Thoughts on 6ACV21 - Yo Leela Leela - SPOILERS!

[Reply #200 on:]

If LobsterMooch thinks 'When the Saints' is the only song Fry knows on the Trombone then fine, that's probably right, but if he means it's the only song he knows in general, then yes,

he needs to see a Doctor.

[Reply #201 on:]

Otis, I've done a quick fix on the screenshots I posted and tried to outline where I think the positions are meant to line up. The sign being behind the Slurm Queen is, I think, simply a goof... take a look at my corrected version.

I do see the point you are making here and as you say it is quite likely an animation goof, however that doesn’t change the fact that the finished product contradicts their original intention if we are to assume that their original intention was to have the Slurm Queen hidden behind the sign. If this is the case then it’s an epic fail on their part and I won’t just blame the animators, but also the staff who oversaw this episode when it came back from overseas after the animation process and allowed this version onto the air without correction...

It is such a small scene that it could have easily been corrected before being committed to air as you have just proved, so if that truly was their intention in the first place then they really should have done something about it. It’s either an epic double fail on the Futurama staff’s part, or a contradiction on their part for not caring about the implications of having the Slurm Queen visible to the audience. They are both possibilities as we can only theorise over which one it was, but the animation goof you brought up does seem quite likely I agree...

Either way though, regardless of how this piss-poor material was allowed onto the air, what we see is something that taken on face value would mean that the audience would see the Slurm Queen and that is the major continuity flaw here, one which I felt was worth marking this episode down for in my review because it angered me greatly...

My explanations for what presumably happened off-screen after the end of "The Cryonic Woman" were far more reasonable and plausible, and utilized evidence from that episode, and plenty of other episodes. At the very least mine are better "excuses" for why TCW's ending can't be justified as the worst ever.

I have a problem with this. What you’re basically doing here is making assumptions about what happened off-screen and then using these to back up your argument that the ending can be justified. As you say, they are just excuses, so you don’t really know what happened off-screen...

As far as I can see you’re justifying these assumptions, or excuses, or whatever with other things which happened in Futurama, but in essence; all it comes down to is you adding something to the episode that wasn’t there in order to try and justify your side of the argument. We can all make stuff up, but the ending should have clarified matters enough so that we shouldn’t have to, then maybe it would have been an acceptable ending...

[Reply #202 on:]

I do see the point you are making here and as you say it is quite likely an animation goof, however that doesn’t change the fact that the finished product contradicts their original intention if we are to assume that their original intention was to have the Slurm Queen hidden behind the sign. If this is the case then it’s an epic fail on their part

Indeed. We can agree on that... as for whether it truly is an animation goof or a continuity error, we'll have to wait for the commentary and then remain dissatisfied when they don't address it.

[Reply #203 on:]

So, totalnerduk, you Photoshoped the image to desperately try to prove that you were right about the Slurm Queen not being visible by the audience, when the original, un-altered image clearly contradicted your opinion.

No.

I fixed the animation goof to show that with the sign's corner in front of the Slurm Queen, it lines up nicely with the gantry, and hides her from the audience. I did this to show that I think it's an animation goof, and she's meant to be behind the sign, hidden from the audience. I believe this would have been the intention when this was scripted, as it makes the most sense.

Even if the corner of the sign was in front of the Slurm Queen, it would not have hidden her from the entire audience. Anyone who's been to a concert or the theatre knows that if you're very close to the stage, you can see up into the rigging and off-stage.

In the original, non-edited or zoomed-in image, the ~50-foot long Slurm Queen is in front of the pink background, and above that green C-shaped object visible in the wide shot, which is about 10-20 feet behind Calculon. So if the Slurm Queen was between the sign and the pink background, the sign would have to be directly above Calculon. So even if the Slurm Queen was behind the sign, the sign obviously doesn't cover her enough to conceal her from the entire audience, especially the people sitting closest to the stage on the sides.

Even ignoring that for a moment, those riggers on the gantries were HUMAN, not Slurm Worms. In "Fry and the Slurm Factory", all the employees at the Slurm Bottling Plant on Wormulon were either Slurm Worms or Drunkalunkas (except for Slurm McKenzie's babes), presumably because only they could be trusted with Slurm's disgusting secret.

Trade secrets are compartmentalized (recipe for Coca-cola, KFC's 7 secret herbs and spices, how they get the caramel in the Caramilk Bar etc., and only the most senior employees know the whole secret. So the idea that lowly human riggers at an award show would be entrusted with Slurm's trade secret is ridiculous; therefore, it's another breach of continuity.

[Reply #204 on:]

[edit by mArc: take it to PM or something, definitely not ontopic]

Setting aside that you Photoshoped the image and are claiming it was an "animation goof" for a moment...

I used paint.net to take the still shot, and to crudely draw the corner of the Slurm sign back in, where I think it was meant to be. I said as much in my original post. I'm not claiming that this was the broadcast image.

