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    Shipping high into the sun. « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: Shipping high into the sun.  (Read 39135 times)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 20 Print
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #120 on: 06-06-2009 03:35 »

Relationship development between John Crichton and Aeryn Sun in Farscape easily trumps the initially-similar relationship between Fry and Leela in Futurama.

I know, the latter is a cartoon. But remember the former had muppets as some of the main characters. Muppets, people! If a Henson production could generate such a deep well of emotional depth and complex continuity while maintaining humor and entertainment value, then so can a cartoon.
Chug a Bug

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #121 on: 06-06-2009 09:34 »
« Last Edit on: 06-06-2009 20:40 »

^ There were only two animatronic characters. The characters in the relationship you're talking about were at least human(oid) and played by actors who had a chemistry between them (she was even picked because of that)

But yeah, it was also better written and more consistent.

I just see the writers having ignored character/plot continuity for the sake of their Monster story. Those last few lines between F/L are just the writers covering their asses for the ignoring of F/L's relationship. Actually, it doesn't even do much of that since it's practically insulting that story and anybody who likes it (this guy).

I sometimes wonder if the writers ever rue the day they ever made Fry make a play for Leela, because they've effectively written themselves into a corner havn't they? They can't have another Fry-gets-a-girlfriend-for-an-episode story because every shipper will cry "out of character!" on it... I think that DXC even admitted the Colleen story was a cheat that they needed for their monster movie.
El-Man

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #122 on: 06-07-2009 02:26 »

I thought that Leela's comment to Fry in BWABB was typical of her.

Just so I don't re-state my opinion of why everyone was so OOC at the end to BWABB, I have provided a link. OOC, yes, but they're also not in their right minds.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #123 on: 06-07-2009 03:29 »

Chug a Bug; yessssssss, I did notice at some point that they were two live humans when I watched it. I was just referring to overall perceived 'silliness' of the production; stigma of muppets versus stigma of animation.
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #124 on: 06-07-2009 15:16 »

Did many people think The Empire Strikes Back was silly for having a muppet as a principal character?

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

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #125 on: 06-07-2009 15:31 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2009 15:35 by coldangel_1 »

Most people thought the Ewoks were silly.
I know they aren't quite muppets, but close enough.

EDIT: I don't think they're silly. But there is a stigma against these things, animation and muppets and things. There's a tendency for the production to be taken less seriously, and an expectation for it to be childish and shallow.
My point was that Farscape defied that expectation with a fair degree of success, even despite cancellation, whereas Futurama has usually bent to it and remained constrained as 'just a cartoon'  - the lack of relationship development is the most pointed evidence of this. Granted it's also a sitcom, but even sitcoms have a degree of character growth. The writers just remained in their safe comfort zone.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #126 on: 06-07-2009 16:24 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2009 16:27 »

My point was that Farscape defied that expectation with a fair degree of success, even despite cancellation, whereas Futurama has usually bent to it and remained constrained as 'just a cartoon'  - the lack of relationship development is the most pointed evidence of this. Granted it's also a sitcom, but even sitcoms have a degree of character growth. The writers just remained in their safe comfort zone.

I agree about the lack of character growth. It's funny, because Futurama was capable of isolated moments of great emotional complexity (granted, by sitcom/cartoon standards, for the most part) in certain episodes ("The Luck of the Fryrish", "Time Keeps on Slipping", "Leela's Homeworld", "Jurassic Bark", "The Sting")--it's just that the damn reset button was too appealing to the writers. I think you're right about that being their comfort zone, coldy; they liked romantic angst and unfortunate childhoods and tormented psyches...so long as the story-points remained self-contained, didn't carry over from episode to episode.

I once read in an interview with DXC--I think it was fairly recent--that he and the rest of the writers fancy that Futurama could stand on its own as a "serious" sci-fi show: if you took out all the jokes, you'd still have a valid dramatic story. And I think that's true of certain episodes ("Leela's Homeworld" or "The Sting", for example, have merit as so-called serious storytelling). But, if you take the series as a whole, strip it of all the gags (at least the broader, slap-sticky ones that you wouldn't see on, say, Star Trek), and view it in those terms, I don't think it works.

And I think the lack of character development-- and the occasional bipolarity of both Fry and Leela--contributes to my feeling that, if Futurama was a straight drama, it wouldn't hold up to other live-action shows of that nature. I don't think that the writers are incapable of writing great drama, but I do think, like coldy says, that they're uncomfortable taking big risks with the characters. The lack of consummation of the Fry/Leela relationship for nearly a decade (as far as the series's timeline goes)--and even then, the resolution in ItWGY was pretty rushed--is the most prominent example of how Futurama let great dramatic, character, and comedic possibilities go to waste. And all because of their need to constantly reset the progress that had been made.
speedracer
Bending Unit
***
« Reply #127 on: 06-07-2009 18:45 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2009 18:52 »

A few points:

1.  Leela's curiosity about her origins, Amy's rebellion against her parents, Leela's disapproval of the Wongs' cold-hearted business practices, Fry's general attitude toward romantic relationships and Fry's sense of responsibility regarding his work and place in the world are all themes that run over multiple episodes.  Granted, Futurama's production model and chaotic TV renewal timeline didn't allow the writers to map out in advance the way these themes would progress over 4-5 seasons, but to be upset that these themes were featured in self-contained episodes is to miss the forest for the trees.

