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 36873 times)
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 ... 20 Print
lilkitten29

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #240 on: 07-03-2009 21:05 »

i sure hope that fry and leela don't have kids....idunno, i just think it would ruin the show. maybe I could see it in a AOI episode..
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #241 on: 07-25-2009 07:27 »

I just have to mention this. Maybe it'll kick the life back into this once-thriving and fruitful thread.

Do any of you remember me suggesting that Zapp Brannigan and Michelle would make a good couple? I take that back.

I propose, in replacement of a Zapp/Michelle ship would be the Chaz (the mayor's aide)/Michelle relationship. Michelle needs somebody that's full of himself and is considered important by societal rankings. She's bound to discover that Zapp's a pathetic excuse of a starship commander and bitch to him to the point where he is diminished to the pitiful child he is inside. Chaz seems to flaunt his authoritative position every chance he gets.
THM

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #242 on: 07-25-2009 15:28 »

*Thinks about it*

It could work; the dynamic is easy to set up and would be there from the start - and as neither character is that central, you could put them together, and keep them together, for quite a while. (At least until her nagging and attitude got to even Chaz. smile )  Having an episode where the two of them, and Fry and Leela, double-dated? Pure. Gold. Uncomfortable as all hell for them, but pure gold for the viewer. smile

'Naked ladies, naked ladies, naked ladies, naked ladies!'

- Justice Snoop Dogg, Into the Wild Green Yonder
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #243 on: 07-25-2009 16:14 »

Michelle and Chaz could definitely work. Same with Michelle and Adlai, in that they're both into convention (Adlai because he's, y'know, a jerk; Michelle by virtue of coming from the, uh, "normal" twentieth century).

It was suggested in General Discussion that it might be cool to see Leela's ex-boyfriend, Sean, in the new season. I think it would be kind of funny if, somehow, Michelle and Sean hooked up at some point after "The Cryonic Woman." Now that double-date with Fry and Leela would be interesting.
Tedward

Professor
*
« Reply #244 on: 07-25-2009 17:48 »
« Last Edit on: 07-25-2009 17:54 »

Maybe it'll kick the life back into this once-thriving and fruitful thread.

We can only hope. This thread was quite the hotspot for intriguing discussion...

Adlai because he's, y'know, a jerk;

Yes...a completely mediocre jerk.

It was suggested in General Discussion that it might be cool to see Leela's ex-boyfriend, Sean, in the new season. I think it would be kind of funny if, somehow, Michelle and Sean hooked up at some point after "The Cryonic Woman." Now that double-date with Fry and Leela would be interesting.

That would indeed be interesting, but I don't know if I could see Sean with Michelle. I know that we don't know that much about him, but even though he seems to have been some sort of lazy, strange, saxophone-playing slob, it seems to me that he is too calm, cool, and collected (and I use those terms very loosely) to date Michelle. Then again, she did date Fry, so...hmm. I'd still have to see it to believe it (and maybe not even then).
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #245 on: 07-25-2009 23:44 »

It was suggested in General Discussion that it might be cool to see Leela's ex-boyfriend, Sean, in the new season. I think it would be kind of funny if, somehow, Michelle and Sean hooked up at some point after "The Cryonic Woman." Now that double-date with Fry and Leela would be interesting.

See the thing about Sean is that you never actually see him. Actually putting him in an episode would ruin it. Plus there's the possibility that he may not actually exist.
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #246 on: 07-26-2009 01:12 »

Plus there's the possibility that he may not actually exist.

Hunh... that's a good theory you didn't knew you proposed. Perhaps Shawn/Sean is just a figment of Leela's imagination. Like an imaginary friend, if you will. An imaginary friend that has never been happier in his life and plays his sax naked on the couch.
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #247 on: 07-26-2009 02:51 »

Not so much imaginary as much as a fake boyfriend. Something to shut Amy up, get Fry off her back and make her look less lonely. I never said I thought it was the case but only that it's an interesting possibility.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #248 on: 07-26-2009 04:40 »

Nah, I think Sean was a real boyfriend. Leela's never really been prompted to mention him as a way of quieting the crew's belief that she's a loser--it's always either an impulsive outburst (like in "Why Must I Be a Crustacean in Love", when Leela discovers that all her boyfriends--"even Sean"--have been feeding her corny lines), or in an anecdotal way ("Love and Rocket" ("my mutual break-up with Sean that was totally mutual"), the "beautiful soul playing naked on her couch" thing from Devil's Hands). Of course, I think the writers always intended for him to be a throw-away character, so actually having him show up in an episode may not be at the top of their "To Do" list.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #249 on: 07-26-2009 05:53 »

If they introduced Sean, that would be a sign that the writers are out of ideas and Futurama would be entering it's "Simpsons S10 onwards" era. Hopefully that won't happen.
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #250 on: 07-26-2009 13:51 »



   Plus there's the possibility that he may not actually exist.


