Talk:Futurama: Bender's Big Score/Archive 1

Possible storylines

does anyone know of any sources that may have a possible storyline, or plot outline--Aaronpark 19:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did the info about the returning characters come from?

Is this the movie that was going to be on Cartoon network, then Comedy Central, then limbo?

Aspect Ratio

Is this movie going to be made in standard 4:3 like the TV series or is it going to be in 16:9 widescreen, or in a cinematic form like the simpsons movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.157.134 (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Edit: Strictly a guess, but 4:3. The Simpsons Movie (cinematic aspect ratio) was a theatrical release. The Family Guy Movie (4:3 ratio) was a straight to-video release, also chopped up into TV episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.224.203 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

16:9, actually, though like most it probably comes in both formats. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit: 16:9, although possible pan&scan for TV release. Picture source: http://www.visadig.se/img/741368669999.jpg http://www.visadig.se/img/816872671279.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.224.203 (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

AICN is a reliable source?

knock me over with a feather.71.131.218.231

Overseas Release Dates

Are there any release dates for overseas releases of the movie, and/or new series being developed? – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § 203.35.25.141 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there's not even an exact date for the US release and we'll likely hear that well in advance of any other releases. Stardust8212 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Any news on when it will be released in Australia? Looking at iMDB it only lists US release date still. --Mikecraig 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming it will be released in Australia and the UK only a day or so after its American release because Fox will want to limit the appeal of illegal downloading. Some of the foreign-language releases may be delayed somewhat though. However, there is no official word whatsoever on any release date outside Region 1. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I want the DVD, I'm in Spain and I don't mind if it's on english (I like the english voices), since I understand everything (and some jokes were destroyed when translating to other languages)!! So, I have a question... would a R1 DVD work in a European PS3 (it won't work in my DVD, it's not multi-region player) cause I was saving to get one! :) DIRed14.2 05:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hi-def DVD"?

Does the article (and TV Blogger source) mean that it is being released specifically on HD DVD, or will it really be Blu-ray Disc or another HD format, such as HD video on a data DVD? (20th Century Fox only supports Blu-ray Disc) Nick 8 06:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'd like to know. The TV Blogger source(which is a 2nd hand source of ComicCon) says "DVD & Hi-Def DVD," meaning, in my mind, possibly either HD-DVD or Blu Ray, with HD-DVD being more likely. I've updated the article to reflect the ambiguity.-Hemidemisemiquaver 19:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also casting further doubt on the High-definition question, is David X. Cohen's statement at Comic-Con, that "It's going to be high def, although I don't think it will be initially released that way."[1]-Hemidemisemiquaver 19:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Release Dates for Overseas

Is there any official AUS or EU dates yet, or will we have to wait ten years like the South Park Season release DVDs? Yeah, that's right. Australian South Park fans have only just received the sesaon one of South Park on DVD... --124.177.27.213 09:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Justifies downloading it off of BitTorrent --211.28.213.175 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Movie Preview(s)

This is the only preview I found on the internet, surprisingly. Unfortunately, the video has been removed. Anyway, if anyone finds more, put them here! —Preceding comment added by P4wn4g3 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, copyrighted videos should not be linked on the main article page (and probably not talk pages either, I'm not positive) unless they are on an official website. Wikipedia has a policy against linking to materials that may violate copyright. Not a problem at the moment but I thought I'd point it out before anyone got it in their head. Stardust8212 04:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone trying to stop people from spreading their advertisements, but whatever. I'm not sure the movie previews are something one would actually sue over anyway (someone should find out, call Fox!!), but I'll stay on the safe side and not post any more links, though I suggest Google or YouTube using pretty specific keywords if anyone is interested. Someone should find more info on this subject, I merely introduced it because the article was a bit disappointing in this regard. —P4wn4g3 (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaked

Now that the film has leaked on the internet, should we write a plot summary, etc.? — Mütze (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, its not OFFICIALLY released. Thats when you put up the plot summary, just like with every other movie, novel, etc. The Rypcord. 15:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. :-) — Mütze (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think it should be noted on the article that the film has been leaked - Liam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.125.53 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do note it, find a source that doesn't distribute it, too. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays, nearly every single movie and album gets leaked early. One week in advance isn't even that much by recent standards. As much as this is exciting to hardcore fans, it's certainly nothing notable. A section about the leak is about as useful as a section stating that the DVD comes in a cardboard box and is sold at stores. ---Hemisemidemiquaver (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On YouTube there is a unboxing video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWUXDWarhLM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.118.208 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the movie yesterday, online and was contemplating whether to state on wiki that the film was leaked.