Even if the corner of the sign was in front of the Slurm Queen, it would not have hidden her from the entire audience. Anyone who's ever been to a concert or the theatre knows that if you're very close to the stage, you can see up into the rigging and off-stage. (I've heard others imply that you never leave your house, so I suppose you've never experienced what I'm describing. )

Anybody who has ever been to the better class of concert or theatre knows that even when the audience are very close to the stage, the rigging and offstage areas are not typically visible to them. The reason for this is that venues like this (and the set pieces themselves) are designed to hide anything from the viewer that's not a part of what's being presented. The Slurm sign is positioned over the forward part of the stage, meaning that anybody who wants to see behind it needs to be seated well below the stage level, and either directly underneath the sign, or between the front row of seats and the three protruding sets of steps leading up to the stage.

Even if the seats were closer to the stage, they'd have to be lower down in order to see under the gigantic green sign. Having been involved in set design and construction for amateur theatre before (I'm willing to lay money on you not having expected that one), I do actually have a fair idea of what I'm talking about. Yeah, I had to leave my house to do that. It turns out that painting and assembling canvas frames fifty feet tall inside your house is a terrible idea when you're going to need to get them outside via a standard size doorway. So I had to leave my house, which I also have to do for various other things. I've left my house in order to go to work, the pub, the cinema, concerts and the theatre, the shops... it's an endless list.

In the original, non-edited or zoomed-in image, the ~50-foot long Slurm Queen is in front of the pink background, and above that green C-shaped object visible in the wide shot, which is about 10-20 feet behind Calculon. So if the Slurm Queen was between the sign and the pink background, the sign would have to be directly above Calculon. So even if the Slurm Queen was behind the sign, the sign obviously doesn't cover her enough to conceal her from the entire audience, especially the people sitting closest to the stage on the sides.

The Slurm Queen is meant to be centre-stage. She's directly in line with the gigantic purple stripe. Looking at my altered image, it would seem that her cloaca is positioned behind the pink line under the "r" of "Slurm" in the big green sign. Looking at the original image, she's still in front of the stripe, and this mans that the sign's position is in error.

The wires coming down from her gantry are also drawn behind the sign. See my exchange with Fnord earlier in the thread for why this is quite revealing as to the intention of the scene.

Even ignoring that for a moment, those riggers on the gantries were HUMAN, not Slurm Worms. In "Fry and the Slurm Factory", all the employees at the Slurm Bottling Plant on Wormulon were either Slurm Worms or Drunkalunkas (except for Slurm McKenzie's babes), presumably because only they could be trusted with Slurm's disgusting secret.

If they're addicted enough to Slurm, or being paid enough, I'm sure the Slurm Queen doesn't need to get her Grunka-Lunka goons to kill them after the show, but you never know. She might not want too many loose ends around anyways. Without further information, all speculation is pointless... and we just don't know enough to make informed assumptions as to their ultimate fate or their motivations.

If you knew anything about trade secrets you'd know that trade secrets are compartmentalized, and only the most senior employees know the whole secret. So the idea that lowly human riggers at an award show would be entrusted with Slurm's trade secret is ridiculous; therefore, it's another breach of continuity.

Funnily enough, I know how trade secrets work. I've signed a couple of nondisclosure agreements. I've both toured and worked in factories employing "secret" production methods. I don't think you know how trade secrets are generally protected, if your typical examples are Coca-Cola and KFC. Those aren't normal arrangements.

The humans here are not being trusted with Slurm's secret. Have they seen the Slurm Queen shitting green slime into empty Slurm cans and then those cans being shipped off for sale? Did that appear on screen? Or did they see a gigantic worm exuding a shower of goo onto a woman receiving an award?

Hint: It's the second one. Slurms Mckenzie's babes are also, as you say, human. Slurm has human employees, and this is their awards ceremony. None of this has to violate continuity. The Slurm Queen is hidden from view. The public don't see her, just the backstage crew. People who are paid enough will generally sign anything or keep any secret, no matter what the implications. People are just that quick to sell out.

Show spoiler

Soryn is one of the best posters here. he keeps it real, while many others do not.

Define "keeping it real", please. Do you by any chance mean posting long, boring tangential rants with no real structure or purpose, multiple spelling and grammatical errors, arbitrarily underlined, italicised, or bolded words thrown in at random and rather bizarre interpretations of posts, opinions, scenes and jokes that have a very obvious intent which is usually completely different? Is that "keeping it real", or does Soryn do something else around here that I've not seen so far?

Pots and kettles.

You criticized my posts by posting your own "long, boring tangential rants with no real structure or purpose". You shamefully need to learn the meaning of "hypocrisy", and be taught how to recognize it so you don't keep embarassing yourself.

And you're only proving what whiny, petty lil' bitch you are by nitpicking on the occasional spelling errors that I've made.

I think you'll find that my own posts have a structure (the deconstruction of your "points" usually provides one quite handily) and a purpose (well, if responding to your drivel can be considered "purposeful"). If you find them boring, long, tangenital or anything else, that's your fault. I'm responding to the source material provided by yourself. As for being a petty, whiny little bitch, I think that's more appropriate for a description of yourself. I've only entered this battle of wills reluctantly, and have been disgusted by the way that you've treated some of the people I consider "forum friends" here. This has spurred me on, somewhat. Had you just been attacking me, I could probably ignore it a while longer. But you've proven yourself to be capable of lashing out at the most inoffensive creatures here, and I do have a tiny, inner "white knight" that doesn't like that sort of behaviour.

