This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation: American / Television / Futurama Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group. This article is supported by the Animated television work group. This article is supported by the Futurama task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Television This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force. Television: Episode coverage This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

"In my professional opinion as a science-fiction writer, husband and father...men certainly seem to have a greater willingness to confront the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that stand between them and success... [women are] less ambitious, more dependable... There's a lot to be said for balance, for not straying too far from nature." This article makes me groan like Kif! Men are the slings and arrows that stand between Women and success! I don't think something based on this has any right to talk about a "stereotypical women's fantasy" or comment on "what basic desire these spring from." This "female fantasy" is a male fantasy anyway, since the Greeks always bedded and beat the Amazons and those stories, like this episode, later sci-fi, sword-and-sandal films, and that article, were written by men for mostly male audiences.

This compares with Le Guin only in the sense that both Futurama and Le Guin are aware of the long tradition of the trope when they try to do different things with it.

But I don't understand which depiction this is specifically based on. Why did the Amazonians have to be pidgin-speaking stone-age simpletons?

This is simply not enough for an important issue. I think this section either needs to be made meatier, stripped bare, or removed. Courtesy of Gavla (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proper way to handle this would be to expand it using other sources rather than remove it altogether so I have restored the section you removed. I think the point that this "all female amazon world" ideal is a common theme in science fiction is worth addressing and it helps to give this article context outside the plot which is something articles about fictional topics are supposed to strive for. Stardust8212 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's misleading and incorrect. It insinuates that these are fantasies penned by women, and that the source, McCarthy, is in some way knowledgeable about feminist sci-fi and gender. He may have some authority to assert that the Amazon theme is common in sci-fi, but other than that it skirts the boundaries of 'published' and 'reputable'. Trying to use LeGuin as an example of 'a basic desire... not to be forced to play an unnatural role' is a sure sign that McCarthy just plain doesn't get it. None of the other Futurama episodes have a theme section, even though many of them deal very explicitly with themes. You do not need a source to say that this episode is about gender, nor that the word Amazon ties it to Homer. Nobody other than McCarthy has written specifically about this episode, so there's no way to rectify without some basic synthesis of the type I attempted. The article presents a one sided and sexist analysis and, if this is a meantime situation until it is expanded, It shouldn't be on the page.Courtesy of Gavla (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an item under "Trivia" but accidentally pressed Enter before I finished my edit comment. If it is a legitimate item, please accept my apologies and replace it. I don't see the connection between the name "Femputer" and the Wizard of Oz. -DynSkeet (Talk) 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Khaosworks, I see the reference now. For some reason I was assuming it had something to do with the names. -DynSkeet (Talk) 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death by snu-snu! It was funny how their faces smiled then frowned then smiled then frowned. --Yancyfry jr 03:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several of sci-fi references here. Several Star Trek episodes feature a world or society run by computers, including The Apple, which is about a primitive society with rigorously enforced chastity (mainly via ignorance as well as taboo) run by a computer which is treated much like a god or a supreme leader (which resides in a highly stylized carved cave with special effects). There are other examples of course, this being a common theme. For instance there is the Twilight Zone episode The Old Man in the Cave. There's more Zardoz than Oz, here, but of course that is not too far off. I kind of think the Star Trek episode I mentioned is the closest match. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have rethought this, and there is definitely a direct reference to The Wizard of Oz (the character) here, of which maybe my previous comment sounded dismissive. But like most Futurama episodes there are a lot of other references and influences. I still stand by my points regarding The Apple, though. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please translate what they say. I know Amy Wong says it's cursing and I know it ends in something like "Ban So Ne" or something.

The last 3 words is quite clear, "打死你", meaning "beating you to death". For as long as I've watched and rewatched the episode, I cannot make out what the other words are. The pronunciation does not indicate any real expletives being actually used. 24.84.112.175 09:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've refreshed twice, and the (edit) button next to "Trivia" is floating in the middle of the text. Is it just me?

