future to know if it did or not.

2.It's completely possible that, that wasn't the first fish to walk on land, or that plenty of others were about to walk up from the water or that another fish would soon evolve to that point anyway.

Just to start out: How come killing the fish walking on land and Hitler didn't change their future? I can somewhat understand the second time they went around- the Professor may have killed Eleanor Roosevelt while she was nearing her natural death. But, shouldn't killing a single organism 300 million or so years ago and killing the most influential person on the planet during the 20th century have caused at least drastic changes for that future?

I said this somewhere else, but maybe Hitler didn't have a super profound effect on the 31st century. There were terrible people 1000 years ago that seemed to have made a huge difference but for all we know we could be in the same place without them. I mean, as we saw in Space Pilot 3000, civilization was destroyed and rebuilt multiple times. They've forgotten about some things as seen in other episodes, changed others. It was rebuilt, and usually after severe destruction people aren't worrying about their history and just trying to survive.

Also many people believe there still would have been a WWII, even though Hitler never pushed it on.

So maybe Hitler not being a problem anymore changed the year 2000, but it may not have necessarily have affected the year 3000. But, of course, we won't know for sure since there was no stopping there. Maybe they'll say something on the commentary.

You're forgetting how fragile the past can be due to the "butterfly effect". Let's just say, for example, that some Nazi couple that was going to conceive their future child that night did not perform the act of procreation due to being upset over the loss of their great leader. Therefore, that child will not exist. That child may have been a customer for, oh, let's say Toyota. Toyota had the car that being would've owned bought out by another person. The person that buys the car instead dies in a car accident. And, let's just say that person was Bob Saget and his acting career never took off from then since he was unable to do the news for some news station. And let's pretend Saget got Madonna's career started. And, let's say that if it weren't for Madonna's later hits, the awesome city dance crews would still be around and not wearing their underwear outside their pants. And, well, you get my point. The butterfly effect almost always grows to huge proportions- in theory chances are against it for the same future to come.

They're not forgetting, they're just saying that maybe in this instance it didn't have a huge effect. Yes, some small things could have HUGE implications on the future, but some things would barely change anything. It's also very possible that any changes caused would have been glossed over before humans had even come into existence. Maybe one animal would have eaten that fish but it didn't get to so it went a tiny bit hungry that night and then carried on as normal. See what I mean?

Josh, weiner, as inventive as your diagram is, it is wrong. It's in violation of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that time actually is a cyclical phenomenon, and that there is only one universe, but it runs on a cycle - around and around with one default setting (the usual outcome). Farnsworth, Fry and Bender change it a little during a couple of cycles, but eventually arrive back where they left, and finish their own extracyclical loop. Whatever happened, happened. Whatever changes were made, happened - but didn't affect anything else that had already happened, because it has obviously already happened. In this model, the butterfly effect is cancelled out by a general and overall (but presumably subtle) determinism. Let's call it the destiny field, as a counterpart of BBS's doom field.

Surely the simplest explanation is the one that the writers gave us which was that it was another universe. If it had been cyclical time, the professor would surely have said something like "It appears that time has looped round and we're at the very start of our universe" rather than "It appears this universe is exactly identical to the old one". I don't see how a big bang happening with the same conditions equates to an identical universe each time is simpler than time repeating itself. Personally, I'd say that concept is more straight forwards, but that's just me.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #12 on: 07-31-2010 19:47 »

You just said it yourself. Time repeating itself. Rather than, you know, new time.
FemJesse

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #13 on: 07-31-2010 21:02 »

I think people are confusing time and events. Events are independent of time, but I'm not sure whether that has any bearing on this episode trying to establish that time is cyclical or maintaining that its linear. I personally thought they were going for "time is cyclical."
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #14 on: 07-31-2010 21:14 »

I think they went for the traditional 'science is flexible in Futurama' aspect.
FemJesse

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #15 on: 07-31-2010 21:18 »

uh oh my chronotons are leaking!
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #16 on: 07-31-2010 22:50 »

You just said it yourself. Time repeating itself. Rather than, you know, new time.

God, I must be tired. I meant that to be the other way round.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #17 on: 07-31-2010 22:51 »

You just said it yourself. Time repeating itself. Rather than, you know, new time.

God, I must be tired. I meant that to be the other way round.

I am also tired. From now on I have the energy to disagree, but not to explain. tongue
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #18 on: 08-02-2010 23:40 »

I believe the killing of Hitler in Universe N+2 resulted in the inefficiency of switches like the one used in the time machine the Professor built.  Thus, although I enjoy weiner and theater's theory, I believe it to be slightly incorrect.  Universe N+2 Fry, Professor, Bender did not only skip over Universe N+3 to kill themselves in Universe N+4.  Instead the switch that governed the time machine the Professor built completely broke off locking Universe N+2's Professor, Fry, and Bender in a constant time travelling forward in the Universes until they died from starvation some 500,000 Universes later.... the Machine continued moving forward until one of the fenders became compromised do to a stress fracture some 6.37x10^23890E512 Universes later.

