I weep for the male gender...

[on:]

Simply put, this is a thread that asks a question that's been plauging scientists since 1999....Who is a more redeeming character, Fry or Homer? Who claws for your pity and succeeds more often?
Oh, and the title of this thread, for any Simpsons fan, is based on a line spoken by Lisa Simpson....

[Reply #1 on:]

I wish people woudnt try to compare futurama and the simpsons

oh and I dont pity either of them

[Reply #2 on:]

I guess that's true. I was just wondering because Fry has always been such a great character who is, to me, the sweetest on TV.
Alot of people on this board complain that Homer was a jerk during the Scully-era and I was just curious as to whether or not he is still a likable character.
Thanks for your input Grim.

[Reply #3 on:]

 

Originally posted by Grim:
I wish people woudnt try to compare futurama and the simpsons

[Scruffy]Second.[/Scruffy]

Let's compare them anyway:

Fry is definitely the more sympathetic character of the two.  At best, Homer is just your typical sitcom dad.  At worst, he's Captain Wacky.

On the other hand, Fry may be dumb, and he may be a lazy slob; but he's a great guy.  I think we'd all like to have a friend like Fry.

[Reply #4 on:]

True. But he's not the pityable kind. At least not always. There are maybe a few moments, but I wouldn't feel sorry for him all throughout the show. And Homer, well, I've never thrown the feeling of sorrow in his direction. Ever.

[Reply #5 on:]

 

Originally posted by Rover:
True. But he's not the pityable kind. At least not always. There are maybe a few moments, but I wouldn't feel sorry for him all throughout the show.

I agree.  I don't pity Fry; I identify with him.   

 

And Homer, well, I've never thrown the feeling of sorrow in his direction. Ever.

Neither have I.  I laugh at Homer's misfortunes.  I'm pretty sure that we're supposed to, though.

[Reply #6 on:]

When he's characterized well Homer is generally a more interesting and deep character then Fry I think, although mind you they're both great characters.  Of course, Homer's Scully era behavior is pretty infamous, but to be honest Fry wasn't perfect as well; watch the first two seasons to see possibly the blandest lead character imaginable (with "Parasites Lost" they finally found a good footing on real depth for Fry).

[Reply #7 on:]

Sorry, DotheBartman, but I disagree completely.

[Reply #8 on:]

[scruffy]Second.[/scruffy]

[Reply #9 on:]

I agree with DotheBartman. Homer at the best of times is a great character. Simple (without being a brain-dead moron) with real caring and values.  Fry was much like that in later years, but smarter, usually.  In the early years, though, Fry was just a stupid, impulsive slob, with only occasional hints of more. Season 3-4 Fry is about equal to the best of Homer (forgive me if I don't give many seasons, but 2 stands out for sure). Of course, Scully Homer is the worst character on either series, bar none. 

[Reply #10 on:]

I find Fry a much more redeeming character than Homer's ever been.

[Reply #11 on:]

anyone know if theres gonna be a futurama game on pc??????????????

[Reply #12 on:]

 

Originally posted by David A:
 [Scruffy]Second.[/Scruffy]

Let's compare them anyway:

Fry is definitely the more sympathetic character of the two.  At best, Homer is just your typical sitcom dad.  At worst, he's Captain Wacky.

On the other hand, Fry may be dumb, and he may be a lazy slob; but he's a great guy.  I think we'd all like to have a friend like Fry.

thats a great post, i agree 100%

[Reply #13 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
 .....with "Parasites Lost" they finally found a good footing on real depth for Fry.

I agree with you there. But, in episodes such as War is the H-Word, Fry expressed an interest in Leela. Although I'd have to say that X-Mas Story was probably the farthest the Fry-Leela component ever went in the first two years.
Staying on topic, I think that in certain earlier episodes of 'The Simpsons' I felt sympathetic towards Homer. But, in Space Pilot 3000, I already felt bad for Fry, and overall, I can feel for him much more.

