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    Human Resource Department    Ship Trek: Deep Thread Nine « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: Ship Trek: Deep Thread Nine  (Read 40093 times)
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 ... 20 Print
km73

Space Pope
****
« Reply #520 on: 08-05-2008 23:39 »
« Last Edit on: 08-06-2008 00:00 »

Yeah, you're quite right that both of them have demonstrated instances of loneliness, of course. I guess my original point was mainly that I agreed that loneliness as a concept is relative--to use the show as an example, what is loneliness to Leela, is not necessarily loneliness to Fry, and what is loneliness to Fry would not necessarily be so to, say, Bender. And so on. But I tend to not really collude with those who say Leela seems to "relish" her isolation; for one thing, if she did, she would've continued to hold out against Yivo, anyway. She wouldn't have just suddenly accepted him. Also she probably wouldn't have gone out with all those jackasses.


edit: and what I meant about Leela not realizing loneliness till Fry came along was that she exhibited it in the first episode by saying what she did when she tossed away her career chip; though that could also be interpreted differently.
JustNibblin

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #521 on: 08-09-2008 02:32 »
« Last Edit on: 08-09-2008 02:32 by JustNibblin´ »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Xanfor:
Loneliness is the opposite of love, methinks. Not hate. It's possible to both love and hate someone at the time.

*Wanders into the party after everyone's left*

I guess if I had to pick the opposite of love, it would be selfishness, or specifically, self-centeredness.  For the defining hallmark of love is caring for someone more than you care about yourself.  This is why self-sacrifice is a staple in romance novels (or so I've been told  big grin )

**Kicks a few empty beer bottles around, wanders out**
 
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #522 on: 08-09-2008 21:33 »

<Emerges from the shadows> Stay away from my beer bottles!! <Slinks back into the darkness>
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #523 on: 08-09-2008 22:33 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by JustNibblin':
I guess if I had to pick the opposite of love, it would be selfishness, or specifically, self-centeredness.

I don't think selfishness would be the opposite of love either. Generosity is the opposite of selfishness.

Self-centeredness probably isn't the opposite of love either (but it's a good shot). Love has a greater passion than self-centeredness could ever bring.
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #524 on: 08-10-2008 22:27 »

Yeah, I'm gonna go with apathy as the opposite.
km73

Space Pope
****
« Reply #525 on: 08-10-2008 23:16 »

So, complete disinterest might be the opposite of love? Hmm... never really thought of it like that before.

 
Quote
Originally posted by JustNibblin':
  *Wanders into the party after everyone's left*

**Kicks a few empty beer bottles around, wanders out**
 

You need to hang around here more often.   big grin

Wasn't too sure where to post this, so figured I'd do it here: Something occurred to me about the two movies lately - a major thing that really bothered me about them was the lack of sincerity in them; the lack of sincerity in the emotion or whatever - they seemed more.. manipulative than the series somehow. I think that's one factor that tainted them for me, (among other things).
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #526 on: 08-11-2008 14:25 »
« Last Edit on: 08-11-2008 14:25 »

   
Quote
Originally posted by Frisco17:
Yeah, I'm gonna go with apathy as the opposite.

I think that's the closest opposite of love that we can come up with. I was actually trying to suggest that before (poorly), but I don't think I wrote earlier posts on this topic out right. I say closest because I still don't believe there is a direct word that describes the opposite of love. How could you find an opposite of a word that can't be clearly defined?

-------------------------

I'm sorry for the long post but I just had to re-respond to this post. Quality control, yes?

   
Quote
Originally posted by km73:
As for the thesis that loneliness is relative: Leela probably never realized she was lonely until she met Fry.

I know you want to go somewhere with this post, but I don't think you can go anywhere with that post. Leela's identified with her loneliness as an orphan alone- then throwing in the suscpicion that she's the last remaining one of her freaky-looking species in the universe into the equasion and her differences become obvious. She's accepted her separation from society too- as mentioned in both "Space Pilot 3000" and "Xmas Story". Fry may or may not have made her more noting to her loneliness in both episodes too, considering that even though he's in a strange land with friends and family few and far between (at the time of both episodes), yet her condition in the world was still worse (again, at that time). So, Fry may still deserve some credit to her realization of her loneliness, if only if he made it more apparant. He's done to Leela's perspective than that, though.

 
Quote
Originally posted by km73:
Conversely, however, Fry seemed to only have that realization suddenly in BBS - all at once it was, "Oh. I'm lonely." And he was only able to deal with it by doing what he did in that movie, pursuing Leelu et al.

