More thoughts on Season 6 - SPOILERS!

[Reply #120 on:]

So was there any acknowledgement that the Holiday Spectacular sucked, from the writers? I was hoping for another AOI, and HS failed miserably.

You gotta take it for what it is Spacedude, at first I was really annoyed as well. It was essentially just another AOI or Treehouse of Horror ep. except it wasn't set up that way by narration so it left me confused on first viewing whether events that has occurred actually took place or not. That I think was their main flaw. The episode itself wasn't that bad IMO.

edit: Finally I get to use the TOTP dance I saved from a few days ago!

[Reply #121 on:]

Season 6 seems unfocused. Groening, Cohen, etc., had a whole plan for the first five seasons; when they were cancelled, one of them remarked something like: "There are characters we haven't even introduced yet." (Such as the Number 9 guy.)

Into the Wild Green Yonder was probably intended to be the end, period. But then all of us "spoiled" Futurama by insisting on it coming back, before they could develop some long-range ideas, and the result is Season 6.

They never had some great plan for all of the episodes, they had a few ideas that they wanted to set up and introduce later on. The Number 9 guy was just a remnant of an early scrapped plot that they turned into something else. They still have things they've planned since before the show went on the air to reveal too.

Clockwork Origin, ironically, gets evolution wrong. It annoys me. But it's not a bad episode.

How does it get evolution wrong? Don't say because Farnsworth says mankind evolved from apes because he says we evolved from ancient apes which is, as far as science can tell, true.

Oh, nothing that obvious! Just that there was no evolutionary pressure on the robots, but they evolved over a short period following the same path as humans. They shouldn't have evolved because evolution requires pressure, and also it doesn't follow any sort of predetermined path, but Farnsworth uses this as evidence of evolution.

Some may like it. It's just a nerdism of mine.

the robotic evolution in 'aco' was just an example of earth evolution happening at a rapid rate, nothing more. you have no idea what kind of pressure they had, as it happened so fast. one could assume that it mirrored earth's, though. you are just making presumptions, most likely to cushion your intellectual ego.

also, pressure can come from the most unlikely sources, which may not be present on the surface(female selection, for one).

some may like it, like me, because it is the best attempt by television at evolutionary theory.

[Reply #122 on:]

What I Learned From Futurama, Part 273:

Evolution only occurs in major stages off-camera, at night.

[Reply #123 on:]

Clockwork Origin, ironically, gets evolution wrong. It annoys me. But it's not a bad episode.

How does it get evolution wrong? Don't say because Farnsworth says mankind evolved from apes because he says we evolved from ancient apes which is, as far as science can tell, true.

Oh, nothing that obvious! Just that there was no evolutionary pressure on the robots, but they evolved over a short period following the same path as humans. They shouldn't have evolved because evolution requires pressure, and also it doesn't follow any sort of predetermined path, but Farnsworth uses this as evidence of evolution.

Some may like it. It's just a nerdism of mine.

the robotic evolution in 'aco' was just an example of earth evolution happening at a rapid rate, nothing more. you have no idea what kind of pressure they had, as it happened so fast. one could assume that it mirrored earth's, though. you are just making presumptions, most likely to cushion your intellectual ego.

also, pressure can come from the most unlikely sources, which may not be present on the surface(female selection, for one).

some may like it, like me, because it is the best attempt by television at evolutionary theory.

Firstly, lrn2capitalise. Secondly, I think that what you mean is that the robotic evolution was a potted and accelerated synopsis of what we know of Earth's fossil record and subsequent domination by hominids. Which is wrong for the environment given.

The pressure to evolve comes from the environment, and from the functions of life. Farnsworth's robo-bugs were engineered to clean toxins from the water supply, which they did. Then, rather than shut down and wait for more toxins to appear, they seem to have taken it upon themselves to find both new forms and functions, evolving both of these at a frentic rate and stylistically following ideas from the evolution of life on Earth.

Farnsworth's bugs had no pressure upon them to adapt - or even to reproduce once their job was done. They should have been content to swim around looking for toxins to convert into water and other harmless chemicals.

Evolutionarily speaking, the pressure to evolve comes from competition for resources which are needed in order to allow reproduction, and the survival of the species. What lemily is saying is that these pressures were not present, and that furthermore, the bugs could have evolved in a radically different direction, due to evolution not being something constrained to operate towards a set endpoint. Rather than robo-tyrannosaurus, who can say that real nanobots might not evolve into something just as effective at doing robo-tyrannosaurus's job, but totally different in appearance and behaviour? Apparantly, TV writers can say this. That's what lemily is saying. She's making fewer presumptions than the writers, and not actually displaying any egotism.