You're woefully ignorant about how to properly convey style, voice, tone, and emphasis using underline, italicise, and bold, because my use of them is anything but "arbitrary".

Oh no. No, no, no. NO. I know how to convey emphasis, etc. using the various UBB tags on PEEL (and I could do it with colours if we could use HTML), and what you're doing when you use them is just bizarre. You pick words that shouldn't carry additional weight, sentence fragments that don't require emphasis, and phrases that sit next to the bits that would logically be underscored or italicised. Your "emphasis" seems to be carried out at random. It's as though you know that it belongs somewhere, but not quite where, so you choose a few words and fragments that you like the arrangement of, and apply either italics, bold, or underlining with no thought to whether it re-inforces what you're trying to say or not.

You're only making yourself look thick though, so carry on if you like.

If you've ever bothered to read a real book, you'd know that professional authors use underline, bold, and most often italicize -- particularly in writing dialogue. All posts on these forums would be characterized as "informal writing", which is why it's perfectly acceptable to use underline, italicise, and bold. That's why they're on the interface, dumbass.

Yes. It is perfectly acceptable to use these functions, but when you use them at random and without any attention to what you're actually emphasising then it just looks odd.

Professional authors use underscoring, bolding and italicising of text (as well as other methods of conveying emphasis) a lot, yes. As an avid reader of both fiction and nonfiction, I'm well aware of this. Of course, I'm also well aware that a professional author uses these things properly and often sparingly.

Considering that you're still utterly incapable of figuring out what obviously happened off-screen between the ending of "The Cryonic Woman" and "Amazon Women in the Mood", then your libelling my posts as "random and rather bizarre interpretations of posts, opinions, scenes and jokes that have a very obvious intent" is absurdly ... (wait for it ... can you guess? yeah, that's right ...) hypocritical.

What happened off-screen is not canon, Soryn. That's my issue with it. I can fill in the gaps for myself, but it's just conjecture, and there ought to be something more solid than conjecture there. No hypocrisy is involved. I'm guessing that "hypocrisy" is another word you've recently learned and are trying it out, since even in the event that your hypothesis were correct (and it is not), the conclusion is still wrong.

Now let's go back.

To this.

You mentioned Wikipedia before. If I were you I'd familisarise yourself with their section on logical fallacies, specifically the parts that deal with ad hominem, strawmen, reductio ad absurdum,  Affirming the Consequent, and Deductive fallacy. This is by no means an exhaustive list of your argument tactics, but covers the ones that you use most often. Can you see why I find it hard to take you seriously?

Firstly, trying to malign someone for using argument techniques in an argument is idiotic -- but unsurprising for you.

Firstly, I'm not "trying to malign you for using argument techniques". I'm pointing out that nearly any argument you posit is based on faulty logic. Secondly, I'm not trying to have an argument. It'd be nice to be able to point something out and not have you try to attack it on grounds that range from simply bloody ridiculous to downright moronic.

Second, virtually everyone here, including YOU, uses those argument techniques. You're just singling me out because you hate me and we always argue, and accusing me of those techniques is one of the few tactics you have.

Firstly, hardly anybody here treats these threads like an argument. They're meant to be a discussion. Some of us treat them like a debate, when our points are disputed, and use things like evidence and logic to back up what we're saying. I appreciate this may have caused you some confusion. But it's not (or at least not meant to be) an argument.

Secondly, those of us who do decide to treat a disagreement or difference of opinion in this manner try to avoid the techniques I mentioned to you because they're wrong. Faulty. Fallacious. Using them means you can't prove your point on any objective or logical basis.

Thirdly, I don't hate you. I wish you'd never registered here, that's true. But I refuse to waste my energy on hating you. That would be too much like caring what happens to you. I think you're pompous, bombastic, and polemic to the point of it being a serious justification for anybody who knows you personally to hate you, and I think you're so far up your own arsehole you must see the world framed by the backs of your own teeth, but I don't hate you. I don't single you out, it's just that I can't seem to say anything in on-topic recently without you jumping in and treating it as an opportunity to mount some sort of verbal assault on me. I'm getting very tired of it - which is why I've been using those "wrong" .gif files you despise so much.

Fourthly, I am quite capable of using debating tactics to turn almost anything you've said on its head. I'm quite capable of making you look like the gibbering madman you are. However, I'm under some constraint here to act "nicely" to other forum members, and to try not to get too far off-topic. Which this is in severe danger of doing.

Yet, it seems to be something you like to do, dragging arguments off topic and attacking the individual rather than their arguments. Does this seem like something familiar to you? Perhaps you read it on wikipedia under the description of "ad hominem" ? It's a poor debate tactic and leads to flaming and the degeneration of threads into page after page of insults that have no bearing on the topic. That gets threads locked. Please, for the love of Benjy, stop it.

Third, considering your brazen laziness and reliance on lame gifs, your criticism of my supposed argumentative techniques is the most blatantly absurd kind of hypocrisy.("Hypocrisy" is obviously a word that you need to look up.)

