Bad news everyone - Futurama travesty in the making

[Broccoli]

The movies are horrible, and all for the same reason, they fall apart at the end.

The first movie was just a stupid mess with a lame bad guy and a lame story to rewrite all of Futurama. The second movie is the best, the first half of the third movie is very fun, and then falls apart.

Anyone who did like the movies is basically an idiot.

Heres your evidence BROCOLLI. As you can see Bigdaddy is complaining about the fact Fry 2 lived his life in the past with his dog. It was a funny movie. The beSt of the movies.

FUTURAMA never had tight continuity. It pretty much ignores many facets of it. Your complaining demonstrates exactly what i was talking about a few posts above.Re.FANNERDS.

Actually, if you bothered to actually read his post, he says nothing about the dog. He does bring a good point up that the movie does dramatically change the backstory of Futurama, something that can legitimately irritate a fan of a show.

There is a difference between little continuity things (such as Hermes saying Star Trek) and bulldozing through the established history of the show. BBS (which was a bit of a narrative mess) does fundamentally change the a couple of the most loved episodes. The one with Fry's dog, the one with Fry's girlfriend, the one with Fry's brother/nephew, etc.

To use a point of comparison, say an ENT episode featured humans meeting the Romulans and realizing they are Romulans and discovering the connection between Romulans and Vulcans, 100 years before BoT.

Or a better example, say a TOS Star Trek movie went back in time to the events of COTEOF and was able to get Edit Keeler to live, but nothing else in the series was changed? It would be very unsettling to fans as it defeated the premise of the original episode.

Well, that and the fact that Harlan Ellison would probably be upset. I kid! I kid!

I guess it was, for me, problematic as they explained that the time travel involved wouldn't change anything in the present (which makes no sense, but Futurama science never has nor suppose to). Which would be fine in itself if the writers didn't try to intentionally make the various parts of the past consistent with what was established before. They explained the difficultly of this in the commentary (which suggests to me they should have done one more draft to iron out these issues).

Anyway, I've come to a theory where I can rationalize the changes (see link below).

In any event, while BigDaddy's comments might be ott, knowing him a little bit, I suspect they are in response to Shazam's claim that anyone who doesn't like the movies are idiots (which, apparently, is okay to say, where the reverse is not).

And, I think you are wrong on one point. Futurama does, indeed, have very good continuity. Character drawings and lack of aging aside, for an animated series, was really a notch above most series in general.

Don't believe me? I've actually sat down and researched this!
http://www.freewebs.com/slicer_world/FutureChronoV4.pdf
(it is an older version, as I haven't uploaded stuff from the last movie yet).

 

[Bishbot]

The movies are horrible, and all for the same reason, they fall apart at the end.

The first movie was just a stupid mess with a lame bad guy and a lame story to rewrite all of Futurama. The second movie is the best, the first half of the third movie is very fun, and then falls apart.

Anyone who did like the movies is basically an idiot.

Heres your evidence BROCOLLI. As you can see Bigdaddy is complaining about the fact Fry 2 lived his life in the past with his dog. It was a funny movie. The beSt of the movies.

FUTURAMA never had tight continuity. It pretty much ignores many facets of it. Your complaining demonstrates exactly what i was talking about a few posts above.Re.FANNERDS.

Actually, if you bothered to actually read his post, he says nothing about the dog. He does bring a good point up that the movie does dramatically change the backstory of Futurama, something that can legitimately irritate a fan of a show.

There is a difference between little continuity things (such as Hermes saying Star Trek) and bulldozing through the established history of the show. BBS (which was a bit of a narrative mess) does fundamentally change the a couple of the most loved episodes. The one with Fry's dog, the one with Fry's girlfriend, the one with Fry's brother/nephew, etc.

To use a point of comparison, say an ENT episode featured humans meeting the Romulans and realizing they are Romulans and discovering the connection between Romulans and Vulcans, 100 years before BoT.

Or a better example, say a TOS Star Trek movie went back in time to the events of COTEOF and was able to get Edit Keeler to live, but nothing else in the series was changed? It would be very unsettling to fans as it defeated the premise of the original episode.