I'm making some very impressive assumptions for this theory.  Firstly, that someone who communicated with Hitler before his 'natural' death had an influence on the development of switches like the one used by the Professor for his Forward Quickening Machine.  Secondly, that the inefficiency rating for switches becomes something like 120 (number of failures of switches) in 1071x365x2.3 (number of switches made in the amount of some given time).  Thirdly, that the switch the Professor builds/uses falls into this inefficiency category thus breaking and leaving the Professor, Bender, and Fry stranded in constant super forward motion forever.... or approximately one week for the living of the Professor and Fry.... they starve to death... and 572 years for Bender... he dies when the time travel machine implodes due to the stress fracture on the fenders...  the remaining debris spreads itself fairly evenly across millions of universes as it travels at different velocities in respect to the travel through time, thus providing other inconsistencies between different universes.

This is almost definitely what actually happened btw, and someone should create a flash cartoon of the Fry, Bender, and the Professor traveling forward through time indefinitely.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #19 on: 08-02-2010 23:43 »

That was a really neat diagram weiner.

Also, has anyone brought up the fact that Fry is a LIAR!?

He says that the old Fry is dead... but in reality, he's the old Fry and he has killed a newer version of Fry and Bender is burying them.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #20 on: 08-03-2010 00:25 »

I made a better diagram.

Jezzem

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #21 on: 08-03-2010 00:34 »

Also, has anyone brought up the fact that Fry is a LIAR!?

He says that the old Fry is dead... but in reality, he's the old Fry and he has killed a newer version of Fry and Bender is burying them.

I don't think you get what he meant by "old Fry"
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #22 on: 08-03-2010 00:34 »

No. There are no seperate timelines. I weep for the intelligence of the Human Race, I really do.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #23 on: 08-03-2010 00:41 »

No separate timelines but separate universes.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #24 on: 08-03-2010 00:45 »

No, no, no, no. One timeline, one universe, one spiral, several loops.
Quolnok

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #25 on: 08-03-2010 01:07 »

Indeed. The three universes visited are three different, but near-identical, universes that are not alternate or parallel and occur sequentially on the same timeline.

The three can, however, be represented with the same timeline analysis of their lifespan with limited differences. The Earth was in a slightly different position in the third universe and so we can't guarantee that the second universe's travelers made it to the fourth to crush their travelers. They may instead have wound up underground or kilometres away in space.

Also we can't assume the universe we started in was a true original universe, it seems plausible that there was an infinite number of slightly different universes before and after any given universe.

The spacetime-interference of each group of travelers, including other groups of time travelers could be what causes the Earth to be in a slightly different location. At the end of the second universe some quantity of matter was configured differently enough to be pulled together and blown apart by the big bang into another location. Thus by killing Hitler in the second universe Farnsworth caused third universe's Earth to be in a different location.

Following this, the actions of all groups of time travelers need to be understood to determine the number of universes in the repeating universe loop, if indeed there is a loop to be found. It's like saying pi = 3.141593, because that's how far your calculator goes.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #26 on: 08-03-2010 01:12 »

What? No. Seriously, just no. I need a big flashing .gif just saying NO in different colours.
Quolnok

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #27 on: 08-03-2010 01:16 »
« Last Edit on: 08-03-2010 01:22 »

Hey, it's more plausible than most of the other stuff people have said. I stand by the first two paragraphs.

This is the "Ridiculous theories" thread right?
Erdrik

Professor
*
« Reply #28 on: 08-03-2010 01:29 »

@totalnerduk: No! What?! nuh,uh! No! NO! NO! *rasberry* Ththtthbt! Yer wrong! wrong wrong wrong!

[/silly childish rant]

seriously dude, is it your goal in life to just disagree with everyone in as rudely a manner as possible?
People are gunna disagree with you and have their own beliefs and ideas.
If they don't agree with you then just let it drop.
Certainly, constantly telling people how utterly wrong they are isn't going to convince anyone.

And if your just doing it for the lulz? .. well Ive been gone a while so I missed the memo.
Quolnok

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #29 on: 08-03-2010 01:35 »

Perhaps he disagrees with terminology?
FemJesse

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #30 on: 08-03-2010 02:27 »
« Last Edit on: 08-03-2010 02:37 »

I subscribe to either a cyclical time theory or a fractal repetition chaos theory, it would explain the momentary lapse of existence as well as the spacial displacement.

Fractal theory illustrated:


Now imagine the time machine in the negative space. Its very possible to land on something from nothing considering that the pattern "continues" just small enough that you can't see it into the white space. This is after all the small of the whole and the whole of the small.