So, the film is out and so write the entire plot. Great film… -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated, you don't write the entire plot until the film/novel/TV show/etc. has been released/aired. As per wikipedia guidelines. The Rypcord. 14:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plot sections for things which were never released/aired. And can you point to where it says this guideline? --72.137.47.204 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary before actual releases cannot be verified independently without passing out links to copyrighted material. When it comes out people can buy the DVD and our asses are covered. You can wait a week. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. Just point out the specific Wikipedia guideline you're referring to so we can drop the subject. (I wrote the long summary that was deleted; Wikipedia logged me out without my knowledge by the time I submitted the edit.) -- Viewdrix (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:V. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know about that. But it says nothing about leaked material. -- Viewdrix (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of how you verify it. You can't verify the plot summary without linking to copyrighted works, which we cannot do. Therefore, waiting a week when people can legally and easily get the DVD saves us all a big headache. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines doesn't even say how you're supposed to verify plot summaries. You're interpreting it for yourself. For instance, Featured Article Arrested Development (TV series) has no sources linked to its plot summaries. -- Viewdrix (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. That's why you have your common sense. How do you verify a plot summary? You watch the episode in question or read some independent recap (TV.com maybe, take your pick). Per my original point, it's much harder to do that when the thing isn't legally out. Really, it will not kill you to wait a week, and we can restore your summary then. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Except many of us have seen it. So, admittedly, your guideline doesn't have any sway on this particular situation, and what you're basically saying is that we should delay plot information, vital to any article, by a week because you're interpreting the rules as barring something it never says it's barring. -- Viewdrix (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the only way to verify the details of the plot this early is to violate copyright law. Since Wikipedia demands verifiability in its articles this puts law abiding fact checkers in an uncomfortable position. Wait until the DVD is available, until then this article is rightly a stub. Ccs4ever (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Then those law abiding fact checkers can wait for the DVD themselves and trust editors who have seen it. No one group of editors is more trustworthy than another. By the same logic, one shouldn't put up a plot summary of a movie until every user of Wikipedia has seen it, just to make sure the facts get in there. -- Viewdrix (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work on trust, and your comparison is a flawed argument. The point is that they can verify it easily. Can you honestly say the average reader will be "in the know", as it were, when it comes to finding these things. I don't get why you have such a problem with a simple waiting period. Just let it go and have some patience, instead of spending the next four days complaining at length why you think we should do something policy won't let us do. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The point being made was that we had to wait for a certain group of editors who didn't break copyright infringement to see the movie so that everything could be verified correctly; at least, this was the implication. The comparison was saying that, well, one could argue that there are always people who haven't seen the movie/show being summarized. Meanwhile, I don't see why you have such a problem letting the information go up now rather than in 4 days. Or, you know, pointing out where in the policy it says anything about this, or that the average reader must be "in the know" about online pirating in order for Wikipedia to post a plot summary. Saying "hey, your comparison is flawed because I said so, and the policy says we can't do this because I interpreted it that way" doesn't help either, and neither does your argument boiling down to "you don't want to argue for 4 days. Just let me win." Please just offer some sort of actual guideline rather than your own opinion as to what is making this taboo. -- Viewdrix (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not a guideline for every conceivable situation, so asking for one as a method of justifying your point will not serve to invalidate what you've been told. Read what we've told you again, then provide a rational argument to refute it. Your original comparison was flawed, and you know that quite well. You're just grasping at straws in an attempt to avoid confronting the point we have consistently put forth: the work is copyrighted and currently not being distributed, so verifying the content would require linking to copyrighted works. Until you have a reply pertaining to this, just asking for a guideline will not accomplish anything. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the DVD has now been officially released, this discussion is now moot. I've gone ahead and reposted the plot summary and removed the "Future Film" tag. 70.21.53.46 (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhh.... you do realize the release date is the 27th right? Its even here, on the talk page, and on the article, in numerous locations.

Wow, the depths some people will go/stupidity they will go over the stupidest tiniest things is so remarkably funny.