[Reply #14 on:]

They're both so intermittently sympathetic.  It's frustrating.  They'll catch you sympathizing with them, then do something boorish to piss you off.  Certainly Fry's got the angle on paper; the story opens by putting him alone into an unfamiliar world where his family has been dead for a thousand years, with nothing to his name, whereas Homer has everything he needs; a house, a family, a job, etc.  Frank Grimes would have no reason to resent Fry, is what I'm saying.

[Reply #15 on:]

I didn't feel sorry for Grimey, either.

I laughed when he died, and just thinking about it now puts a smile on my face.

[Reply #16 on:]

Homer.

[Reply #17 on:]

You could feel sorry for Homer, but there's really no reason too. He has everything, and on the rare occasion where something terrible happens to him he deserved it. Karma. Fry on the other hand tries his best to do the almost right thing, and he has good intentions. Poor, poor Grimey.
 

[Reply #18 on:]

 

Homer.

Fry. 

[Reply #19 on:]

 

Originally posted by Gorky:
 I agree with you there. But, in episodes such as War is the H-Word, Fry expressed an interest in Leela. Although I'd have to say that X-Mas Story was probably the farthest the Fry-Leela component ever went in the first two years.

Well, I wasn't referring to the Fry/Leela aspect specifically, just Fry's character as a whole ("Luck of the Fryrish" just a few episodes later is a much deeper exploration of Fry by the way).  In fact I have a slight problem with the "shippy" episodes prior to Parasites Lost.  I felt the characters were just too thin on both ends and the aspect was entirely underdeveloped.  Again, it wasn't really until season three that they seemed to find a footing with the characters.

To elaborate further on my comments on Fry in seasons one and two, to be honest there just wasn't much to him.  Aside from being transported to the future, he would have been completely interchangable as a character into any other show where the main character is a doofus/slob and little else (although, Futurama did have an edge in that Fry's lines were actually funny, but the characterization is the same in principle).  In fact, the most potentially interesting aspect of him, being that he's in the future and has left his past behind, was rarely explored in seasons one and two.  "Fryrish" is the first point where its explored in any meaningful way.

Also, would like to note my agreement with Ranadok; Scully Homer was the worst characterized of either show, regardless of the era for Fry.  God, there was just so little good about seasons 10-12.

[Reply #20 on:]

fry, i just full on think he's a far better and more interesting character.

[Reply #21 on:]

fry is the best charater on tv

[Reply #22 on:]

Damn straight!

[Reply #23 on:]

I believe that Fry is a better character just because he is easier to relate to regardless of age.  Most of the pity for Homer comes from the fact he is a stupid drunk with a heart of gold.  Fry on the other hand is an easily amused character with an abusive friend.  He wants nothing more than to make Leela happy but nothing will work.  I believe that Fry is easier to relate to because he is what everyone goes through at one time or another in life.  You don't have to be drunk to relate to him... it just helps.  I will stop my rant on this subject.  I just had to get things off my chest on this topic.  I love Fry.  TTFN

[Reply #24 on:]

For the sake of the topic, it's Fry I pity, envy, and identify with. It's true they didn't do much with Fry in seasons 1 & 2, but that was 'Get a feel for the future' phase. (Regardless of how quickly Fry adapted. By the third ep, you'd have thought he had always lived then) Season 3 was 'Get deeper into the characters' and it did so quite well. Season 4 also dwelled on character development. So what would have Seasons 5 & 6 been? Quite possibly digging deeper into set up plots earlier on. That's just speculation though.

Homer, as others have said, has not been deprived of all that he has as Fry was. It may seem Fry had nothing to lose. He had a miserable life and it's gotten better since he came to the future. Alas, poor Fry is never to truly understand how much he was loved and missed. One could argue that a more caring family would have done more than just a day's search, but I don't have the money to search for a loved one. I'm sure they didn't either.