This is a brilliant example of (perhaps intentionally?) misplaced emphasis. I didn't bring up hypocrisy, but suggesting I need to look it up given that particular emphasis suggests that I did, and that you have somehow returned a serve and gained a point.

As for laziness, I am exceptionally lazy, and tend not to do things that I don't want to or don't feel like I have to do (note my correct use of emphasis. Perhaps this is something you should consider trying to emulate?). I don't rely on my .gif files so much as I enjoy using them. They're a timesaver, as I've said. I don't want to spend all the time I'm on here arguing with you. There's Futurama to be discussed, for God's sake! Have a sense of priority!

You didn't mention them by name. But they're episodes without "funny" endings.  Nobody's twisting your words: just pointing out that not all episodes without a "funny" ending are among the worst of Futurama's run.

Your statement to the effect that all the episodes without a "funny" ending are the worst of Futurama's run would include these two episodes, and thus they were picked as examples of excellent episodes without "funny" endings.

Emphasis on I did not mention those episode by name, which proves that I never claimed that those episodes were the "worst".

You seem to be labouring under a delusion here. Hopefully this will clear it up: Nobody has claimed that you said Jurassic Bark or The Luck of the Fryrish were "the worst episodes" of Futurama. You did however, say this:

The worst endings of Futurama episodes are the unfunny ones.

It's ironic that you criticized my argument techniques above, and here you're blatantly twisting my words, feigning innocence, and drawing illogical conclusions in a transparent effort to undermine what I wrote.

Nope. I'm sorry. There's no irony here. I'm not trying to twist your words. You've been perfectly free all along to admit that there are good endings that don't rely on a joke, rather than turn the discussion towards "argument tactics". Clearly, you just want to fight about it and will clutch at any straw that you think you can make hold you, in an attempt to keep it going.

Give it a bloody rest.

You obviously need to look up Venn diagrams so you can understand how describing the worst endings as unfunny doesn't mean that all unfunny endings are the worst.

But that wasn't the point you were making. Are you backpedalling, or just confused?

Lemme dumb it down for you because you obviously don't understand. It's the same as saying: "All ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks."

It's not. You essentially missed off "not all birds are ducks" the first time round.

Hopefully the rest of the thread can remain on topic, eh?

[Reply #205 on:]

The humans here are not being trusted with Slurm's secret. Have they seen the Slurm Queen shitting green slime into empty Slurm cans and then those cans being shipped off for sale? Did that appear on screen? Or did they see a gigantic worm exuding a shower of goo onto a woman receiving an award?

1) Human stage worker sees goo was poured on a celebrity by a huge slug.
2) The goo'd celebrity remarks to someone that they tasted Slurm when they were goo'd on.
3) ???
4) Writers tried making a funny call-back at the expense of keeping a one-time character in-character.

[Reply #206 on:]

1) Human stage worker sees goo was poured on a celebrity by a huge slug.

1) Human stage worker paid off or killed by the Slurm Queen.

[Reply #207 on:]

1) Human stage worker sees goo was poured on a celebrity by a huge slug.

1) Human stage worker paid off or killed by the Slurm Queen.

Or that other thing I said about the writers and the call-back and what not. : )

[Reply #208 on:]

The thing is, it doesn't automatically have to be a continuity error. Fry, Leela, Bender, and the Professor all know the disgusting secret of Slurm. They keep quiet about it because they (mainly Fry) are all addicts. Slurm is highly addicting, after all.

I think the reason people are picking up on this so strongly is that it's another justification for them (not that they need another) to hate an already awful episode. I myself, am a continuity nazi. I don't see any problem with the way they used the Slurm Queen in the episode for three reasons:

1. Rule Of Funny. It's amusing, if disgusting.

2. It's a callback. It's something we've seen before, and we know about. It's a reference to a previous episode. It's something designed to engage with the audience and to help them connect the episode to the rest of the series. That's something that strengthens continuity if doen repeatedly over time. Any anomalies stand as... well, anomalies. Like (to bring up the most tired example possible) Fry being dropped out of a spaceship at the end of The Cryonic Woman.

3. It's entirely plausible due to the way it was done (animation goof aside) that the Slurm Queen's secret hasn't been made public.

There is also the other side of the coin... if Fry keeps drinking Slurm because he's addicted (despite knowing that it's actually alien slug juice), maybe people just don't care? I mean, if the secret was revealed to the public it would be just like the public to go out and buy more Slurm anyway because they like it. The public are idiots. Remember, computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but the average person is as drunk and stupid as ever.

[Reply #209 on:]

1) Human stage worker sees goo was poured on a celebrity by a huge slug.

1) Human stage worker paid off or killed by the Slurm Queen.

That should be a '2)', surely?



And I don't see why that would make the public idiots. If I found out that Coca Cola was shat out of some ugly, fat worm's arse tomorrow, I wouldn't be put off drinking it at all. It'd still taste as nice as ever and it's obviously fine for me to drink given that it's not caused me any harm in the past. I wouldn't see it as being any different to milk coming from cows, honey from bees and toothpaste.

[Reply #210 on:]

... and toothpaste.

Whose behind does that come from?

Sorrrrry, I had to.

[Reply #211 on:]

... and toothpaste.

Whose behind does that come from?

Sorrrrry, I had to.

