FUTURAMA: Rebirth

[The Nth Doctor]

I forgot to mention this in my previous post: For some reason I was under the impression that the writers had decided to reset Fry and Leela's relationship, which was the one thing I was not looking forward to about the show's return. But after the first two episodes, that doesn't seem to be the case (thankfully). Does anyone else remember reading about this?

This might be the answer to the long-standing question of how they can have preserved heads in jars of people who died long before such preservation technology existed, like all the former presidents.

But not why they don't have bodies. I'd love to see them do a storyline explaining the Historical Heads phenomenon.

I read an interview with David X. Cohen this week where he had this to say about an episode that will be aired next year:

Spoiler: 2011 episode

AVC: Do the writers get a kick out of being a little obscure and exclusive with these things? Or is it more like, “Oh, man, I wish more people got this joke”?

DC: [Laughs.] It depends how proud of ourselves we are. We’re even hitting some new areas of nerdiness this year. By the way, because we just finished this episode, I’m gonna mention it: This won’t even be on until 2011, but we just finished an episode that takes place with a lot of the presidents’ heads in the head museum, and it involves some time-travel to the times of those heads. So we got to work in a lot of real nerdy history stuff for the first time. We like to pride ourselves, I think, on spreading the nerdiness around, as we did with physics and math and computer science in the past. We’re now expanding to include some of the humanities this year. So nerds of all stripes will be heavily rewarded for nitpicking this year.

 

[bigdaddy]

I forgot to mention this in my previous post: For some reason I was under the impression that the writers had decided to reset Fry and Leela's relationship, which was the one thing I was not looking forward to about the show's return. But after the first two episodes, that doesn't seem to be the case (thankfully). Does anyone else remember reading about this?

They are, the writers think it's better for them to have an "on again, off again" relationship. I'll look for the interview, I posted it in the "Ball's TV relationships suck" topic.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Finally watched them.

Both good Futurama episodes.

The only voice that sounded a little rougher to me was the Professor.

 

[David cgc]

I forgot to mention this in my previous post: For some reason I was under the impression that the writers had decided to reset Fry and Leela's relationship, which was the one thing I was not looking forward to about the show's return. But after the first two episodes, that doesn't seem to be the case (thankfully). Does anyone else remember reading about this?

I remember reading people talking about it, but no primary sources. Though, to be fair, I'd have a little trouble going out with someone who I watched nail Zapp Brannigan, no matter what the circumstances or how many years of pining lead up to it.

 

[bigdaddy]

Found it...

Are they going to pursue a relationship?
We don’t want to get into a rut where they’re having a baby and moving away to the suburbs. That would mess up the show to some degree. Without giving too much away, to have their relationship be on-again, off-again is a little more exciting for the ongoing drama of the series.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/05/25/futurama-david-x-cohen-preview/

 

[Broccoli]

Maybe, but I am guessing it was more of a nod to Blade Runner basically because of the Professor's line. Besides, it is not as if robot duplicates are specifically original to Caprica.

Please reread my comments. I'm not referring to robot duplicates in general, but to the specific concept of creating an accurate AI simulation of a personality by extrapolating it from computer records of the original person's behavior. That is not a common SF idea, but is a fairly new concept that is indeed specific to Caprica, at least where mass-media SF is concerned.

I suppose. I've seen scattered examples of it from various shows going back a ways. But, you are right. That concept does seem to be popping up a lot within the last year or so. Caprica, Terminator: Salvation, Futurama, Sex and the City 2 (at least I think that's what happened...it would explain a lot...or, at very least, make the movie interesting).

After all, the replicants in Blade Runner (which I happen to have in my DVD player right now, so it's fresh in my mind) were not robots, but synthetic biological organisms. And though they were given some memories copied from real people, they were nonetheless individualized rather than being full-on duplicates of pre-existing humans. So the Professor's Blade Runner reference should not be taken too literally.

I know not to take it literally. That's why I said "nod".

 

[RJDiogenes]

This might be the answer to the long-standing question of how they can have preserved heads in jars of people who died long before such preservation technology existed, like all the former presidents.

But not why they don't have bodies. I'd love to see them do a storyline explaining the Historical Heads phenomenon.

I read an interview with David X. Cohen this week where he had this to say about an episode that will be aired next year:

Spoiler: 2011 episode

AVC: Do the writers get a kick out of being a little obscure and exclusive with these things? Or is it more like, “Oh, man, I wish more people got this joke”?