Well, that and the fact that Harlan Ellison would probably be upset. I kid! I kid!

I guess it was, for me, problematic as they explained that the time travel involved wouldn't change anything in the present (which makes no sense, but Futurama science never has nor suppose to). Which would be fine in itself if the writers didn't try to intentionally make the various parts of the past consistent with what was established before. They explained the difficultly of this in the commentary (which suggests to me they should have done one more draft to iron out these issues).

Anyway, I've come to a theory where I can rationalize the changes (see link below).

In any event, while BigDaddy's comments might be ott, knowing him a little bit, I suspect they are in response to Shazam's claim that anyone who doesn't like the movies are idiots (which, apparently, is okay to say, where the reverse is not).

And, I think you are wrong on one point. Futurama does, indeed, have very good continuity. Character drawings and lack of aging aside, for an animated series, was really a notch above most series in general.

Don't believe me? I've actually sat down and researched this!
http://www.freewebs.com/slicer_world/FutureChronoV4.pdf
(it is an older version, as I haven't uploaded stuff from the last movie yet).

Well the changes are due to a changed timeline. Once time travel happens that's hardly an inconsistent continuity, it's just a non-linear one. You're right - Futurama's continuity is very tight. I was going to do something like your chronology once, until I found out that you'd already done it.

I don't so much object to people not liking the movies. I thought they varied a bit in quality myself. Personally I loved 1 & 3, thought 4 was pretty good and don't like 2 much, but all of them had things to enjoy in them if you're a fan of Futurama's style of humour. I'm just really surprised that so many dismiss them out of hand, while still loving the series, they're really basically the same thing.

 

[Bad Atom]

I was perfectly happy with the way the series ended, and have no desire to see more. I also have no problem with anyone who enjoys the new stuff, but it's just not for me.

 

[Dar70]

The movies are horrible, and all for the same reason, they fall apart at the end.

The first movie was just a stupid mess with a lame bad guy and a lame story to rewrite all of Futurama. The second movie is the best, the first half of the third movie is very fun, and then falls apart.

Anyone who did like the movies is basically an idiot.

Heres your evidence BROCOLLI. As you can see Bigdaddy is complaining about the fact Fry 2 lived his life in the past with his dog. It was a funny movie. The beSt of the movies.

FUTURAMA never had tight continuity. It pretty much ignores many facets of it. Your complaining demonstrates exactly what i was talking about a few posts above.Re.FANNERDS.

Actually, if you bothered to actually read his post, he says nothing about the dog. He does bring a good point up that the movie does dramatically change the backstory of Futurama, something that can legitimately irritate a fan of a show.

There is a difference between little continuity things (such as Hermes saying Star Trek) and bulldozing through the established history of the show. BBS (which was a bit of a narrative mess) does fundamentally change the a couple of the most loved episodes. The one with Fry's dog, the one with Fry's girlfriend, the one with Fry's brother/nephew, etc.

To use a point of comparison, say an ENT episode featured humans meeting the Romulans and realizing they are Romulans and discovering the connection between Romulans and Vulcans, 100 years before BoT.

Or a better example, say a TOS Star Trek movie went back in time to the events of COTEOF and was able to get Edit Keeler to live, but nothing else in the series was changed? It would be very unsettling to fans as it defeated the premise of the original episode.

Well, that and the fact that Harlan Ellison would probably be upset. I kid! I kid!

I guess it was, for me, problematic as they explained that the time travel involved wouldn't change anything in the present (which makes no sense, but Futurama science never has nor suppose to). Which would be fine in itself if the writers didn't try to intentionally make the various parts of the past consistent with what was established before. They explained the difficultly of this in the commentary (which suggests to me they should have done one more draft to iron out these issues).

Anyway, I've come to a theory where I can rationalize the changes (see link below).

In any event, while BigDaddy's comments might be ott, knowing him a little bit, I suspect they are in response to Shazam's claim that anyone who doesn't like the movies are idiots (which, apparently, is okay to say, where the reverse is not).

And, I think you are wrong on one point. Futurama does, indeed, have very good continuity. Character drawings and lack of aging aside, for an animated series, was really a notch above most series in general.

