Thoughts on 6ACV24 - Cold Warriors - SPOILERS!

[Reply #240 on:]

My great grandma was one of those (I presume) healthier adults who got the 1918 flu and died at age 27.

[Reply #241 on:]

We had to watch a balls-out terrifying documentary about the 1918 flu epidemic in my American History class junior year. For several days afterward, I was convinced that I was going to catch some likewise devestatingly contagious illness and die almost immediately.

On-topic: My hypochondriacal leanings probably made me appreciate this episode all the more.

[Reply #242 on:]

After rewatching the episode, I can certainly say it had a lot of impact on me. Had me teary-eyed by the end. However cheaply contrived it may seem, I really love the final scene between Fry and his dad, and the cold/vaccine/cryogenics metaphors. It is a wonderful story.

[Reply #243 on:]

I was admittedly a lil teary eyed too at the end, which caught me somewhat off guard for a plot that was seemingly unsentimental to me for the first 20 minutes.

[Reply #244 on:]

You should know by now that flashbacks almost always mean tearjerker endings. You call yourselves fans?

And I didn't think the ending was cheap or contrived. I saw some kind of emotional ending coming, yes, but predictability is not inherently bad. I figured there would be a moment of connection between Fry and his dad, but the execution of the scene itself was so great that it still affected me.

[Reply #245 on:]

It's set up and tied into the overall story much less cheaply and contrived than the likes of Lethal Inspection (which I very much liked, for the record).

[Reply #246 on:]

I loved the ending of Lethal Inspection...

[Reply #247 on:]

I did, too, Randi (on the continuum of awesome flashback episodes, LI's ending is probably my third favorite--after "Leela's Homeworld" and "The Luck of the Fryrish"), but I agree with cyber_turnip that it was kind of cheap. At the very least, it creates some problems with continuity (Why didn't Hermes recognize Bender in "The Series Has Landed"? Why does Bender claim to be only three years old in "Bendless Love"?)--even though these breaches were totally worth it for the sweetness of the ending.

[Reply #248 on:]

Wow, the rating on CGEF went down all the way to 87% now

Here it is also only 89.57%

[Reply #249 on:]

I know it messes around with continuity like nobody's business...I just think baby Bender is so damn cute. Maybe Hermes wasn't supposed to recognize him early on because of that secret?

Also, I would gather this episode should have an average rating of 90 to 93% (like an A-) so once again people might be just messing around with the voting (although I don't see that happening here).

[Reply #250 on:]

Taking a look at the current CGEF rankings for all of season 6B, the only episode whose grade I agree with is "Law and Oracle" (92%). The rest of them are marked way too high or way too low for my liking, though that probably says more about the erratic nature of my own tastes than about the tastes of the fan base in general.

[Reply #251 on:]

There might be a whole family in the future with the same luck as the drummers in Spinal Tap.

Yes. Their last name is Waterfall.

[Reply #252 on:]

You should know by now that flashbacks almost always mean tearjerker endings. You call yourselves fans?

I knew that, where did I claim otherwise? I just pointed out that it was indeed a teary-eyed ending, I never said I had guessed it wouldn't be.

And I didn't think the ending was cheap or contrived. I saw some kind of emotional ending coming, yes, but predictability is not inherently bad. I figured there would be a moment of connection between Fry and his dad, but the execution of the scene itself was so great that it still affected me.

That's kind of what I tried to say, but I guess I failed at it. I was surprised at how emotional it all was, in spite of the idea of the scene seeming very obvious and... well, cheap. "Hey, let's get dad and Fry in a room and show that his dad really did care for him, he just wanted him to be strong in the face of misfortune!"

It did work very well, maybe just because they didn't try any harder than that. It was well executed, all the poses were magnificent, the lines were top notch, the music kicked in excellently. Much like Luck of the Fryrish had me thinking of my older brother and the day I will unfortunately have to visit his grave in 70 years, this had me think of my dad.

Fuck, I started crying just writing this.

Nothing to see here, folks!

[Reply #253 on:]

I knew that, where did I claim otherwise? I just pointed out that it was indeed a teary-eyed ending, I never said I had guessed it wouldn't be.

You should know by now what the tongue-sticking-out emoticon means! You call yourself a PEELer?

That's kind of what I tried to say, but I guess I failed at it.

Nope, I got that. I was agreeing with your point and elaborating further. But, since you didn't interpret my comment as such, I guess I'm the one the failed. Ah, well...

[Reply #254 on:]

Cold Warriors

I enjoyed this episode, I don't agree that it's the best of Season 6 (I don't even think it's the best for this half season) but I enjoyed it none the less.