In either case, Fry has a good heart and would be very good buddy material. Homer has a good heart, but he tends to eat you out of house and home. Also, Homer has surely been fired by now. He has't been to work in a long time. At least we know that couldn't have happened to Futurama where most of the stories involve an intergalatic delivery service.

One last point. Fry happens to be more important than Homer and he's the ultimate paradox. If that doesn't make Fry more interesting, I don't know what will.

[Reply #25 on:]

IMO, most of Homer's problems are caused by himself. Especially in later seasons, it's almost as if Homer's asking for trouble. Fry, on the other hand, seems to try his best but still mess up. I find him more sympathetic, ergo.

[Reply #26 on:]

i really couldn't say as a rarely ever watch the simpsons!

"Boo! Not as good as Bender! Futurama!"   

[Reply #27 on:]

i would say Fry for two reasons
1-Futurama is better than the simpsons
2-Fry is his own grandfather. you gotta give him credit for that not many people could make that claim

[Reply #28 on:]

Homer is a shlub but he's so annoying that I find it hard to feel sympathetic toward him at all.

Fry is far more realistic and far more pathetic.  Him, I can feel sorry for, I empathize with him when Leela once again fails to link up with him romantically.

Like Matt G himself said: "The Simpsons are fiction, Futurama is real."  Fry is more real, more believable, more needful of our sympathy.

[Reply #29 on:]

 

Originally posted by kelley:
fry is the best charater on tv

Well, I wouldn't go that far.  He's no Frank Pembleton.

What's all this about Fry being bland in the first two seasons, though?  I didn't get that at all.  Fry had depth from the very beginning.  Watch the scene with Fry and Bender in the bar, from the pilot episode, or the scene later on in the ruins of old New York.  Watch the scene with Fry and Leela in the lunar lander, from the second episode.  Scenes like these may not seem like much compared to "Luck of the Fryrish", but they were there.

[Reply #30 on:]

I agree with you. I think they showed real depth with Fry in the Old New York scene in Space Pilot 3000 ("Everyone I ever knew or cared about is gone" ). And in The Series has Landed, the Lunar Lander scene was great and meaningful. I think it was another example of just how much Fry left behind in the 20th century. His little speech to Leela was so sweet and the shot at the moon in that scene was brilliant.
I know I said that the Fry and Leela component didn't fully  kick in until the start of season 3, but I wasn't saying that there was no character development in seasons 1 and 2. If this post seems contradictory to my earlier post, I'm sorry.
I hope that clears everything up. You may now return to reading posts that actually matter.

[Reply #31 on:]

Actually, thats another thing...the first couple episodes of the show do have some intriguing character elements with Fry and seem to be starting to explore him.  They're hardly "complete" as any kind of character study, but they are somewhat intriguing and you want to see where they're going with it.  But by "I, Roommate" they had already reduced him to a couch potato slob in a typical sitcom plot, and the rest of seasons one and two were mostly gag rows(mind you, the gags were good) where the characters and even storylines were entirely secondary to wacky gags.  Season three is where they really started to utilize the characters in any serious way.

[Reply #32 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
...the rest of seasons one and two were mostly gag rows(mind you, the gags were good) where the characters and even storylines were entirely secondary to wacky gags.

I agree that Fry's character development didn't REALLY begin until Season 3.  I remember last year stating either on PEEL or CGEF that I considered Season 1 to be "funny, but emotionally empty".  There were exceptions to this (the first two eps and parts of A Flight to Remember), but too often in the first and second seasons the stories were plot driven rather than character driven - Fry & co visit alien world, get into trouble, chase scene, they escape in the nick of time.

[Reply #33 on:]

Yeah, actually even "A Flight to Remember" doesn't impress me that much.  As always its funny, but there's almost no depth to it really.  It seemed like one of those season one episodes ("I, Roommate" is another example, and one scene in "Fear of a Bot Planet" ) where they wanted to be a heartfelt show but didn't want to go through the actual work of developing the characters. 

