Thoughts on 6ACV23 - All the Presidents' Heads - SPOILERS!

[Reply #280 on:]

Re-watching it, the episode's not actually all that bad. It doesn't actually have too much wrong with it. Just the time travelling method, the queen, the accents, and a bunch of stupid jokes that don't really work. The basic premise was alright... travel back in time, change history, end up with a British version of NNY. But the execution leaves something to be desired. It's not as much of a disaster as I seemed to remember.

Still, the fact that there is so much wrong with it (even if it's nothing I outright hated as in TCW) means I can't really rate it highly. The 6/10 I gave it before is still a good rating for it, I think.

[Reply #281 on:]

Surely the future would be much, much different than what we see...

[Reply #282 on:]

And normal NNY is a realistic portrayal of the future?...

[Reply #283 on:]

I mean, wouldn't half the characters not exist? Or all of them? I mean, Fry, Bender, Leela and the Professor would, but the rest...

[Reply #284 on:]

A lot of logic has been ignored for the sake of the plot in Futurama. Even going back to the first season. It's something common to many TV shows. They don't let real-world details get in the way of the story they want to tell, because real-world details are time-consuming and boring, and... well, just get in the way.

This is also the reason that we don't see adventurers in fantasy live action thingies going off to take a dump, or have an entire episode where the characters do nothing except sleep (with us simply watching them sleeping). It would be boring. It would get in the way of telling the story.

So Futurama takes the same liberties as any other TV show with regard to logic and such, only showing what they want to (and ignoring, glossing over, or farting in the face of what they don't want to concern themselves with).

It's the way that television works. Smart TV finds a way to explain these things, but most TV simply charges ahead. Futurama is, sadly, only smart some of the time. The rest of the time, it works the same way as the rest of what's on the telly.

[Reply #285 on:]

Upon re-watching, the Queen seemed to be drawn in a completely different style from the usual characters (the "Groening look": big eyes, overbite, etc). It's like watching an episode of "Friends" and seeing a black person there ...

[Reply #286 on:]

A lot of logic has been ignored for the sake of the plot in Futurama. Even going back to the first season. It's something common to many TV shows. They don't let real-world details get in the way of the story they want to tell, because real-world details are time-consuming and boring, and... well, just get in the way.

Finally! I am so glad to finally see another Futurama fan admit this! (Not that you ever denied it, tnuk, but most just seem to be so reluctant to admit that Futurama is, in fact, a somewhat intentionally imperfect cartoon.)

[Reply #287 on:]

It's like watching an episode of "Friends" and seeing a black person there ...

Oh yeah...

[Reply #288 on:]

I didn't really like this one, just not very good overall. Don't have any particular points to point out.

5/10

[Reply #289 on:]

I've gotta agree with you there. The more I think about this episode, the more I dislike it. (Although I'd rate it something like a 5/10.) It's just way too rushed and not funny enough.

[Reply #290 on:]

Yeah, I have to agree unfortunately. This is one of the few (seriously, there are like 5) episodes I truly dislike, as it's been mentioned, because it didn't even seem like they were trying. Hell, Family Guy parodied the Brits better, and that's saying something.

[Reply #291 on:]

I thought that the Queen looked (and moved) a lot like the crazed Queen of Hearts in the old Disney version of Alice in Wonderland. I enjoyed the time travel when it was for brief moments because it was fun seeing the characters in different costumes. Leela stealing Paul Revere's silverware seemed out of place, something I'd be much more inclined to think of Bender doing. Overall, though, I did like the episode, especially using our DVD player's zoom in feature to see who appeared initially as presidents of the USA and who appeared in the altered version that went through Chester Z Arthur.

[Reply #292 on:]

Wow, I thought I was the only one who hated this episode.

It's the only episode I've seen that made me want to change the channel after about five minutes.

[Reply #293 on:]

There are much worse episodes than this. Namely, most of them.

[Reply #294 on:]

Do people still watch this show?

[Reply #295 on:]

Not really.

[Reply #296 on:]

Although you pretty much know every little thing about every episode, it seems to be impossible to not watch the series over and over again.

[Reply #297 on:]

It's true. Futurama acts like a magnet to be, although I may not enjoy some episodes as much as others, everyone I watch it I'm taken to my happy place. It's the small speck of light in a dark room. Even I re-watch episodes of lesser quality. Futurama has so many memories surrounding it, that even when I think about a single moment from the show I start to instantly reminisce. There's nothing better than soaking in memories and the feelings of joy that they bring back to you.