DC: [Laughs.] It depends how proud of ourselves we are. We’re even hitting some new areas of nerdiness this year. By the way, because we just finished this episode, I’m gonna mention it: This won’t even be on until 2011, but we just finished an episode that takes place with a lot of the presidents’ heads in the head museum, and it involves some time-travel to the times of those heads. So we got to work in a lot of real nerdy history stuff for the first time. We like to pride ourselves, I think, on spreading the nerdiness around, as we did with physics and math and computer science in the past. We’re now expanding to include some of the humanities this year. So nerds of all stripes will be heavily rewarded for nitpicking this year.

Now that deserves a movie-length episode.

 

[Myasishchev]

I suppose. I've seen scattered examples of it from various shows going back a ways. But, you are right. That concept does seem to be popping up a lot within the last year or so. Caprica, Terminator: Salvation, Futurama, Sex and the City 2 (at least I think that's what happened...it would explain a lot...or, at very least, make the movie interesting).

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Found it...

Are they going to pursue a relationship?
We don’t want to get into a rut where they’re having a baby and moving away to the suburbs. That would mess up the show to some degree. Without giving too much away, to have their relationship be on-again, off-again is a little more exciting for the ongoing drama of the series.

http://popwatch.ew.co ssasdfjl;;lsakdf/2010/05/25/futurama-david-x-cohen-preview/

Thanks for that. I can understand not wanting to get into a rut. I guess I'm worried about how they will handle it. I will have to put my faith in the writers.

But not why they don't have bodies. I'd love to see them do a storyline explaining the Historical Heads phenomenon.

I read an interview with David X. Cohen this week where he had this to say about an episode that will be aired next year:

Spoiler: 2011 episode

AVC: Do the writers get a kick out of being a little obscure and exclusive with these things? Or is it more like, “Oh, man, I wish more people got this joke”?

DC: [Laughs.] It depends how proud of ourselves we are. We’re even hitting some new areas of nerdiness this year. By the way, because we just finished this episode, I’m gonna mention it: This won’t even be on until 2011, but we just finished an episode that takes place with a lot of the presidents’ heads in the head museum, and it involves some time-travel to the times of those heads. So we got to work in a lot of real nerdy history stuff for the first time. We like to pride ourselves, I think, on spreading the nerdiness around, as we did with physics and math and computer science in the past. We’re now expanding to include some of the humanities this year. So nerds of all stripes will be heavily rewarded for nitpicking this year.

Now that deserves a movie-length episode.

Indeed. I'm looking forward to it. Here's the interview, by the way. I didn't have time to find it earlier because I had to go to work.

 

[Christopher]

I suppose. I've seen scattered examples of it from various shows going back a ways. But, you are right. That concept does seem to be popping up a lot within the last year or so. Caprica, Terminator: Salvation, Futurama, Sex and the City 2 (at least I think that's what happened...it would explain a lot...or, at very least, make the movie interesting).

In what way did that concept show up in Terminator: Salvation? Again I feel it necessary to clarify: I'm not talking about the general concept of creating an artificial doppelganger, but the specific method by which it was done in Caprica and "Rebirth": i.e. studying records of a person's activities, words, behavior, etc. and extrapolating a personality simulation from that, as opposed to the more usual science-fictional method of scanning/copying a person's brain directly.

I don't remember any instance of that particular approach to personality reconstruction in T:S. I'd assume you're talking about Marcus, but he was more like RoboCop, a cyborg created by reanimating a formerly living person. That's completely different from what I'm discussing here. The only other thing in T:S that even comes close was the silly bit where Skynet took on Helena Bonham Carter's face and voice to talk to Marcus, but that wasn't a personality reconstruction, merely a visual interface.

 

[Rowan Sjet]

I found the first episode to be fairly laboured overall with only a few really good moments scattered throughout, such as Brannigan emerging from the stem cells at the end and Bender's cartwheeling escape, though that was the only time his dancing subplot came close to being funny.

Second episode was much better, a good bogstandard ep of Futurama.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I read an interview with David X. Cohen this week where he had this to say about an episode that will be aired next year:

Spoiler: 2011 episode

AVC: Do the writers get a kick out of being a little obscure and exclusive with these things? Or is it more like, “Oh, man, I wish more people got this joke”?

