This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Futurama is Back!

123578

Comments

  • edited June 2012
    You're seriously going to argue in earnest that any broadcast media is responsible for appealing to 100% of its potential audience, and anything less than 100% appeal and inoffensiveness is a failure?

    I think you've just disqualified yourself from this debate on the basis of total incompetence to comment on the subject matter. Seriously, are you trolling?
    Post edited by muppet on
  • It's not. If you're trying to tell a joke and the audience doesn't get it, it's your fault.
    So, if I tell a calculus joke to a room full of mathematicians, and someone puts that joke on youtube, I'm now at fault as a comedian for the philistines who didn't understand it later?
    I edited the post to make the meaning clearer, but it would be more the fault of the person posting it.
  • edited June 2012
    If a part of the audience can't tell something is satire, then it's the comedian's fault, either for being a bad comedian or for using a joke with the wrong audience. With mass media, it's difficult to target an audience, but it's still possible.
    I'm sorry, but there's no gentle way to respond to this assertion. This is abject, inexcusable stupidity.
    It's not. If you're trying to tell a joke and the audience doesn't get it, it's not their fault - either you've told a bad joke or you've misjudged the audience.
    Okay, little perspective here.

    If you tell a high-concept, complex joke to a beer-and-nuts crowd at your local bar's open mic night, probably your fault.

    Johnny Q Dumbass buys tickets to your comedy gig, he's all about football and NASCAR, doesn't do anything that one would traditionally consider "Geeky" and doesn't relate to the show in any way, but goes to a geek comedy gig regardless, and doesn't get the gaming and anime jokes you're telling? His fault.

    It's not a blanket thing, it's something that varies from situation to situation. Pretending otherwise is foolish and naive, it's simply not that clear-cut. Both of you and muppet are off the mark.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • The point is just that Futurama hasn't been funny for a while now. ;^)
  • If you're being grossly offensive, you probably ought to apologize. the problem with "Grossly offensive" is that it's like defining obscenity. "I know it when I see it." Nobody should set themselves up as the arbiter of what reasonable offense is and then dole out judgement. It's case specific, it's community specific.
  • edited June 2012
    You're seriously going to argue in earnest that any broadcast media is responsible for appealing to 100% of its potential audience, and anything less than 100% appeal and inoffensiveness is a failure?
    I meant the intended audience, not the potential audience. Any speech, comedy or otherwise, has an intended audience. If the people you expect to get a joke don't get a joke, you've made a mistake as a comedian.

    And moreover, I only care if, when an allegedly "ironic" joke fails, it comes off as harmful - racist, sexist, etc.

    We're using different definitions of offensive - my arguments only consider speech offensive if it's also harmful to minority groups.
    Post edited by Linkigi(Link-ee-jee) on
  • "Harmful" speech is still protected in almost all cases, especially when public. It's very hard to consider most speech as actually and demonstrably being harmful.
  • If money is free speech, can my fists be free speech too? Beating the shit out of Fred Phelps shouldn't be "assault and battery," it should be "civil disobedience."
  • I think the intended audience in this case is people who are smart enough/savvy enough/inclined to get the joke. That excludes you by definition, is what it looks like.

    I recently watched the entire Futurama corpus with my daughter. I loved it. She loved it. Not once did I find any joke in any episode offensive nor did I ever feel that an ironically made sexist/racist/classist joke ever failed to be transparently ironic and satirical. I say you need to provide specific examples instead of making unsupported blanket statements.

    If Futurama were as patently offensive as you are arguing, there'd be petitions, protests, and a letter writing campaign.
  • I never said that making speech fitting that definition of "harmful" should be illegal, just that it makes you a bad person.
  • If money is free speech, can my fists be free speech too? Beating the shit out of Fred Phelps shouldn't be "assault and battery," it should be "civil disobedience."
    Nope. Speech ends in physical actions that violate other laws. I can espouse the virtues of violence, but anyone acting out violence is guilty of assault, battery, or the like even if the "speech" component of their action is "protected" in the sense that the speech component of the punch was not prosecuted or illegal.

  • I never said that making speech fitting that definition of "harmful" should be illegal, just that it makes you a bad person.
    Again, setting yourself up as the arbiter of what reasonable offense is, what's harmful (an extremely subjective metric when you're not talking about material, physical harm) and by extension, who is or is not a bad person.

    That's quite a responsibility you're taking on, there.
  • If Futurama were as patently offensive as you are arguing, there'd be petitions, protests, and a letter writing campaign.
    I never said it was patently offensive. I said that it was mostly progressive and occasionally made a mistake and said something off-color. Good behavior most of the time won't excuse me from calling them out on mistakes.
    I think the intended audience in this case is people who are smart enough/savvy enough/inclined to get the joke. That excludes you by definition, is what it looks like.
    I'm inclined to disagree, because I "get" most of Futurama. You've interpreted me as not liking Futurama in general, which is wrong.
  • If money is free speech, can my fists be free speech too? Beating the shit out of Fred Phelps shouldn't be "assault and battery," it should be "civil disobedience."
    Nope. Speech ends in physical actions that violate other laws. I can espouse the virtues of violence, but anyone acting out violence is guilty of assault, battery, or the like even if the "speech" component of their action is "protected" in the sense that the speech component of the punch was not prosecuted or illegal.