Its common knowledge that all DVDs/CDs/Books are released generally on Tuesdays - why would it be released on the 25th... a Sunday?

Just let the plot summary go. You have two days.... I think you can make it. The Rypcord. 15:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was the expected release date. However, the preordered copies were shipped out to arrive by the 24th. Check your facts next time before you discuss stupidity. 70.21.53.46 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well my local Target must have preordered some then.--66.32.231.80 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rypcord, I also see in the post below that you are going out of your way to make sure that no spoilers are posted. Since Wikipedia is not a fan site, the guidelines permit us to post "spoilers" as long as WP:V is satisfied. The DVD preorders have been shipped on a massive scale, which satisfied WP:V, so stop removing the plot and, if you don't want the movie spoiled for you, simply don't read the plot section. 70.21.53.46 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let alone I was always under the impression the material itself can be used as a source for things such as plot, cast, et cetera. Legal release doesn't change the content of the material in question. --72.137.47.204 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Availability of DVDs by preorder

It seems that the DVD has been recieved by many who preordered it, the natural compulsion of those people would be to contribute to the plot information. I no longer see any reason to revert the addition of plot details beyond a personal sense of correctness in waiting for the official release date which would be inappropriate to take action on. Ccs4ever (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Availability

I don't know what this section was supposed to mean but whether it said where the film can be bought or where it can be viewed illegally it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Shinigami27 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cameo Appearances

Thanks to Amazon for shipping the Pre-order a little bit early. There are quite a number of Cameo appearances in the movie. Tastes like lead (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Y'know if you want to try and spoil things for people. Just say so. Just say the character's name. This topic here is entirely irrelevant, so thus I am going to edit your post and remove it. Its not needed and its just basic discussion. The Rypcord. 07:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. The Rypcord. 07:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor War

Could someone with an account submit this to Wikipedia's dispute resolution? At this point the DVD has been released and the consistent reverts by a small group of editors are in violation of WP:Censor. 70.21.53.46 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not technically though. Technically the release date stands as Nov. 27th, not Nov. 25th, regardless if its out and available to masses earlier than expected. The Rypcord. 01:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy Edition

Whoever has gotten a Best Buy edition, please include what the additional DVD includes (in the DVD section). The Rypcord. 02:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy Edition includes Bonus Disc that contains animatics for both "Futurama: Bender's Big Score" and preview of "Futurama: The Beast With A Billion Backs". Tastes like lead (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hanukkah zombie

im thinking in the context of the futurama universe Hanukkah zombie's name should be written as Chanukah Zombie, since Kwanza bot refers to him as 'CZ' rather than 'HZ'. Any objections? The Haddock 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Not that it's a big difference. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. Stardust8212 04:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a source that says the producers din't intend it as Hanukkah? --72.137.47.204 11:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, check out the 3D design sketches on the DVD special features. Andrew Levine 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Will someone PLEASE mark spoilers, or remove the bit about Fry and Lars at the end? People slightly curoius will have the ENTIRE MOVIE RUINED for them if they read that last paragraph. Someone put a spoilers mark as I don't know how. RoyalAbidi (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags are redundant if you don't want to be spoiled then don't read a summary of the plot. Because it must detail the entire plot in order for there to be any sort of commentary relating to it. Ccs4ever (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Binary

I was wondering if anyone has noted down the binary code on Fry's butt, and translated it into English? Sadly I watched this at a friend's, and didn't think to note it down, else I'd hit it myself, and, if it's worth noting, add it to the entry. Someone give this a peak?-=Worloq=- (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The binary code on Fry's butt is,

001100
010010
011110
100001
101101
110011


which when converted means gibberish, given the placement of the 0's and 1's it looks more like a pattern. Possibly a spaceship? --CannedhamX (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we try to look at only the 1s we see the pattern

  11

 1  1

 1111

1    1

1 11 1

11  11

and if we look at only the 0s we see the pattern

00  00

0 00 0

0    0

 0000

 0  0

  00 

I'd say it's a spaceship, but we also see another important factor: the negative space of pattern is an upside down version of the pattern. -- Masterzora (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

