Fry/Leela getting together

[Reply #80 on:]

 

Originally posted by BrainSluggo:
 How do I clam down?

That's really getting desperate...

[Reply #81 on:]

Oh, I'm just ribbing you now. Lighten up.

"Heed your own advice once in a while and you won't come over as such an arrogant prick."
--Words To Live By Indeed

[Reply #82 on:]

 

Originally posted by Teral:
Oookay, getting back to the topic.   

As much as I love Leela (in a pure fan/cartoon character sorta way heh-heh),

> Dont we all 

 and want to see her happy, I'm just not convinced that a relationship will work out (in regards to the cartoon). If they (Fry and Leela) do get together I'm afraid we'll only see their actions and comments in the context of the relationship (did that make sense at all?).

> Yeah, it does make sense.... to me anyways.

Granted it does open the door to some couples-humor, but seeing as I'm not a big fan of that, that argument wont sway me. And I think it'll limit the characters too much in other situations. Will Fry be able to continue doing stupid and crazy things, without we have to see Leela berate him every time they "get home"? Will Leela be able to use brute force without Fry intervening and signing her up for anger management?    etc.

> I can understand this but i still think they should get together perminately, im simply too much of a hopeless romancer in this case to not want it.

Fry and Leela aren't the sole focus of the show, but they do form the backbone of it, and more or less define the show. Just take a look at the Character Possession Index at WEFNZ.

The thing is, I'm not against them getting together, in fact I hope they one day will. But I hope it wont happen before halfway through the last season of the show, that'll still give us 9-10 episodes to elaborate on it. Granted the way FOX treats the show it'll be very difficult to pick a "last season".

> I personally think they could do it earlier than that. As BrainSluggo pointed out, there are loads of jokes and gags that can be entered into the show under this context.

And an on-again off-again realtionship is actually the last thing I ever want to see in this show. It'll get repetitive, and will go against Leela's character big time.

> Truer words have yet to be spoken.... 'cept by me!  

[Reply #83 on:]

Lest settle this dispute in a calm rational way.

Teral! Get your Batleth out, I've got me claymore ready!

 

[Reply #84 on:]

Yeah! Today is a good way to die!!

::starts wielding the bat'leth in graceful circles::

 *2

[Reply #85 on:]

I'll get the scud missiles.... 

[Reply #86 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ben:
Venus: That single gesture was only towards Fred, who wasn't contributing to the discussion anyway meaningful other than to partake in some 'let's attack the person, not their argument'.
 
um, no, You said having two main charactors getting together kills a show and Fred gave you a valid example of a show where it didn't. You decided to take it as a personal attack. Thats not freds fault and it certainly didn't warrent a "fuck off".       

You're picking and choosing things out of context in order to degrade me, as to further your opinions, which is a pathetic and cheap way to go about making a point.
 
At least i'm able to make a point without the words "fuck off" attached. I've yet to call anybody a monkey or tell them to get a life or even throw a major fit cause some people don't see things my way. as far as making a point goes, i think i've done a better job then you.

In regards to not posting in a relationship thread, I believe the thread is about whether it would be a good idea for the show if Leela and Fry were to have a long term relationship. It's my personal opinion that it would have a detrimental effect to the show, and it is your (and various others) view that it would not. Is your idea of a fruitful discussion one where everyone agrees with you?

Hell no. All i meant was that if you don't want us to argue with you then don't argue with us. It's a two way street buddy, Your the one throwing a spazz because "we're to blinded by our opinions" meaning that your pissed cause we don't see things your way. If WE are blinded by Our opinions, and your freaking out about this worse then us, then what does that say about you?

I was only rebutting a few points stated by others in order to further my point, is there anything particularly wrong or 'dictator-wannabe'-like about that?

Only if the only way you can get your point across is to call us monkeys and tell us to "Get a life outside of your little fan-fiction world." and "Don't be so god damn pathetic." You think we're all out to get you yet your the one slinging around the personal attacks

oh and David A, you didn't offend anybody, we're good   

[Reply #87 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ben:
There's obviously no point in even pursuing the point with you monkeys, seeing that you're all blinded by your own opinions.

Fred: You make no sense at all. If all your going to do is jump on other people's bandwagons and not contribute anything at all to the discussion then fuck off. The fact that you feel you need 'sarcasm tags' at all must tell you something about yourself.

Take a look around people. Get a life outside of your little fan-fiction world. You're treating these characters like they're real people. They're drawings. Drawings that are meant to be funny. They don't have a right to get the girl in the end, they don't have a right to live happily ever after, they have the right to entertain us, nothing else. Don't be so god damn pathetic.