   Hunh... that's a good theory you didn't knew you proposed.


Actually, that (the non-existance of Sean) was my first thought†, too. Though I suppose all you other killjoys are probably have it aright. If the writers had intended to eventually reveal that Leela had made him up, they would have set it up more.

†  My second thought was the rather uncharitable: "Its “didn't know”, not “didn't knew”."

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

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #251 on: 07-26-2009 14:06 »

I'm more of the opinion that while Sean (however it's spelt) was real, any relationship might have only existed in Leela's mind. We know he's pasty, unambitious, and lazy (much like Fry), but had a lot of musical talent. As such, I could see her taking a motherly attitude towards him (which might go as far as letting him stay in her apartment), being entranced by his playing the sax, and extrapolating it into being in a relationship with him.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #252 on: 07-26-2009 16:14 »

I thought it was spelt "Shaun". O_O  To me, "Sean" should be pronounced "see-an".  But that's just me.
Angelikfire

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #253 on: 07-26-2009 17:20 »

I think there might have indeed been a relaxed and uncommitted relationship between the two [a typical thing, given her age at the time (assuming that they do age, at least not physically)] but Leela, whose memories might have been messed up by time and loneliness and the presence of a possible love interest *cough*Fry*cough* and whatnot, ended up exaggerating both positively and negatively some aspects about Sean/Shaun/Shawn/Whatever (i.e. his mighty musical talent and his rudeness) - which is what every girl does, really. We're never unbiased in describing/remembering our ex-boyfriends.
Archonix

Space Pope
****
« Reply #254 on: 07-26-2009 23:02 »

I thought it was spelt "Shaun". O_O  To me, "Sean" should be pronounced "see-an".  But that's just me.

The joys of the gaelic languages. The S in old Irish is a Sh sound and the emphasis falls on the latter half of the word, so you get something like Sheawn. Most people render it as shawn.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #255 on: 07-28-2009 03:19 »

If they introduced Sean, that would be a sign that the writers are out of ideas and Futurama would be entering it's "Simpsons S10 onwards" era. Hopefully that won't happen.

It would really just be a sign that the writers were beginning to rely too heavily on cliched romantic comedy storylines. Even though I'm annoyed by the writers' somewhat wishy-washy response to where Fry and Leela's relationship will stand in the new season, I'm glad that they're not interested in making it the focal point of the series. Really, I'd be worried about Futurama going downhill if every other episode dealt with some sort of romantic entanglement between the various characters. I mean, a lot of the show's humor, charm, and emotion comes from how the characters interact with one another--the dynamics of their friendships, working relationships, and, yes, romances have served as fodder for a number of great moments and episodes. But, ultimately, the show shouldn't be about, like Mike Rowe joked at Comic-Con, hooking up each character with all possible partners. This ain't Love Connection, folks.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #256 on: 07-28-2009 04:27 »

@Gorky: Err, were you just using my post as a jump-off point to your own or did you somehow construe that I thought the entire show was about the romance between F/L (and other characters too, I guess)? I'm also glad that it won't be the point of the new season, but one of many points (although, was there ever any fear that it would be the point? I thought most of us shippers were worried about a reset, not the other extreme).

I just made a big point that Futurama is about it's characters (Here: http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=17870.msg1051596#msg1051596 and Here: http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=17870.msg1051727#msg1051727), ALL of them, so I certainly don't disagree with you.

As for my "introducing Sean would be a bad idea bit", I just meant that he doesn't need to be introduced. Most fans already know what point he serves (Leela's last steady boyfriend) so I don't think he would work as an actual character. We all have our own image in our mind of who Sean is (all the posters above us (including yourself) have made nice, little dissections of his character and what he represents), and I don't think that breaking that image is the right thing to do. He's served his purpose, he doesn't need to come back (in any form (meaning even a mention isn't necessary from now on).

