Talk:Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs

Title

There are currently two sources for the title of this episode. According to Rich Moore (supervising director of Futurama) in an interview on RottenTomatoes.com the title is "The Beast with a Million Backs" [1]. According to some guy named Nadum on TVBlogger.org the title is "The Beast with a Billion Bucks" [2]. One of these meets the WP:RS criteria and the other does not. Until other sources are found I suggest we leave the article titled "The Beast with a Million Backs". Actually my preference would have been to not create the article until more was known but until then... If any more info is found to support one title or the other please share it here or in the article. Stardust8212 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A third source states "Beast with a Billion Backs"[3] so we're up to three titles now. Stardust8212 12:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

E! News reports this title as "The Beast With a Billion Backs" as well [4] 11 August 2007

Sorry to arrive late to this discussion, but doesn't it seem more likely that the title is a reference to The Beast with a Million Eyes than "the beast with two backs" or is at least a reference to said film? - Brokenyard (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this (very old) discussion was regarding what the film was going to be called, not what the name was a reference to. That being said, without any reliable sourcing regarding what the film's title is a reference to, what we think it's more likely a reference to isn't very pertinent. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi-Def?

How is the film going to be available in hi-def on DVD? Standard DVD resolution is not considered High-definition. the less reliable source says that it will be released on DVD and "Hi-def DVD," which I assume means HD-DVD or possibly, Blu-ray. I think the reference to Hi-def should be removed unless there is a clear, reliable source. -Hemidemisemiquaver 13:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost positive this refers to a secondary release in either HD DVD or BluRay, but may still be speculation - Bender's Big Score is supposed to at some point come out in a "HD" format of some sort, so this could either be a "yeah, we're doing that with all of them" that's not properly cited, or speculation based on the fact that the first movie's going to be released that way in addition to its original normal DVD format. I don't actually suggest removing it entirely myself, since it's very possibly actually accurate, but it should definitely get a {{Fact}} tag to point out the need for a source, as is fairly common practice. :) 4.235.9.185 (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a cartoon, as if there would be a giant visual difference between your standard DVD and Blu-ray. Comradeash (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't seen any of the old Disney animations in HD yet :P For me HD doesn't do much improvement, biggest waste of money ever, but for traditional animation it really does look incredible. You can probably get a HD trailer for summat like Aladdin on the internet somewhere, like apple trailers. JayKeaton (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Release Date Info

I just removed the "March 18th, 2008" release date from both this page, as well as the episode listings page. It already had a citation needed tag, but upon a great deal of searching I was unable to find a single piece of collaborating evidence on the web to support the statement, so I thought it should be removed.

Before doing that, I checked other edits from the IP that inserted the date originally. Recently, the person edited the main Futurama article to say that five new movies would be coming out, with the title of "Futurama 5" for the fifth. Either this is an insider posting what would essentially be original research or at the very least unsourcable information, or it is a vandal posting nonsense. In either case, it seemed like ample justification to remove the date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.144.82 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you citing a website which everyone cannot get access to? --Svip_pong 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has this info been re-added? You threw this Futurama fan into a panic. Removed again. Provide citation in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.57.163 (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Omg are you serious that its not gonna be released until June 24?! Great... now I have to wait 3 more months... thanks for shattering my excitement... --66.94.154.5 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is because Comedy Central will be running new episodes of Futurama March 18th, according to one of their commercials. --17:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)70.189.104.223 (talk)

Plots

I noticed "Confirmed Plots" was removed, apparently because it was just "speculation". This isn't the case, there was solid proof for the plots, so why was it removed? --Roeas (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Those weren't plots, those were scattered details. --(trogga) 11:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaked?

See: Mininova, other tracker sites

Should we mention? Can we source (i mean, we could link to the torrents, but is that a legit source/is that kosher)? 66.215.20.28 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Trackers aren't themselves a reliable source, and they're copyvio. It's only notable if it's reported on. Plot details likewise must be avoided until official release. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On the plus side, this film will be a hell of a lot easier to summarize once its actually released. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No reliable sources yet, but here are a few mentions of it [5] [6] I'm sure there will be more in a few days. D0762 (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs will report as they always do, but they don't count. No useful source will report on this. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it leaked. A lot of the well-known dvd rippers seem to have access to dvds before they're released. That would most likely imply they work in dvd distribution or (more likely) a video store. Video stores get dvds a few weeks in advance of the release date, so they're often available from torrents (not that it's legal) before they're available for purchase.75.121.175.113 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely been leaked. I just finished watching it, and it's damn good. Surely an article on a subject can quote the subject itself. Certainly, my university accepts citations in essays on a text using the text itself. I don't see why we can't cite the movie for plot details about the movie. If there's a reason not to do that, let me know.Methulah (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Would your university accept citations from a book they couldn't buy? Same principle here. It needs to be available for it to be cited, even from itself. Torrents don't count. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is available. And if you don't like the way it is obtained, you can wait until it is released in a form that you like. Either way, it is available and the material is not changing. --Torsodog^Talk 06:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point. It is not legally available. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You have no way of knowing whether it's "legally" available since law is not codified into the movie release itself. Law depends on jurisdiction, and you don't speak for any jurisdiction, let alone all of them. So really, you're missing the point, eh? It. Is. Available.--76.217.92.71 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't honestly think that made any sense, do you? It isn't legally available. That's the point. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That made perfect sense to me. The movie (as of June 16) was available. End of story. It might not be legally available in your country, or a number of countries, but one can't say if it's "legally available" or not unless one knows the legal status of intellectual property in every jurisdiction *worldwide*. It might be legal for some to download and view a leaked torrent (for example) in some jurisdictions but illegal in others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.166.122 (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why we can't say it's leaked on some specified date, if we provide no link? 62.140.252.42 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the fact cannot be externally verified as being true.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to add fuel to the fire, but the movie is already quoted at Goldbach's_conjecture#In_popular_culture. –Damsleth^{Talk|Contributions} 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not mentioning a lot of other pages really, like Pazuzu and Kif Kroker. Check out the article's What Links Here –Damsleth^{Talk|Contributions} 21:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed two of those, but since it's out fairly soon, the fringe pages don't matter. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we use "Schle" when refering to Yivo?