The simple fact is, commitment and stable relationships aren't funny, they're real. 'Real' is not entertaining.

Allow me to elaborate:

Season 1 of Cheers was a ratings disaster, ranking BOTTOM of the US ratings at one point.  It's possibly one of the lowest rated seasons ever to get recomissioned.  At the end of season 1, the two main characters, Sam and Diane, got together.

From Season 2 onwards, aided in no small way by the creation of NBC's "Must See Thursday", the show began to gather popularity, it lasted 11 years, towards the end of it's run it was consistently one of US TV's highest rated shows, and the final episode was (at the time) the 13th most watched TV show in American history.

Had the Sam/Diane thing been utter shite, Cheers would be a footnote in some obscure text, rather than listed amongst America's greatest sitcoms.

As for Fry and Leela, I want them to get together, I think they'll get together in "The Devil's Hands...", and unless Sarge or the episode itself tells me otherwise, I stick to that conviction.  Sorry if you don't agree, but my opinion is as valid as the next person's.

I don't contribute anything to discussions, do I?  Well I've rarely heard the phrase "fuck off" uttered during Parlimentary meetings, or most CIVILISED discussion.  Is it any wonder that my last reply to you was contained in sarcasm tags, when you can't debate above gutter level?

 

Originally posted by Venus:
um, no, You said having two main charactors getting together kills a show and Fred gave you a valid example of a show where it didn't. You decided to take it as a personal attack. Thats not freds fault and it certainly didn't warrent a "fuck off".

Thanks, Venus. 

[Reply #88 on:]

i must agree with Venus and PCC Fred. Throwing personal accusations around using such hostile speech as Ben has used provokes nothing but contempt.
i think ive said enough.

[Reply #89 on:]

Not a prob Fred! 

[Reply #90 on:]

 

Originally posted by BrainSluggo:
(Heh heh. Amy's crazy in love with Kif, and Leela's rolling around with Zapp, Alkazar, Sean, Cap'n Kirk, and who knows who else--and still talking about bizarre desires. Who's a slut?)

I dunno, maybe the crazy-in-love-girl who starts making out with a friend in front of other friends the minute the boyfriend is out of sight. God know how that could've turned out if Bender had gone for it?

Hah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.... Nah, I'm just kidding. You're alright.

On a sidenote: Leela never said her urges was bizarre, only shocking. There's a difference, albeit minor to some people. Still I'm willing to learn more about said shocking urges.    

[Reply #91 on:]

personally i think Leela says: "i'd given to urges far more shocking"

this would nullify you argument, so lets just hope im wrong... i know i do      

[Reply #92 on:]

 

Originally posted by Teral:
  I dunno, maybe the crazy-in-love-girl who starts making out with a friend in front of other friends the minute the boyfriend is out of sight. God know how that could've turned out if Bender had gone for it?

What-if. Doesn't count. 

[Reply #93 on:]

Teral your talking garbage.

[Reply #94 on:]

 

Originally posted by static:
personally i think Leela says: "i'd given to urges far more shocking"

Full Leela quote: "Still, given the chance, I'd give into urges far more shocking."

If it was given, the full quote would make no sense (ie, "Still, given the chance, I'd given to urges far more shocking.")

[Reply #95 on:]

Hey, "gang"--read "Complaints and Arguments" in "The Wish Void." It's freaking hilarious.

[Reply #96 on:]

 

Originally posted by Venus:
Your the one throwing a spazz

You keep referring to this 'spazz'. Where was that?

Actually, don't bother answering, I'm actually just waiting around for BrainSluggo's new sig. He's very smart you see. I'm his new hobby, apparently. I'd say it was sad and/or pathetic, but he'd probably turn that into one of his great little sigs saying that I'm sad and pathetic. In fact, if we've got so very much in common (his observation, not mine), then why are we arguing at all...?

Oh, and while we're all being shallow, it's spelled 'you're'. 

[Reply #97 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ben:
 You keep referring to this 'spazz'. Where was that?

over there.  :: points :: 

Oh, and while we're all being shallow, it's spelled 'you're'.   

I would've spell checked it before i post but that would have involved effort and i am way to damned lazy 

[Reply #98 on:]

Why are we all arguing?

Re-read the 06-17-2002 00:34 post--in which you spelled the contraction of "you are" as "your," by the way. (Since we're being shallow.)

You lashed out at and belittled pretty much everyone who disagreed with you, in the nastiest language you could come up with.
Then, you got some of it back. I laughed about it.