I don't want to know.  I brush my teeth with Dr Pepper now.  You can't be too careful.


But seriously, the way I see it, it wouldn't surprise me if

a) The Slurm Queen was producing some repulsive goop rather then Slurm.  The episode shows she is capable of producing different kinds of fluid (yuck), so its possible queens of her species can spew nasty goop as a defense mechanism, and as far as anyone knows, shes just a fat ugly worm that can spray slime, rather then a one woman slug Slurm factory.

b) The secret got out eventually, but no one gives a shit.   People in the futurama universe eat all sorts of disgusting and repulsive foods, from actual slugs and other bugs (remember Leela chowing down that greasy bucket of buggalo bits?), buggalo milk, other people, mummified space alien emperors...

I really don't see why Slurm coming from the slurm queen's butt being any more disgusting then buggalo milk.

[Reply #212 on:]

... and toothpaste.

Whose behind does that come from?

Sorrrrry, I had to.

I don't want to know.  I brush my teeth with Dr Pepper now.  You can't be too careful.

Dear God, you can do that?? My life has a new meaning.

[Reply #213 on:]

1) Human stage worker sees goo was poured on a celebrity by a huge slug.

1) Human stage worker paid off or killed by the Slurm Queen.

That should be a '2)', surely?

Yes. Apparantly I fail at basic counting. Add that one to the list of one mistakes I've made. The total is now one, rather than the previous total of one. I dread to think what will happen to my credibility on PEEL when I've made another one and the total shoots up from one to one.

[Reply #214 on:]

... and toothpaste.

Whose behind does that come from?

Sorrrrry, I had to.

I don't want to know.  I brush my teeth with Dr Pepper now.  You can't be too careful.

Dear God, you can do that?? My life has a new meaning.

My dentist says I have the teeth of a ninety two year old crack addict,  but she's not the boss of me.

[Reply #215 on:]

b) People in the futurama universe eat all sorts of disgusting and repulsive foods, from actual slugs and other bugs (remember Leela chowing down that greasy bucket of buggalo bits?), buggalo milk, other people, mummified space alien emperors...

Of course, you can get the last in teryaki flavor ...

[Reply #216 on:]

Even if the corner of the sign was in front of the Slurm Queen, it would not have hidden her from the entire audience. Anyone who's been to a concert or the theatre knows that if you're very close to the stage, you can see up into the rigging and off-stage.

Anybody who has been to the better class of concert or theatre knows that even when the audience are very close to the stage, the rigging and offstage areas are not typically visible to them. The reason for this is that venues like this (and the set pieces themselves) are designed to hide anything from the viewer that's not a part of what's being presented.

Theatres, yes, they usually have layers of curtains blocking off-stage areas and the rigging, to maintain the illusion of the stage.

I've been to concerts ranging from dank little clubs where the tables were close enough to the stage for the musicians to steal our beer , to music halls with balconies and boxes, to stadiums wherein the audience surrounded the stage, to outdoor music festivals with multiple stages. I don't recall a single one wherein the audience didn't have an eyeline to the off-stage areas or the rigging.

The Slurm sign is positioned over the forward part of the stage, meaning that anybody who wants to see behind it needs to be seated well below the stage level, and either directly underneath the sign, or between the front row of seats and the three protruding sets of steps leading up to the stage. Even if the seats were closer to the stage, they'd have to be lower down in order to see under the gigantic green sign.

On closer examination of that scene, Leela accepted the award exactly where Calculon was standing in the wide shot, which means the Slurm Queen's tail would have to be directly above her, which means that assuming for a moment it was an "animation goof", the Slurm sign is in front of her and at least as far as the very edge of stage outcropping where the stairs are.

The audience in the front row of seats are close to the stairs -- which means that they're below stage level, obviously -- therefore the occupants would have no problem seeing the 50-foot-long Slurm Queen behind the sign. No, the audience would not have to be "directly below the sign" to see behind it.

Even in your edited image, the Slurm Queen's tail might just barely be hidden by the bottom centre "splatter arm" of the sign when viewed straight-on at the same level; when viewed from below the sign it's even easier to see her. By estimating the size of gap between the sign and Slurm Queen, the approximate 50-foot length of the Slurm Queen, the 20-30 foot height from the floor to the bottom of the Slurm sign, and the fact that you agree that the sign is over the front of the stage, then the people in the front-most seats, especially those on the sides, should definitely have an eyeline on the Slurm Queen.

So for anyone who cares, just use something like a piece of paper or magazine for the Slurm sign, something long like a TV remote for the Slurm Queen, hold them so the "sign" blocks your view of the "Slurm Queen", and see how high you need to raise them above your eye level until you can see the "Slurm Queen". For me, the "Slurm Queen" became visible at 4-6 inches above my eye level at an angle of approximately 30-degrees when viewed directly centre, and it was even easier off to the side.

The angle from the front seats to the sign is more like 60-degrees -- 45 at the very least -- which means the audience should easily see at least part of the Slurm Queen on that gantry.

Even ignoring that for a moment, those riggers on the gantries were HUMAN, not Slurm Worms. In "Fry and the Slurm Factory", all the employees at the Slurm Bottling Plant on Wormulon were either Slurm Worms or Drunkalunkas (except for Slurm McKenzie's babes), presumably because only they could be trusted with Slurm's disgusting secret.