2.  To say that Futurama was intended to be at its core a serious sci-fi drama is an overstatement.  Here's an article where MG talks about the nature of the show.  The stories are supposed to contain interesting and unconventional sci-fi themes, but I don't think the plots were ever intended to be as serious as a standard sci-fi show.

3.  I'm pretty sure Futurama would be awkward if it were to take the more serialized, dramatic form some of you seem to be advocating (this is not to say that some of the running threads couldn't have been handled more carefully, of course).  The whole point of animating it is to lighten the mood and play up the witty and satirical bent of the show (this doesn't just include the cartoony voices and slapstick comedy, but also the extensive collection of background gags).

Given the nature of this thread and the way it's evolved, it seems like many of you are taking your (completely legitimate) frustrations with the F+L saga and projecting them onto the series as a whole, which seems pretty unfair to me.
Archonix

Space Pope
****
« Reply #128 on: 06-07-2009 19:05 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2009 19:12 »

The thing is, if Futurama were a straight drama it'd be written as a straight drama, so they'd probably include elements that aren't included in the show as we know it. They wouldn't include the slapstick stuff or the more obvious humour and I think they'd be more adventurous with the plots.

But then we butt up against the animation barrier, or the 4Kids quandary*. Animation in the west is still ghettoised as "for the kiddies" even when you have South Park on one extreme, King of the Hill on another (being straight drama with comedy elements a lot of the time), and various other animated shows tackling all sorts of allegedly "adult" situations and stories. The prejudice permeates everything, even more than with muppets, as there's still a "race-memory" of puppetry being used to tell serious stories - and it afflicts both sides of the debate. Even the most ardent proponent of animation as a serious medium seems to believe that animation should be treated as a special case, a separate thing from live film, in it's own world, rather than just one of the tools available to the film-maker.

Japanese animation is hugely over-exposed these days but they've proven that animation is just as effective as live action for producing any sort of television or film you care to imagine. They've done that by not treating it as a special case.

That's why the writers go for the reset button even if they believe Futurama could be a great drama series. They're still working in the mindset of animation being "for kids" in some way, as a thing that's different to normal tv, with restrictions on how it has to be treated in terms of arcing plot, since "the kids", so the understanding goes, would't want to get involved in a series that was evolving as it went. If they were writing Futurama a a live-action comedy/drama series you can guarantee that they wouldn't use the rest button. Red Dwarf certainly didn't.

What needs to happen is for that mindset about animation to disappear. It does occasionally - a good example is in The Venture Brothers, which certainly doesn't reset at the start of each episode - but it's still around enough for people to expect animation to be a certain way even when they claim they're making it otherwise.

I'm ignoring most of the films when it comes to the 'ship. They're almost not canon.

*The 4Kids network likes to import many, sometimes fairly dramatic, japanese animated series and edit the crap out of them - almost literally. Cigarettes, conflict, death, guns, nipples, nipples on men, entire episodes, side-plots, slightly erotic relationships, almsot any violence - they all go under the knife in order to turn what could be anything, from "young adult" shows to straight drama, into light-hearted children's television. Because it's animation! Y'know, for kids!
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #129 on: 06-07-2009 19:30 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2009 19:33 »

Oh, I wasn't trying to advocate writing Futurama as a drama, or even serializing it; I was just trying to explain how the show stands up, from my point-of-view, when viewed in terms of live-action sci-fi dramas (or dramedies). I agree that there were certainly running threads--like the ones speedracer mentioned--and that they were handled well (for the most part; I'm still a little meh on the Nibbler-can-talk reveal in BBS). It's the resetting of Fry and Leela's relationship, specifically, that wouldn't fly in live-action programming. Archonix sums it up nicely: there's a stigma surrounding animation; the evolving plots and characters that one expects of "real people", one doesn't necessarily expect of cartoons.

And I still feel that the show had some brilliant writing--both dramatic and (obviously) comedic. Futurama is clever and its characters are memorable and its stories are both hilarious and heartfelt, when the situation calls for it. (There's a reason it's my favorite show, after all.) It's just that coldy's talk of character development and Farscape vs. Futurama...well, it just got me thinkin' is all.
 
