I'm as big a fan as anyone, having watched Futurama since day 1. I was lucky enough to randomly bump into Billy West at Comicon 2010 and nervously muttered how much I loved Futurama, and he was especially gracious, saying fans like me were the ones who brought it back.
That being said, I felt that the new episodes never captured the quality of the original run. They tried too hard at tugging at our heart strings and never really felt legitimate, unlike the episodes like "Luck of the Fryish", "Jurassic Bark", etc. I thought the last season was actually bad, and the plots never made any sense, so I guess it was about time for it to end its run.
I'll give a dissenting opinion. I've loved the Comedy Central reboot. The material is quick and snappy in a way that the earlier seasons weren't, packing in rapid-fire jokes. And it still consistently throws in bits of real science and mathematics, like the famous brain-swapping problem and solution. The movies were uneven, but season six hit a new and sustained peak starting with the fourth episode.
I often felt like the earlier seasons got too caught up in their own worldbuilding and forgot the funny. "The Why of Fry" was my personal least favorite, retconning the entire premise of the show and Nibbler's nature, and straining on a single joke of Fry's stupidity for the entire episode. Other low points included the forced Amy-Kif relationship that had little comedy content and less meaning, Leela's retconned family, and any time filled by Zapp Brannigan's one-note attempts at jokes. Futurama can't credibly do gross-out or shock humor in a world where Family Guy cranks it up to eleven every week.
Futurama is best as a joke turbine playing off the future setting, and IMO strains for misguided impact whenever it brings up how Fry's family lost a son. I never bought in to the heartstring-tugging. The characters are too broadly drawn and fantastical to care about, unlike the Simpsons. The Comedy Central seasons seem to have figured this out, realizing that it's too late in the game for any more meaningful character material. Instead, the show has seriously stressed the pacing and density of the comedy, which for me really shines now.
retconning the entire premise of the show and Nibbler's nature
Opinions on humor are subjective, but I'd like to point out that this was set up from the beginning and not at all a retcon. For example we can see Nibbler's shadow in the first episode: http://theinfosphere.org/Nibbler%27s_shadow
The problem with Futurama's character-building was that they never had a precise plan on when to end the show, nor a precise plan on when to progress the characters. So the Leela-Fry pairing always has to remain on-again, off-again. Amy always has to remain a ditz and never end her internship (though I'm glad they finally let her have her PhD). The Professor is never going to actually die. Fry is never going to mature to the "Lars stage" of adulthood we saw that once.
You could call it Simpson's Syndrome: a comedy show without planned story-lines or definite end-dates will have a distinctly hard time developing its characters.
I thought the new series was much less timeless than the old ones. Sure, the older episodes had some things that were specific to the late 90s - early 00s, but many of the episodes held up extremely well, keeping their emotional impact long after initial airing (looking at you, Jurassic Bark). The revival, though, was way too topical, immediately taking on pop phenomenons like Susan Boyle and the iPhone.
Comedy Central is also to blame, in my opinion. The initial run was short and inconsistent. I had my DVR set to record any first-run episode, but I feel like i never caught any. A show can't succeed if it's never on the air.
I'm a huge fan myself (I've watched seasons 1-4 maybe 30 times each), and I agree with you. It did lose its magic after being cancelled the first time. The movies were ok, but it felt like a different show when it landed on Comedy Central; too topical and edgy and a bit scattered.
I agree with the hit/miss ratio of the last two seasons, but The Late Philip J. Fry and A Clockwork Origin are as good as anything in the first five seasons.
It seemed to have become much more formulaic. Most of the new episodes follow the same pattern as The Simpsons. Random intro topic that leads to the main topic, often something in recent pop culture.
Same, I think it lost some magic somewhere along the way. The 4-part made-for-tv movies were lacking something and I think only a few of the episodes since then have been up to its previous brilliance.
Comments
I'm as big a fan as anyone, having watched Futurama since day 1. I was lucky enough to randomly bump into Billy West at Comicon 2010 and nervously muttered how much I loved Futurama, and he was especially gracious, saying fans like me were the ones who brought it back.