DC: [Laughs.] It depends how proud of ourselves we are. We’re even hitting some new areas of nerdiness this year. By the way, because we just finished this episode, I’m gonna mention it: This won’t even be on until 2011, but we just finished an episode that takes place with a lot of the presidents’ heads in the head museum, and it involves some time-travel to the times of those heads. So we got to work in a lot of real nerdy history stuff for the first time. We like to pride ourselves, I think, on spreading the nerdiness around, as we did with physics and math and computer science in the past. We’re now expanding to include some of the humanities this year. So nerds of all stripes will be heavily rewarded for nitpicking this year.

Now that deserves a movie-length episode.

Indeed. I'm looking forward to it. Here's the interview, by the way. I didn't have time to find it earlier because I had to go to work.

That was a great interview. These are people who respect their audience.

 

[bigdaddy]

That was a great interview. These are people who respect their audience.

They are some of the few TV people that realize because of us they still have a job.

 

[Broccoli]

I suppose. I've seen scattered examples of it from various shows going back a ways. But, you are right. That concept does seem to be popping up a lot within the last year or so. Caprica, Terminator: Salvation, Futurama, Sex and the City 2 (at least I think that's what happened...it would explain a lot...or, at very least, make the movie interesting).

In what way did that concept show up in Terminator: Salvation? Again I feel it necessary to clarify: I'm not talking about the general concept of creating an artificial doppelganger, but the specific method by which it was done in Caprica and "Rebirth": i.e. studying records of a person's activities, words, behavior, etc. and extrapolating a personality simulation from that, as opposed to the more usual science-fictional method of scanning/copying a person's brain directly.

I see what you are getting at.

But, wasn't that what happened in Blade Runner though? Specifically in regards to Rachael and Deckard (and not Roy and his cronies)?

Rachael was implanted with the memories of Tyrell's niece. I was given the implication that the niece had died. If she was dead, you really can't scan the brain (I would think), so the memories would have to had been packaged together from other sources to create the personality.

Same sort of thing with Deckard. Assuming you buy into the theory that he was a replicant, then his memories/life experiences were prepackaged from another source and uploaded. Now, granted, it is not exactly like what Caprica does, as there was no indication in BR that there was a "real" Deckard out there where the memories came from. But more along the lines that the personality was built and not scanned from a brain?

Now, I'm not disagreeing with you that is the Futurama guys maybe got the idea from Caprica. I am just thinking about the concept in regards to Blade Runner.

What was this thread about again?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

What was this thread about again?

Robo-Fry and Bender's inevitable robosexual relationship!

Slash is one of the few sci fi elements they've yet to address. What else haven't they done? Nazis win WWII with the help of time travelling fascists? Steampunk? I'd like to see a full-on parody of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, or maybe that target is way too easy for Futurama?

...speaking of easy targets, can we expect an Avatar episode in the not too distant future?

 

[Christopher]

I see what you are getting at.

But, wasn't that what happened in Blade Runner though? Specifically in regards to Rachael and Deckard (and not Roy and his cronies)?

Rachael was implanted with the memories of Tyrell's niece. I was given the implication that the niece had died. If she was dead, you really can't scan the brain (I would think), so the memories would have to had been packaged together from other sources to create the personality.

I don't know where you're getting the implication that the niece had died. All that's said about the niece is that some of Rachel's memories come from her. There was no indication that the niece had died, and there was certainly no discussion suggesting anything like Caprica's specific method of personality reconstruction.

Now, granted, it is not exactly like what Caprica does, as there was no indication in BR that there was a "real" Deckard out there where the memories came from. But more along the lines that the personality was built and not scanned from a brain?

But that makes it even more unlikely that Futurama was referencing anything of the kind. Generating a new personality from bits and pieces of various real people's memories is very different from creating a simulation of a specific real person.

Now, I'm not disagreeing with you that is the Futurama guys maybe got the idea from Caprica.

Well, you have a way of not disagreeing that sounds exactly like disagreeing.

 

[Broccoli]

What was this thread about again?

Robo-Fry and Bender's inevitable robosexual relationship!

Well, duh!

...speaking of easy targets, can we expect an Avatar episode in the not too distant future?

They are bound to use some elements of Avatar eventually. Although, I wouldn't expect it until next season/year given how long it takes to make an episode.

I see what you are getting at.

But, wasn't that what happened in Blade Runner though? Specifically in regards to Rachael and Deckard (and not Roy and his cronies)?

Rachael was implanted with the memories of Tyrell's niece. I was given the implication that the niece had died. If she was dead, you really can't scan the brain (I would think), so the memories would have to had been packaged together from other sources to create the personality.