As far as the ship goes: like I said, most of the more romantic episodes of the series ("Time Keeps on Slipping", "The Sting", "The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings") were handled with a depth that often surpassed that of your average live-action sitcom or drama (and as for "The Luck of the Fryrish", "Leela's Homeworld", and "Jurassic Bark"...they speak for themselves). The show was never afraid to go to a darker place, emotionally.

I'm not saying that there was no continuity in the Fry/Leela relationship (I've expressed this opinion elsewhere on PEEL, but I think the shippy episodes themselves matured as the series progressed: an episode like "Parasites Lost" lacks the depth of "Time Keeps on Slipping"; the former is one-sided Fry's-been-rejected angst, and the latter's more even-handed when it comes to expressing both Fry and Leela's feelings); I'm just saying that the constant resetting was frustrating.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #130 on: 06-07-2009 20:35 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2009 21:01 »

I said the similar things about the handling of F/L's relationship here: http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=16354.msg1031348#msg1031348

On that animation bit: It's all based on presumptions. Stuff like the better adult-focused cartoons and Pixar films are starting to make people realize that Animation is a great way to present a story and not a specific genre for the kids. The older people who can't accept animation as anything but a childrens medium will die off and the people like us who see it as more will allow it to grow.

Of course that doesn't say anything about what we will think is childish and might not attempt to understand. I'd hope we'd be smarter about how to handle new things but if we don't then we'll die off too and thus our children will accept their creations and influences for what they are until they don't understand something ect. until the end of time.
Tedward

Professor
*
« Reply #131 on: 06-08-2009 00:56 »

If I may be so bold as to edge into the conversation...

These discussions of both the Fry-Leela relationship and the merits of the show as a whole are quite similar to what Ive thought about before when trying to come to some sort of conclusion about my feelings about Futurama in general. Whenever someone dismisses Futurama as a mere silly cartoon, part of me wants to jump to the shows defense, but then I usually end up feeling that maybe it isnt as wonderful as I might make it out to be. The lapses of continuity, the dreaded reset button, and the sometimes sloppy writing do take their toll on the appreciation of the show for me, and I reluctantly consider that Futurama may actually be, interestingly enough, what it was originally conceived to be- a gag-driven satire of science fiction.

Of course, what ends up making this so frustrating is that the show does have touches of greatness in it. Not only is it brilliantly funny, but it repeatedly will convey a depth that is all the more surprising if one is looking at the show from the perspective that it is just some silly cartoon. As has been said before, there is a reason why the more romantic or emotional episodes tend to be viewed as representatives of the best of what Futurama can offer. Unfortunately, even these episodes at some point or another break continuity, reset progress, and the like. I agree that there is a sense of progression for certain relationships and for the type of story each episode tells, and this only makes the shows problems hurt all the more. For example, think about when continuity is broken for a joke. Even if the joke is a clever one, every episode, even the lesser ones, has countless jokes in it, and most of these jokes are actually quite good. Would it really have been that big of a loss to remove a few jokes and instead further draw the audience into the fascinating and at least somewhat believable world being created? Maybe Im wrong or hoping for too much, but I think that focusing a bit more on continuity, character depth, and overall story and relationship progression would only have made the show better and still not detracted from the fun experience that watching Futurama is supposed to be.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #132 on: 06-08-2009 08:49 »

Well put, Tedward. I mostly agree with you and couldn't have put it better myself (seriously, have you seen my writing? Terrible!).

On the plus side, I'm hopeful that when the show returns the writers will realize there is no resetting the ending of ITWGY. They will be forced to acknowledge the relationship and build upon it. When they see that fans will react positively to some stable continuity for a change maybe they will gain the confidence to start using it on other storylines. I remain hopeful that they will trust their writing ability and our intelligence/fandom.
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #133 on: 06-08-2009 18:37 »

I don't see how they really could reset the ending considering how definitive it was. I think they've realized that the milked the Fry chasing Leela storyline as long as they could and that they had to move on.
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #134 on: 06-08-2009 20:19 »

As for the points you make, Xanfor, I suppose it's possible that both Fry and Leela were more or less in-character, based on where they stood emotionally at the end of BBS. But I don't think--and this is the ardent, stubborn shipper in me speaking here--that TBWaBB was meant to prove that Fry and Leela were no longer a viable romantic pairing.

I agree with you on the point that this was not the purpose of BWABB; indeed, I even agree with you on the point that this wasn't the writers intention. But once the bits are set to disk, there's no conforming the characters back into what the writers desired them to be. Whether they intended for one thing to happen or not, the canon has been set. It happened. Now it's up to the audience to do their own rationalising.

I think that's what really caused his depression, it wasn't so much Colleen, just that he was alone once again. Sure the extent depression was a bit far fetched but as DXC once said "they needed it for the story".