It had an interesting and engaging plot that kept me entertained throughout, but I just wish it could have contained a few more jokes. There were jokes that I found funny (Fry's dad is always funny and I loved the 'Tissue Walrus' gag) and some that I didn't like so much (Most of Bender's lines felt quite forced and didn't come natural to the character)

Besides some other bad gags, the episode kept me entertained so it couldn't have been bad (And it defiantly wasn't) It just could have been better.

I did find the ending very sweet (And not forced at all) as we didn't get much insight into the relationship between Fry and his dad in the original run and it was nice to see


*Story* - 
*Jokes* - 
*Characterization* - 
*Heart* - 


Score: 8.0/10.0

[Reply #255 on:]

I knew that, where did I claim otherwise? I just pointed out that it was indeed a teary-eyed ending, I never said I had guessed it wouldn't be.

You should know by now what the tongue-sticking-out emoticon means! You call yourself a PEELer?

That's kind of what I tried to say, but I guess I failed at it.

Nope, I got that. I was agreeing with your point and elaborating further. But, since you didn't interpret my comment as such, I guess I'm the one the failed. Ah, well...

Let's just say we all fail terribly.

Now, who's up for ice cream?

[Reply #256 on:]

Let's just say we all fail terribly.

Considering "Terrible Failure" is what I want them to engrave on my tombstone, I would be amenable to this solution.

I loved the 'Tissue Walrus' gag

I just like that now I have a more colorful phrase for those tissue cylinders I often shove up my nose when it's running. I knew I couldn't be the only person who walks around with Kleenex shoved up each nostril during cold and flu season.

[Reply #257 on:]

I just like that now I have a more colorful phrase for those tissue cylinders I often shove up my nose when it's running. I knew I couldn't be the only person who walks around with Kleenex shoved up each nostril during cold and flu season.

So, now it's you and Fry.

And I.

"Tissue walrus" certainly feels like a coinage to stick, though. Hopefully not to edible substances.

No-one up for ice cream?

[Reply #258 on:]

I'm not going to argue with you tnuk, because I really don't have much knowledge of the sciences of the big flu epidemics (I only know what I know from flicking through a few books, breezing through Wikipedia and watching some documentaries.  I'm only stating what I have been told)

But this is a quote from the wiki when I first looked up Spanish Flu.

"The 1918 flu pandemic (the Spanish Flu) was an influenza pandemic, and the first of the two pandemics involving H1N1 influenza virus (the follow-up was the 2009 flu pandemic). It was an unusually severe and deadly pandemic that spread across the world. Historical and epidemiological data are inadequate to identify the geographic origin.[1] Most victims were healthy young adults, in contrast to most influenza outbreaks which predominantly affect juvenile, elderly, or weakened patients. The flu pandemic was implicated in the outbreak of encephalitis lethargica in the 1920s.[2]
The pandemic lasted from June 1918 to December 1920,[3] spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. Between 50 and 100 million died, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.[4][5][6][7][8] Even using the lower estimate of 50 million people, 3% of the world's population (1.86 billion at the time[9]) died of the disease. Some 500 million, or 27% (≈1/4), were infected.[5]
Tissue samples from frozen victims were used to reproduce the virus for study. This research concluded, among other things, that the virus kills through a cytokine storm (overreaction of the body's immune system), which perhaps explains its unusually severe nature and the concentrated age profile of its victims. The strong immune system reactions of young adults ravaged the body, whereas those of the weaker immune systems of children and middle-aged adults resulted in fewer deaths.[10]"   And again I had a half arsed read of that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm Which is here.  Of course we all know Wikipedia is not all knowing and all seeing like Allah herself, but again I was only saying what I've been told.  I'm not going to argue with you or discuss it, because I am aware of how extremely patchy my knowledge on the subject is.

[Reply #259 on:]

Wasn't the big problem with the 1918 and the 2009 pandemics (more so of the 1918) that the H1N1 collided with the "regular" winter season flu? The regular flu killed off many who were already weakened by H1N1, especially elderly and children, while the H1N1 alone killed off more healthy adults?

I'm not positive, just throwing this out there.

[Reply #260 on:]

I really don't know, I just remember reading that most of the big flus work by causing the immune system to overload, so the immune system of a healthy young adult is a liability, rather then the underdeveloped one of a child or the weakened one of an adult.   But I really don't have much knowledge on the subject.

[Reply #261 on:]

Overload? No, big flues weaken the immune system, as they use up your body's energy (making you sick, eventually dying).

[Reply #262 on:]

Overload probably isn't the best word for it, but that's the jist I'm getting from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm  But then this is Wikipedia, the pop psychology of just about everything.

[Reply #263 on:]

I can see where the confusion comes from, and I don't want to make another longpost that nobody will read, I'm just going to say that perhaps Wikipedia should not be considered a terrific source regarding this particular subject.

