Futurama vs The Jetsons

Jason wrote:

I was really never a big Jetsons fan plus the Jetsons seemed aimed more for children then adults. Last night with Leela and Branigan would never have been hinted at in the Jetsons. Also the characters George and his wife seemed to close to Fred and Wilma except George seemed to lack the zeal for life that Fred embraced. George's boss was also a direct takeoff of Mr Slade (from Flintstones).

The animation for the Jetsons is inferior to Futurama although 60s animation vs 99 animation is slightly unfair. Although Disney and even WB in the 40s put out better animation then Futurama has.

The future of Futurama seems to be a far scarier and more depressing place then the Jetsons future.

Also in the openning credits the transportation system for both shows closely resemble each other.

In the Jetson's favor i do prefer the openning credits and it does have a catchy theme song. Futurama openning credits is too short and seems to be identical from one episode to the next. Which surprises me since the Simpsons first part of the openning credits and last part changes with each episode. Futurama needs to do something similar.

I disagree. Plain and simple.

The IS dirt in the future. The future is NOT sterile.

Heh, I hadn't thought of that, but you are right, kinda.

Pay better attention (to the openning and the posts in this news group) and you will notice the flavor of each beginning sequence. It's not as noticeable as the Simpsons opening tho.

In article , [email] (Daniel Kapusta) wrote:

The problem is that the opening sequence goes so quickly in Futurama. I can't imagine how to see the differences except by pausing and single-framing through it. I'll do that for the Dharma & Greg vanity card, but it's never seemed worth it for the Futurama opening.

Yeah, it is indeed fast, but I catch it all without a problem while it's happening.

[email] (Barry Margolin) writes:

Although I haven't done an exhaustive frame-by-frame comparison, I think there are only two things that change in the title sequence from episode to episode -- the text that appears under the "Futurama" title, and the cartoon that appears on the big TV screen that the spaceship crashes into at the end.

That's Mr. Slate, not Slade....

[email] wrote: } ... Futurama openning credits is too short } and seems to be identical from one episode to the next. Which } surprises me since the Simpsons first part of the openning credits } and last part changes with each episode. Futurama needs to do } something similar.

Well, then you must not have been paying enough attention. At the very beginning, under the FUTURAMA letters, various sayings appear, such as "IN COLOR", "AS SEEN ON TV", etc. Also, the screen that the ship crashes into is showing different film clips each time.

Granted, it isn't as funny as the Simpsons' variations, but it isn't static.

In article , Dan Tropea wrote:

Consider the time period when the Jetsons aired. In the 60's and 70's they couldn't have had a scene like that one in an adult drama, let alone a sitcom. That was the period of time when married couples were still shown sleeping in separate beds on TV. You have to consider shows in their context.

On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:30:45 -0400, [email] (Barry Margolin) wrote:

I once heard somewhere that the couple that finally broke the 'two beds' taboos were, of all people, Herman and Lillian Munster. Anyone know if that is true? (I know they shared a bed, but were they the first?)

That's what they said on some TV trivia show I saw a few years ago but then they had Mrs. Brady on and she said herself and what's his name on the Brady Bunch were the first to do it. I find that a little hard to believe since the Munsters were in black and white.

Scott Henrichs wrote...

I heard that Ozzie and Harriet were the first TV married couple to share a bed. Their show was on before The Munsters or The Brady Bunch. However, I have not personally seen a single episode of O&H.

BTW, The Munsters ran from 1964-1966. The Brady Bunch premiered in 1969. (I'm a bit ashamed that I know that. I'm not a fan of either show.)

Another BTW: Mrs. Brady is a fictional character. I think you meant to say that _Florence_ _Henderson_ was on a TV trivia show. (Sorry to nitpick.)

Barry Margolin wrote...

Regardless of context, crap is crap. The early 1960's had some great comedy on, such as Ernie Kovaks and the Dick Van Dyke Show. However, The Jetsons was crap by any standards.

In article , "Eric Perlin" wrote:

Of course. I was *only* responding to Tropea's comment about a particular scene. Nothing like it could have appeared on even the highest quality show in the 60's, so using it as a point of comparison between the two shows is comparing apples and oranges.

Dan Tropea wrote...

The Jetsons was not particularly innovative. Those futuristic buildings seemed to be modelled after the 1939 World's Fair, as well as the 1936 film, "Things To Come." The flying cars might have been inspired by the 1930 film (set in 1980) "Just Imagine."