Now, a grown-up might have reconsidered, maybe apologized, or simply said "I think you're wrong, but I don't want to fight about it. Friends?" And dropped it.

Not you, Ben. No, you're running around the board crying to anyone who will pay attention that The Forces of Evil are attacking Poor Innocent Ben en masse, just because you wanted to "participate." You're threatening to take your ball and go home if you don't get your way. You're trying to cover every form of response with your own "rules of engagement" so if anyone replies--even if only in their own defense--you "win." Talk about schoolyard arguing techniques...yes, it IS sad and pathetic.

If someone tries to be civil, they're "condescending." If they're nasty, they're "hypocritical." If they disagree, they're "blind," "pathetic," or any number of things--none of them good. If they reply in any way--except on your own terms--they're wrongwrongwrong.

You want to be able to tell people to "f*** off" and call names and perform amateur psychoanalysis and pass petty judgments--but you want to be protected from it yourself. That's not going to happen.

Stay or leave, it's up to you. But you have to realize you do not run PEEL and PEEL does not orbit around you. You've made your desire for newbies (by which you apparently mean anyone who joined PEEL after July 2001) to be barred from discussions--and PEEL itself--clear several times. Newbies don't hate you, as you claim in your sig; you hate them. That--like much of this ongoing issue--is YOUR problem and no one else's.

Deal with it.

[Reply #99 on:]

The grown up thing to do Brainsluggo? If you're so damn mature then why do you continue bitch about me to anyone who will listen. Hell, it's in your signature, as well as a number of threads, including this one. What happens to "I think you're wrong, but I don't want to fight about it. Friends?" in those circumstances? You have a problem with my opinions? Fine, I have a problem with your opinions. But that's all they are, opinions. See them for what they are. Don't continually bitch and moan about the way people conduct themselves on the board. The fact that you continually dredge these things up shows who is really the sad and pathetic one. You don't see me bringing up your stupid 'promise' (what ever happened about that, by the way...) among other things whenever I want to score a cheap point in an argument that you're involved in.

Has the thought ever occurred to you that you're not always right when you go off on your little rants? In that whole post of yours there, have you conceded that you may not always speak all that is good and proper. In fact YOU are more often than not the sole reason these bitching fights break out with your desire to never let anything rest, regardless of how long ago it happened.

Now, regarding the part about me supposedly wanting new posters barred from conversations. Was your post not long-winded enough? Did you really feel that completely making something up would help your case? I've never said anything of the sort. I get along with new members of PEEL just as well as the next person. No-one seemed to have such a big problem with how I conducted myself before you arrived. The fact that you have seen it fit to come along and continually disturb the balance of this place with your continual bitching is YOUR problem, not ours.

Deal with that.

[Reply #100 on:]

My signature is just some advice you gave me. It's very good advice. It's a permanent part of my posts now. Why, are you ashamed of it? It's not even attributed to you.

Heh heh...you claim you never bring up my promise--then you bring it up. Heh heh. Yep, looks like I broke it. So what? Going to cry?

Oh, Poor Innocent Ben, I didn't start this one. I just walked into the middle of it. You brought it all down on yourself.

The only places I've brought this issue up have been in this thread, where it began (this time), and "Complaints & Arguments," where you took it yourself. Try again.

I'm not going to bother digging your own words about newbies out of "The Hate Thread," or the spot in "Complaints & Arguments" where you try to tell [-mArc-] how to run the board. I don't have to make this stuff up. You have a well-known--no, a proud reputation as someone who likes to dust up. Yep, you're a prince among men, that's why "newbies hate (you)." They're all against you! WE'RE all against you! EVERYONE'S against you!

I make mistakes all the time. I say and do things I regret, as we all do, and when I do I apologize. Every time I've done so on this board, you've chimed in with a smug comment, often labelling me as "condescending and stupid," whether you were involved or not.

This simple fact remains: if you stopped barking and snarling at people, most of them wouldn't kick you around.

Dealt.

[Reply #101 on:]

Jumping monkey. handbags at forty paces please.
Beside this thread is not for you two to bitch at each other it is to discuss the topic at hand. Anyone can make a point and that does not mean others can start calling them names because they disagree, make a counter argument. Come on most of us are adults here, I think you two are over 18 right, so start acting like it.

[Reply #102 on:]

Once again Ben's flaming another PEELer.

However I have yet to see him form any kind of constructive argument against my statement that romance in a sitcom isn't always the death of the show.