Re: Spanish Flu... Somewhat misleading. The flu killed more of the young, healthy segment of the population that would have been expected, rather than targeting them. Because their immune response was unable to deal with it.

Re: Cytokine storm... Whilst the article is technically correct, it does leave a couple of gaps. I might ask somebody with more detailed knowledge to do something about that. If he's not busy.

In addition, foreknowledge of how the immune system operates and the various types of immune response would be helpful before reading the article, which otherwise makes it sound as though the body comes under attack from its own defenses.

What actually happens. Simplified, but hopefully still accurate and readable:

The immune response to a severe infection or a massively aggressive pathogen is as described in the article. More cytokines, more T-Cells. More cytokines, more T-Cells. This overtaxes the body's resources, and uses up everything you've got in the first wave of the attack. Which, against a viral agent not previously encountered is useless. Dead immune response cells then become fuel for the virus. The virus spreads much more quickly than it would have done in the face of a weaker response, and the body is unable to counter it or to learn an effective response due to having used up the cells which would in the ordinary course of things be responsible for that.

The virus, meanwhile, continues to ravage the body.

The body tries to evacuate dead cells (in the case of flu or a cold, snot is produced, and brough up from the lungs, throat, etc. Wherever there is infected tissue). This produces rich "feeding grounds" for the virus. More viral organisms are being produced at this point than can be safely contained, and the body will either succumb to the symptoms and shut down (die)... or survive the symptoms long enough for the infection to spread to vital systems, and therefore be killed by the virus.

The cytokine storm used up everything the body had in one horrendously ineffective shot, and the body's defenses were wiped out.

In severe circumstances, the airway can be blocked by mucus due to more dead cells (snot) being produced than can be evacuated from the lungs. So the victim chokes/suffocates on their own defenses. The body's defenses do not attack the body. Minor damage may be caused to cells surrounding infected tissue by the ordinary countermeasures the body employs, but this is not a problem until you have a bajillion cells doing it at once. Then, tissues start to be badly affected, requiring more resources to heal and being made vulnerable to further infection.

The cytokine storm is the result of an overzealous immune response by the body, and can occur in anybody in response to something that it's not encountered before. Young, old, healthy, sick, it doesn't matter.

It's also not what kills you. It simply uses up the defenses you have, and whilst you're manufacturing more defenses (mainly the B/T-cells) that can handle the infection, the infection gains a devastating advantage.

Overload is probably a good enough word to describe it. I took issue only with the suggestion that the body's defenses turn on themselves originally.

A healthy immune response (note that the immune system as a whole differs from the reflexive response to infection) means that the symptoms will be more severe and the body will take a lot longer to successfully fight it. In this case, the strength of the immune response is a liability to the victim. The strength of the immune system (the amount of force the response can call upon) is somewhat independant of this.

I'm going to leave it here. This is already longer than I meant to make it.

[Reply #264 on:]

Right, sounds interesting.  Now if I ever end up on University Challenge I might actually know what I'm talking about.

Seriously I feel smart if I can answer more then three questions on that show.

[Reply #265 on:]

Maybe I'm looking into this too much, but Yancy Sr.'s line:

'You'll freeze before you drown.'

Do you think it could mean something important? Like that's how Fry will die, by drowining? Or maybe it'll be an important plot point in the future?

[Reply #266 on:]

Maybe I'm looking into this too much, but Yancy Sr.'s line:

'You'll freeze before you drown.'

Do you think it could mean something important? Like that's how Fry will die, by drowining? Or maybe it'll be an important plot point in the future?

You are reading way too deep into this.  It's just meant to show how callous Fry's parents are to him most of the time.  His son is in a potentially lethal situation, and he  nonchalantly remarks that Fry is more likely to die of hypothermia then to drown. 

[Reply #267 on:]

I don't think the line goes deeper than "Yancy Sr is kind of a dick to his kid sometimes". But if it does actually go deeper, then that would be kind of a cool little foreshadow.

[Reply #268 on:]

Do you think it could mean something important? Like that's how Fry will die, by drowining? Or maybe it'll be an important plot point in the future?

Bit of an epileptic tree, I feel. Might as well claim it's a stealth Titanic reference.

[Reply #269 on:]

Wasn't the big problem with the 1918 and the 2009 pandemics

What 2009 pandemic? Did I miss something here? All I heard about was a bunch of rumors.

The swine flu supposedly killed 18,000 people over the span of a year. That's minor; cigarettes kill more than twice as many people in a month ...

[Reply #270 on:]

Wasn't the big problem with the 1918 and the 2009 pandemics

What 2009 pandemic?

The one they made up to keep us watching the news and buying papers. Also to shift all the stocks of Tamiflu that were about to expire.