It's something we can like because it's funny, but it's still a fail.

[Reply #124 on:]

the robotic evolution in 'aco' was just an example of earth evolution happening at a rapid rate, nothing more. you have no idea what kind of pressure they had, as it happened so fast. one could assume that it mirrored earth's, though. you are just making presumptions, most likely to cushion your intellectual ego.

also, pressure can come from the most unlikely sources, which may not be present on the surface(female selection, for one).

some may like it, like me, because it is the best attempt by television at evolutionary theory.

Wow. You sound like a jerk.

Geological and ecological pressures take time to change. They aren't going to change enough in a few days to prompt evolution of energy beings. Why should it mirror Earth? There are so many ways in which the evolution of Earth's creatures could have gone differently, and this is a different planet. It's just logical.

I didn't hate the episode. I just think that if someone already doesn't understand evolution, watching the episode will just make them more confused and more entrenched in whatever anti-scientific or anti-evolution beliefs they might have.

I liked it. I just don't think it's a good portrayal of evolution.

Firstly, lrn2capitalise. Secondly, I think that what you mean is that the robotic evolution was a potted and accelerated synopsis of what we know of Earth's fossil record and subsequent domination by hominids. Which is wrong for the environment given.

The pressure to evolve comes from the environment, and from the functions of life. Farnsworth's robo-bugs were engineered to clean toxins from the water supply, which they did. Then, rather than shut down and wait for more toxins to appear, they seem to have taken it upon themselves to find both new forms and functions, evolving both of these at a frentic rate and stylistically following ideas from the evolution of life on Earth.

Farnsworth's bugs had no pressure upon them to adapt - or even to reproduce once their job was done. They should have been content to swim around looking for toxins to convert into water and other harmless chemicals.

Evolutionarily speaking, the pressure to evolve comes from competition for resources which are needed in order to allow reproduction, and the survival of the species. What lemily is saying is that these pressures were not present, and that furthermore, the bugs could have evolved in a radically different direction, due to evolution not being something constrained to operate towards a set endpoint. Rather than robo-tyrannosaurus, who can say that real nanobots might not evolve into something just as effective at doing robo-tyrannosaurus's job, but totally different in appearance and behaviour? Apparantly, TV writers can say this. That's what lemily is saying. She's making fewer presumptions than the writers, and not actually displaying any egotism.

It's something we can like because it's funny, but it's still a fail.

Thanks, TNUK.

[Reply #125 on:]

i'm only a jerk on the internet. also, what's the deal with not mentioning random mutations? as i'm sure you know, evolution happens through random mutations, although negative ones tend to breed itself out of the gene pool rather quickly.

i'd also like to point out that you are assuming that not all planets evolve like earth's life has. we have no proof, as we are yet to find life outside of our home planet.

[Reply #126 on:]

So you're a fake?

I also assume that an invisible pink unicorn doesn't follow me around, because it makes more sense for that not to be the case.

It's entirely human-centric to an almost religious degree to think that life on all planets evolved in the same direction we did. Furthermore, if you *actually* think it is likely that all or most other planets have humanoid alpha-species (for lack of a better term that I know), it is really obvious to me that you do not understand how evolution works.

Scifi writers play fast and loose with this one because they want us to sympathize with the characters (Babylon 5 is a great example, and so is Trek). But I don't think you can argue convincingly that B5 and Trek are great examples of evolutionary theory played out. Because they're WRONG. And so was this episode of Futurama.

That doesn't make it a bad episode by any means, though.

[Reply #127 on:]

<snip>
It's entirely human-centric to an almost religious degree to think that life on all planets evolved in the same direction we did. Furthermore, if you *actually* think it is likely that all or most other planets have humanoid alpha-species (for lack of a better term that I know), it is really obvious to me that you do not understand how evolution works.
<snip>

I haven't followed trends in the field for ages. Is Punctuated Equilibrium still in favor? Years ago I also would have laughed at serious proposals for humanoid aliens.  Nowadays I'm not so smug about it.  "Form follows function" is a very powerful idea.  Marsupial lions, anyone?  Regarding Smilodon and friends, how many times have sabertooth cats evolved independently?  3? 4? 5? More?

But yes, I enjoyed A Clockwork Origin and didn't get hung up on the evolutionaly details.  Speaking of nanobots, did you see the recent xkcd take on the concept?