Again, in both "Space Pilot 3000" and "Xmas Story", he's identified he's lonely, but hasn't come to the post where he's come to terms with his loneliness and got up and lived his life day-by-day knowing that. Actually, for all the times that he has ever claimed that he was lonely, he doesn't accept it and struggles with it as it looms over his life.

Fry and Leela have two totally different levels of loneliness, no doubt. Leela, which was discussed in the segment above, has been exposed to high levels of solitude since the beginning of her life when she was an orphan, increased even more when her fellow peers at the oprhanarium rejected her for her physical "defect", and even more since she became a physically-inept female fit enough to rank with better biologically built males but became a subject to sexism by the leader of the pack that controls the entire attitude of the pack (namely Master Fnog). Her experience with such seclusion throughout her life has made her build up a "defense" against great amounts of separation.

Edit: Still more to go on this. I'll come back to it later.
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #527 on: 08-11-2008 14:46 »

Apathy, more likely, should be considered the origin of the Cartesian coordinate system of emotion. Love is simply one of the directions. If one reduced the magnitude (the degree of feeling) of love to zero, one would end up with apathy, but if one flipped the vector 180 degrees, one would end up with loneliness.

@Frida: Love is that condition in which the happiness of another is conditional to your own.
ALequalsGREAT

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #528 on: 08-11-2008 14:47 »

Yea, there are a few too many components of love to just nail an opposite for it, plus "love" is pretty subjective ...
[Dr. Hibbert]Is that the love between a man and a woman? Or the love of a man for a Cuban cigar?[Dr. Hibbert]
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #529 on: 08-11-2008 15:08 »
« Last Edit on: 08-11-2008 15:08 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Xanfor:
Love is that condition in which the happiness of another is conditional to your own.

That might be your own definition. Because love is very personal to societies all around the world, and each society has its own set of unusual and different customs, ideas, beliefs, and traditions, the idea of love varies from society to society (more like to person to person, but I don't want to get too specific with this). Your definition, in my opinion, was excellent. I don't think I could come up with anything better. But love's unique because it's deep and philosophical and mysterious. Because it's philosophical, anybody could say anything and as long as they can support it, it can be considered applicable to the definition.

Actually, love's a mental illness pent up inside of us, but you didn't hear that coming from me.

 
Quote
Originally posted by Xanfor:
[...] but if one flipped the vector 180 degrees, one would end up with loneliness.

Don't know about that, Xanfor.
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #530 on: 08-11-2008 15:13 »
« Last Edit on: 08-11-2008 15:13 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by ALequalsGREAT:

[Dr. Hibbert]Is that the love between a man and a woman? Or the love of a man for a Cuban cigar?[Dr. Hibbert]

What we have here is a misuse of the word love. What Dr. Hibbert is referring to is the desire for the sensory input a Cuban cigar provides. In what way would one's happiness depend on the happiness of one's Cuban cigar?
ALequalsGREAT

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #531 on: 08-11-2008 15:21 »

Ahh...semantics. True, the object-love he refers to is easier to separate from the human element, but behind my flippant quote is still my point: which "love" are we speaking about? It is completely subjective.
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #532 on: 08-11-2008 15:36 »
« Last Edit on: 08-11-2008 15:36 »

    "The state in which the natural happiness of an individual is directly related to the happiness of another" is actually a very broad definition (written by Robert Heinlein, didya know.) It can have many different interpretations, and in my experience includes all possible different 'varieties' of love.

    Now, a
precise definition of love seems to be up to widely varying interpretation. Virgil says 'Love conquers all' (aka, 'Omni vincit amor'). Victor Herbert says it's the 'sweet mystery of life'. Dorthy Parker denies it exists at all. Dean Martin says it's 'whena the moon hitsa you eye like a big pizza pie'. In 1986, Clyde and Susan Hendrick proposed six different types of scientifically categorised loves. They are:

    Eros (romantic, passionate love)
    Ludus (game-playing love)
    Storge (friendship love)
    Mania (possessive, dependent love)
    Pragma (logical, 'check-list' style love)
    Agape (all-giving, selfless love)[/list]