As for the "Simpsons S10" bit, I meant that that's around the time that The Simpsons started doing a lot of episodes that focused on gimmicks and randomness rather than actual story (of course, the seeds were planted much earlier with episodes like The Principal and the Pauper or the one where they went to Japan representing the first grown of that bad patch (gee, I hope that metaphor carries through). I don't want Futurama falling into the same trap.

I hope that cleared some things up.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #257 on: 07-28-2009 04:35 »

@Gorky: Err, were you just using my post as a jump-off point to your own or did you somehow construe that I thought the entire show was about the romance between F/L (and other characters too, I guess)?

I meant the first thing, FoA. I was just connecting cheesy, romantic comedy-esque storylines (of which I think a "Sean returns" plot would be emblematic) with the show jumping the shark. I didn't mean to imply that you thought turning Futurama into, y'know, Dharma and Greg or something was a swell idea.

Sorry 'bout the confusion, man.
km73

Space Pope
****
« Reply #258 on: 07-28-2009 04:37 »

I mean, a lot of the show's humor, charm, and emotion comes from how the characters interact with one another--the dynamics of their friendships, working relationships, and, yes, romances have served as fodder for a number of great moments and episodes.

I'm completely in accord with that - their interactions and interrelations are largely what make the show what it is - but I also agree with what Books said somewhere in one of the General Discussion threads as well: I want some regular solid sci-fi sciencey plots.  More TKOS and Farnsworth Parabox and even TMLH please, stay away from more conventional sitcom pap.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #259 on: 07-28-2009 04:41 »

I'm completely in accord with that - their interactions and interrelations are largely what make the show what it is - but I also agree with what Books said somewhere in one of the General Discussion threads as well: I want some regular solid sci-fi sciencey plots.  More TKOS and Farnsworth Parabox and even TMLH please, stay away from more conventional sitcom pap.

What I love about the three episodes you mentioned is that they blend a high-concept sci-fi story with real character development. Any sci-fi show could take a standard idea like "time skips around", "characters age backwards", or "an ass-load of parallel universes" and make an episode out of it. But only Futurama could make me actually, y'know, care about what happens to the characters (and laugh hysterically, but that's a given). 
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #260 on: 07-28-2009 05:15 »
« Last Edit on: 07-28-2009 05:17 »

Gotta go with Gorky on this. One of the best things about Futurama is that it rarely sees plot/jokes and character development as separate things (by which I mean thinking that it's either one or the other. There are episodes that don't do much for character development). The three episodes km73 mentioned all have fantastic character development, as do other high-concept episodes of the series (like The Why of Fry).

I don't really get this whole "Futurama needs more Sci-Fi episodes" thing that Books put out and km73 repeated. Does Futurama even have that many "Sci-Fi" episodes anyway? Looking at S3 I see Parasites Lost, The Day The Earth Stood Stupid, Time Keeps on Slippin', Roswell That Ends Well, and Godfellas. That's 5 out of 22 (I don't count the other ones as "Hard" Sci-Fi since they are about going to other worlds or robots or something, which is seen as common in Futurama (and obviously Luck of the Fryish is very character-focused, but not Sci-Fi). The majority of the series treats the Sci-Fi as a backdrop, rather than the point.

The focus has always been the characters, and the comedy/storylines that arise from their interactions. Even those "Hard" Sci-Fi episodes usually end up being about the characters anyway.
km73

Space Pope
****
« Reply #261 on: 07-28-2009 05:29 »

As for what Gorky said:

Absolutomendi.

Also I will also take more humor.  I mean, War is the H-Word, Future Stock, TDTESS, A Head in the Polls, besides the ones I mentioned above - SO GREAT.   I cannot express how impressed I was with these episodes once more when I finally watched them again, after ages, a while ago.
They just blend everything so perfectly.


(And what I meant by "more sci-fi" is merely science-based plotlines, comedy, wit, etc. - implying not just focusing on relationships).
Yes, character development is usually interwoven though.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #262 on: 07-30-2009 06:13 »

So I watched both "Fry and the Slurm Factory" and "Spanish Fry" today, for no particular reason, and I realized how much I love to see the dynamics between Fry, Leela, and Bender. They just play off each other so well (Bender assisting Fry and Leela across a pit in the Slurm Factory's cave, only to have them pay him for his services afterwards; the romantic dinner they manage to orchestrate for Lrrr and Ndnd). I know a lot is said about the Fry/Bender friendship, and the Fry/Leela romance, but the three of them as a unit are really compelling, too.