[Reply #128 on:]

also, what's the deal with not mentioning random mutations? as i'm sure you know, evolution happens through random mutations,

When you invent a robot capable of randomly mutating, we'll talk about this further. Until then, please stfu. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Reply #129 on:]

<snip>
It's entirely human-centric to an almost religious degree to think that life on all planets evolved in the same direction we did. Furthermore, if you *actually* think it is likely that all or most other planets have humanoid alpha-species (for lack of a better term that I know), it is really obvious to me that you do not understand how evolution works.
<snip>

I haven't followed trends in the field for ages. Is Punctuated Equilibrium still in favor? Years ago I also would have laughed at serious proposals for humanoid aliens.  Nowadays I'm not so smug about it.  "Form follows function" is a very powerful idea.  Marsupial lions, anyone?  Regarding Smilodon and friends, how many times have sabertooth cats evolved independently?  3? 4? 5? More?

But yes, I enjoyed A Clockwork Origin and didn't get hung up on the evolutionaly details.  Speaking of nanobots, did you see the recent xkcd take on the concept?

Punctuated equilibrium might occur in some circumstances. There's some disagreement about it.

Regarding convergent evolution, that requires extremely similar environments. On another planet the environment will almost certainly not be the same as the environments on earth - even a difference in gravity, heat, or how much water is available will drastically change how the creatures look. Also remember that all animals with backbones share a common ancestry and over 90% of their DNA. That won't be the case on another planet. Who knows if they're even going to be bilaterally symmetrical or symmetrical at all?

I did!

also, what's the deal with not mentioning random mutations? as i'm sure you know, evolution happens through random mutations,

When you invent a robot capable of randomly mutating, we'll talk about this further. Until then, please stfu. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I like you, kid. And I will call you kid despite being unsure of who is older. :-D

[Reply #130 on:]

Hm, robots that can randomly mutate?  Sounds unlikely.  Robots might be able to construct new robots (though I am doubt if they can construct better robots, but who knows).  But randomly mutate?  That seems awfully stupid for a robot to attempt.

[Reply #131 on:]

So you're a fake?

I also assume that an invisible pink unicorn doesn't follow me around, because it makes more sense for that not to be the case.

It's entirely human-centric to an almost religious degree to think that life on all planets evolved in the same direction we did. Furthermore, if you *actually* think it is likely that all or most other planets have humanoid alpha-species (for lack of a better term that I know), it is really obvious to me that you do not understand how evolution works.

Scifi writers play fast and loose with this one because they want us to sympathize with the characters (Babylon 5 is a great example, and so is Trek). But I don't think you can argue convincingly that B5 and Trek are great examples of evolutionary theory played out. Because they're WRONG. And so was this episode of Futurama.

That doesn't make it a bad episode by any means, though.

disclaimer: futurama is a work of fiction. the robotic evolution was meant to mirror earth's evolution for plot purposes. robots having random mutations could theoretically happen and clearly happened in this episode. if you doubt this(pwn rulz internettuffguy), then start complaining about futurama as a whole. we will never travel faster than the speed of light and warp drive is a theory that will only ever work on paper, yet most of the series is based on looking past this.



firstly, emily. i'm not arguing for humanoid aliens being the rule to end all rules, not at all.  however, i am disagreeing with the elitist attitudes shown on this thread and shown in most evolutionary discussions throughout the internet and beyond. these dreamers are doing just that, dreaming. i agree with these theories, but lets be realistic, like real scientists. without any proof, we sound like jackasses pushing an agenda(like religious people).

btw, i have read several books on evolution(jm smith, dawkins, coyne) and understand it thoroughly. however, when internet personalities get their panties in a knot and break down fiction to serve their own egos, i get annoyed.

[Reply #132 on:]

So you're a fake?

I also assume that an invisible pink unicorn doesn't follow me around, because it makes more sense for that not to be the case.

It's entirely human-centric to an almost religious degree to think that life on all planets evolved in the same direction we did. Furthermore, if you *actually* think it is likely that all or most other planets have humanoid alpha-species (for lack of a better term that I know), it is really obvious to me that you do not understand how evolution works.

Scifi writers play fast and loose with this one because they want us to sympathize with the characters (Babylon 5 is a great example, and so is Trek). But I don't think you can argue convincingly that B5 and Trek are great examples of evolutionary theory played out. Because they're WRONG. And so was this episode of Futurama.