[Reply #271 on:]

More people died from the Swine Flu vaccine than from the Swine Flu.

I refuse to take flu shots.  I've had the flu twice in my life.

[Reply #272 on:]

When people say "flu shots" I imagine a shot glass filled with infected snot.

It's a flu jab, dammit. This is an English-speaking board!

[Reply #273 on:]

What 2009 pandemic? Did I miss something here? All I heard about was a bunch of rumors.

This one.

More people died from the Swine Flu vaccine than from the Swine Flu.

No. Extremely few people ever die of the vaccine, while many die of the flu. It's a risk/benefit kind of thing - help the herd immunity and yourself by taking the vaccine, or don't and stand responsible for many possible deaths, including your own. Liken it to breaking in front of a twisting car on the road - sure, there's the eventual risks of suddenly breaking, harms on your car and yourself, but is it worth just going forth into an accident to avoid them?

A good clip to get a view of vaccination risks/benefits. It's specifically about the autism bullcrap, but can easily be used concerning actual side effects.

[Reply #274 on:]

So, this is my first time posting, but I've been a Futurama fan since they first aired the pilot on Fox way back in 1999.

I find this episode rating systemachig interesting so I'll give it a shot.

This episode had a very solid story but I felt it had several shortcomings that stopped it from being a great episode.

One of the most apparent problems(which Tip of the Zoidberg also had) was how sloppy the flashbacks were thrown in. I enjoy flashbacks and I enjoy flashback episodes, but when they just throw flashbacks in at random moments instead of tying them together, the episode feels fragmented. This episode did much better than Tip of the Zoidberg did in that regard, but nonetheless, there were a few choppy moments.

I also felt the jokes fell short in this one. This normally wouldn't be a problem for me if the jokes didn't feel so forced, to the point where they're basically screaming "LAUGH, GODDAMNIT!" Jokes like Leela saying "I knew that offhand, I'm Facebooking right now" or Wernstrom showing a "Verison coverage map" while presenting the virus projections aren't funny and just add a feeling of uncomfortably with the writing as a whole.  Like I said, I liked the writing, it's just that jokes like that cheapen it. Fortunately, unlike most episodes this season, this episode kept it to a minimum. I just wish they simply wouldn't make any jokes when the situation doesn't have any viable jokes within it. Not every scene needs to be funny.

 I hate to say it but the emotional ending felt thrown in as well. Fry's problems with his dad, while being a side theme of the episode, was never really part of the story. The story could have continued just fine without his dad telling him he would fail and without the emotional ending the story would still be intact. It seems almost as though they simply added it in to make the story seem deeper than it was.

Now for some good aspects. I liked the new characters and the character development. The episode had some really good jokes and Bender was a riot in this one(typical Bender with absolutely no consideration for the quarantine). I also felt the sci-fi premise of the common cold in a futuristic society without any immunities(supposedly) was really solid.

Ultimately, if I had to give this episode a rating, I'd give it a 7/10 because it was good but too many things cheapened it for me.

[Reply #275 on:]

Welcome to PEEL, Sandbox! That was a really promising first post there.

I agree that this episode was kind of choppy in places, but I thought the flashbacks did a good job of actually having a purpose within the rest of the plot. That is, everything wrapped up nicely at the end. I can see where you're going when you say the ending felt thrown in, but I thought it was a nice touch for the whole episode and gave it some of that heart the really good episodes from the original run always have. I think it did make the story deeper than it was, rather than merely seeming to have that effect. The ending made the rest of the flashbacks more relevant to the actual story, in my opinion.

Agreed that the sci-fi was neat.

[Reply #276 on:]

What 2009 pandemic? Did I miss something here? All I heard about was a bunch of rumors.

This one.

Yes, there was an outbreak, and I heard about that, but not a pandemic.

I teach at Arizona State, which has 8 trillion students. If there was a pandemic, at least one of them would have caught it, and the campus would have been shut down, to prevent spreading it even faster. And that didn't happen.

It's a flu jab, dammit. This is an English-speaking board!

Actually, that makes my "8 trillion students" joke even funnier ...

[Reply #277 on:]

It was a pandemic, look up the definition. A pandemic has nothing to do with the number of infected subjects, it's about how widespread it is - the swine flu spread across enough continents to be called a pandemic.

As for the number of infected, it was quite large, but it was much much smaller than that of the 1918-1919 pandemic. The best review I could find reported 18 209 deaths (WHO).

edit: updated number.

[Reply #278 on:]

Thanks Spira.

And yeah, it added a nice touch for us Futurama fans which is why I "hated to say it", but I felt it was true nonetheless.

[Reply #279 on:]

Oh, and while I really had nothing to say to your post, welcome Sandbox! You seem like someone who'll fit in here.