And I've mentioned this before, but my favorite sub-plot in Futurama history is the beer-brewing in "The Route of All Evil"--it's one of the few episodes where you just see the three of them hanging out, working towards a common goal that doesn't involve, like, preventing their untimely deaths.

To that end, I like the observational, almost meta nature of Leela's response to Fry in "Parasites Lost", when he says he has something important to tell her: "Is it about Bender?"/"No, it's about you and me."/"And Bender?"
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #263 on: 07-30-2009 08:01 »

Yeah. As per the Kirk/Spock/McCoy formula.
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #264 on: 07-30-2009 15:37 »


   To that end, I like the observational, almost meta nature of Leela's response to Fry in "Parasites Lost", when he says he has something important to tell her: "Is it about Bender?"/"No, it's about you and me."/"And Bender?"


Zoidberg: And me, Zoidberg! And no one could have been happier unless it would have also been Valentine's Day. What? It was? Hooray!

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

Professor
*
« Reply #265 on: 08-25-2009 02:29 »

Is this thread dead yet?

It looks pretty still to me, but I'm going to poke it to just check.

Just to kind of give a "breath of life" to this thread, how far do you think Matt Groening and David X. Cohen are willing to take the relationship (the Fry and Leela one) now that most buzz nowadays usually has to include a smidget about the two tied romantically.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #266 on: 08-25-2009 02:32 »

They'll come out of the wormhole with retrograde amnesia and have to start all over again.
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #267 on: 08-25-2009 02:44 »

But I thought they were laying off of that damn button.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #268 on: 08-25-2009 02:46 »

Nope. On the contrary - the reset button will now be pressed after every commercial break instead of at the start of each episode. So the characters will have even less time to develop before they're returned to their base-model condition. It'll be ZANY!
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #269 on: 08-25-2009 02:52 »

Well, I know its fo-sho that they're going to have to use it on the "nobody cares" Kif and Amy 'ship to slip in Bender.

See? Now you can all admire my hip, new lingo.
Freako

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #270 on: 08-25-2009 03:14 »

They'll come out of the wormhole with retrograde amnesia and have to start all over again.

Then in a later episode It'll be reviled that it was all because of nibbler!
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #271 on: 08-25-2009 03:38 »

I don't not care about Kif and Amy's relationship, it just doesn't strike me as necessary. Don't get me wrong, a lot of good has come out of it, but none that to me wouldn't have been taken up by an equal amount of other good (average English grade for FOA: C-).

What I'm saying is that Kif and Amy aren't written in such a way that they convey to me that kind of "they're meant to be" vibe. They're certainly a nice enough couple and don't drag down the show (Although, I do think their relationship (in terms of characterization) was a + for Amy (without Kif she probably would have gone the way of Hermes in terms of importance/use) and a - for Kif (kinda lost some of that comedic take on Kirk and Spock that he and Zapp were supposed to be (at least when Amy is around)). I don't dislike it, it has some good moments, but it's just not enough to make me actively want it. It feels like filler (hell, I "care" more about the Professor and Mom) that any other amount of storylines could have been just as interesting as.

But enough about not Fry and Leela, let's talk about Fry and Leela.

I think Matt and David realize that their is no going back with F/L. At the same time, they can't let it stagnate. They can't become a boring couple because that seems like a waste of something that was so built up to (F/L, not Matt and David (take that image into your heads, readers!)). I'm not saying I want it to be the entire point of the show, but it's definitely important. Without it the show wouldn't have had nearly as much Heart. The writers need to build it up gradually but surely, until its as much a part of the characters as anything else.

I know that one of the fears of people who aren't fans of F/L's relationship is that a focus on them would detract from the rest of the show (i.e. the comedy) and even other facets of the characters themselves (Fry's goofiness, Leela's kickassitude (you guys know what I mean)). An even bigger worry would be losing the shows breeziness (the lighter episodes (because too many "emotional" ones would be exhausting)).