That doesn't make it a bad episode by any means, though.

disclaimer: futurama is a work of fiction. the robotic evolution was meant to mirror earth's evolution for plot purposes. robots having random mutations could theoretically happen and clearly happened in this episode. if you doubt this(pwn rulz internettuffguy), then start complaining about futurama as a whole. we will never travel faster than the speed of light and warp drive is a theory that will only ever work on paper, yet most of the series is based on looking past this.



firstly, emily. i'm not arguing for humanoid aliens being the rule to end all rules, not at all.  however, i am disagreeing with the elitist attitudes shown on this thread and shown in most evolutionary discussions throughout the internet and beyond. these dreamers are doing just that, dreaming. i agree with these theories, but lets be realistic, like real scientists. without any proof, we sound like jackasses pushing an agenda(like religious people).

btw, i have read several books on evolution(jm smith, dawkins, coyne) and understand it thoroughly. however, when internet personalities get their panties in a knot and break down fiction to serve their own egos, i get annoyed.

In my opinion you sound elitist here, not us. You probably disagree, but I like to be honest because there's no reason not to be.

A large percentage of Americans don't understand evolution. When someone makes statements that seem to indicate that they don't understand evolution, I get annoyed.

None of us are attacking Futurama. All of us in this conversation liked the episode! We're just saying it's not a scientifically accurate portrayal of evolution, which is true. Many things in Futurama are scientifically inaccurate, and that only slightly impacts my enjoyment of certain episodes.

So what's the problem?

I don't appreciate being told I'm serving my own ego when I am truly passionate about science - I merely am arguing a point. It has nothing at all to do with ego. Frankly, I think you might be pointing out the egos of everyone else because your own is a bit too invested in this. It's like people who say they "hate the drama" - who is the first to cause it? Everyone knows the answer to that.

Other than calling you a jerk, I did not insult you. I did not call you stupid. I do not think you are. I stand by the jerk comment, though.

[Reply #133 on:]

NERDS!!!!!

Just thought I'd throw that out there

[Reply #134 on:]

NERDS!!!!!

Just thought I'd throw that out there

Thank you! I take it as a compliment.

[Reply #135 on:]

You're welcome

[Reply #136 on:]

I just adore nerdiness.

[Reply #137 on:]

agree to disagree.

good evening.

[Reply #138 on:]

I'm rewatching the Season 6 DVD because the discussing ep in the speculation thread made me want to get familiar again with the episodes if I'm going to start comparing them. Rebirth had some funny moments but overall I can see why I was disappointed when it aired :/ I've noticed much loathing for Attack of the Killer App same as Lrrrenconcilable Ndndifferences, which I've already proclaimed is my favorite of the season. I really loved ttack of the Killer App for the same reason I liked the other episode - it included other secondary/tertiary characters like LN in a crowd setting. I can see why people were annoyed by the Susan "Boil" part, future generations won't get it I'm sure. It was funny once but yeah it's kinda weird. I wouldn't put down the genius of the rest of the episode because of that though. Well, maybe that and that vomiting diarrhea creature. That was just disturbing These ideas of theirs are hit or miss it seems. The overall story though I enjoyed very much.

[Reply #139 on:]

I'm rewatching the Season 6 DVD because the discussing ep in the speculation thread made me want to get familiar again with the episodes if I'm going to start comparing them. Rebirth had some funny moments but overall I can see why I was disappointed when it aired :/ I've noticed much loathing for Attack of the Killer App same as Lrrrenconcilable Ndndifferences, which I've already proclaimed is my favorite of the season. I really loved ttack of the Killer App for the same reason I liked the other episode - it included other secondary/tertiary characters like LN in a crowd setting. I can see why people were annoyed by the Susan "Boil" part, future generations won't get it I'm sure. It was funny once but yeah it's kinda weird. I wouldn't put down the genius of the rest of the episode because of that though. Well, maybe that and that vomiting diarrhea creature. That was just disturbing These ideas of theirs are hit or miss it seems. The overall story though I enjoyed very much.

I'm happy to see that someone shares my opinion. Sure, there were some hit-and-miss parts of both "Lrrr Ndnd" and "Killer App". But they were still good entertainment, enough fun to at least keep me entertained.

On another note though, I must have the release date for the worldwide release of Season 6.

 [desperately]I can't wait anymore.[/desperately]

Damn it, FOX and Comedy Central! We must have it.  

[Reply #140 on:]

The vomiting goat almost made me swear of all new episodes of Futurama. I gave the week after a chance, and I'm really glad I did. I bet it lost some less devoted fans, though.