[Reply #298 on:]

Some of the lesser episodes are great to watch, but I don't think this is one of them. I've seen it one too many times.

[Reply #299 on:]

I've seen it one too many times.

I've seen it once. In shite quality.

[Reply #300 on:]

I like this one. It's silly, harmless fun, with some great set pieces. (Zoidberg in the Warhol era, for example, and the running gag about uses for Bender.)

Some of the jokes don't quite land (the Farnsworth / Queen thing didn't click for me) but on the whole it's enjoyable. Not my favorite episode, but not the worst.

[Reply #301 on:]

So how are all the heads still alive if all the crystalline opal is gone?

[Reply #302 on:]

It's the episodes that debut a fresh new scientific plot which gets me interested.
I would never know what's next.
But, the jokes are meh.
So I would grade it a 6/10

[Reply #303 on:]

So how are all the heads still alive if all the crystalline opal is gone?

After they came back to British present-future, opal was still there. Maybe it's exisiting again after they went to the past and came back again.

[Reply #304 on:]

I think it's just a "once needed explanation".
After that, they went back to the rule "Underpants ? Profit"....erm..I mean "Head Jar Fluid ? Alive"

[Reply #305 on:]

I know, but I wanted to make some explanation without continuum-error. Isn't that, what a Futurama fan does?

[Reply #306 on:]

So how are all the heads still alive if all the crystalline opal is gone?

Dr. Cahill only kept the Earth's supply. They might have stocked up on another planet.

[Reply #307 on:]

I know, but I wanted to make some explanation without continuum-error. Isn't that, what a Futurama fan does?

Indeed. Yet, I feel that we SHOULDN'T.
The writing staff openly admitted to consult fan sites regarding continuity questions. Yet, did they ever pay us for it?
Nope.
So, until they do, I feel they should for once work for their paycheck themselves

[Reply #308 on:]

I re-watched this the other day, and I have to say, everything up until the Queen's arrival wasn't too bad actually. Even if the "British" accents are still really shitty, and the opal thing is annoyingly hand-wavy. It's still pretty funny, and the fun they had with costuming the cast is pretty evident.

But that's one thing that a lot of the weaker episodes suffer from, isn't it? A decent opening, a solid enough middle, and then a final act that's weaker than dishwater.

[Reply #309 on:]

After they came back to British present-future, opal was still there. Maybe it's exisiting again after they went to the past and came back again.

Nope, they used Earth's only supply to go back to 1775, then the 'new' only other supply in the altered timeline to fix the past.

Dr. Cahill only kept the Earth's supply. They might have stocked up on another planet.

Good idea.

[Reply #310 on:]

Even if the "British" accents are still really shitty

Whatever do you mean? I absolutely adored the accents! Especially Fry's one(but that didn't show up much)

A so/so episode to me, It was fun to watch several times but the story off british america ain't very interesting...

[Reply #311 on:]

I agree they sounded spot on to me.

[Reply #312 on:]

Spot on, as in, spot on for an American impersonation of British accents?

[Reply #313 on:]

Exactly. Just like Natalie Portman in "V for Vendetta."

[Reply #314 on:]

I thought the accents were intentionally bad. I'm probably wrong about this, but I had thought they were meant to be comedic. I feel like the voice actors could have achieved more authentic accents if that was the desired outcome.

[Reply #315 on:]

Yeah, that was my impression as well. If they were going for realistic accents then I'm sure at least one of them would be okay.

[Reply #316 on:]

Alice Eve's accent in the new Star Trek movie was sexy as hell.

[Reply #317 on:]

I thought the accents were intentionally bad. I'm probably wrong about this, but I had thought they were meant to be comedic. I feel like the voice actors could have achieved more authentic accents if that was the desired outcome.

Indeed. British America was heavy on stereotypes, therefore an equally exaggerated accent was in order. A more subtle one wouldn't have done the trick.

[Reply #318 on:]

To me, british accents and stereotypes were worst thing in episode. They were too obvious and exaggerated, felt like they were made just for the sake of making fun of it.

[Reply #319 on:]

To me, british accents and stereotypes were worst thing in episode. They were too obvious and exaggerated, felt like they were made just for the sake of making fun of it.

Well..."making fun of it" is certainly a credible motive for a cartoon series

Though, those stereotypes are often a bit ambiguous, leaving room for interpretation WHO is in fact subjected to ridicule:

- Is the joke on the Brits, by exaggerating certain aspects of British culture to the extreme?
- Or is the joke on the Americans, accusing them of a stereotypical view on the Brits, and exaggerating it?

Probably a bit of both, I guess.