When each row is converted to a number in decimal, you get: 12 18 30 33 45 51

I tried checking this against an ASCII table, but it appears to be nothing. The first three are blank characters, then !, -, and 3. So I think we can rule ASCII out. I'd suggest looking at the pattern in other ways than row by row, but I believe that's how Bender read it. Is there a pattern to the numbers maybe? 12 to 18 is 6, 18 to 30 is 12, 30 to 33 is 3, 33 to 45 is 12, and 45 to 51 is 6 again. The only pattern I see is add 6, add 12, add 3, add 12 and then it starting over again. I guess the spaceship is the best explanation for now. I have a feeling we'll find out in the future, I expect them to follow up on the movie's cliffhanger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.4.87 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting one I heard is to divide the digits into triples and convert these to decimal, so

001100
010010
011110
100001
101101
110011


becomes 1 4
2 2
3 6
4 1
5 5
6 3


We see 1,2,3,4,5,6 down the left side and then the right side is just a result of making the binary such that Fry can read it with a mirror. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As explained in the DVD commentary, the binary is palindromic for plot reasons. The actual translation of it (in decimal) was originally part of a plot thread involving a lottery that was dropped to simplify things. 72.153.165.234 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I added this to the page under Themes, but the user Someguy0830 keeps undoing the changes. The paradox-free time traveling code presented in the film is used numerous times by Fry and Bender (and also once by one of the alien scammers). Even though it looks very confusing and random, in fact it is a simple arrangement of binary numbers. If you split the binary numbers down the middle, you can see that the numbers are a binary representation of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, which is mirrored on the other side. This is similar to the logic puzzle put in an episode of the Simpsons entitled Lisa the Simpson. OptimumCoder (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For several reasons. One, it's written improperly. "You" is rarely used except in quotes. Two, it's original research to compare it to Lisa's puzzle, especially since the DVD commentary quoted one paragraph above you discounts it. Three, it's not a theme, it's a plot device. A running gag isn't really a theme so much as a joke, either, but it at least has commentary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So, time for some more fun manipulation of the binary code to find some possible meaning:

001100
010010
011110
100001
101101
110011


Now, ASCII is usually 8 bit and, since letters in ASCII begin at 65, we could add "01" to each of these lines to get

01001100
01010010
01011110
01100001
01101101
01110011


Converting these to ascii, we get the characters LR^ams, which we can rearrange to be LaRs^m. "^m" is an escape sequence corresponding to a carriage return, so this altogether spells "LaRs
".

In other words, Lars had his name tattooed on his butt.

-- Masterzora 02:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. I think you should put this discovery in the lead. Or maybe just change the title of the article to TIMECODE==LARS!!!1

-₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazon Rank in reception

It seems pointless to me to have the Amazon rank in the reception section. The highest I saw it reach around the first day of official availability of the dvd was #10, it can really only get lower as time goes on. Ccs4ever (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary

WP:OR. Read that and cease adding your nonsense to the page. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't original research, and it isn't nonsense. Bender never kills Fry, Lars is shown to survive and there are three frys. In the 48th minute, (about 48:21) Fry becomes unfrozen in the year 3000. there are two frys in the cryo tube. Friednoodles (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring on the article or else you'll be both be reported for 3RR violations. Keep it to the talk page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. So here is my proposed revision:

"Once Bender returns to report his success, the scammers wipe his memory and the virus forcing him to obey their commands. When the crew holds a funeral, Fry is revealed to be alive and well, having created a quasi-duplicate of himself, when, in 2000, after Future Fry returns from the delivery and wants a slice of pizza, he uses the time code to travel back an hour to when the pizza was hot (a time shortly after Past Fry tripped into the cyro tube). This "duplicate" is revealed to have been in the cyro tube with Past Fry for the 1000 years from 2000-3000. Because the duplicate immediately refroze himself for approximately 8 years in the year 3000 right after Past Fry stumbles out of the cyro tube, and also apparently because the absolute zero conditions of the tube stops all physical laws (including, apparently, the "Doom force" ), at no point are the two Frys liable to be doomed, but instead create a continuious entity. (Not so for the Lars duplicate. While he was safe while both other Frys were frozen, he becomes the doomed duplicate). Nibbler destroys the time travel tattoo to keep the scammers from abusing it further." Friednoodles (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

it's really just overdetailing. From a story perspective, everyone at that point believed that the other Fry had been killed. WP:PLOT says to keep it as brief as possible, and that is really just too much detail for an encyclopedia. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