    You can espouse the virtues of violence up to the point, but not reaching, incitement of violence. Which is itself subjective, but since Linkigi is a prodigy in making the subjective, objective, he can help us out with that. :)

  • If Futurama were as patently offensive as you are arguing, there'd be petitions, protests, and a letter writing campaign.
    I never said it was patently offensive. I said that it was mostly progressive and occasionally made a mistake and said something off-color. Good behavior most of the time won't excuse me from calling them out on mistakes.
    I think the intended audience in this case is people who are smart enough/savvy enough/inclined to get the joke. That excludes you by definition, is what it looks like.
    I'm inclined to disagree, because I "get" most of Futurama. You've interpreted me as not liking Futurama in general, which is wrong.
    You're arguing in circles. This isn't productive or interesting.

    Saying that Futurama is enjoyable but has made mistakes (which you state as if it's objective fact) whenever you, personally, are offended by something, is the epitome of arrogance and hubris. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that they have made a mistake, but to state it as obvious, objective, and requiring apology is something else entirely.
  • Maybe you think that repeating bigoted sentiments, even for the sake of satire, is offensive. I have no problem with you feeling that way, on a fundamental level. That is, you have a right to feel that way, because you're a (relatively) sovereign human being.

    By the same token, I have a right, as a relatively sovereign human being, to express incredulity at your opinions (just as you do mine.)

    Seems to me as though a few people here are arguing that people should not be allowed to say certain things, if those things are considered mean by anyone, anywhere, at any time. I'm not in that group. I'm perfectly receptive to your and their opinions in that I have read them all and responded earnestly to them. I've certainly not made accusations of tastelessness, cluelessness, or stupidity as others have chosen to do in this thread.

    Ironically, I'm the offensive one. So it goes.
    I agree with you, mostly. I'm just playing devil's advocate cus I'm bored. Considering my idolization of George Carlin and my favorite Cards Against Humanity card ("Picking Up Chicks at the Abortion Clinic"), my jimmies are fairly unrustleable when it comes to offensive humor.

    That said, there does seem to be, at least in the part I was able to follow before getting bored, a long streak of "I don't have to care about your feelings, I should be able to say whatever I want without any comeuppance" in your argument, at least early on.
  • Again, setting yourself up as the arbiter of what reasonable offense is, what's harmful (an extremely subjective metric when you're not talking about material, physical harm) and by extension, who is or is not a bad person.
    So, you're telling me that stereotyping and othering speech isn't harmful?

    As for judging whether or not somebody is a bad person, guilty as fucking charged. I think you're a dick. Whether you care or not is up to you.
  • Again, setting yourself up as the arbiter of what reasonable offense is, what's harmful (an extremely subjective metric when you're not talking about material, physical harm) and by extension, who is or is not a bad person.
    So, you're telling me that stereotyping and othering speech isn't harmful?

    As for judging whether or not somebody is a bad person, guilty as fucking charged. I think you're a dick. Whether you care or not is up to you.
    Strangely, after seeing the serious hypocrisies in your metrics, your flawed analysis skills, and your odd naivete about society, social interactions, and moral responsibility, I'm not terribly worried about your opinion of me, no.

    Satirizing bigotry is not bigotry. It is a progressive tool against bigotry. Your argument is that sometimes people can't tell the difference, and that means there is no difference. This is a stupid argument. There's nowhere else to go with this discussion at this point.
  • Satirizing bigotry is not bigotry. It is a progressive tool against bigotry. Your argument is that sometimes people can't tell the difference, and that means there is no difference. This is a stupid argument. There's nowhere else to go with this discussion at this point.
    Satirizing bigotry is something I've done and seen done all the fucking time. My argument is that when your audience can't tell the difference, you've made a mistake, and you have a responsibility to admit that if called out on it. Also, sometimes somebody who normally satirizes bigotry will honestly say something bigoted without realizing it, which requires calling out.

    Your argument seems to be that because somebody somewhere (not necessarily the intended audience) will probably miss the satire and interprets it as non-satirical bigotry, then not meaning absolves you of all responsibility.
  • My argument is that when your audience can't tell the difference, you've made a mistake, and you have a responsibility to admit that if called out on it. Also, sometimes somebody who normally satirizes bigotry will honestly say something bigoted without realizing it, which requires calling out.
    The problem is when you define 1-3% of your audience as a reasonable metric for determining when a mistake has been made. In fact, you seem to think that your personal, individual judgment is sufficient cause for the writers of Futurama to issue you a personal apology.

    Seriously, this is a dead arguement. Your position is either indefensible or so poorly stated in this thread that there's no recovering it.