Don't believe me? I've actually sat down and researched this!
http://www.freewebs.com/slicer_world/FutureChronoV4.pdf
(it is an older version, as I haven't uploaded stuff from the last movie yet).

I know he didnt say the dog specifically, but that was the basis of the history he was talking about. It had fans of that particular episode outraged. As for continuity, yes it has some. BUT even though the past was changed the characters always seem to be aware of stuff thats changed. Frys his own grandfather etc. So its a non issue for me at least that Fry went back and lived his life. The other episode still exists. I just find it funny that some fans take Futurama so seriously.


Oh and I dont think you are an idiot for hating them.(But apparently Bigdaddy thinks I am for liking them) What I am questioning is the basis that some have for their distaste. Most of the criticisms IMO that I have seen are just "fannerds" who are disappointed easily. Again not saying you are a "fannerd". At least your criticism lacks some thought beyond an emotional tie to a previous episode.

 

[bigdaddy]

It destroys the Jurassic Bark episode!

Plus it's just a horrible time traveling mess with dumb down characters and a plot that was thin at best.

 

[Dar70]

It destroys the Jurassic Bark episode!

Plus it's just a horrible time traveling mess with dumb down characters and a plot that was thin at best.

As I was saying BROCCOLI. Fans are mad about the dog.

Again so what. Futurama has played loose and fast with time travel. There are no rules. Besides its just a campy silly little cartoon that some people take to seriously. Read my posts above about fannerds taking over a franchise.

 

[Too Much Fun]

It destroys the Jurassic Bark episode!

So what, indeed. That episode sucked and is overrated anyway. Good riddance, I say.

 

[AdmiralGarak]

If Futurama returns, Seymour should be living with Fry and Bender with absolutely no explanation just to mess with the whiny fanboys' minds.

Anyway, go read Futurama Point's report on this. It seems that July 24th (Friday) is the cutoff point for recasting. Saturday has a Futurama panel which will no doubt reveal the final decisions of the new morons at Fox.

 

[Broccoli]

I know he didnt say the dog specifically, but that was the basis of the history he was talking about.

You keep bringing up the dog. There was a lot more that BBS revised than the dog. You seem the be the one who keeps harping on the dog.

Besides, bigdaddy and others have said that they were disappointed in nearly all the movies. Your point that they hated the movies because of the dog is horribly misguided as that was only confined to the first movie.

It had fans of that particular episode outraged.

Well, yeah. Wouldn't it? It is probably one of the best episodes of the series out there.

Lets say they remade Gone With the Wind and at the end of the film, Rhett says "Frankly my dear, let's get married!"

When something popular or well-done (the first time through) gets fundamentally changed, people are bound to become a little irked.

As for continuity, yes it has some.

No, it has a lot. I've more or less proved this.

BUT even though the past was changed the characters always seem to be aware of stuff thats changed. Frys his own grandfather etc. So its a non issue for me at least that Fry went back and lived his life. The other episode still exists.

Which would be fine if the writers stuck with the rules they themselves set up. They made up the premise that people can go back, do stuff in the past, but nothing in the "present" would change. That way they could have their cake and eat it too. However, and the writers have admitted this, they themselves are continuity geeks and started to force themselves into writing the script to keep within continuity.

It made for a very unbalanced and sloppy script.

I just find it funny that some fans take Futurama so seriously.

Look around you on this message board and the threads therein. People take all different shows, movies, games, book series, etc seriously. When people enjoy something, they do take it seriously. I am sure there is some fandom out there that you take seriously.

What does it matter to you (and others) for those who didn't like the movies regardless of the reason?

Oh and I dont think you are an idiot for hating them.(But apparently Bigdaddy thinks I am for liking them

I know you never said I was an idiot, but Shazam did (which is what bigdaddy was responding too).

It destroys the Jurassic Bark episode!

Plus it's just a horrible time traveling mess with dumb down characters and a plot that was thin at best.

As I was saying BROCCOLI. Fans are mad about the dog.

Because you have continually brought it up until someone finally took the bait.