but it took me awhile to figure that out. and some people might not know that or be able to figure it out, and it is interesting. why can't you all help me to add it somewhere instead of just deleting it because i thought of something you didn't?Friednoodles (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who thought of it, without a reliable source it's original research, which is a big no no. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research so much as an attempt at plot synthesis. After looking at the part in question could not we replace the line "Once Bender returned to report his success" to "Once Bender returned to report his apparent success"? We don't need alot of detail, just the result. The fact that Fry didn't die in the resulting explosion is explained later. Ccs4ever (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly it sounds ridiculous. Being in a cryo-tube doesn't protect anymore than being in a limestone cave. It's a plot device and nothing more. I'm sure some fan-site would love to discuss it at length. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot synthesis is just another form of original research which some of this is. Even if we all decide it's not original research it is still too much detail. If I remember correctly the guideline for movies is only about 900 words of plot or as interpreted by the TV project, 10 words per minute. There's no reason to go into this much detail for an encyclopedic entry. I'm sure there's a fan site or somewhere on wikia where this would be warmly welcomed but this isn't the place. If we later discover that this has been discussed in great detail by a secondary reliable source we can always add it at that time. /$0.02. Stardust8212 13:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well i like the new changes to that section whomever did them, they make sense. I agree that speculation about why one of those two Frys wasn't killed --- i mean, it could be the lucky clover or whatever yeah that's all fan site stuff -- but it is verifiable fact that Bender didn't kill Fry. Now if we can just whittle down the rest of the plot summary Friednoodles (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

UK Release date?

What's the source for the UK release date? I can't find it anywhere. Cheers. 86.164.183.153 (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture References?

I'm not sure if I'm just seeing this, but when Hermes' head is wired to the ship's computer, would anyone say that this is a visual reference to the Anime Outlaw Star? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MKozachek (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never watched Outlaw Star so I can't tell you if it's likely or not but I thought I'd remind you that any pop culture references added to the article should be cited to secondary sources. In that sense it doesn't matter if we agree with you or not, does a reliable source mention the similarity is the real question. Stardust8212 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no shortage of pop culture references -- Bender traveling back in time and waiting to pop up at just the right time parodies Marvin from the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy series of novels, Emperor Al Gore destroying a Death Star using an exhaust port, even the Globetrotters' main weapon is aimed like the Emperor's weapon in David Lynch's Dune. You'd go nuts trying to list them all.64.252.33.176 (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Torgo's as a Theme?

There's currently a section called Themes, but the only thing there is information about Torgo's executive powder. I don't think a running gag is the same thing as a Theme. This movie definitely had actual themes, I just can't think of any. How about "strategic betrayal," "Time is complicated", or just "Bird-dogging" ? -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is only a theme insofar as it is everywhere in the film and has a source that confirms its intention. I'm not sure how far we can go with themes without outside commentary such as The Simpsons Movie had in their Themes section. Ccs4ever 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Torgo's isn't really a theme so much as a running gag but I also agree we can't build a themes section out of original research. We could aim for something along the lines of "Hell Is Other Robots" (it's been promoted to GA) if we can find sources, that's the real key here. Stardust8212 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just joking. I agree with you, there certainly shouldn't be a discussion of themes about an animated comedy. Sure, it has them, as do all stories, but the reader can synthesize those for himself after reading the plot and/or seeing it themselves. Pretty much any other approach short of painstakingly citing reviews involves OR. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As far as actual themes, there is one big underlying theme: Fry loves Leela, and is totally devoted to her. It's the only serious part of the film, as it has been the only serious part of the series. --BlueNight (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Torgo's Powder

Does this really need its own section? I think it should be merged into the plot summary. --Jedravent (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved paradoxes