It's probably because of the location of the wikiquote template, I fixed it, let me know if that solves your problem. Stardust8212 16:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Futurama Madhouse transcript [1], it's spelled "snu-snu", not "snoo-snoo". So please leave it be. --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that snu-snu reference mean anyway? 87.247.13.244 (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dirty (and pretty politically incorrect) joke, which is told by Shane in an episode "Jailbait" of The Shield, which is probably being referenced here. Incidentally, Lieutenant Kavanaugh corrects the pronunciation of the joke's central phrase (He says it is Ki-Ki, not Chi-Chi). The show is therefore not the original origin of the joke, but this is how it goes as told in the episode (slightly paraphrased):

Rifter0x0000 (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Kif forced into Snu-Snu? Because it would be noteable (and freaky) if so. Fry and Brannigan, they wanted the sex, but Kif ... yikes. Lots42 (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kif is not shown in his Snu-Snu cave until after Fry and Brannigan have had several rounds of Snu-Snu. However he is shown scuttling on the ceiling and avoiding the Snu-Snu, until he is rescued by Amy. I would say that although you might think he had experienced attempted Snu-Snu before, it is highly unlikely. After all, if the Amazonian who complains of not receiving Snu-Snu was not the first to try, why would the previous ones have been satisfied? Besides, given the method of reproduction for his species, I don't think he has the requisite equipment. I realize this is slightly ambiguous otherwise, but it would be strange. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brannigan's disturbing rendition of the song "Lola" is a parody of William Shatner, who the character also roughly parodies in part. I just noticed though that there is a link to this in the article, so I guess that is reference enough. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be mentioned in the article. (Brannigan is supposed to represent Kirk as Shatner.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When bender said "I'm not a man, I'm a man bot" He is shown hitting his crotch plate.... yet both his hands were chain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.39.3 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes and continuity errors are trivial, and not noted, unless there is commentary to explain why the are notable. CTJF83 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added Sexual dimorphism as a link in the page under the word giant and refearanced in the theme section. The skeletons of the males who they previously killed are normal size and the amazons are twice the size for a hypothetical if women where the taller (much taller) sex of the human species. If anyone wants to dispute this statement then go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.247.133 (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More important is the fact that you don't provide any sourcing. Please feel free to re-add this material when you can include a reference. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to see a new wave of criticism of this episode, specifically videos pointing out how pronounced the consent issues are, usually by imagining a gender swap. I think we should start looking for sources to add this to the critical reception section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many years after its initial airing, this episode saw a new wave of criticism for its treatment of issues of sexual consent and gender stereotypes. Though Zapp and Fry are depicted as enthusiastic about their execution by snoo-snoo, neither explicitly consents to the act, and Fry on one occasion verbally declines ("Can't we just cuddle?"). Zapp verbally berates Kiff ("What are you, gay?") when he expresses dismay at their impending fate. Critic Firstname Lastname of Publication described this as "Quotey quote quote."

Hm, this article might also mention that the term "snoo snoo" entered the English slang lexicon because the episode was so popular. Maybe a "legacy" section would do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the sources that I found. I'd have preferred at least one quotable woman author and I'd have preferred more highbrow publications, but the sources are the sources, and there's no deadline. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: I beleive the episode plot summary should keep the line "At first, Zapp and Fry are both simultaneously delighted and horrified about death by snu-snu, while Kif is only horrified" for two reasons: 1) It shows that Zapp and Fry appear to consent to the snu-snu, at least partially and at least at first. Otherwise, the reader might think that the original writers intentionally portrayed what would have been understood as female-on-male rape, even at the time the episode aired. Part of the reason this episode remains notable today is because Western culture's understanding of male consent to sex has changed in the past twenty-one years. We do need to explain "Yes TV viewers in the year 2001 thought this show was funny, BUT that was because these fictional characters did not consider themselves victims, at least not entirely" to our readers now in 2023. 2) This line has actually been in the article for a long time as "and horrifies" [2] I only changed it a little. Noting your comment on my user talk page, I'll see about removing content to 400 words. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it down to 393 in view (slightly more in edit mode when all the [[Phillip J. Fry|Fry]] etc. is visible). Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like there's no issue here then, or did I misunderstand? DonIago (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you thought the issue was. You're the one who made the deletion, so if you're satisfied, then we're good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern was that the summary was over 400 words in violation of WP:TVPLOT. As that's been resolved, I have no issues with the plot summary at this time. DonIago (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: I think I figured out what happened. When you cited the guideline that plot summaries "must not be too long or excessively detailed," you were reacting to "too long" because of the wordcount, but I thought you were pointing at "excessively detailed." That's why my response was to explain why the details I'd added were relevant. You saw the problem as quantitative and I thought it was qualitative. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; we got it sorted. :) DonIago (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]