Also, you seem to have neglected the rest of his post.

Read my posts above about fannerds taking over a franchise.

I worry more about fanboys "taking over" a franchise to the point where they love everything offered and cannot look objectively at it. See Family Guy as a really good example that has entered the mainstream.

If Futurama returns, Seymour should be living with Fry and Bender with absolutely no explanation just to mess with the whiny fanboys' minds.

Now that would be funny and clever.

 

[Dar70]

I know he didnt say the dog specifically, but that was the basis of the history he was talking about.

You keep bringing up the dog. There was a lot more that BBS revised than the dog. You seem the be the one who keeps harping on the dog.

Besides, bigdaddy and others have said that they were disappointed in nearly all the movies. Your point that they hated the movies because of the dog is horribly misguided as that was only confined to the first movie.

It had fans of that particular episode outraged.

Well, yeah. Wouldn't it? It is probably one of the best episodes of the series out there.

Lets say they remade Gone With the Wind and at the end of the film, Rhett says "Frankly my dear, let's get married!"

When something popular or well-done (the first time through) gets fundamentally changed, people are bound to become a little irked.

No, it has a lot. I've more or less proved this.

Which would be fine if the writers stuck with the rules they themselves set up. They made up the premise that people can go back, do stuff in the past, but nothing in the "present" would change. That way they could have their cake and eat it too. However, and the writers have admitted this, they themselves are continuity geeks and started to force themselves into writing the script to keep within continuity.

It made for a very unbalanced and sloppy script.

Look around you on this message board and the threads therein. People take all different shows, movies, games, book series, etc seriously. When people enjoy something, they do take it seriously. I am sure there is some fandom out there that you take seriously.

What does it matter to you (and others) for those who didn't like the movies regardless of the reason?

I know you never said I was an idiot, but Shazam did (which is what bigdaddy was responding too).



Because you have continually brought it up until someone finally took the bait.

Also, you seem to have neglected the rest of his post.

Read my posts above about fannerds taking over a franchise.

I worry more about fanboys "taking over" a franchise to the point where they love everything offered and cannot look objectively at it. See Family Guy as a really good example that has entered the mainstream.

If Futurama returns, Seymour should be living with Fry and Bender with absolutely no explanation just to mess with the whiny fanboys' minds.

Now that would be funny and clever.

The dog was the biggest thing uber fannerds complained about. That is why it was my initial example.(there are several more) You stated you heard NOTHING about it some posts back. THAT is why I procedded to harp on in when Bigdaddy confirmed it. I shouldnt have to go over it again for you. Please reread the posts to refresh your memory instead of misinterpreting/reinterpreting what I meant.

Im am also not saying that fans should like everything. I dont object to them disliking episodes.(there are many that I do not find that funny) But I also have a right to dissect the reason why they do. Most of it is baseless once they get into their heads how something should be. Especially if the show,movie franchise has been in hiatus.(again reread my posts) Futurama is a COMEDY. NOT a drama or a show based on tight continuity.(as you can see I said tight continuity, not any at all)

The movies did their job. They were funny and in the same vien as the episodes but in a longer format.

They were like the previous seasons. Also like it or not this show is not to be taken seriously when it concerns story. Its a comedy not a drama. Its actually reviewed with a wierd seriousness(Jurassic Bark) by some fans. They actually try to find logic in Furturamas inner workings. Now if they changed all the characters mid season or something I could understand, to a certain degree. That wasnt the case with the films.

I will have to retract what I said earlier about you.
"At least your criticism lacks some thought beyond an emotional tie to a previous episode." and read what I said about Bigdaddy's comments and critique of the movies and people who like them.


Oh yeah and the Gone with the Wind example was weak. Sorry.


Family Guy by the way isnt as loved as you would think. Fans started turning their backs on it during the first season it returned. Many think its no longer the show it was. I happen to still think it is funny. Its a little diffrent but still funny. So I still like it. I actually used FG as an example last year when Futurama was going to come back. I just knew it would be overanalyzed and nitpicked to death and the uber fannerds would turn their backs.


AGAIN, Futurama another franchise that has been adopted as well as over analyzed by fannerds. Than of course will be eventually despised by them. If its allowed to continue that is.