I don't think there is anything to worry about there. There is no reason a talented team or writers can't combine a developing relationship with exceptional comedy. Take for example the next season. There will be an episode where Leela and Zapp are stuck on a planet together. With Zapp around, the episode will have a heavy focus on his comedy, yet don't you think they'll have Leela now able to legitimately excuse herself from him by mentioning her relationship with Fry? That's an example of using the relationship and not forcing it.

That's really the big word: Forced. F/L's relationship can't feel forced. It has to feel like it's naturally building up and used at times when appropriate. As long as the relationship feels natural, all sects of fans will be satisfied.

Lastly, the reason that F/L's relationship is mentioned so much is that David and Matt don't want fans to freak out over a reset. They want the fans to know they are committed to making it work, and won't cheat us out of it.
Wonderpants

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #272 on: 08-25-2009 08:29 »

Fry and Leela

Most shows with a will they/won't they dynamic tend to lose audience interest once the dynamic resolves.

As such, the writers then compensate for this by introducing tension to the relationship, whether it be a jealous bending robot, a previous boyfriend/girlfriend, or a convenient bout of amnesia.

So I can't see Fry and Leela having s smooth run.
FistfulOAwesome

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #273 on: 08-25-2009 08:39 »

I said that for the relationship to succeed (for fans and non-fans alike) it has to develop naturally. In other words, they have to act true to the way real relationships work and to the characters themselves. What relationship have you ever seen that didn't include some fighting wink?
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #274 on: 08-25-2009 08:50 »

Most shows with a will they/won't they dynamic tend to lose audience interest once the dynamic resolves.

I don't think it's ever been done on a cartoon though, where the majority of the audience isn't tuning in for unresolved sexual tension, but rather animated hilarity.
Archonix

Space Pope
****
« Reply #275 on: 08-25-2009 11:16 »

Yeah, that's what fanfic is for. (And incidentally why I find that most fanfics that see the relationship as a fait acomplis and the second kid on the way incredibly insipid, with rare exceptions - where's the tension?)
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #276 on: 08-25-2009 12:02 »

Hollywood has instilled in us this expectation that the picture finishes with the romantic leads getting together, like it's a perfunctory bookend. It's almost Pavlovian - the hero and heroine fall into each other's arms and kiss, and we get up to leave as the credits roll. If the picture continues after this point we're beset by some sort of existential mortification because the established structure has been broken.

What feeble, forlorn mentality.
Wonderpants

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #277 on: 08-25-2009 12:31 »
« Last Edit on: 08-25-2009 12:33 »

I don't think it's ever been done on a cartoon though, where the majority of the audience isn't tuning in for unresolved sexual tension, but rather animated hilarity.

Perhaps, but isn't the unrequited interest thing what a lot of the show's humour, and even some of it's pathos, is built on?

Besides, isn't this where it differs from Family Guy, say, in that it's not just about the jokes?
Archonix

Space Pope
****
« Reply #278 on: 08-25-2009 14:43 »

I'd say that most of that pathos comes from the close bond between the characters. No romantic love (in the modern sense) has to be involved at all - and it's one of the assumptions made by the modern world that really does my head in. The idea that any close, powerful emotional or psychological bond between two people automatically implies sexual attraction is a cruel parody of how the romance genre originally started out. It teaches unrealistic expectations, not least that a lack of sexual attraction automatically nullifies an otherwise healthy and beneficial relationship. It also blocks us from understanding that it is possible to have anextremely close and loving relationship with someone, without that relationship requiring any sort of sexual attraction. The constant implication that close male relationships are automatically homosexual is part of the reason behind a rise of hypermasculine arseholes who can't bond with their peers and have to show off and act like teenagers well in to their 50s.

When you view everything through the crude lens of sex you lose out. It's like watching a RealMedia video clip on a cinema screen.

Fry and Leela have been through a lot together, they're bound to each other by threads of experience and understanding that other, lesser acquaintances won't have and can't really comprehend. Friends that close are mistakenly perceived as lovers in our emotionally stunted modern world because we've lost the ability to understand that there's more to life than sex. They don't have to fall in love, knock boots and make babies to have a meaningful relationship with each other.

Speaking as a shipper, of course... smile
Wonderpants

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #279 on: 08-25-2009 14:58 »

^^^^

As two very close male friends, Frodo and Sam in LOTR are a good example of this. After the films especially, I saw a lot of people trying to be edgy by saying they were both gay.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 ... 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 0.199 seconds with 17 queries.