  • edited June 2012
    As for judging whether or not somebody is a bad person, guilty as fucking charged. I think you're a dick. Whether you care or not is up to you.
    AND, not that it's even particularly worthwhile to address this in this venue, and not to offer validity for this dumb statement by addressing it, but wow. Here's the crux of your argument right here. "People are wrong or bad when I say they are." That's your argument.

    Let's talk about what might be objective measures of a person's "goodness" or "badness".

    I donate regularly to charity. I bring a van full of items to Goodwill about 3 times per year. I rescue animals. Currently I have 8 stray cats living with me, most of whom have been with me 3 years or more. I pick them up out of the woods near my house, which is a popular area for people to dump unwanted pets (and has been for 30 years, I live in my childhood home.) I'm in severe debt, largely due to biting off more than I can chew, without external financial support, in the area of animal rescues. My Bernese Mountain Dog, Molly, cost us $15,000 in vet bills. We got her from a local pet store where she wasn't being purchased because her hair was falling out. She had a nearly incurable case of mange, was allergic to all of the standard medications, and required dozens of specialist visits and off-label use of expensive and exotic medications to survive. She's now healthy and happy and 4 years old, but we're still paying the bills (with tons of interest because we put it on credit cards in order to secure her treatment.)

    I'm a regular contributor and mentor on two online communities dealing with Crohn's Disease and I've lost count of the number of people I've helped get real diagnoses instead of casual treatment from non-specialist doctors, avoid unnecessary surgery, HAVE necessary surgery, find effective medications with fewer side effects, deal with and treat the pernicious side effects of drugs they had no choice but to take...

    As objective measures go of how "good" someone is, I think I tick quite a few boxes. But you say I'm a bad person and a dick because I think your estimation of responsibility for offensive speech is juvenile and poorly conceived.

    Well, that seems pretty arbitrary in light of the facts.
    Post edited by muppet on
  • edited June 2012
    Wow, this thread exploded while I was traveling yesterday.

    So back to two pages ago... I understand that some of those jokes, like the clearance sale, might be intended as ironic. There's no clear flag though other than the fact that the joke's dumb. If it's not sexist, it's kind of sloppy. Anyway, the bigger problem I have is that the show's willing to throw all of its characters into it. Maybe Amy should be excited for a clearance sale, but not Leela. This isn't how Futurama used to handle things, except perhaps everyone stupidly cheering something once in a while.

    The pacing of the jokes and the way the plot/characters/setting get bent around them now kind of reminds me of MacFarlane shows. That's cool, but I've already seen Family Guy. I think Futurama is strongest parodying classic SF concepts and stories and showing a little heart. What about the new episode where Bender actually kills himself and then tries to kill Fry? I don't feel like the old Futurama would have gone there.
    Post edited by Nissl on
  • If it's not sexist, it's kind of sloppy. Anyway, the bigger problem I have is that the show's willing to throw all of its characters into it. Maybe Amy should be excited for a clearance sale, but not Leela. This isn't how Futurama used to handle things, except perhaps everyone stupidly cheering something once in a while.
    Throwing all of the characters into it is your flag.
  • If it's not sexist, it's kind of sloppy. Anyway, the bigger problem I have is that the show's willing to throw all of its characters into it. Maybe Amy should be excited for a clearance sale, but not Leela. This isn't how Futurama used to handle things, except perhaps everyone stupidly cheering something once in a while.
    Throwing all of the characters into it is your flag.
    That's great, but the point still stands that the joke falls flat. Ironic humor is one of the hardest things to nail consistently, and while the show used to pull it off reliably, it's currently floundering. The same thing happened to The Simpsons. I think Groening just has a shorter shelf-life than people expect.

  • Thank God he stopped doing Life in Hell before it jumped the shark.
  • edited June 2012
    While the show used to pull it off reliably, it's currently floundering. The same thing happened to The Simpsons. I think Groening just has a shorter shelf-life than people expect.
    Very few comedies stay great for more than 5 seasons or so. The Simpsons was actually an outlier by being great for ~8. It's a natural result of the US setup of making 20+ episodes every year until people get tired of the show. Eventually you run out of things to do with the characters, leading to increasing meta jokes and randomness, and the show premise and/or writers become less able to take on the changing culture. (I thought the Simpsons started really flailing when they tried to take on the internet and reality TV in the late 90's). I'd be interested to see if a comedy could stay fresh longer with serious character progression, but Futurama isn't that kind of show.
    Post edited by Nissl on
  • I'd be interested to see if a comedy could stay fresh longer with serious character progression, but Futurama isn't that kind of show.

    How I met you mother.
  • I'd be interested to see if a comedy could stay fresh longer with serious character progression, but Futurama isn't that kind of show.
    How I met you mother. Venture Brothers. Continually fresh with continual character development. The only drawback is that one literally has to watch from the beginning in chronological order or it makes almost no sense.

Sign In or Register to comment.