But people shouldn't stay silent if they disagree, because if they don't then one voice becomes dominant and people accept it as "truth" or "fact", whereas in fact it's simply opinion. Even if their posts aren't as intimidatingly wordy... 
True. No one should ever be considered the One True Voice. There should always be some opposition, if only to call into question the One's words.
On that note, I appreciate some opposition. You, for example, have been able to get me to put out my views clearly for anyone who's interested by simply disagreeing with a few things I said, in nothing more than a few sentences. I've been forced to back up everything I said, and in the process I've made my feelings known to everyone, including myself. Thank you.
Now, I know what you're talking about when you say you don't want what I say to be 100% accepted as truth (just cause I'm wordier a.k.a. louder than you), so let me make something clear that my very wordy posts might not have: I like Leela. I like her outside of relationship dealings with Fry. She's an interesting character in her own right. I do not think ill of her.
My main argument about Leela is that she rarely got a fair shake to explain her side. The majority of the episodes focused on Fry, and thus his point of view was given more screen time than hers (hmm. So Fry's voice became... dominant.). Our conflicting opinions exist because the writers didn't make it clear enough which way her feelings swayed (I've been arguing that the episodes still tipped it toward the love side, but I'll try to remain impartial here). I don't think you'll disagree with me on that (i.e. Leela should have been given more screen time).
My hope is that the next seasons episodes don't treat Leela's feelings on her relationship with Fry as auxiliary as some previous episodes did. She will be invested in the relationship as much as Fry, so her thoughts on it should be given equal time (it kinda sounds like they are, since the first episode will focus on Fry (because of the dead crew), while the second episode will focus on Leela (because of her being stranded with Zapp)). I think we can both agree on that.
BACK TO MATTAlright, you all remember this post I wrote about me being unsure if
Matt is good or not for
Futurama?-
http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=17870.msg1069898#msg1069898Well, I originally ended by giving him the benefit of the doubt, but that may be called into question again with this-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-13/when-homer-wont-take-your-call/full/The post (which uses samples from a book written by the writer) states that
Matt didn't have any real involvement in the creative process of the most brilliant years of
The Simpsons, and some of his ideas were bad enough for
Sam Simon to flat-out call him out on them.
Groening may have created the series, but it states that the real powers behind the series were
Sam Simon and the assembled team of writers. This doesn't sound too off from what I know of
Futurama's development. I always knew that
David X. was the series's "real daddy", even if
Matt was instrumental in its creation. Hell, the three episodes
Matt has a writing credit on (101, 601, 602) were done with
DXC.
I'm not trying to gang up on
Matt here. He seems like a nice guy in the commentaries, and inviting
DXC to go to that simulated weightlessness thing (from the
ITWGY extras) suggests that he and
DXC are friends. But the bits from the book present in the post seem to suggest to me that
Matt is a lot like
George Lucas: They can both come up with great ideas (specifically beginnings), but they need someone else to flesh them out (and fail miserably if they try themselves).
What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure how much
Matt has really changed from his days on
The Simpsons. I think he may still be the idea (i.e. beginnings) man rather than the anything else man. So while I've become very supportive of
Rebirth, I'm hoping the actual episode was mostly written by
DXC and the other writers rather than actually written by
Matt and
David (I have a feeling
Matt's writing credits mostly just meant he was present in the brainstorming and didn't have much to do with the actual writing anyway). Sounds harsh, but I'm being honest.
BACK TO SPECULATIONSo, when the
Rebirth footage was released, a couple of commenters guessed that the crew's deaths was some way of ridding them of their fugitive status. My question is, how? Is it because of Zapp being "dead" along with them? That wouldn't make sense. Zapp is only the enforcer, he doesn't make the law. Legally the crew would still be fugitives. Is it because they would have "died" and thus wouldn't legally be the same people (sort-of like how Nixon's Head was able to run for election). That doesn't make much sense either, since Fry and The Professor are still alive (and Bender too, probably) and thus they would still be up for trial, plus, as I've said before, if that's all they wanted there would have been much simpler, quicker solutions that wouldn't take up an entire episode.
I'm just saying, when I think about it I don't know how being "reborn" would actually, legally get the crew off the hook. Maybe the fugitive thing has been reset (not that I mind. It certainly seems less important compared to the episode's more important events).
Author