 

[bigdaddy]

The dog is only the most clear part.

I'm a fan, not a fanboy. I don't dress up like freaks and go out. I enjoyed Jurassic Bark for the sadness it was as an animal lover and the new movie broke that. If the movie was good and broke the storyline then fine, but it was bad!

And thank you Broccoli. The comment about the fools was to point of the hypocrisy that it's ok to call the "movie" (They are not real movies) haters fools when it's not OK to do the reverse.

 

[Broccoli]

You stated you heard NOTHING about it some posts back.

No, I didn't. Stop twisting my words.

You first suggested that fans were nitpicking the movies (plural) to death. I said that I didn't see the nitpicking of the movies (plural) the way you suggested. From that point on, you kept bring up the first movie with the dog example and never went into any examples of nitpicking on the other films.

Later, you called bigdaddy out on saying he hated the movies because of the dog. I responded with, at that time, that bigdaddy didn't say anything about the dog (which, at that point, he hadn't).

At that point, you brought up the dog issue again and again. That's when bigdaddy commented on it and you held it up as an example of how "fan nerds" complain about the dog. I am sorry, but this is completely flawed. If bigdaddy or anyone else came into this topic talking about the dog, you might have a point, but the issue was only discussed after you brought it up.

THAT is why I procedded to harp on in when Bigdaddy confirmed it.

But you were harping on it before bigdaddy (or anyone else for that matter) said anything about it. It almost seems like you were trying to provoke a reaction.

I shouldnt have to go over it again for you. Please reread the posts to refresh your memory instead of misinterpreting/reinterpreting what I meant.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

The movies did their job. They were funny and in the same vien as the episodes but in a longer format.

Which is why I think they didn't work. The main plot for each movie couldn't sustain the 90 minutes, so they went into these one-off, throwaway subplots that were over before they really began. The result, of which, killed the pace of the movies.

They were like the previous seasons. Also like it or not this show is not to be taken seriously when it concerns story. Its a comedy not a drama.

This premise if faulty. Comedies can be held to a high standard that you seemingly claim that only applies to dramas. Look at shows such as Arrested Development, The Office, Weeds, and Entourage. These are comedies, but have a very tight continuity. I am not suggesting that Futurama is like those shows. However, just because a show is a comedy, doesn't mean that they can necessarily play fast and loose with their backstory/continuity.

The reverse can be true for dramas, as well.

I will have to retract what I said earlier about you.
"At least your criticism lacks some thought beyond an emotional tie to a previous episode." and read what I said about Bigdaddy's comments and critique of the movies and people who like them.

From the onset, I have said that I was disappointed with the movies (plural) because of the weak narrative structure and, what I felt, was sloppy writing. I admit, I was surprised and was a little uneased when I first saw BBS and how it re-wrote what was established in multiple past episodes. But I learned to accept it.

However, that doesn't excuse that 2 other movies which I thought were let downs (I actually liked Beast with a Billion Backs). And those movies had no "emotional tie to a previous episode" whatsoever. You are trying to twist my words into something they are not.

Oh yeah and the Gone with the Wind example was weak. Sorry.

Then use my COTEOF example.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Look around you on this message board and the threads therein. People take all different shows, movies, games, book series, etc seriously. When people enjoy something, they do take it seriously.

What th--? There are people who take their hobbies seriously? How intimidating.

 

[Broccoli]

Look around you on this message board and the threads therein. People take all different shows, movies, games, book series, etc seriously. When people enjoy something, they do take it seriously.

What th--? There are people who take their hobbies seriously? How intimidating.

Shocking revelation, isn't it?

 

[AdmiralGarak]

Another good source


From Voice Actors in the News:

Update: 7.20.2009 — Unbelievable. 20th Century Fox is soliciting auditions for Futurama via Craigslist:

Date: 2009-07-17, 12:51PM PDT
Reply to: [address withheld, but the auditions are now being handled by JCDandridge.com]

This is an IMMEDIATE NEED for ANIMATED Voice Over Talent. FUTURAMA is now Casting for these Famous Voices:

IF YOU HAVE REPRESENTATION – DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS AD
————————————–
PHILIP J. FRY
TURANGA LEELA
BENDER BENDING RODRIQUEZ
PROFESSOR HUBERT FARNSWORTH
DR. JOHN ZOIDBERG
MOM
ZAPP BRANNIGAN
KIF KROKER
————————————–

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS ONLY!