Regardless of whether they simply "needed it for the story", it still happened. Regardless of the fact that revealing Miri's homeworld to be an exact duplicate of Earth was only done for the Star Trek episode because they "needed it as an opening hook", it doesn't change the fact that Miri's homeworld is in fact an exact duplicate of Earth. Like I said above, once the bits are engraved and sealed within their spherical polycarbonate shell, it has happened. What they intended to happen has absolutely zero relevance.

Quote
I also don't think he was THAT attached to Colleen. Sure he said he loved her but he said that about Umbriel too (amongst others) and like Umbriel as soon as there was even a perceived difficulty he was out the door. After all he was effectively told that if he loved her it would still work, it barely lasted five minutes. Fry's always been a bit eager to use the 'L' word when in relationships, Leela is the only woman who he's stated his love for yet actually backed it up with actions/dedication.

Then again, it's been years since Umbriel, you can't say that Fry hasn't grown up to some extent during that time; even considering the self-induced emotional stasis he'd been preserving himself in. He may be immature, and somewhat inexperienced, but by no means does that mean that his feelings are of any less duration, strength, or dedication. So he couldn't handle sharing her. If anything, the fact that he found her willingness to share him so traumatic and depressing speaks wonders about how he felt. If he didn't truly care, if he felt as season two Fry would have felt -- he would never have been cut so deeply.

You've (Gorky) said it before and so has Xanfor that if you place ITWGY after BBS or the series it makes complete sense and only seems weird next to the odd-duck of BWABB. BWABB is the oddest Futurama episode ever. It completely clashes in style, presentation, characterization, plot, and pretty much everything else with the series.

For me, it's a choice: either BWABB is canon or ITWGY is canon. I've had more exposure to BWABB, thus my current understanding of the Fry/Leela relationship. Should I, however, personally denounce BWABB from my understanding and pretend that it never existed, then everything once more would make sense, and I could return to my obsessive shipping personality FistfulOAwesome was so kind to remind me of. Hopefully I'll be less obnoxious at it this time. Nevertheless, it'll quite likely be a while before I can force myself to make that choice. The framework of ITWGY didn't make sense given the character evolution up to that point, thus the story fell flat. If the development following from it stays true, however, then perhaps it will create for itself the background it needs in order to seem realistic. Heck, even a Ginny-style "I never really gave up on you" confession would help. But I really hope for something more clever than that. Really, I do.

I'm not saying that there was no continuity in the Fry/Leela relationship (I've expressed this opinion elsewhere on PEEL, but I think the shippy episodes themselves matured as the series progressed: an episode like "Parasites Lost" lacks the depth of "Time Keeps on Slipping"; the former is one-sided Fry's-been-rejected angst, and the latter's more even-handed when it comes to expressing both Fry and Leela's feelings); I'm just saying that the constant resetting was frustrating.

Please, elaborate. "Parasites" may have had more angst, but "Slippin'" definitely had more call for it. "Parasites" ended on the note of hope that the relationship would in fact be possible (and this is, of course, not considering the philosophical commentary on the question of who a person really is, e.g., was Fry really Fry anymore when possessing the worms?) "Slippin'", however, ended on a note of pure depression. Sure, the former had the initial declaration of his love and the latter had the revelation that all Fry had to do to win hers was to confess it in an astronomical manner (pun may or may not have been intended.) Nevertheless, just because Leela gets a few moments to tell it from her side doesn't make the episode any deeper. If anything, it was another "15 second blurb" intended to create the illusion of it being so.

On the plus side, I'm hopeful that when the show returns the writers will realize there is no resetting the ending of ITWGY. They will be forced to acknowledge the relationship and build upon it. When they see that fans will react positively to some stable continuity for a change maybe they will gain the confidence to start using it on other storylines. I remain hopeful that they will trust their writing ability and our intelligence/fandom.

I like this 'Ship!

It's exciting!
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #135 on: 06-08-2009 23:04 »

Quote from: Xanfor
I agree with you on the point that this was not the purpose of BWABB; indeed, I even agree with you on the point that this wasn't the writers intention. But once the bits are set to disk, there's no conforming the characters back into what the writers desired them to be. Whether they intended for one thing to happen or not, the canon has been set. It happened. Now it's up to the audience to do their own rationalising.

Not necessarily. Ever heard of this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Discontinuity?from=Discontinuity.Discontinuity

The second sentence of the last paragraph definitely describes the divide between those who like BWABB and those who don't.

Quote
For me, it's a choice: either BWABB is canon or ITWGY is canon.

I'm sure everybody knows which one I choose. BWABB may be a good followup to BBS (if you use Xanfor's reasoning), but ITWGY is a good follow-up to BBS and the series. More is more.

Quote
I like this 'Ship!

It's exciting!