[Reply #103 on:]

I never said it would be the death of it Fred, I said it would make for a less effective and less entertaining program. You would lose the whole 'unresolved sexual tension' thing between Fry and Leela, and for what gain? Mediocrity? Having a warm feeling inside knowing that the fictional character got his/her just rewards? I'm not opposed to fry and Leela getting together, I just think that the introduction of a long-term relationship between two central characters into the plot would be detrimental to the show in the long run. The tension between these two can be really humourous, it is really humourous. Again, what would this be replaced with? Slapstick? Not only is the URST between Fry and Leela funny, it also appeals to the target audience. Marital bliss doesn't appeal to 16-30 year olds (outside the fanatical core, but they don't matter), that is a fact. Sexual tension, satire and sarcasm does. That is also a fact. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, ratings are the driving factor in the decision to keep a show alive or not. If no-one outside the hard core fan-base is watching it, then it's going to get the chop. We know this, because it has happened.

Oh, I never found Cheers funny anyway...


BrainSluggo: I think you're wrong, but I don't want to fight about it.   

[Reply #104 on:]

I feel likewise. Friends?   

[Reply #105 on:]

Agreed.

[Reply #106 on:]

I think I speak for, about 5 people when I say:  "Thank you".   

[Reply #107 on:]

Yeah, but another five people were probably enjoying it. 

[Reply #108 on:]

Yeah but it got old pretty quick. So try to be nice, well at least here maybe you could start a thread in the off topic forum, you should be able to get in a few good jabs before the moderators shut you down.

[Reply #109 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ben:
I never said it would be the death of it Fred, I said it would make for a less effective and less entertaining program. You would lose the whole 'unresolved sexual tension' thing between Fry and Leela, and for what gain? Mediocrity? Having a warm feeling inside knowing that the fictional character got his/her just rewards? I'm not opposed to fry and Leela getting together, I just think that the introduction of a long-term relationship between two central characters into the plot would be detrimental to the show in the long run. The tension between these two can be really humourous, it is really humourous. Again, what would this be replaced with? Slapstick? Not only is the URST between Fry and Leela funny, it also appeals to the target audience. Marital bliss doesn't appeal to 16-30 year olds (outside the fanatical core, but they don't matter), that is a fact. Sexual tension, satire and sarcasm does. That is also a fact. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, ratings are the driving factor in the decision to keep a show alive or not. If no-one outside the hard core fan-base is watching it, then it's going to get the chop. We know this, because it has happened.

Oh, I never found Cheers funny anyway...

You may have a point about unresolved sexual tension, but too MUCH URST can also be a bad thing.  On "Frasier" they dragged out the URST between Niles and Daphne for so long, that when they finally got together, it was more of a "About bloody time!" moment, rather than a warm fuzzy moment.  And on "Friends" Ross and Rachel got together, broke up, got together, broke up, got together, broke up... it's got to the point where I'm beyond giving a toss.

And i get the feeling that all this "Would Fry/Leela as a couple be to the detriment of the show" stuff is largely irrelevant.  "The Devil's Hands..." is 95% certain to be the last ever episode, and if Fry/Leela get together at all, it's during that episode.

You may not like Cheers, but my point about the Sam/Diane relationship remains valid.  Go to  When did Cheers jump the shark? , and of the people who think the show did jump the shark, most said it occurred when Diane left.

[Reply #110 on:]

I've got to agree with Fred to much URST can be more detrimental to the show than resolving it. If it is left to long, as Fred has said, it removes the fuzzyness, if that's the word or indeed a word at all.

Just so you know if I don't reply for a while it is because I've got to go to an Exam right now, wish me luck.

[Reply #111 on:]

Yeah, I realise that this whole discussion is rendered academic by Fox's decision to kill the show, but anyway.

As Nix said waaaay back, I think it would be best if they were to get together in the last episode.

Having said that, Groening & co. were smart in drawing up the long-term storyline for Futurama (eg. The Nibbler (or Niblonian) back in 1999 et al), so I think they have plans already laid out regarding this. You guys have a point about the URST not being able to go on forever, but you also mention Friends, which became so relationship-based that it lost the the humour entirely. If Futurama were to go beyond season 5, it's something that they'd have to deal with eventually. The thing is, I just can't see the Futurama writers being content with a long-running relationship between (arguably) the two main characters. It's just too safe and predictable, plus, as was mentioned on #FC today, it would be weird when the shows were played out of order(which is done all the time). I don't know whether the future would involve marriage, a break up, new characters, a death even, but even as I say them, already it's sounding like Friends.

[Reply #112 on:]

Maybe it sounds abit like Friends but i don't think the Futurama characters are nearly as nassasistic or neurotic as those in Friends.

[Reply #113 on:]

Here's a thought:

"Leela's Homeworld" - Leela finally learns of her origins, closing that particular storyline.