-SAG ONLY
-SUBMISSIONS MUST BE FROM UNREPRESENTED SAG ACTORS ONLY (OTHERWISE, SEE YOUR AGENT)
-SUBMIT TO [address withheld]
-MP3 AUDIO ONLY – LESS THAN 5MB
-DUE: NOW!

* Location: WLA
* it’s NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
* Compensation: no pay [emphasis mine]

You did catch that last line, right? “No pay”?

Phil LaMarr adds on this subject, “No working voice actor will touch [this]. 1) Because why would any actor take the side of a corporation trying to crush fellow creative people and 2) If you’re hired as part of a negotiating tactic – which this is – odds are you’ll do one episode, they’ll rehire the original actor, erase your voice and you’ll walk away with one day’s pay and a reputation forever as the guy who tried to help Fox wreck Futurama. Is it really worth it?”

Fox has also apparently disinvited the cast members who were to attended SDCC tomorrow. At this point, Fox will probably have to rehire the original actors, who will be 10x more disgruntled. I wouldn't blame any of them for responding, "Fuck you," and forcing Fox to recast anyway.

 

[Broccoli]

Wow...for what seemed like a negotiating tactic, it is going pretty far.

The Craig's List doesn't seem legit for some reason with the "no pay" or "don't respond if you have representation" bits. I wonder if that is just a "fake" ad made by a fan to mock the recasting proposal.

Have any of the producers/writers responded to this at all? I'd be curious to what they have to say.

 

[AdmiralGarak]

The Craig's List doesn't seem legit for some reason with the "no pay" or "don't respond if you have representation" bits. I wonder if that is just a "fake" ad made by a fan to mock the recasting proposal.

Futurama Point checked on that.

It has been brought to my attention that there is speculation that the Craigslist ad is nothing more than a prank.

"I just got off the phone with a representative from Dandridge Entertainment who stated that the ad "is not a prank", and added that the same notice has been forwarded by a number of other agencies to their voice talents."

It's authentic, apparently.

Have any of the producers/writers responded to this at all? I'd be curious to what they have to say.

Same source:

There's no word from any of the main Futurama voices (except Phil LaMarr), and no word from Matt Groening and David X Cohen

I'd guess that speaking about this in public would only aggrevate the situation. Best to keep matters private and civil. I'm sure at least Cohen will be at the planned Futurama event at SDCC Saturday. Remember, tomorrow is the stated deadline for recasting in the original casting call.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Fox has also apparently disinvited the cast members who were to attended SDCC tomorrow. At this point, Fox will probably have to rehire the original actors, who will be 10x more disgruntled. I wouldn't blame any of them for responding, "Fuck you," and forcing Fox to recast anyway.

Seriously? Where did you hear this?

I guess we'll find out more tomorrow, but this is really jacked up.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The Craig's List doesn't seem legit for some reason with the "no pay" or "don't respond if you have representation" bits. I wonder if that is just a "fake" ad made by a fan to mock the recasting proposal.

I think the second part means that anybody with an agent must apply through the agent; no idea what the "no pay" part means, though.

 

[AdmiralGarak]

Fox has also apparently disinvited the cast members who were to attended SDCC tomorrow. At this point, Fox will probably have to rehire the original actors, who will be 10x more disgruntled. I wouldn't blame any of them for responding, "Fuck you," and forcing Fox to recast anyway.

Seriously? Where did you hear this?

I guess we'll find out more tomorrow, but this is really jacked up.

From the page linked to in the post you quoted--

Update: 7.23.2009 — From Phil LaMarr (via Facebook): “[20th Century Fox] just dis-invited the cast members who were supposed to appear [at the Futurama Comic-Con panel] so it may not be entertaining but it’ll certainly be interesting.”