Me too! It's quite fun discussing this show and all its bits with people who are just as fanatical toward it as I am.

P.S. I haven't seen Star Trek yet (I'm a holdover) but I already love Simon Pegg's Scotty (I heard (okay, read) good things about Karl Urban's Mccoy as well).
Tedward

Professor
*
« Reply #136 on: 06-09-2009 00:18 »

Well put, Tedward. I mostly agree with you and couldn't have put it better myself (seriously, have you seen my writing? Terrible!).

Thanks! Also, I don't think your writing is as bad as you say it is. Your points have made sense and been quite interesting as well.

Whether they intended for one thing to happen or not, the canon has been set. It happened. Now it's up to the audience to do their own rationalising.

Maybe I was a little too critical before. Like Gorky had said earlier, there is a reason why this is my favorite show, and I do plan to do my best to defend it even if I don't like parts of what has ended up as canon. I'm just saying it's a shame that we at times might have to choose which events are included in our personal canon if we can't justify the characters' actions in a certain episode or movie. There may be nothing more we can do now about the established canon than discuss opinions and hope for the future (not that any new attempts at continuity in new episodes would automatically erase the previous lapses), but when we invest our time into both the show and its characters, we of course end up expecting the best and most intriguing plots and developments and get bothered when we cant make decent sense of the material we see.
Chug a Bug

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #137 on: 06-09-2009 00:31 »
« Last Edit on: 06-09-2009 00:37 »

Chug a Bug; yessssssss, I did notice at some point that they were two live humans when I watched it. I was just referring to overall perceived 'silliness' of the production; stigma of muppets versus stigma of animation.

I guess what I was trying to say is that live actors bring their own abilities, as actors to a drama as well as their own sensibilities, whereas an animated show is only as good as the artists can draw (leaving aside the voice actors for the moment) and they're not actors. So I think it likely that it's harder to achieve quality drama in animation as opposed to live action is what I was trying to get at (leaving aside the quality of the writing as well.)

Stuff like the better adult-focused cartoons and Pixar films are starting to make people realize that Animation is a great way to present a story and not a specific genre for the kids. The older people who can't accept animation as anything but a childrens medium will die off and the people like us who see it as more will allow it to grow.

As an older person myself I take exception to that generalisation. wink But it is true there is a body of people who regard cartoons as kids stuff. Personally I think the show that did more to change that view more than anything else was The Simpsons, at least when it was still worth watching. Anyone who properly watched that could no longer believe that animation was simply for kids.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #138 on: 06-09-2009 00:57 »

Quote from: Chug a Bug
As an older person myself I take exception to that generalization. wink

Of course I don't mean you or any other older person on this board. I just mean that the majority of detractors are older people. To say that all older people are detractors is to ignore all the older people who make up Animations in the first place (what are Groening and Cohen? In their 50's and 40's, respectively?). To say that all detractors are older people is to ignore all the teenagers and people in their early 20's who think that they will be seen as immature for liking animation or anything else associated with children (such as people who don't play Mario games because "Mario is kiddy and I only play Mature games where super, beefy guys cut each other in half with chainsaws while spouting action movie lines").
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #139 on: 06-09-2009 03:40 »
« Last Edit on: 06-09-2009 03:42 »

Please, elaborate. "Parasites" may have had more angst, but "Slippin'" definitely had more call for it. "Parasites" ended on the note of hope that the relationship would in fact be possible (and this is, of course, not considering the philosophical commentary on the question of who a person really is, e.g., was Fry really Fry anymore when possessing the worms?) "Slippin'", however, ended on a note of pure depression. Sure, the former had the initial declaration of his love and the latter had the revelation that all Fry had to do to win hers was to confess it in an astronomical manner (pun may or may not have been intended.) Nevertheless, just because Leela gets a few moments to tell it from her side doesn't make the episode any deeper. If anything, it was another "15 second blurb" intended to create the illusion of it being so.

Nah, you basically nailed it: what makes TKoS more complex--more fair, actually--is that the writers at least attempted to give us some insight into how Leela was feeling. She came off as particularly horrible in "Parasites Lost"; I don't think the same can be said for "Time Keeps on Slipping." Sure, part of that has to do with the plots of the episodes--you can't really fault Leela for rejecting Fry in TKoS, since she doesn't remember what made her fall for him during all the time-jumpin'; in PL, though, it's pretty easy to see that Leela's the villain, all cold and selfish and whatnot. And I think that's just lazy writing, when you choose to present Fry's feelings earnestly, while Leela's are one-dimensional, a caricature.

And then you get to an episode like "The Sting", which is so subtly shippy, and brilliantly written, and insightful as hell. "The Sting", to me, is the perfect shippy episode. And it highlights my point, I think. By maturation of the shippy episodes, I mean that they shifted focus from being primarily about Fry's unrequited love for Leela ("Parasites Lost", "Time Keeps on Slipping"), to exploring Leela's shifting attitude towards the possibility of a romantic relationship with Fry ("The Why of Fry", "The Sting", "The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings").