The only paradox (causality loop or causality-breaking event) I noticed left unresolved was the name of Lars. The genesis of the name was Fry noticing his similarity to the version of him who had taken it. Anyone else got one? --BlueNight (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, thus its not a paradox. The really only paradox in the entire movie - in which the creators themselves had even stated - is how did the tatoo/timecode first appear on Fry's butt to begin with. The Rypcord. 15:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I, independantly, also noticed both of these (and they are both the only 2 that I noticed), and technically they are both the Predestination paradox. S. Morrow (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Morrow hit it on the head. Despite that, the very nature of the plot device allows them to screw with time at will. For example, Bender invites all his time-paradox duplicates up at the end, so there could not logically be all the riches he accumulated over the many trips. Any attempts to resolve the continuity mess will be fruitless. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"how did the tatoo/timecode first appear on Fry's butt to begin with." Well, it was bound to be somewhere. Captain Infinity (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There should probably be a 'Continuity' section on whether or not some of the events from the previous episodes, more specifically whether Fry really disappeared and left Seymour and his family, still happened. If those episodes ('Jurassic Bark' and 'Luck of the Fryish') were retconned, that would really cheapen the ending. --60.241.198.190 (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you watch them in order it doesn't cheapen them because they come first. Now we can smile because they are not quite as sad anymore. Disco (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Binary

When they're looking at the code on Fry's ass, did anyone notice the lightsaber sound effect when zooming in? The Zhoouuu Vrmmm?--68.3.17.26 (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Gags

We should probably assemble a list of running gags in the movie. Like Al Gore. AllStarZ (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not certain Al Gore is a running gag in the Futurama Universe, rather his is a recurring character. His appearances always tie into the preservation of the Earth's well being, but this is no different from the hyper chicken lawyer or Judge Whitey. They serve particular roles in the show and only appear at times relevant to that.

Vismaior (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Paradox correcting time-code

Is it worth mentioning that it is probably a reference to error correcting codes? TV Episodes (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot Length

So currently the plot is 758 words by my count. Looking at WP:FILMS recommendations they recommend 400-700 words of plot with an upper limit of 900 words. In my opinion the complexity of the plot limits us from really reducing the length of the plot much more than it is now. I think the {{plot}} tag should be removed in favor of {{expand-sect}} for the sections that need to be expanded. I suggest this because while I agree that the current article is out of balance the plot tag leads people to believe that the plot is what needs fixing when what really needs fixing is more production and reception information. Opinions? Anybody else wanna take a whack at trimming the plot section? Stardust8212 06:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Goof

When Al Gore says 'That 100 dollars could of bought me...ONE GALLON OF GAS!' isn't that a goof? In the episode 'Bendin' in the Wind' Professor said that gasoline doesn't exist anymore, and Fry had to use Whale Oil. BUT you could argue that Gore wasn't talking about gasoline, so I dunno if it counts. I was listening to the commentary and at that scene they said 'there's Gore doing his thing.' So I started to think that maybe they put that joke in there just so Gore could say it, which wouldn't really be a mistake.....Anyone else got something to say?? 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

moved new topic to bottom of page

Just to be clear up front: speculation of this sort should not go in the article without a reliable source. That being said doesn't Al Gore say that in the year 2012 or so? I can't recall but it wasn't in the year 3000 so it's just as likely that gasoline still exists at that point in time and ceases to exist later on in the timeline sometime before 3000. Stardust8212 00:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Stardust 8212 is correct. In 2012 in Futurama gas cost $100/gallon. Some time in the 21st century gasoline was ceased to exist as said by Farnsworth. There is ample time from 2012 to 3000 for gas to no longer to be used. This whole goof section should be archived or done away with. BigBurkey (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Time Code

anyone have a picture of the time code? just looking for it, it could be useful in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.43.48 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

it is 001100010010011110100001101101110011

try adding .com after for a nice website :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.240.78 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I did and it send me back to 2002. Oh well, at least I filled up my car for less then it cost to buy one. Lots42 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

also, is it notable that there is no explanation of where the code actually came from. the one that nibbler stuck on frys ass came from lars' (fry) ass.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See the Ontological paradox section below. And also this was touched on in the commentary to the DVD saying there used to be another source for the code but it was cut in production as too confusing and also length reasons. Jon (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Emmy?

It won an Emmy? Is that meant to be Annie? Gran² 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be Annie, yes, at least that's the only one that's cited at the moment. I've changed it. Stardust8212 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ontological paradox

Should there be a reference to the fact the tattoo is itself a ontological paradox. It was put on Fry's ass by Bender from the future who took it off Fry's ass so it really has no beginning or creation.Wild ste (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Along with the name Lars, and many other things throughout the episode. The real question is why Bender went back to put the tatt there just so "things would make sense" when the time travel code was designed to step around paradoces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, IIRC, the tattoo itself was doomed, as Nibbler erased it painfully from Fry's ass. A thing, such as Hermes' body, had to exist first before it could be horribly destroyed. Lots42 (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode titles?