[Reply #141 on:]

The vomiting goat almost made me swear of all new episodes of Futurama. I gave the week after a chance, and I'm really glad I did. I bet it lost some less devoted fans, though.

That may be a little extreme. I think the only fans it lost were the skeptics, the ones who were looking for reasons to hate the new episodes before the season even began.

And I'm with those who liked Killer App. It was kind of uneven (though, thankfully, the Susan Boil thing wasn't the point of the episode (and, as a loser with a Twitter account, I enjoyed that aspect)), but it was by no means the Worst Episode Ever.

[Reply #142 on:]

I actually would say it's the Worst Episode Ever. That was the moment I was like, "Shit. South Park / Family Guy in space. Oh, please let next week be better." Everyone has a worst episode, and that one's mine. I just put it in my own personal discontinuity.

Notice that I said it lost "some" of the "less devoted fans." With how many people watched the new episodes and how relatively few of those viewers have seen as many of the older episodes as I had, there have to be at least a few non-skeptic fans who gave up. Certainly not a high percentage but I'd bet a high-ish number. Does that make more sense?

[Reply #143 on:]

Eh, we're all entitled to our own Worst Episodes Ever. I've never been one for the Futurama/Family Guy comparisons, but I guess it's a valid reason to not be too gung ho on a particular episode.

And I disagree about less devoted fans: I think the only people who get pissed off by jokes that seem to be dissonant from the sort of stuff Futurama usually does are those fans who are devoted. To my mind, casual viewers are watching the show to be entertained--and, unfortunately, I think a lot of people in Comedy Central's demographic enjoy vomiting goat jokes. Lame plot twists probably don't bother people as much if they don't know that, in the past, Futurama has not made a habit of relying on gross-out humor.

[Reply #144 on:]

Eh, we're all entitled to our own Worst Episodes Ever. I've never been one for the Futurama/Family Guy comparisons, but I guess it's a valid reason to not be too gung ho on a particular episode.

And I disagree about less devoted fans: I think the only people who get pissed off by jokes that seem to be tonally dissonant from the sort of stuff Futurama usually does are those fans who are devoted. To my mind, casual viewers are watching the show to be entertained--and, unfortunately, I think a lot of people in Comedy Central's demographic enjoy vomiting goat jokes. Lame plot twists probably don't bother people as much if they don't know that, in the past, Futurama has not made a habit of relying on gross-out humor.

That is a really good point. I guess there would be a ridiculously small subset of people who are both 1) devoted enough to hate the gross-out humor and know it's not Futurama and 2) NOT devoted enough to watch the next episode.

Well put.

[Reply #145 on:]

...What? We're not gonna duke it out? When the hell did PEEL become populated by decent human beings?

[Reply #146 on:]

...What? We're not gonna duke it out? When the hell did PEEL become populated by decent human beings?

I know! I'm surprised, too. If both people are polite this is how it goes. Usually only one or zero of the people are polite.

[Reply #147 on:]

All politeness aside, you really don't have to quote posts right above yours.


I guess I'll say I'm in the demographic that like AotKA, to be a little on-topic. 

[Reply #148 on:]

Okay. Will do - I'm still a bit n00bish. Thanks for the advice.

[Reply #149 on:]

the reason aotka and PI are both viewed as terrible is because they both felt outside the realm of the futurama universe. leela having a singing boil on her @$$ didn't feel right. and imo, (besides the first 5 minutes) neither did the entire plot of PI(worst part for me was the joke of having 4 people in the dummy).

good thing they wisened up, because i had given the show one more week to get back on track(which it did with 'tdvc', which i really dug).

just my thoughts, of course.

[Reply #150 on:]

The only thing that really bugged me about "Proposition Infinity" was the Farnsworth back-story, which I thought was a cheap fix to the conflict (and seemed to contradict what we know of the Professor's history with Mom). As social commentary, I thought it was decent; I particularly enjoyed Amy's parents' disapproval ("If you finish that word, you kill your parents!"). Oh, and it was plagued by that let's-include-every-member-of-the-PE-crew-in-every-storyline problem, what with everyone going to that cyclone planet and everyone attempting to rescue Amy and Bender.

Though that's more a general complaint I have about the season as a whole. Sometimes, it works to incorporate the entire PE crew (see: "The Prisoner of Benda"); other times, it's okay to let most of them act as supporting characters ("The Duh-Vinci Code", "The Late Philip J. Fry"); most times, it's kind of lame to pair up characters that have never been paired up before, just for the novelty of it (Zoidberg and Cubert in "A Clockwork Origin"). But I've griped about this before, so methinks I'll just shut up now.