And, granted, that's how most relationships on TV evolve: one party starts out more interested in romance than the other, and the less interested person eventually comes around and has the big "Oh, hey, I guess I love you, too" moment. Futurama followed that formula, but I think the writers simply got better at balancing the perspectives as the series went on. By no means do I think Fry and Leela's relationship was handled brilliantly, but I do think there is a distinct difference in the quality of the writing between, say, "Parasites Lost" and "The Sting."
Chug a Bug

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #140 on: 06-09-2009 20:19 »

It is true that the whole business is shown almost entirely from Fry's POV, we're shown his feelings, his reasoning, his hopes and fears, his ups and his downs and that is bound to make us feel sympathetic towards him, but we're almost entirely denied Leela's perspective on the matter. There are only occasional insights when she confesses to Zoidberg such as "what am I going to do about Fry?" etc - and there are a couple of these very brief scenes - but most of them are only to be found on deleted scenes on the DVD's. So it tends to make her an unsympathetic character since we're denied her perspective. I can understand the writers making us side with Fry as he's our stand-in, our hero - but it's unfair on her I think and it does make it hard work to reason her motives.
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #141 on: 06-09-2009 22:03 »

I'm going to have to completely agree with Chugs here. I've never actually thought about it but they never really do give us a good insight into Leela's thoughts with the glaring exception of "The Sting". For the most part that entire episode revolves around Leela's attachment to Fry and her self professed inability to live without him around.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #142 on: 06-10-2009 02:11 »

So now that it's been confirmed that Futurama's coming back, I can't help but speculate on whether or not the reset button will be pushed. For some reason--possibly because I'm a sucker--I truly believe that DXC is interested in continuing the series where "Into the Wild Green Yonder" left off. Which means: not only will we get some closure when it comes to that nasty wormhole business...but we'll get to see Fry and Leela as, well, a couple.

'Course, that's just what I'm hoping for--what we actually get might be entirely different. But, like others have said before me, there's no way that the writers can realistically disregard the ending of ItWGY...unless they're interested in alienating a considerable portion of their fan-base right from the get-go.
speedracer
Bending Unit
***
« Reply #143 on: 06-10-2009 02:32 »

DXC cryptically mentioned some sort of "time loop" in this article, and i.c.weiner conjectured in the main show renewal thread that the wormhole might take the crew back in time.

They could conceivably portray events from 3003-3007 and from 3009 forward, which would give them both sides of the 'ship.  Certainly with 26 episodes they have plenty of space to fill.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #144 on: 06-10-2009 02:39 »

DXC cryptically mentioned some sort of "time loop" in this article, and i.c.weiner conjectured in the main show renewal thread that the wormhole might take the crew back in time.

He was making a sci-fi joke about the show's renewal being the result of a time-loop, not implying anything about a future storyline.
Archonix

Space Pope
****
« Reply #145 on: 06-10-2009 10:09 »

I suspect this particular "rumour" is going to pop up a lot between now and the start of the new run. Great idea Cohen! Make time loop jokes to a bunch of people even more anal than Star Trek fans!
Chug a Bug

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #146 on: 06-10-2009 21:25 »

So now that it's been confirmed that Futurama's coming back, I can't help but speculate on whether or not the reset button will be pushed. For some reason--possibly because I'm a sucker--I truly believe that DXC is interested in continuing the series where "Into the Wild Green Yonder" left off. Which means: not only will we get some closure when it comes to that nasty wormhole business...but we'll get to see Fry and Leela as, well, a couple.

'Course, that's just what I'm hoping for--what we actually get might be entirely different. But, like others have said before me, there's no way that the writers can realistically disregard the ending of ItWGY...unless they're interested in alienating a considerable portion of their fan-base right from the get-go.

Well DXC is at least thinking about not hitting the reset button, and I quote from this interview in io9

Q: What about kids? Do you think they could ever have children together, in a possible future?

A: Anything is possible. I'm not giving away all of the story here. One thing we want to be careful of is, to not add the crying baby to the show. There's a danger of if we had a baby around the show, the show would have to stay at home. And we think Simpsons kind of covers that territory well. Or they will keep flying around, and be the worst parents in the world. I'm not ruling it out, but what I'm saying is, if they do have offspring it will be with a scifi twist.


So I guess the question is what does he mean by scifi twist?
Wonderpants

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #147 on: 06-10-2009 21:49 »

Leela's a mutant. A baby of hers could have any number of eyes, limbs, or skin colouration/texture/look.
Archonix

Space Pope
****
« Reply #148 on: 06-10-2009 21:50 »


So I guess the question is what does he mean by scifi twist?