    Eros, which is primarily what I assume we are discussing (at least for clarity,) is the sense of 'being in love'. This is somewhat distinct from from sexual (or biological) love, which is by C. S. Lewis is referred to as 'Venus', but there are relations between the two (no paronomasia intended). The anthropologist Helen Fisher has described the 'biological' love process as having three distinct phases: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust is most likely what is referred to as 'love at first sight'. It's mostly pure sexual attraction in my opinion, although there is the mystery of why so many compatibilities exist between persons drawn together in this manner. And we're talking about aspects of people that simple biology can't convey. There's something deeper there. Something much deeper. Oh yes, and then attraction, which is where eros takes a full hold and where people in love make most of their stupid decisions. Finally, there's attachment, which is where the more long-lasting, but not necessarily emotionally deeper companionate loves come into play. Biologically, this ensures the the couple can put up with each other for the duration of raising a child. An exception to this process is with storge, in which you can't really be sure when the feeling of 'being in love' actually started. (This is also the kind of love I most identify with, and the type that most great love stories are founded on. Rose and the early brown-suit Doctor. Beauty and the Beast. Fry and Leela, even though it's doubtful either will ever realize it.)

    We... We were talking about eros, right?  confused
    Archonix

    Space Pope
    ****
    « Reply #533 on: 08-11-2008 15:38 »

    Apathy is the opposite of both love and hate. Apathy has no power and no interest, whereas Love (agape, eros, whatever) and Hate are a positive and negative expression of the same basic force of passionate involvement with another being. Love and hate are both fundamentally a relationship with another person. Apathy is a lack of relationship.

    Loneliness is an expression of anti-relationship so it isn't the flip-side of love, though it can be a symptom of both love and hate. Loneliness is the knowledge of a lack of intimacy. Love is a positive desire for intimacy. Hate is a negative such.

    You can be in love with someone and still be lonely, and you can hate someone and be lonely. Loneliness can prompt desire, and that can result in either hatred of the people you are lacking intimacy with, or love (philia, a desire for companionship) for them.

    Apathy just doesn't give a damn.
    Xanfor

    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #534 on: 08-11-2008 15:44 »

    Love is like this discussion. We're all saying slightly different things and yet we're all close enough to being alike we can't come to any mutually acceptable conclusions!
    ALequalsGREAT

    Starship Captain
    ****
    « Reply #535 on: 08-11-2008 15:50 »

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by Xanfor:
    Love is like this discussion. We're all saying slightly different things and yet we're all close enough to being alike we can't come to any mutually acceptable conclusions!

    Hear, Hear!
    Thanks also for the great elaboration earlier.
    Frida Waterfall

    Professor
    *
    « Reply #536 on: 08-11-2008 16:10 »

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by Archonix:
    Apathy is the opposite of both love and hate. Apathy has no power and no interest, whereas Love (agape, eros, whatever) and Hate are a positive and negative expression of the same basic force of passionate involvement with another being. Love and hate are both fundamentally a relationship with another person. Apathy is a lack of relationship.

    Loneliness is an expression of anti-relationship so it isn't the flip-side of love, though it can be a symptom of both love and hate. Loneliness is the knowledge of a lack of intimacy. Love is a positive desire for intimacy. Hate is a negative such.

    You can be in love with someone and still be lonely, and you can hate someone and be lonely. Loneliness can prompt desire, and that can result in either hatred of the people you are lacking intimacy with, or love (philia, a desire for companionship) for them.

    Apathy just doesn't give a damn.

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by Xanfor:
    Love is like this discussion. We're all saying slightly different things and yet we're all close enough to being alike we can't come to any mutually acceptable conclusions!

    Exactly. I did like Archonix's explanation the best out of all.

    Love doesn't have a distinguisable opposite, nor do many other emotions. While love and hate are drastically different, they're both still strong emotions that can be experienced at the same time on the same subject. It is just easier and simpler to mark the opposite of love and hate as apathy as that's the most opposite we could get to both emotions.
    Xanfor

    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #537 on: 08-11-2008 16:18 »

    Archonix did make the better point.

    I lost track of what I was saying halfway through.
    Archonix

    Space Pope
    ****
    « Reply #538 on: 08-11-2008 17:23 »

    Yay! I'm popular!
    Ralph Snart

    Agent Provocateur
    Near Death Star Inhabitant
    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #539 on: 08-11-2008 18:27 »

    Damned, Arch, you hit the bullseye.

    I love my wife more than anything - we've spent the last 12 years together - dating for 2 years then we got married in 1998.