I don't know where you're getting the implication that the niece had died. All that's said about the niece is that some of Rachel's memories come from her. There was no indication that the niece had died, and there was certainly no discussion suggesting anything like Caprica's specific method of personality reconstruction.

I don't know where I got that idea. It just got shuffled in my mind somewhere along the way and seemed like a plausible reason for making a Rachael replicant.

Now, granted, it is not exactly like what Caprica does, as there was no indication in BR that there was a "real" Deckard out there where the memories came from. But more along the lines that the personality was built and not scanned from a brain?

But that makes it even more unlikely that Futurama was referencing anything of the kind. Generating a new personality from bits and pieces of various real people's memories is very different from creating a simulation of a specific real person.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I wasn't talking about Futurama. I was just discussing the "Caprica concept" in regards to Blade Runner.

Now, I'm not disagreeing with you that is the Futurama guys maybe got the idea from Caprica.

Well, you have a way of not disagreeing that sounds exactly like disagreeing.

While I will admit that last sentence was clumsily worded (with extra, unnecessary verbs to boot!), I never once wrote anything that where I outright disagreed with your belief that it might have been a Caprica reference. Since you mentioned it, I was open to the possibility. If you feel there is any disagreement, then it is purely on your end.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know where I got that idea. It just got shuffled in my mind somewhere along the way and seemed like a plausible reason for making a Rachael replicant.

Getting the cause and effect backward there. The replicants were made to be replicants -- to do jobs that humans wouldn't want to do. The decision to give them memories, the illusion of a past existence, was done in the hopes of improving their psychological stability. I think it's incorrect to assume that any given replicant would've been created specifically to duplicate one person's memories; rather, they're probably given a hodgepodge of different people's memories in order to give them the illusion of a whole life.

As for Rachael, she was presumably built by the Tyrell Corporation as a prototype or test model, or merely as a production model that hadn't been assigned offworld. I certainly didn't get any impression that Tyrell looked on her as a surrogate for his niece; on the contrary, he showed her off like a piece of merchandise he was particularly proud of. He probably has hundreds or thousands of replicants doing menial work in his corporation, since after all he makes them. Rachel was just one of his many replicant employee/slaves. And if he'd wanted her to replace his niece, he certainly wouldn't have built her with a 4-year lifespan. She was just another product to him, a thing with planned obsolescence built in. His niece is no doubt alive and well and her memories are probably part of the simulated personalities of dozens of Nexus Six and Seven replicants.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I wasn't talking about Futurama. I was just discussing the "Caprica concept" in regards to Blade Runner.

And you were completely misunderstanding what aspect of the Caprica concept I was referring to. Go back and reread the thread if you've forgotten. You thought I was referring to the concept of robot duplicates in general and so reacted dismissively to my conjecture that it was a Caprica reference. It took me two more posts to clear up your confusion about what specific concept in Caprica I was discussing.

 

[Broccoli]

And you were completely misunderstanding what aspect of the Caprica concept I was referring to. Go back and reread the thread if you've forgotten. You thought I was referring to the concept of robot duplicates in general and so reacted dismissively to my conjecture that it was a Caprica reference. It took me two more posts to clear up your confusion about what specific concept in Caprica I was discussing.

Okay, wait. Lets back up here. Your condescending tone is really not constructive. I do not understand your seemingly hostile attitude in what I thought was a friendly discussion. I have not once dismissed or attacked you, your thoughts, or anything that you have said. At least not intentionally.

I also do not appreciate your implication that I am stupid and cannot follow a discussion. I understood perfectly what you meant when you first explained it and how it was a newer concept. I'll admit, I used that following post where I said "I suppose" to merely throw a dig at Sex and the City 2. When you continued and re-explained the concept, I said "I see what you are getting at" to show there was not a need to re-explain it again as I already knew what you were saying.

Now, as showed, I had some misguided impressions of Blade Runner based on how interpreted the ambiguous background of Rachael and Deckard. I saw it one way. You saw it another. I would assume you are correct in that matter as I haven't seen the flick in some time, so somethings are fuzzy on it.

Now, if you felt I have insulted you somewhere along the way, I apologize. That was not my intent.

 

[Mr Light]

Come to think of it, Futurama has done very little in the way of Star Wars. It's always been more Star Trek. But of course, Trek is the nerdier alternative to Wars which is too mainstream I'd love to see them directly tackle Star Wars topics though!