We're also assuming that the time machine is grounded on the planet in some exact coordinate, even so its rotating and moving around in space throwing all of our physics out of whack. Maybe mathematics can help?
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #31 on: 08-03-2010 08:02 »

What? No. Seriously, just no. I need a big flashing .gif just saying NO in different colours.

Actually tnuk, what he said was correct; it also didn't contradict with your it's all contained on the same timeline, one spiral many loops.  Neither did what I said. I used terms like Universe N+1 (the first universe we see [N implies there may have been a number of "Universes" prior]) to simplify the fact of describing each big bang-end entropy time period.  It's like using the term Cretaceous to describe a distinct time period in Earth's history... not having better terms available, I made one up that falsely uses the word Universe. 

In other words, your actual argument is against the words we're using, and not the way we're using them... or the other way around, I forget.... It's a semantics issue, and if you can come up with a better term, I might read about it and start applying it to my vernacular.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #32 on: 08-03-2010 12:19 »

seriously dude, is it your goal in life to just disagree with everyone in as rudely a manner as possible?

One of my goals, yes.
In other words, your actual argument is against the words we're using, and not the way we're using them... or the other way around, I forget.... It's a semantics issue, and if you can come up with a better term, I might read about it and start applying it to my vernacular.

The words, the way you're using them, and that you're not applying the terms "cyclical universe" or "spiral time loop" or "tnuk is a fucking genius" more often in daily conversation. tongue

Yeah, I've said before in GD that this is partially a question of semantics and that there's no functional difference, but it's also a question of tying together the different ways time travel has been treated within to show to come up with a consistent and logical model of the Futuramaverse, time travel, and how the two behave within one another. I know it's only a friggin' cartoon, but I like to try and make sense of things from an overall perspective.

My problem is that whilst I have described a plausible model for time within the Futuramaverse based on the entire canon and its continuity, people insist on describing their own particular models that are either only make sense when looking at TLPJF, or demonstrate severely flawed reasoning and are total and utter garbage.
I subscribe to either a cyclical time theory or a fractal repetition chaos theory

Fractal repetition as a mechanism for the propagation of cyclical time fits. I like it.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #33 on: 08-03-2010 14:50 »

I don't see how "Roswell that Ends Well" or Bender's Big Score changes anything.  They are contained within the same universe.  I fail to see how any model of TLPJF needs to take them into account.  Or any other episode, for that matter.  But by all means, enlighten me.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #34 on: 08-03-2010 15:02 »

Yeah, how does The Late Philip J. Fry being one time line with multiple universes in it contradict any time-travel we've seen on the show before?

(It doesn't).
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #35 on: 08-03-2010 16:54 »

If you'll both read through my previous posts on the subject both here and in the review thread, I think you'll find my answers to your questions.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #36 on: 08-03-2010 17:25 »

I doubt that the issue of time travel causing major fabric anomalies in BBS applies to this scenario.

It's rather simple, actually; in BBS, Bender travels back in time so many times that he alters the same part of history so many many times, that its fabric begins to burst.  If I use your doughnut analogy, it is like punching a lot of tiny tiny holes in the very same area over and over again (the time between 3000 BCE and 3000 CE should be but a mm on a doughnut that should cover all time), which then causes the delicious jam to flood out just there.

In this episode, they may be travelling in time and leaving these tiny holes many places, but they are so spread apart that they causes no issue with the fabric of the universe, that the concept of BBS is not a concern.

Farnsworth says it himself; only going forward causes no paradoxes, even if you arrive from the beginning, because it is a new loop (or doughnut) you are creating, even if you know what is going to happen.  I actually prefer the term 'doughnut' rather than 'universe' or 'timeline'.
FemJesse

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #37 on: 08-03-2010 20:04 »
« Last Edit on: 08-03-2010 20:09 »

More like Fractal Repetition substituting for the concept of time. Everything is always happening i.e. time is just a concept made up by man to describe unimportant everyday bullshit.

Although there's not a lot that you can't use fractals to describe, people who think that the universe is expanding use fractal models as an infinite mirror to describe how something can "go on forever" or conversely how something can divide into infinity.
And you thought dividing by zero was bad...

But seriously if there is a God I'm pretty sure he's laughing at us because we came up the idea that we're in his physical likeness when if God can represent some kind of set equation we would technically be encompassed (mathematically) "in his likeness."

Edit: As an artist and physics enthusiast I'm most comfortable believing that staring into one of these things is like looking into the face of creation.

And no I don't do drugs...
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #38 on: 08-03-2010 21:48 »

And no I don't do drugs...

You probably should.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #39 on: 08-03-2010 21:55 »

I hear all the cool artists do that.  Yes, Josh is an artist.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.263 seconds with 17 queries.