    Even though she's in my life, there are times that I still have pangs of loneliness, thoughts of roads that I didn't take, opportunities that I missed because of my head being stuck in the sand, etc.  These are things that Kelly has no control over - she's not even in those equations.  Whenever I feel like that, I retreat to the garage, work on a car or play some rythym and blues on my guitar.  That's my idea of therapy.  (Maybe Leela should learn to play guitar - it has to be better than single-player pong.)

    But apathy hasn't set in yet - I still pry my ass off the Sealy each day and gut-punch my way through life because there are still things I love and am passionate about, but cynicism is creeping in and growing everyday.  I hope to never be apathetic as some of the people I work with because I think I'd rather not exist than have nothing to look forward to in life.

    So are you at heart a philospher or did you get your speech from a fortune cookie?  wink
    Archonix

    Space Pope
    ****
    « Reply #540 on: 08-11-2008 18:56 »
    « Last Edit on: 08-11-2008 18:56 »

    I mostly pieced it together from the back of sugar packets.   wink

    Funny, I've been reading up on Tao recently. It's surprising how the basic concepts match the way I think, though I don't like the idea of there being no absolutes... oh well.

     
    Quote
    Maybe Leela should learn to play guitar - it has to be better than single-player pong.

    The saxophone might be more appropriate since I tend to keep writing "Lisa" instead of "Leela". And you can really wail on one of those things.
    Frida Waterfall

    Professor
    *
    « Reply #541 on: 08-11-2008 21:03 »
    « Last Edit on: 08-11-2008 21:03 »

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by Xanfor:
    I lost track of what I was saying halfway through.

    That happens to me a lot. Doesn't it infuriate you?

    I was still able to follow your post fairly well, even with background noise to distract me. It was better than anything I ever wrote.

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by Ralph Snart:
    Maybe Leela should learn to play guitar - it has to be better than single-player pong.

    I'd say the drums- she's already got experience with them.

    Beyond sports and fitness, reading, and putting Fry down on a regular basis, she doesn't have much hobbies. For some reason, I'd think if she had a house- with a yard- she'd garden. Don't know why or where that came from. Totally doesn't fit her personality at all. Maybe it's because she's interested in life... and because of that "Mother Nature" theory I wrote on PEEL a year ago.
    Frisco17

    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #542 on: 08-11-2008 22:10 »

    Thank you Archonix for saying exactly what I was thinking far better than I ever could.

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by Ralph Snart:
    (Maybe Leela should learn to play guitar - it has to be better than single-player pong.

    Leela generally works out frustration directly on the source of said frustration by beating them to a pulp. In the absence of a person to beat I think plan B is the punching bag. (M3S)
    Frida Waterfall

    Professor
    *
    « Reply #543 on: 08-14-2008 14:49 »

    Before this thread sinks onto the next page, let me throw this question at anybody to reboot any conversation.

    How was Fry out-of-character in "The Beast with a Billion Backs"?

    I, myself, didn't find him too out of character as others seem to find him. I actually thought he was more out-of-character in "Bender's Big Score" than "The Beast with a Billion Backs".

    Maybe I'm blind... and deaf.
    Archonix

    Space Pope
    ****
    « Reply #544 on: 08-14-2008 15:54 »

    They all felt more in character in BWABB, though Fry was obviously bitter and Leela obvious a caricature of her normal self. Well... that's the thing, they felt stiff, if anything, sort of acting in a fair approximation of how they're meant to be but without the usual fludity and life they normally displayed, like the writers were still remembering how things worked.
    km73

    Space Pope
    ****
    « Reply #545 on: 08-14-2008 16:23 »

    I thought he was out of character in both and at points it almost seemed like they were trying to defamate his persona. Almost all of them were reduced to being somewhat caricatures of themselves; with the possible exception of Bender who was just more his brash, outlandish Pharaoh-to-Remember self. It ties in to what I was saying about the lack of subtlety and sincerity in the writing.
    Somehow the writing, the way they handled what were supposed to be the "emotional" moments or situations, seemed a lot more.. conniving in these movies than it ever did in the series.
    Xanfor

    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #546 on: 08-14-2008 16:31 »

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by Frida Waterfall:

    How was Fry out-of-character in "The Beast with a Billion Backs"?