The humans here are not being trusted with Slurm's secret. Have they seen the Slurm Queen shitting green slime into empty Slurm cans and then those cans being shipped off for sale? Did that appear on screen? Or did they see a gigantic worm exuding a shower of goo onto a woman receiving an award?

Hint: It's the second one.

More baseless assumptions -- including that the riggers are idiots -- or blind -- who can't deduce that the green goo is Slurm.

Slurm seems like the Futurama equivalent of Coke or Pepsi. I don't know about you, but if Coke or Pepsi held an award show, and doused the award winners with a dark brown, carbonated liquid, I could deduce that it was Coke or Pepsi just by looking at it.

Slurms Mckenzie's babes are also, as you say, human. Slurm has human employees, and this is their awards ceremony. None of this has to violate continuity.

More assumptions. Slurms McKenzie's babes were never shown on-screen with the Slurm Queen. Slurms himself wasn't even shown in the same shot with the Slurm Queen until he was crushed and killed. So there's no proof that the babes knew Slurm's disgusting secret.

The Slurm Queen is hidden from view. The public don't see her, just the backstage crew.
People who are paid enough will generally sign anything or keep any secret, no matter what the implications. People are just that quick to sell out.

No, the Slurm Queen is not hidden from view -- you're just saying she is. The public can see her, because the sight-lines can be easily extrapolated. People willingness to quickly sell out wouldn't necessarily stop them from posting the truth anonymously on the internet, regardless if they were well paid or signed a NDA.

[Reply #217 on:]

Yes, I've been to some of the better class of concert venues and theaters. As opposed to the dank little clubs with tables close to the stage. I've even been to a couple of awards ceremonies. It was rather nice, and although I wasn't presented with an award (for some reason, they seem to feel that architectural awards belong to the architects rather than the office full of people who make sure the building goes up on time), I was pleased I went.

Theatres, yes, they usually have layers of curtains blocking off-stage areas and the rigging, to maintain the illusion of the stage.

I've been to concerts ranging from dank little clubs where the tables were close enough to the stage for the musicians to steal our beer , to music halls with balconies and boxes, to stadiums wherein the audience surrounded the stage, to outdoor music festivals with multiple stages. I don't recall a single one wherein the audience didn't have an eyeline to the off-stage areas or the rigging.

I've been to places that probably host white-tie events when they're not being used for other purposes. I've been to horrible little pubs and clubs too. Oh, and festivals. At festivals, in fact, the off-stage areas are usually surrounded by a scaffold frame, and this is covered by fabric. The idea is not only to keep everything like the cables and equipment hidden, but also to protect them from the weather.

Awards ceremonies differ from theater or music performances in that they often have elaborate, non-mobile set pieces, and usually a backdrop. It's all set up quite painstakingly, and with great attention to detail. Usually, the set decorators will take into account the audience being able to see into part of the off-set areas from their seats, having explored the areas where this is likely to happen, and provide some sort of screening. A dark cloth at the right angle is usually sufficient to maintain the illusion that the set has always looked like this and that there is no lighting rig, no scaffolding surrounding it. People spend a great deal of time and money on these things, after all.

The Slurm sign is positioned over the forward part of the stage, meaning that anybody who wants to see behind it needs to be seated well below the stage level, and either directly underneath the sign, or between the front row of seats and the three protruding sets of steps leading up to the stage. Even if the seats were closer to the stage, they'd have to be lower down in order to see under the gigantic green sign.

On closer examination of that scene, Leela accepted the award exactly where Calculon was standing in the wide shot, which means the Slurm Queen's tail would have to be directly above her, which means that assuming for a moment it was an "animation goof", the Slurm sign is in front of her and at least as far as the very edge of stage outcropping where the stairs are.

I've drawn you a picture. I drew it directly over the screenshot (you can see most of it underneath, in fact). But it's pretty, I think you'll agree.


I've labelled the spot where Calculon stands, and it's just a touch behind where Leela accepts her award. Where the word "Calculon" appears, Leela stands roughly on the "A".

I've also labelled where the various set components are, and the location of the Slurm Queen. I took a few measurements on this shot, and on a couple of others.

From these, I've extrapolated another angle (direct side view) of the scene, and drawn you another picture.



I moved the giant sign from where I think it should be to where you think it should be as well, because I was feeling generous.

The Slurm Queen isn't quite to scale, but the rest of the shot should be roughly accurate. I've taken the liberty of putting in a line-of-sight from the front-row-audience to the gantry on which the Queen sits.

I think we can both agree that it would be difficult, even with the gantry and the Slurm sign being a little higher, for anybody to tell what's up there or what's going on.

The audience in the front row of seats are close to the stairs -- which means that they're below stage level, obviously -- therefore the occupants would have no problem seeing the 50-foot-long Slurm Queen behind the sign.

As you can see from the diagram I've produced, I don't believe that they would be able to see her.

