|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gaschief

Professor

|
|
 |
« #9 : 06-10-2007 07:32 »
|
|
Originally posted by coldangel_1: Fry is an everyman. That's the whole point of the character - he's an extratemporal anachronism, effectively he's meant to embody the show's target audience as a typical post-adolescent Generation X or Y lout born in the late 20th century. He is us, and the reason his stereotypical traits (sloth, ignorance, general ineptitude) are magnified to such extent is because they are contrasted and compared dramatically with the future setting that he is imposed upon, and this juxtapositioning forms the comedic and commentative backbone of the series. I understand the theory, it similair to the homer simpson character, except as you say for the contrasting setting. He just doesn't do it for me, thats a subjective thing and i'm not going to try and put forward some clever art wank argument to support my position. You either like something or you dont, its a shame really cause otherwise its a brilliant show. Dr zoidberg on the other hand is a way under rated character, he is definetly the stereotypical underdog and would perhaps have served better in the role you suggest for fry, apart from the obvious flaw that he is an alien from the future!
|
|
|
|
|
JustNibblin

Bending Unit
  
|
|
 |
« #10 : 06-10-2007 10:22 »
« : 06-10-2007 10:22 by JustNibblin´ »
|
|
I see where you're coming from, gaschief. When I watched some of the very early episodes of Futurama, I was a bit turned off by Fry, and because I didn't sympathize with him, I never found him that funny. (Although his behavior in the first two episodes are much more that of a naive innocent than what happened later in Season 1 and 2).
My Commonwealth friends have commented that British and US humor tastes tend to be a little bit different in this respect. Looking at popular Brit comedies like Fawlty Towers, it seems that our Anglican friends have no problems laughing at completely unsympathetic characters. I speculate that US tastes tend to run to wanting at least something in a comedic character to identify or sympathize with. (Chaplin's tramp comes to mind as an archetype, as well as Homer Simpson).
Terrible, terrible, overgeneralizations on taste I know.
So back to my own personal take-- I personally found the show much more interesting in the later seasons, when Fry became more involved in the plots, was revealed to lack a delta brainwave, and was given more of a backstory with Yancy and Seymour. Even if Fry screwed up from lack of intelligence or courage in these later episodes, he screwed up because at least he was trying to acheive something. There may have even been a long-term plan by the producers to have Fry evolve in this direction.
Certainly, others may violently disagree, but I always thought "Parasites Lost" was a major turning point in the series with regards to the role of Fry in the show, although glimmers of change can be seen in "Bicyclops" and "War is the H-word" and "Slurm".
If you look at the episode rankings on CGEF, I think it's fair to say the top episodes involve Fry demonstrating some "strength of character," vs. him being the weak one being rescued. That is, I think a lot of people do appreciate it when Fry is a stronger character.
Once again, it's all a matter of taste in humor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
coldangel

DOOP Secretary

|
|
 |
« #15 : 06-10-2007 22:12 »
|
|
Originally posted by gaschief: i'm not going to try and put forward some clever art wank argument to support my position. You're discussing characterization in a fictional television program, so it already is an 'art wank argument', a term that as a writer and illustrator I find somewhat demeaning, even insulting. Nevertheless... the point of the character isn't necessarily that we *like* him, but that we laugh at his ridiculous antics and perhaps see a reflection of ourselves in his failings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JustNibblin

Bending Unit
  
|
|
 |
« #18 : 06-11-2007 08:45 »
« : 06-11-2007 08:45 by JustNibblin´ »
|
|
Gaschief, I do agree with coldangel and Trombonist that the phrase "art wank argument" can be taken as an ad hominem that didn't help your argument. If you look at Coldangel's fanfics you'll see he likes when Fry acts as a more assertive character as well, so fundamentally you guys are rowing in the same direction. But I'm glad someone is discussing the show on PEEL--most of the regulars seem a bit talked out on the show right now, and are waiting for the new episodes next. So in my interpretation, Fry appears as a weak character early in the series, but this changes about halfway through and by the end of the series I'd say he holds his own against Fry and Leela. They still have work to do with Amy and Hermes, though. And I agree with you that Zoidberg has grown on me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
coldangel

DOOP Secretary

|
|
 |
« #34 : 06-18-2007 07:33 »
|
|
Added to which, the advent of the antihero archtype can be attributed to a loosening of moral strictures as the church and state have lost their stranglehold on the dreams and desires of the general public. Strength, honour, goodness, and nobility - all these were elitist ideals removed, as gaschief said, from the reality of who we really are. It's quite appropriate, I think, that Superman was made an alien, being that his embodiment of truth and justice which stands invulnerable and immortal is something cannot exist in humanity. We are defined by our failings, and idealized goals of ultimate perfection are the product of external influence. In the modern age we're a lot more free in our thinking, and so the propoganda of super-men and other untainted ziggaruts of perfection no longer appeal as something engaging to be identified with. It's because a perfect person has no real obstacle to rise above, and as such there can be no real heroism in their deeds. Superman saves a kid stuck in a burning building because it's the only thing he knows to do and there's no danger to himself in any case. Someone like Fry could be afraid, or feel it's not his concern, or be physically ill-equipped to the task... and would then go on to do it anyway. That's the new-age superhero - it's us; flawed, faulty, utterly fucked-up, and in the end still noble and heroic, despite all the imperfections, maybe even IN SPITE of them. We're vicious and we're stupid, we're cowardly and we're dishonist, we're weak and fractured and we hurt and we suffer, and even carrying that weight we're beautiful wonderful human beings.
And that's the most optimistic thing you'll ever hear me say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gaschief

Professor

|
|
 |
« #37 : 06-25-2007 13:18 »
|
|
Originally posted by coldangel_1: Added to which, the advent of the antihero archtype can be attributed to a loosening of moral strictures as the church and state have lost their stranglehold on the dreams and desires of the general public. Strength, honour, goodness, and nobility - all these were elitist ideals removed, as gaschief said, from the reality of who we really are. It's quite appropriate, I think, that Superman was made an alien, being that his embodiment of truth and justice which stands invulnerable and immortal is something cannot exist in humanity. We are defined by our failings, and idealized goals of ultimate perfection are the product of external influence. In the modern age we're a lot more free in our thinking, and so the propoganda of super-men and other untainted ziggaruts of perfection no longer appeal as something engaging to be identified with. It's because a perfect person has no real obstacle to rise above, and as such there can be no real heroism in their deeds. Superman saves a kid stuck in a burning building because it's the only thing he knows to do and there's no danger to himself in any case. Someone like Fry could be afraid, or feel it's not his concern, or be physically ill-equipped to the task... and would then go on to do it anyway. That's the new-age superhero - it's us; flawed, faulty, utterly fucked-up, and in the end still noble and heroic, despite all the imperfections, maybe even IN SPITE of them. We're vicious and we're stupid, we're cowardly and we're dishonist, we're weak and fractured and we hurt and we suffer, and even carrying that weight we're beautiful wonderful human beings.
And that's the most optimistic thing you'll ever hear me say. Iam immensely honoured that you posted this on my thread I think this is an excellent statement on the human condition!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|