I understand that Yivo has no gender, so made-up pronouns such as "schle", "schlim" and "schler" are used in the film as a means of reference. Should we do the same for Yivo in this article, or should we simply use the word "it"? Either way, each word may be a little confusing for some individuals. Also, is this the right way to spell "schle"? Immblueversion (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "it" will work perfectly fine. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it possible a reference to the usage of putting "schm" in front of words to express carelessness (e.g. "land, schman"), "schle" seems like the most likely spelling. At our Futurama wiki, we have of course decided to use the word "schle", we however mention its meaning in the introduction of our Yivo article and also our terminology/coinage article. However, I am having difficulties seeing how it would work here. But believe me, people are going to change it to "schle", "schlim" and "schler" as soon as they spot it. --Svip^pong 16:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, the subtitles have the spelling as "shklee", "shklim", etc. If that is eventually used, I think that would be the official spelling (I'm not arguing one way or the other, just referencing the spelling). Aericanwizard (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an additional note, you cannot trust the subtitles. They spelt Lrrr's name wrong in When Aliens Attack, they also spelt "Super DOOPer" computer wrong in the first film. The scripts is the only thing that can be trusted. --Svip^pong 11:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article should be written in a way to inform everyone from those who are avid Futurama fans all the way to those who know nothing of its existence. Therefore, the use of "shklee" (or however it's spelled) may be quite confusing to those unfamiliar with its use in the film. I'd say "it", or simply the creature's name, should suffice. -- Chickenmonkey 05:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scorpion and Chickenmonkey, "it" and "Yivo" should be sufficient, along with Chickenmonkey's reasoning I'd also add that using "schlee" etc. would make the article more in-universe which is already a constant struggle in articles of this type and doesn't need to be encouraged. Stardust8212 11:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Illuminatus!

Should we note the similarities to The Illuminatus! Trilogy? I can't be sure they're intentional, but both of these feature: A giant, one-eyed beast with a myriad tentacles who is extremely powerful and ultimately lonely; seeking company. A secret council. The uprising of an evil army 'from the dead'

I'm not crazy about this idea but I noticed it and wondered if it was worth saying. 80.7.183.235 (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me, so I'd say no. Lots42 (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Complete cast?

I know that the film lists all the characters each actor voices in the film (with some exceptions), but is it really necessary to include them all? It just seems to make things more confusing. Immblueversion (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This same issue came up with Bender's Big Score, only major characters should be listed here. Stardust8212 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

I hate to be the fly in the slurm here, but I'd say the plot section is much too long and detailed. I would just trim it but that would most likely be reverted. So, I thought perhaps we could discuss it. -- Chickenmonkey 02:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The general guideline, last I checked, was approximately 900 words for a movie plot which is about where this is. That being said, each article is different and if this has too much detail it's reasonable to trim it, this plot is not particularly complex so it shouldn't need a terribly long plot. Plots have a tendency to grow over time anyway so appropriate trimming now would probably be a net positive. Stardust8212 03:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, I would be more than happy to revert any untrimming. I though this one would end up shorter, but for the life of me I cannot succinctly describe Futurama for some reason. Doctor Who is easy, but this escapes me. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Easter Egg/s

I can get to the "Old farmers wikipedia" screen from the second extras menu on the dvd and using the left key to select "grope vision" but I can not see where to go next, it seems like amneu but I can only go back. 213.199.128.156 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Tentacle erotica

This episode has tentacle erotica reference written all over it, but applaud our editors' ability to keep that out of this article. --Voidvector (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast version

We'll need someone with tivo since it went by so fast, but there were additional messages on the bottom of the screen between each part that wasn't on the DVD version. The 3rd one contained just 0s and 1s. Also the crash scene was new to the broadcast and appeared to be a recursive image. Jon (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Errors

The plot section is filled with factual errors (Calculon's arm was vaporized, not damaged) but...it's also filled with irrelevancies and is way too long. I think it needs a total erase and rewrite. Lots42 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Obvious Metaphor

Shoulnd't a section be added about how Yivo is a pretty obvious metaphor for God/Jesus? Because it's kind of a big part of the movie, I think.

If a noteable news source put out an article saying so, sure. But if you just add it in because that is your opinion, then no. See 'original research'. Lots42 (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that Yivo is a possible pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, YHWH. 72.204.21.69 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's sourcing to indicate this is the writers' intention, this is original research. Doniago (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502133536/http://community.tvguide.com:80/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Dvd-News-Reviews/Friday-Night-Lights/800034458 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Dvd-News-Reviews/Friday-Night-Lights/800034458

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518023804/http://screenjabber.com/ to http://www.screenjabber.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)