    He wasn't. In fact, he was more in-character considering the events of BBS than I thought the writers would care to acknowledge.
    Frida Waterfall

    Professor
    *
    « Reply #547 on: 08-14-2008 16:47 »

    In writing, characterization should be fairly easy. In a way, it's like constantly asking the question "What would [character] do?". I don't know if direct characterization is to blame, but I think that the root of the problem comes from poor storyline writing.
    Frisco17

    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #548 on: 08-14-2008 22:18 »

    I'm still of the belief that most of them were at least somewhat under the influence of Yivo. The rest is like km73 said. Though in my opinion Fry was the only one who was really out of character.
    Xanfor

    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #549 on: 08-14-2008 22:43 »

    What exactly is it about Fry's behaviour you find uncharacteristic, Frisco?
    Frisco17

    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #550 on: 08-14-2008 23:29 »

    I just spend 20 minutes trying to find my original review of BWABB where I spelled all that out but I can't seem to find it. So I'll just do the short version from what I can remember.

    • The fact that he completely ignores Leela after spending such a long time chasing her. Especially just one month after the whole Lars thing.
    • The way he is willing to sacrifice his entire life and go to the other universe over a girl he's known for a month who has four other boyfriends.
    • A few other things that I can't remember which is why I was looking for my old post. I'll just have to go watch it again and get back to you. 

    Xanfor

    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #551 on: 08-14-2008 23:43 »
    « Last Edit on: 08-14-2008 23:43 »

      Alrighty then, I'll waiting. In the meantime I'd like to point out just a few minor personal observations:

    • Fry appears to have finally gotten over Leela following the Lars thing. This is accentuated by his subtle actions and reenforced by her "sometimes I feel like you should go away" comment.
    • Fry, having given up on her, almost instantly finds another girl whom is practically perfect, but then she goes and ends up hurting him severely. God and genderless tentacle monsters can pull off multiple romantic relationships simultaneously... It's extremely tougher for humans. (Citation: "There can be no great love without great jealousy!" ) Now,  this is the second time in under a month that his hopes in relationships and love have been shattered... And then everywhere he looks he sees nobody else having the same problems! He feels, perhaps, that this universe is out to get him, and that maybe another one could be kinder. This feeling reenforced, like I stated above, by Leela's "go away" comment.
    • Like I said, I'll be waiting...  smile
    Xanfor

    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #552 on: 08-14-2008 23:48 »
    « Last Edit on: 08-14-2008 23:48 »

    I can has double post?

    Yes. Yes I can has.
    hobbitboy

    Sir Rank-a-Lot
    Urban Legend
    ***
    « Reply #553 on: 08-15-2008 04:07 »

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by Xanfor:
    Now, this is the second time in under a month that his hopes in relationships and love have been shattered...
    Sorry, but when (specifically) would you say the first time was?

    Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
    Archonix

    Space Pope
    ****
    « Reply #554 on: 08-15-2008 05:07 »

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by Frida Waterfall:
    In writing, characterization should be fairly easy. In a way, it's like constantly asking the question "What would [character] do?". I don't know if direct characterization is to blame, but I think that the root of the problem comes from poor storyline writing.

    Take it from a writer, characterisation is evil. The fact that characters have to change in subtle ways as they progress through their fictional life makes asking he question "what would they do" fraught with all sorts of difficulties. They way a character would behave at the start of a plot is sometimes very different from how they'd behave at the end. And sometimes it's only subtly different, which is actually the most difficult thing to deal with.

    Anyway the point is that I felt the writers were still coming to grips with the characters in BWABB. It was a lot tighter and more directed than BBS but still had a few problems that showed up in the way the characters reacted to each other. It was way, way better than BBS in terms of character "life" and emotion, which all seemed a bit forced and sterile in BBS in places.

    On the other hand, they're not sticking to tired formulae. They're exploring mreo oft he limits of the characters and taking themselves (the writers) out of the comfortable norm. Bitterness and rancour betwen Fry and Leela is to be expected given how long they've been on the verge of a shift in their relationship. One is having hopes dashed, the other is refusing to adapt to a changing situation.

    And... the less said about Yivo, the better, frankly.
    winna

    Avatar Czar
    DOOP Ubersecretary
    **
    « Reply #555 on: 08-15-2008 07:34 »

    You don't like Yivo?  confused

    I thought he was a neat character, I just felt the story could have been developed better.  The earth representing the entire universe in determining whether said universe should date an extra-dimensional being -> too whacky.  The realization that tentacles were genticles -> somewhat tacky.  Finding out people could control themselves when under the influence of said gentacles -> a little hackneyed.  Bender being able to attack Yivo and share the only matter capable of harming schklim which was earlier described as virtually indestructable with virtually no explanation -> totally detracted from the atmosphere and seemingly contradicted earlier plot devices.