[Reply #151 on:]

This is my theory. Don't want to get punched in the mouth on my first day posting. But, here it is.

  Futurama has never made a bad episode.

  They've done episodes that are way better than others. And they've done eps that could've been structured better. But, all in all, they've never done a bad ep.

  Case in point, the episode I hated in the original run was Less Than Hero. Thought it was a lame ep. Only watched it once and hated it. But when I got the box set, I watched it again and again and again and finally I saw where they were going with it and liked it.

  That being said, I'm cutting them some slack with this season. I mean, they went from doing the show to a few years of nothing. Then did 4 movies, (I'm not a big fan of Bender's Game. Has good parts but it felt like 4 eps together where the other 3 felt like movies) Then back to a tv series. And a smaller staff. They need more time to "get their groove back".  There will be hit or miss eps and I expected that. (Esp That Darn Katz ep. Didn't like it when it first aired. Got the dvd and it's slowly growing on me) And David X. Cohen said they are working on ideas they had before the Fox cancellation.

 So, I'm giving them time. Hell, might wait til the 2012 eps before I start getting too critical of the show. The magic is there. You can sence it. You can feel it in certain eps of the season.

  Good work, guys. Keep 'em coming.

[Reply #152 on:]

I don't really care how bad the show gets, I'm always gonna watch Futurama. As long as Fry is in it. 

[Reply #153 on:]

I think even the "bad" episodes of Futurama have great gems hidden somewhere. I didn't think much of Holiday Spectacular for example, but I loved the second segment, and the concept of Dick Cheney as Agnew's replacement. I think "That's Lobstertainment!" is, for the most part, incredibly boring, but there are still great jokes and the Calculon bits are great. I simply can't say the same for the worst Simpsons episodes in recent times.

Although I'd be surprised if Futurama ever became like The Simpsons. Given the difficulty they've had getting it on the air, getting it back on the air, and keeping it on the air, I think Groening and Cohen and co. are too emotionally invested to dare "lower the quality standards" like The Simpsons crew purposefully did. I think it it's a case of them getting excited at being back and going crazy with experimental ideas, and some fans having higher expectations than normal because it's been so long. Although the next batch of episodes seem a bit more grounded, from what we have learned, so I'm confident that both will have calmed down a bit. But we'll see.

Don't mind me, just some random musings...

[Reply #154 on:]

Did anyone see yesterday's Colbert Report?  When discussing his dismay with all the countdowns to the government shutdown being out of work, he turned his countdown into 'Countdown to the next Futurama rerun'.

For those not in Canada or the UK, you can watch the clip here.

He further pointed out, that the countdown also works for reruns of his show, because on Comedy Central, you are never more than an hour away from a Futurama rerun.

[Reply #155 on:]

^awesome. i wish i caught it live.

[Reply #156 on:]

Don't get me started on The Simpsons. I was a dedicated Simpsons viewer from the Tracy Ullman years til season 87. How dedicated? If I was making love to a woman, I would stop to watch the show. That's how much I loved The Simpsons. Now, I can't watch the show.

In fact, I was talking about this earlier today. I thought it was funny that the quality on the Simpsons started going downhill around the time that Futurama started. It seems that since Matt Groening was putting his attention into Futurama, he wasn't putting as much time into the Simpsons. It's almost as if he was the reason why the show maintained it's quality for so long. The last good thing the Simpsons did (my opinion) was the movie. And Matt had a hand in that.

Something to think about. A little off topic, I know. Sorry.

[Reply #157 on:]

The last good thing the Simpsons did (my opinion) was the movie. And Matt had a hand in that.

There y'go. It's all down to whether or not MG was paying attention on a given day as to whether or not a Futurama episode sucks.

Which means he must pay attention on most days, to be fair.

[Reply #158 on:]

There y'go. It's all down to whether or not MG was paying attention on a given day as to whether or not a Futurama episode sucks.

Which means he must pay attention on most days, to be fair.

But not on the day he was coming up with "In-A-Gadda-Da-Leela".

[Reply #159 on:]

There y'go. It's all down to whether or not MG was paying attention on a given day as to whether or not a Futurama episode sucks.

Which means he must pay attention on most days, to be fair.

But not on the day he was coming up with "In-A-Gadda-Da-Leela".

Apparantly not, or Bender's Game, or Futurama Holiday ep...