"The Why of Fry" - APPARENTLY this episode will explain the whole Nibbler's shadow / why was Fry brought to the future thing, closing THAT particular storyline.

"The Devil's Hands..." - If this doesn't end with Fry and Leela as a couple (providing some kind of closure to that storyline) people will throw rocks at the screen.

I get the feeling the producers knew which way the wind was blowing, and have done more wrapping-up than they're letting on.

[Reply #114 on:]

I pray that is not true but if it is then at least it will be conclusive. I nkow none of us want to see the series end but if it has to it is better to conclude it than to leave thiings in the air.

[Reply #115 on:]

Good point wu-konguk, and anybody who wants to disagree, go watch the final episode of Sliders, the perfect example of a show axed, then left hanging in mid air.

[Reply #116 on:]

I'm gonna completly ignore all that hem'n'haw'in between BrainSluggo and Ben as neither of them is going anywhere with it...

 

Originally posted by Teral:
...snip...
Granted it does open the door to some couples-humor, but seeing as I'm not a big fan of that, that argument wont sway me. And I think it'll limit the characters too much in other situations. Will Fry be able to continue doing stupid and crazy things, without we have to see Leela berate him every time they "get home"?

First of all if Leela was mad at Fry she sure as hell wouldn't wait 'till they 'got home' to yell at him.
Second she knows Fry pretty well, and it would be a rare accasion if she got too worked up over soemthing he did. She is just used to his "lack of intelligence" I think...
 

Will Leela be able to use brute force without Fry intervening and signing her up for anger management?    etc.

And Fry wouldn't intervene with her anger fits. I don't recall him doing that before why would he start?

Besides, The show mostly takes place around the Planet Express. If they did get together I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even show they're "at home" life...
(Darn...  )

to put it simply, Yes Fry can continue being his ... errr... himself. And the same goes for Leela... 'cept they just show a little more affection for each other from time to time. Just becuase they're in a relationship doesn't mean the writers have to write about it all the time... 

On a Side note: yes its a cartoon. But the cartoon follows a Story. And a damn good one. Whether or not its a cartoon the characters "right" to find love is just as valid as in any other story.

[Reply #117 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ben:
...snip...It's just too safe and predictable, plus, as was mentioned on #FC today, it would be weird when the shows were played out of order(which is done all the time).
...snip...

So are you saying a writer should exclude an aspect of the story simply becuase the broadcasters can't air the shows properly? 

[Reply #118 on:]

*Wishes he could watch Ben and everyone argue,  while enjoying an ice cold pint of lager*

Now this is entertainment!

[Reply #119 on:]

 

Originally posted by Kryten:
 What-if. Doesn't count.   

Stories are accurate to within 1/10 of a pluasibility unit. That's so plausible it's unbelieveable. In other words the "What-if"-stories count. 
 
 

Originally posted by Erdrik:
First of all if Leela was mad at Fry she sure as hell wouldn't wait 'till they 'got home' to yell at him.
Second she knows Fry pretty well, and it would be a rare accasion if she got too worked up over soemthing he did. She is just used to his "lack of intelligence" I think...

She loves his boyish charm, but she hates his childishness, even without them being a couple. Maybe it's just me and my bad experiences, but people tend to be a lot more critical about people they date and their actions. Friends and coworkers have a lot more leeway in doing crazy/stupid things than boyfriends/girlfriends.

About yelling at Fry. I don't see Leela as the kind of person who would solve relationship-issues in public. If the writers should keep her "in character" she would probably just seethe quietely and scowl at Fry while he acted up, and then give him hell once they were alone. And boy, would he be up shitcreek without a paddle. 

Again, I'm not against them getting together, but not now. Let Fry mature a few seasons, let him get beyond the "using-caterpillars-for-bowstring"-level, and we can set the relationship thing in motion.

 

Originally posted by Erdrik:
And Fry wouldn't intervene with her anger fits. I don't recall him doing that before why would he start?

See above.

 

Originally posted by Erdrik:
Besides, The show mostly takes place around the Planet Express. If they did get together I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even show they're "at home" life...
(Darn...  )

to put it simply, Yes Fry can continue being his ... errr... himself. And the same goes for Leela... 'cept they just show a little more affection for each other from time to time. Just becuase they're in a relationship doesn't mean the writers have to write about it all the time... 

Good point. But they still occupy the screen 40% of the time. That's a lot of writing/animation without mentioning the relationship. And this will be such a big, formula-changing thing that it's bound to be the focus of a lot of episodes. Every writer would want to make an episode about this new development.