Even in your edited image, the Slurm Queen's tail might just barely be hidden by the bottom centre "splatter arm" of the sign when viewed straight-on at the same level; when viewed from below the sign it's even easier to see her. By estimating the size of gap between the sign and Slurm Queen, the approximate 50-foot length of the Slurm Queen, the 20-30 foot height from the floor to the bottom of the Slurm sign, and the fact that you agree that the sign is over the front of the stage, then the people in the front-most seats, especially those on the sides, should definitely have an eyeline on the Slurm Queen.

I think your estimations are out a little, Soryn. If you look at my edited version of the scene, it does change the perspective a little. It's easier to pan the scene around mentally, and see that the Slurm Queen's huge butt lines up pretty much with the "r" in Slurm. I'd say the gantry level is just below the pink line in the sign. The front row, as you can see from the picture I so helpfully drew for you, isn't going to be able to see her, since she appears to be fairly close to the sign at the rear end. Of course, what with it being a perspective drawing, perhaps this isn't immediately obvious to some.

The audience shouldn't be able to see the Slurm Queen from the front row, and from the sides, you'll notice there are giant stage wings blocking the view somewhat. With their restricted lines of vision, the audience should not be able to see anything beyond what is framed in my first picture, by the orange, green, and red lines.

So for anyone who cares, just use something like a piece of paper or magazine for the Slurm sign, something long like a TV remote for the Slurm Queen, hold them so the "sign" blocks your view of the "Slurm Queen", and see how high you need to raise them above your eye level until you can see the "Slurm Queen". For me, the "Slurm Queen" became visible at 4-6 inches above my eye level at an angle of approximately 30-degrees when viewed directly centre, and it was even easier off to the side.

I'm afraid that it doesn't quite work like that. It was a good idea though.

The angle from the front seats to the sign is more like 60-degrees -- 45 at the very least -- which means the audience should easily see at least part of the Slurm Queen on that gantry.

The angle from the front seats to the sign is actually quite hard to even guess at without extrapolating to a side-on view, and is more like 45 than 60. However, the angle should be blocked by the gantry on which the Slurm Queen rests. Therefore it's a moot point. Even if part of the gantry and rigging were visible to the audience in the front row, the Queen would be hidden from view.

As for the audience off to the sides, they'd have just as little exposed to them as the people in the front seats, due to the curvature of the amphitheater being shielded by the stage wings, which line up with the big green sign.

The humans here are not being trusted with Slurm's secret. Have they seen the Slurm Queen shitting green slime into empty Slurm cans and then those cans being shipped off for sale? Did that appear on screen? Or did they see a gigantic worm exuding a shower of goo onto a woman receiving an award?

Hint: It's the second one.

More baseless assumptions -- including that the riggers are idiots -- or blind -- who can't deduce that the green goo is Slurm.

Why would they? It came out of a worm. Either they know the secret and are being paid off, or saw a worm shit green slime onto a woman rather than wasting real Slurm.

Slurm seems like the Futurama equivalent of Coke or Pepsi. I don't know about you, but if Coke or Pepsi held an award show, and doused the award winners with a dark brown, carbonated liquid, I could deduce that it was Coke or Pepsi just by looking
at it.

Why would they waste litres of actual cola? Why not just carbonated water mixed with brown food colouring? It would have the advantage of not making the dousee all sticky and annoyed.

Slurms Mckenzie's babes are also, as you say, human. Slurm has human employees, and this is their awards ceremony. None of this has to violate continuity.

More assumptions. Slurms McKenzie's babes were never shown on-screen with the Slurm Queen. Slurms himself wasn't even shown in the same shot with the Slurm Queen until he was crushed and killed. So there's no proof that the babes knew Slurm's disgusting secret.

Also no evidence that they didn't. Slurms McKenzie and his babes were employees of Slurm. They're likely to be in on the secret, and extremely well paid for it as well.

The Slurm Queen is hidden from view. The public don't see her, just the backstage crew.
People who are paid enough will generally sign anything or keep any secret, no matter what the implications. People are just that quick to sell out.

No, the Slurm Queen is not hidden from view -- you're just saying she is. The public can see her, because the sight-lines can be easily extrapolated. People willingness to quickly sell out wouldn't necessarily stop them from posting the truth anonymously on the internet, regardless if they were well paid or signed a NDA.

No, I'm not just saying the Slurm Queen is hidden from view - the evidence suggests that she is. The public can't see her.

I have to say, I never expected to have to put this much effort into demonstrating that the Slurm Queen's cameo doesn't necessarily represent a continuity error.

Let me sum up:

The Slurm Queen is meant to be hidden from the audience. This is probably to protect the disgusting secret. It would have made more sense to use a bucket of Slurm to slime Leela. However, the writers chose to use the Slurm Queen - probably because it is funny. I doubt that anybody on the Futurama staff expected anybody to show quite as much resistance to the obvious as is happening in this thread.

[Reply #218 on:]

But the people winning the Award who then get Slurmed can see her, right?

[Reply #219 on:]

I like how in the diagram of the Slurm Queen, her head looks kinda like Roberto's 

[Reply #220 on:]

But the people winning the Award who then get Slurmed can see her, right?

They can proabably see the huge cloaca dangling off the edge of the platform. Probably doesn't look like much to them, when they're wiping Slurm out of their eyes.