Sorry to say this, but I think this whole thread is kind of pointless. Unless you're under 12 years old, it goes without saying that Futurama is superior. Comparing Futurama to The Jetsons is sort of like comparing "Star Trek" to "Far Out Space Nuts"; it's like comparing "2001: A Space Odysey" to the old Flash Gordon serials; it's like comparing "Planet of the Apes" to "Curious George"; it's like comparing Andrew Dice Clay to Charlie Chaplin;... You get the idea.

"Eric Perlin" writes:

I'd have to agree that "Futurama" is much more _about_ science fiction than "The Jetsons" was. Matt Groening admits to being a science fiction fan, and today's audience is much more familiar with science fiction concepts. The science-fictional elements in "The Jetsons" were just props in a 60s sitcom; "Futurama" instead plays on references to science fiction and can make them much more sophisticated with less chance of alienating its audience.

That "The Jetsons" portrayed a far more optimistic future than "Futurama" does really just reflects the trend in science fiction literature towards more complex and dystopian visions of the future. We're not living in the future of robot servants and personal helicopters imagined in the 30s; advancing technology has not proved to be the unmitigated boon it was once thought to be. On the other hand, "Futurama" is hardly as dark as much literary science fiction, although it can casually refer to things like devastating alien invasions and cyborgs enslaving humanity for laughs.

I'm actually hoping that there will be at least a few episodes of "Futurama" with serious undertones like there have been with "The Simpsons".

Futurama does have some "morals" that it preached:

1ACV01 - Don't let Big Brother determine your fate 1ACV02 - Commercialism is the death of us all 1ACV03 - Robots have feelings too 1ACV04 - Uhm... One-eyed aliens with purple hair can't get dates?

Steve VanDevender wrote in message news:[email]...

grosse wrote in message news:_iUR2.427$[email]...

"You gotta do what you gotta do!"

"We're whalers on the moon!!!!"

"...and now they're gone!"

"We just talked!!!"

"[email] (Eric Perlin)" thinks: << The Jetsons was not particularly innovative. Those futuristic buildings seemed to be modelled after the 1939 World's Fair... >>

Actually, I'd say they looked more like the buildings in the 1962 World's Fair, especially the Seattle Space Needle. Maybe if their ships and buildings had more rivets and bolts, then I might agree with your 1939 assessment...

<< it's like comparing Andrew Dice Clay to Charlie Chaplin;... >>

Based on the order you've listed these two (compared to the others you mentioned), PLEASE don't tell me you prefer the Diceman to Charlie Chaplin! Something tells me that not many people will be enjoying Dice's work in 80 years, unlike how we praise Chaplin today. Set me straight if I'm wrong!

tpe "I've got some really good memories of that place... (boop) And now they're gone!"

[email] wrote...

Relax. Andrew Dice Clay is witless. I'm too open-minded to find him offensive, but I'm too intelligent to find him funny. His pee-pee humor, to me, is just mindless and boring. Even Howard Stern can be witty at times, but not the Dice-Man.

I deliberately tried to jumble the order in my list of comparisons, as if the various examples really were in the same league when they're really not.

The Jetsons is a generally unimaginative time-waster. Most of the main characters are just bland and uninteresting. The writing is uninspired, with genuinely funny gags a rarity. There are more laughs in five MINUTES of Futurama than there are in five EPISODES of The Jetsons. And the idea of everything being operated by push-button is funny for about five seconds. The futuristic inventions becme boring very quickly.

Futurama, on the other hand, stimulates the imagination with the futuristic universe it created. It takes place in a very different society. For instance, people being assigned their occupations by the government and coin-operated suicide booths being widely available and legal. It takes place in the year 3000, and has tantalising references to events and trends of previous centuries. For example, the 20th Century is referred to as "The Stupid Ages"; saying "...get 24th Century on his ass" the equivalent of saying "...get medeival on his ass"; the futuristic sci-fi clich� of everyone wearing saturn-like rings on their clothes is a 29th Century fad, pass� by the year 3000!

So, comparing Futurama to The Jetsons is like comparing: a gourmet steak dinner to beef-flavored Kal-Kan Cheese Dooldles to Fettucine Alfredo On The Waterfront to Police Academy 5 a New Jersey swamp to Honolulu Rear Window to Friday the 13th, Part 6

"Eric Perlin" wrote, about Andrew Dice Clay:

Well spoken. If more people were that open-minded in the US, acts like 'the Diceman' wouldn't have much chance at getting famous.

CountV