Holding Kif's hand again?
Curious Gorge

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #149 on: 06-10-2009 23:06 »

Perhaps I'm just being hopelessly optimistic but I don't think the reset button will be hit either. For a start it would be one of the most farcical retcons in the history of anything anywhere. The supposed reton of the end of TDHAIP annoyed enough people but at least the ending to that episode was ambiguous enough for them to get away with it. Then ending to ITWGY isn't open to any debate however, you can't ignore it.

Secondly, and this is the one that would really grate on me, is that if they did retcon the ending of ITWGY it wouldn't only put a huge dent in the touching nature of that moment it would also pre emptively invalidate any future moments of a similar ilk as we'd just assume that it'll be reset in any possible future episodes.

And lastly, do we really want to go over old ground again? They'd all but run the 'Fry chasing Leela' angle into the ground before the movies let alone after. Futurama has some talented writers, lets see something new.

However please don't make it a complete cheesefest, have a few episodes focussing on it (the first episode of the new series will almost certainly feature it quite extensively), sure but lets not overplay it. I don't think that would ever be the case though.
Chug a Bug

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #150 on: 06-10-2009 23:38 »

The only thing that worries me slightly is that Matt Groening admitted that they put that ending in ITWGY almost as an afterthought - it was a woman I think at comic con who came up to him and begged him not to end Futurama without giving emotional closure to F/L - if thats so what were they originally going to do, and more to the point, what were they planning to do in the future, assuming they'd thought that far ahead?  hmpf
Archonix

Space Pope
****
« Reply #151 on: 06-10-2009 23:46 »

Well the hollywood reporter says they're going to keep that ending and work on from it.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #152 on: 06-10-2009 23:51 »
« Last Edit on: 06-10-2009 23:53 »

I think Matt meant that that woman was the final push he needed to go for the ending. There is no way they were planning to end the series again with no closure to the F/L dynamic. They know there would be way too many fans who would have been pissed off.

As I've said before (http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=17385.msg1035027#msg1035027), I am absolutely positive that the writers aren't dumb enough to think we would accept a reset of that magnitude. If they did then Xanfor might just have a new friend.

When Futurama returns I think the relationship should be handled thusly: underplayed in most episodes but present (background) and an important part of the characters with an occasional episode where it's made a bigger focus. That seems to me the right way to handle it.
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #153 on: 06-11-2009 03:50 »

hen Futurama returns I think the relationship should be handled thusly: underplayed in most episodes but present (background) and an important part of the characters with an occasional episode where it's made a bigger focus. That seems to me the right way to handle it.

Agreed.
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #154 on: 06-11-2009 04:01 »
« Last Edit on: 06-11-2009 04:55 »

Jumping into this thread thread since Tuesday's press release is like jumping between two train boxcars from one side of the track to the other- fatal and increases my chances of me being perceived as a dumbass.

Quote
Extract from io9 Interview:
Q: What about kids? Do you think they could ever have children together, in a possible future?

A: Anything is possible. I'm not giving away all of the story here. One thing we want to be careful of is, to not add the crying baby to the show. There's a danger of if we had a baby around the show, the show would have to stay at home. And we think Simpsons kind of covers that territory well. Or they will keep flying around, and be the worst parents in the world. I'm not ruling it out, but what I'm saying is, if they do have offspring it will be with a scifi twist.

CaB, I've investigated into the possibilities of the meaning of "sci-fi" twist too over the past few months. From the words he spoke in that interview, sounds like there are plans for Fry and Leela to produce offspring, but probably don't plan on introducing them as regulars (David X. Cohen subtly suggests that when he explains that they can't keep the show that's focused on a intergalatic delivery crew based on Earth and can't have the protoganists raising their offspring while continuing their exciting expedentures through space). So, I'd only expect to see Fry and Leela's products either in flash-forwards (they've had three in the Simpsons) or at the final finale.

Leela's a mutant. A baby of hers could have any number of eyes, limbs, or skin colouration/texture/look.

I doubt the latter. I've explained this before in a burried, long-lost, long-forgotten thread on Fry and Leela's offspring, but Leela's not a genetic wildcard. Mutants (in Futurama) only have random features upon contamination -> mutation (as evident when the mutants dipped the rat into Mutagenic Lake as a demonstration). As soon as mutation occurs, their DNA is permanently altered in accordance to their phenotype (well, it's really the genotype that determines the phenotype). Therefore, mutants follow the same rules of genetics as do any other typical organism- they inherit their parent(s)'s DNA. Note Leela's phenotype to her parents' phenotypes- for each mutant characteristic one parent had the other didn't, i.e. Morris had a vertical mouth and Munda had the human horizontal mouth. Since both of them had one eye and purple hair, that meant that Leela could only (well, at least by Futurama genetics) inherit a single eye and purple hair (by the way, she must have inherited her elbow talons from Morris). We can also assume from her lack of mutation upon diving into Mutagenic Lake that she cannot experience any mutations from contaminants like her original mutant ancestors did.