That being said, I felt that the new episodes never captured the quality of the original run. They tried too hard at tugging at our heart strings and never really felt legitimate, unlike the episodes like "Luck of the Fryish", "Jurassic Bark", etc. I thought the last season was actually bad, and the plots never made any sense, so I guess it was about time for it to end its run.
I'll give a dissenting opinion. I've loved the Comedy Central reboot. The material is quick and snappy in a way that the earlier seasons weren't, packing in rapid-fire jokes. And it still consistently throws in bits of real science and mathematics, like the famous brain-swapping problem and solution. The movies were uneven, but season six hit a new and sustained peak starting with the fourth episode.
I often felt like the earlier seasons got too caught up in their own worldbuilding and forgot the funny. "The Why of Fry" was my personal least favorite, retconning the entire premise of the show and Nibbler's nature, and straining on a single joke of Fry's stupidity for the entire episode. Other low points included the forced Amy-Kif relationship that had little comedy content and less meaning, Leela's retconned family, and any time filled by Zapp Brannigan's one-note attempts at jokes. Futurama can't credibly do gross-out or shock humor in a world where Family Guy cranks it up to eleven every week.
Futurama is best as a joke turbine playing off the future setting, and IMO strains for misguided impact whenever it brings up how Fry's family lost a son. I never bought in to the heartstring-tugging. The characters are too broadly drawn and fantastical to care about, unlike the Simpsons. The Comedy Central seasons seem to have figured this out, realizing that it's too late in the game for any more meaningful character material. Instead, the show has seriously stressed the pacing and density of the comedy, which for me really shines now.
retconning the entire premise of the show and Nibbler's nature
Opinions on humor are subjective, but I'd like to point out that this was set up from the beginning and not at all a retcon. For example we can see Nibbler's shadow in the first episode: http://theinfosphere.org/Nibbler%27s_shadow
Edit: link corrected thanks to meandthebean
Corrected link: http://theinfosphere.org/Nibbler%27s_shadow
The problem with Futurama's character-building was that they never had a precise plan on when to end the show, nor a precise plan on when to progress the characters. So the Leela-Fry pairing always has to remain on-again, off-again. Amy always has to remain a ditz and never end her internship (though I'm glad they finally let her have her PhD). The Professor is never going to actually die. Fry is never going to mature to the "Lars stage" of adulthood we saw that once.
You could call it Simpson's Syndrome: a comedy show without planned story-lines or definite end-dates will have a distinctly hard time developing its characters.
I thought the new series was much less timeless than the old ones. Sure, the older episodes had some things that were specific to the late 90s - early 00s, but many of the episodes held up extremely well, keeping their emotional impact long after initial airing (looking at you, Jurassic Bark). The revival, though, was way too topical, immediately taking on pop phenomenons like Susan Boyle and the iPhone.
Comedy Central is also to blame, in my opinion. The initial run was short and inconsistent. I had my DVR set to record any first-run episode, but I feel like i never caught any. A show can't succeed if it's never on the air.
I'm a huge fan myself (I've watched seasons 1-4 maybe 30 times each), and I agree with you. It did lose its magic after being cancelled the first time. The movies were ok, but it felt like a different show when it landed on Comedy Central; too topical and edgy and a bit scattered.
I agree with the hit/miss ratio of the last two seasons, but The Late Philip J. Fry and A Clockwork Origin are as good as anything in the first five seasons.
Fair enough, I still enjoyed it more than any new show out there. I guess YMMV, but I didn't feel as if they were running out of ideas.
It seemed to have become much more formulaic. Most of the new episodes follow the same pattern as The Simpsons. Random intro topic that leads to the main topic, often something in recent pop culture.
Same, I think it lost some magic somewhere along the way. The 4-part made-for-tv movies were lacking something and I think only a few of the episodes since then have been up to its previous brilliance.
It did have trouble getting its groove back, but it was still better than most other shows of its type. It's a sad day.