    Other than not adequately describing the events of BBS in any way shape and form to set a baseline for Fry and Leela's relationship (or rather in this case, lack of one), I'd say most, if not all of the characters acted far more in character than in BBS.  I thought it was nice injecting a new love interest with what's her name too... I already forgot her name, sorry... plus she was pretty hot for a cartoon character; sitcoms need that interaction to a certain degree.  Even the end scene where everybody starts fighting I found to be the logical conclusion of all the events... I'd just have rather had a lead in into the third movie rather than the heart shaped fade out which was clearly a rip off of Put Your Head on My Shoulders and had no clear reason to be in there in the first place.
    ALequalsGREAT

    Starship Captain
    ****
    « Reply #556 on: 08-15-2008 11:16 »
    « Last Edit on: 08-15-2008 11:16 »

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by winna:
    The realization that tentacles were genticles -> somewhat tacky.  Finding out people could control themselves when under the influence of said gentacles -> a little hackneyed.  Bender being able to attack Yivo and share the only matter capable of harming schklim which was earlier described as virtually indestructable with virtually no explanation -> totally detracted from the atmosphere and seemingly contradicted earlier plot devices.
    Agreed, although I liked everyone getting together to decide how to deal with Yivo; even though it was laboriously done the idea made me laugh.

    W/r/t Fry in the first 2 films, BBS really centered on the alternate Fry (or a sort of "what-if" Fry, as I like to think of it); it was one view of the way the Fry we know could mature and I enjoyed the speculation as well as the knowledge that he really is perfect for Leela, even if he isn't quite ready yet. It gave me hope for the future ship. Our Fry was mostly jealous and removed until a fourth-act epiphany (similar to Leela in BWABB?) I know I am generalizing a bit, but trying (and failing) to keep it brief.

    In the second movie, the roles reverse a bit: it is Fry's turn to experience a 'serious' relationship -or two- and Leela to react. Fry is nothing if not mercurial and impulsive; it is how both of his relationships in the film begin, and is pretty consistent with his character I thought. The difference with BWABB is the decisions he makes: breaking up with Colleen was a healthy decision, and his (belated) shrewd decisions regarding Yivo, although he let himself get carried away in the end. I think his (and the rest of the universe's) eventual blind devotion to Yivo seemed pretty uncharacteristic and strange, but it reiterates my idea that both of the main chars get a serious and whirlwind relationship in the first 2 movies.
    I imagine that the detail that Leela and then Fry were examined with was a big change for everyone, lending to the 'out-of character' idea.

    you are probably more likely to die from swallowing a bee
    winna

    Avatar Czar
    DOOP Ubersecretary
    **
    « Reply #557 on: 08-15-2008 21:18 »

    The more we talk about the movies, the more it seems I can see that the characters did interact quite well, and the spark of Futurama was in them.  They see more agreeable after multiple viewings than when I saw them the first time years ago....  I suppose part of it was the hold out for so long and the high anticipation that went along with it.

    I think I will still nitpick both films, but in most cases, it's a trade-off between jokes and common sense slash seriousness.
    Frisco17

    DOOP Secretary
    *
    « Reply #558 on: 08-15-2008 22:20 »

      I think the "you should go away" comment is part of what I meant when I said that the characters where kind of stereotypes of themselves. In this case Leela shooting down Fry's advances. Just is this situation he hasn't actaully tried anything. Personally I put that one down to jealosy, conscious or not.

       
    Quote
    Originally posted by Xanfor:
    Like I said, I'll be waiting...   smile [/list]

    Found it altough it isn't as in depth as I thought.

     
    Quote
    Originally posted by Frisco17:
    Ok, I'm back from Germany and finally got to watch BWABB last night.

    I thought it was good but slightly less so than BBS. It was definitly hilarious, particularly the name "Chesty McNagNag." I thought the Bender sub-plot was fantastic especially the ending. All the interactions between the Professor and Wornstrom were amazingly well done too.

    My only real complaint is that Fry seemed drastically out of character. He completely forgot about Leela after years of focusing on almost nothing else, he seemed desperate and lonely at times and almost evil at others. All in all the he just didn't feel right to me. Bender, Leela and Zapp seemed spot on though.


    La Belle Leela

    Starship Captain
    ****
    « Reply #559 on: 08-16-2008 10:18 »

    This thread is deep.

    I like discussions like this.  big grin

    Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 ... 20 Print 
     Topic locked! 
    « 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 0.191 seconds with 17 queries.