From what we can observe and most likely conclude with Kif's and Amy's and Leela's cluster (brood? school?) of tadpoles is that Leela has approximately a 50-25% chance of producing cyclop young with a biclops mate. However it should be acknowledged that we have little information on the genetics of Kif's reproduction. We can begin to guess that in order for Kif to reproduce, he may only require a few strands of DNA. Though there hasn't been an appearance of their matured tadpole, we can logically assume from their appearance and form at birth that they would take on their mother's (that means Kif) skin and structure, which could lead us to believe that amphibiosans are genetic-dominant as mothers (or carriers, or whatever you'd like to call them). Well, actually, the more I think of it, I suppose that amphibiosan reproduction genetics may just be as equal as normal male-female genetics on Earth. Any of his offspring that would've taken on a form of a fetus, grew a bone structure, or had normal human flesh instead of amphibiosan flesh (among other things) would've expired in-utero (or whatever the heck Kif carried his young in).

So, if Fry and Leela were to reproduce, we can expect after what was present in Kif's and Amy's and Leela's offspring that their products could have either one eye (probably same chance of occurence as it was with Kif's and Amy's and Leela's offspring) or two eyes. From what we have seen from Leela's family tree (so far, we've only seen Leela's mother and father), their children are probably not going to sprout or lose a limb/organ/etc. unless a mutation separate from contamination were to occur, which has similar probability to any other couple, both mutant and non-mutant (... which is rare). I know that a lot of you want to jump to the conclusion that it is still very likely that their offspring is/are bound to inherit one of his/her/its/schkler/their maternal grandparent's mutant physical traits (which is possible, I'm not denying that), but not only does his/her/its/schkler/their mother appear to not have inherited any of their grandparent's abnormalities except for the eye, hair, and elbow talons (which could begin to mean that she may not carry the DNA for those specific traits), dad's side is clean of any abnormalities other than that brain thing.


When Futurama returns I think the relationship should be handled thusly: underplayed in most episodes but present (background) and an important part of the characters with an occasional episode where it's made a bigger focus. That seems to me the right way to handle it.

I concur. It should be existent in almost all episodes, but it should be as rare as a Scruffy line (I can explain more if you don't catch my drift).
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #155 on: 06-11-2009 04:41 »

It should be existent in almost all episodes, but it should be as rare as a Scruffy line (I can explain more if you don't catch my drift).

F+L bunking in the same bed on the ship, but without elaboration or mention. One example.
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #156 on: 06-11-2009 04:57 »
« Last Edit on: 06-11-2009 05:01 »

F+L bunking in the same bed on the ship, but without elaboration or mention. One example.

Well, yeah, but not that blunt. I don't know how the Professor would feel about sex on the job...

I was kind of thinking of how "Three Hundred Big Boys" managed to drop a few notes that they were dating.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #157 on: 06-11-2009 05:01 »
« Last Edit on: 06-11-2009 05:02 »

F+L bunking in the same bed on the ship, but without elaboration or mention. One example.

Well, yeah, but not that blunt. I don't know how the Professor would feel about sex on the job...

Well, given his history with Mom, I don't think he has a lot of room to judge.

Mom and the Professor. Now there's a ship we don't discuss enough...

Edit: I do agree with coldy's suggestion, though; Fry and Leela behaving like a couple--albeit, subtly--is all I expect of those episodes that aren't intended to be overtly shippy.
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #158 on: 06-11-2009 05:06 »
« Last Edit on: 06-11-2009 05:11 »

Well, given his history with Mom, I don't think he has a lot of room to judge.

Well, at least he was sleeping with the boss. She approved of all of his actions until she dumped him.

Besides, the Professor has shown to smack down on inappropriate employee conduct, as present "The Cryonic Woman" and "Bender's Game". You saw what happened whenever Leela used up one ball of dark matter (from the punishment she received from that crime, we can already assume what her punishment would be if she were to be found guilty of having sex on the job).

Well then again, it would make for a very interesting episode, but that would bring too much focus to the relationship.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #159 on: 06-11-2009 05:09 »
« Last Edit on: 06-11-2009 05:12 »

Eh, I don't think Leela would condone sex on the job herself, anyway. She and Fry simply sharing a bed on the ship seems innocent enough to me, because the idea that they would be bumpin' uglies on company time screams "out-of-character" (at least for Leela). Plus, it'd be really sweet to see them in the same bed (in a non-romantic sense); it'd do my shippy soul some good.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 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 0.339 seconds with 17 queries.