[Reply #221 on:]

Wow, I congratulate you man  

[Reply #222 on:]

It is people like you that made me decide not to pursue a Masters Degree.

[Reply #223 on:]

Where the flurk did you crawl out from, meisterPOOP?! 7 years absence? You COULD have gotten a master's in that time!

[Reply #224 on:]

To be honest, the Slurm Queen goof didn't really bother me as I just assumed that the secret was revealed to the public at some point during those 10 years of Futurama's timeline. On the other hand, it would make Fry And The Slurm Factory seem pointless now, and there's no excuse for that Diet Slurm goof either.

Anyway, one of my real-life friends did a little rant on Yo Leela Leela. Here's the link to the video if you're curious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tMiCOcHxI

[Reply #225 on:]

 

[Reply #226 on:]

I could sort of tell he meant that it's the only song he knows how to play an instrument to although he could have continued on "It's the only song I know...How to play (On the trombone) But even without the final few words, You could sort of tell what he meant...

[Reply #227 on:]

Whether the audience can see the Slurm Queen or just the stage crew can see her is pretty irrelevant to the issue at hand. You could just as easily extrapolate that after anyone watching the show changes the channel, a special Hypno-Memory-Toad pops up and erases their memory of seeing the slug.

Fine, it's not a continuity error if you want to play the semantics game. It's someone acting out-of-character due to the lack of any nod or acknowledgment by the show that the Slurm Queen is now fine risking exposing her secret (or has come up with a plan to hide her secret from the stage crew/audience/whoever else might possibly see her). That's all I would have needed to see to be fine with the scene: some indication by the writers that the Slurm Queen did or still does care about her secret.

[Reply #228 on:]

 

[Reply #229 on:]

I could sort of tell he meant that it's the only song he knows how to play an instrument to although he could have continued on "It's the only song I know...How to play (On the trombone) But even without the final few words, You could sort of tell what he meant...

Yeah I know. Just a continuity issue, maybe in my head.

I do see what you mean, but if he said something along the lines of "It's the only song I know, besides Walking on Sunshine and other songs I have sung in previous episodes etc." then the casual fan wouldn't know what the hell he's talking about and it would be less funny

[Reply #230 on:]

Only a child would quote their own quote.

...... No.

[Reply #231 on:]

I do see the point you are making here and as you say it is quite likely an animation goof, however that doesn’t change the fact that the finished product contradicts their original intention if we are to assume that their original intention was to have the Slurm Queen hidden behind the sign. If this is the case then it’s an epic fail on their part

Indeed. We can agree on that... as for whether it truly is an animation goof or a continuity error, we'll have to wait for the commentary and then remain dissatisfied when they don't address it.

Yeah, indeed we can agree on that. I doubt they will address it though, unless they read this thread of course...

To be honest, the Slurm Queen goof didn't really bother me as I just assumed that the secret was revealed to the public at some point during those 10 years of Futurama's timeline. On the other hand, it would make Fry And The Slurm Factory seem pointless now

Assuming anything is a dangerous game because it’s not canon. As you say, to assume such a thing would make Fry & The Slurm Factory seem pointless. On those grounds I really wouldn’t assume such a thing. On a side note, Fry & The Slurm Factory is my second favourite episode of the show, so anything that threatens its calibre will not pass me by idly...

Anyway, one of my real-life friends did a little rant on Yo Leela Leela. Here's the link to the video if you're curious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tMiCOcHxI

That was quite a good video. On the whole I found myself agreeing with it...

[Reply #232 on:]

Who cares if the audience saw the Slurm Queen or not.
Even if they saw her, they still wouldn't know that that particular slime coming out of her is the real secret ingredient.

[Reply #233 on:]

But they'd still be grossed out...

[Reply #234 on:]

Who cares if the audience saw the Slurm Queen or not.
Even if they saw her, they still wouldn't know that that particular slime coming out of her is the real secret ingredient.

I think they would : )

[Reply #235 on:]

The giant Slurm sign and Calculon saying "Slurm her", yeah, I think it's quite safe to say that most, if not all of the audience would put two and two together. Aren’t people supposed to be more intelligent in the future anyway, as pointed out in Mars University?...

[Reply #236 on:]

The giant Slurm sign and Calculon saying "Slurm her", yeah, I think it's quite safe to say that most, if not all of the audience would put two and two together. Aren’t people supposed to be more intelligent in the future anyway, as pointed out in Mars University?...

Well, the average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever.

[Reply #237 on:]

True, but it would be fair to say that the average Slurm drinker would be sober most of the time as it's highly addictive and non-alcoholic. This is of course, the average non-robot Slurm drinker...

[Reply #238 on:]

True, but it would be fair to say that the average Slurm drinker would be sober most of the time as it's highly addictive and non-alcoholic. This is of course, the average non-robot Slurm drinker...

Yea but what about the Slurm drinkers who are also alcoholics? Addicted smokers can be alcoholics too, so I figure the same principle applies to Slurm drinkers. Plus, you'd have to be drunk to attend an awards ceremony where one of the nominated shows is about teenage, incestuous sluts.

[Reply #239 on:]

You can drink and smoke at the same time, though.