Does anyone know if the four episodes were given individual names or if they were simply named something like "Bender's Big Score 1-4"? It would probably be useful information to include in the broadcast section alongside the episode captions. Stardust8212 12:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On both DirecTV and Dish network in the program guide section it was listed as "Bender's Big Score" and as a single two hour block instead of 4 thirty minute programs. I think Comedy Central's ads leading up to this showing also refered to it as "Bender's Big Score". Still, on the actual broadcast each thiry minute segment had opening & closing credits. Jon (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

They were titled "Bender's Big Score, pt. 1," "Bender's Big Score, pt. 2," "Bender's Big Score, pt. 3," and "Bender's Big Score, pt. 4". In other words, they weren't really given any individual eppy titles. - Jasonbres (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Stardust8212 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed during the broadcast

I'm not sure it's worth mentioning in the article itself, but in the broadcast several scenes had five to ten seconds cut compared to the DVD version. In most cases it simply seemed for reasons of time, but a couple of the cut lines were a bit sugestive. Jon (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I never saw the DVD yet. So what was cut? - Jasonbres (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can discuss this in the article without a source, particularly suggesting that they were cut because they were suggestive would probably be synthesis or original research if we don't have a source stating it. If there is a source then I'm all for putting it in. I've seen the DVD but missed the TV broadcast so I can't comment on how significant this trimming may have been. Stardust8212 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing particularly significant to the overall plot but the cut dialog included Fry unsuccessfuly trying to convence the spammers not to blast him, Bender thinking out loud Michelle may be trying to trick him when she says she kicked Fry out ( her new boyfriend is in bed in this scence), Barbara (Herme's wife) & Slim saying they ran into each other shortly after Hermes accident (Barbara) and every night since (Slim). But you'll really need to watch the DVD if you want to see all of the cut dialog. Jon (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did anybody see Apu and Eric Cartman?

Did anyone see them. They were in the 'Head Museum' where Lars took Leela too.

Should this be noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.207.62 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's a source for it then it's really just trivia and not notable enough to include in the article. If somebody has felt it significant enough to note in a secondary source then it would be ok to add it and cite that source. Stardust8212 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot here (top right), posted to this forum. Googling "bender's big score" head museum cartman gets a lot of hits too. --Itwilltakeoff (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jon Stewart's head was there, too. - Jasonbres (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Should the page include 'Opening subtitle' and 'Opening cartoon' in the infobox like the other Futurama episodes? Gcrossan_(Talk) 17:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should. It makes the page more fun! - Jasonbres (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't think the infobox can be changed, but if anyone finds a way around it the opening subtitle is 'It just won't stay dead!' and the opening cartoon Space Pilot 3000. Gcrossan_(Talk) 02:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Article title turns this page into its own namespace

By placing a : in the title, it turns into its own namespace - see Wikipedia:Namespace .. Wikipedia states that there are 18 namesspaces, such as -- Wikipedia: Portal: User: Image: MediaWiki: Template: Category: Help: Wikipediatalk: Special: Media: and others, and of course the main article namespace where there is no : ..... Has anyone not noticed this before? And if so should this be changed to perhaps Futurama - Bender's Big Score ... I only ask as my Special:Watchlist now has a futurama section of its own!!! Jez Arnold ☎ ✉ ✍ 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot duplicate this with my watchlist, all the articles leading with "Futurama:" still appear in the article namespace. If you are concerned then perhaps you should report it at WP:VP/T. Stardust8212 23:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The use of a colon does not create a namespace. Observe: Tempalte:My runaway imagination and Template:My runaway imagination. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it because I am using wikiEd 0.9.63e?? It seperates everything under its own namespace... Jez Arnold ☎ ✉ ✍ 07:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be the problem. The namespaces are predefined here, and colons don't create new ones. I suggest raising the issue on User talk:Cacycle/wikEd. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Profit

I removed this passage; 'During the show's run, individual episodes of the show had an average production cost of about $1,000,000. At roughly the length of four episodes, production costs for "Bender's Big Score" could be conservatively estimated at about $5,000,000, suggesting that "Bender's Big Score" has likely already earned a profit.' It appears to be original research, can we find a source that backs this up? She'sGotSpies (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)