Of course this same show would, in fact, develop so well that several episodes (Luck of the Fryrish, Jurassic Bark, Leela's Homeworld) nearly made me cry, which rarely happens with tv.  So for that it still deserves lots of credit.

[Reply #34 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
When he's characterized well Homer is generally a more interesting and deep character then Fry I think, although mind you they're both great characters.  Of course, Homer's Scully era behavior is pretty infamous, but to be honest Fry wasn't perfect as well; watch the first two seasons to see possibly the blandest lead character imaginable (with "Parasites Lost" they finally found a good footing on real depth for Fry).

i actually agree with you, but only for the first couple of episodes from season 1, season 2 is the best overall seaon in my opinion.Although i guess in Episode 2 the season has landed you get a bit.

[Reply #35 on:]

I always thought season 1 and had more emotinal moments but they weren't at all moving and it just seemed cheesy.

I think Homer's the more emphiable character when you see his history in 'I married marge' and 'and maggie makes three'

[Reply #36 on:]

After seeing the recent episode, "My Mother the Carjacker", it's a clear choice. Both are good, but Homer gets the honors hands down.

[Reply #37 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
Yeah, actually even "A Flight to Remember" doesn't impress me that much.  As always its funny, but there's almost no depth to it really.  It seemed like one of those season one episodes ("I, Roommate" is another example, and one scene in "Fear of a Bot Planet" ) where they wanted to be a heartfelt show but didn't want to go through the actual work of developing the characters. 

I think we have to compare two (kind of) similar episodes. "A Flight to Remember" and "X-Mas Story". IMO, if you had to choose between the two, which one was more meaningful to the show plot-wise, it would be "X-Mas Story". In "A Flight to Remember", the show seemed kind of forced, as if they were trying to start another component to the show (possibly the Fry-Leela relationship) and add depth to the characters, but it didn't really work. However, in "X-Mas Story", the characters were starting to develop. For example, we learned a bit more about how Fry misses his family, and how Leela wishes she had an opportunity to have a family.
Also, if you shippers out there want to know, the two similar "Fry and Leela almost kiss" scenes in both shows were kind of forced, but I think the one in "X-Mas Story" is more convincing, because throughout the episode you saw Fry trying to cheer Leela up.
Feel free to debate me someone(please, anyone?)

[Reply #38 on:]

No no, I completely agree. Fry is just so much easier to relate to. Inside we all may have a little bit of Homer, but we probably have a lot more Fry. Which I feel is a lot better.

[Reply #39 on:]

 

Originally posted by Gorky:
 I think we have to compare two (kind of) similar episodes. "A Flight to Remember" and "X-Mas Story". IMO, if you had to choose between the two, which one was more meaningful to the show plot-wise, it would be "X-Mas Story". In "A Flight to Remember", the show seemed kind of forced, as if they were trying to start another component to the show (possibly the Fry-Leela relationship) and add depth to the characters, but it didn't really work. However, in "X-Mas Story", the characters were starting to develop. For example, we learned a bit more about how Fry misses his family, and how Leela wishes she had an opportunity to have a family.
Also, if you shippers out there want to know, the two similar "Fry and Leela almost kiss" scenes in both shows were kind of forced, but I think the one in "X-Mas Story" is more convincing, because throughout the episode you saw Fry trying to cheer Leela up.
Feel free to debate me someone(please, anyone?)

Agreed that X-Mas story is better, though they're still way too similar IMO. X-Mas Story provides more "reasoning" for their attraction to each other, but the characters are still too thin and superficial.  "Parasites Lost" is really the first point where it works, and even there Leela comes off as a tad unlikeable at points.

Also, both those episodes (Flight to Remember and X-Mas Story) possibly suffer from not really giving any one story enough focus.  Maybe that's a good thing in that era of the show, but both of them have lots of different things going on at once.  Parasites Lost is the first one where the Fry/Leela thing actually becomes the focal point.