Future Boy Zoltron (Steven Universe) – Overly Animated Podcast #241

By: Dylan Hysen


Dylan Hysen, Sam Quattro, and Justin Cummings discuss the September 1st episode of Steven Universe, “Future Boy Zoltron”.

Dylan is a software developer from the DC area who hosts the Overly Animated podcast discussing everything animation.



  1. Garfield says:

    Justin’s stock is UP for me. Not sure what he said was even remotely controversial (I think Dylan was way more controversial here).

    Really got nothing from this episode aside from the nice jokes and humor that is in it. Mr. Smiley isn’t the kind of character that you can have an emotional episode with given how little he’s involved in the show and his minimal development. And to bounce a new character of him doesnt work as well as other instances where a new character can bounce off a more established one.

    And for the record, I didn’t get a gay vibe. I got a friendship and work partner vibe, but not a gay vibe.

  2. Tyrone Wells Jr. says:

    I want to live in a world where two men can hug each other without it automatically meaning that their gay.

    • Dylan Hysen says:

      I mean yes, but also a world where there’s m/m representation on kid’s tv.

      • Tyrone Wells Jr. says:

        There already is a m/m relationship there. It’s just not explicitly sexual. It doesn’t have to be either, but either way, it’s cool, so I get you. But let’s cross that bridge when we’re there. Until then, men should be allowed to be affectionate to one another without having a progressive labelled forced on them.

        • Dylan Hysen says:

          Really don’t like the “forced upon them language”. The episode could be presenting a romantic relationship and nothing would be different. I think you’re too close to straight-defaulting.

          • Tyrone Wells Jr. says:

            So, let’s be clear, we’re in complete agreement here. There should be m/m gay representation in kids shows. And men should be allowed to be affectionate without assumptions about their sexual preferences.

            If you don’t like the “forced upon them language” then we’re also in agreement, because neither do I, it’s the reason I made the post in the first place.

            I’m at the point where I’m eager to see m/m gay representation in cartoons just as much as I’m excited to see pultonic bromance between two men who don’t have to outline their sexuality in any sort prior/during moments of affection. It’s nuanced, I know, but equally poorly represented I believe (and maybe just as important? I’d be happy to discuss!). I just think you’re so excited for former than you’re letting it override the later.

            Um, in a more technical level,

            Here’s where you’ve confused me. You’ve assumed that by me saying just “men” all this time you defaulted to thinking I was talking about “straight men”. Then you turned around and suggested that *I* may be the one “straight-defaulting”.

            Me saying “men should be allowed to hug each other without it automatically being assumed that their gay” doesn’t assume that they’re straight by default. “Men” is explicitly a neutral term. That’s why I used it.

            Ex. “*Straight* men should be allowed…” makes the assumption you’re looking for. “Gay men should be allowed…” makes an equally detrimental assumption. “Men” alone makes zero assumptions, it’s explicitly neutral. And I hope you take this to heart–because reflex accusations can really pull away from a higher level of discussion.

            I just want to make sure you know when to use the term “straight-defaulting” properly, because, again, no one likes having progressive labels haphazardly forced on them.

            For the record, I don’t like “gay-defaulting” anymore than I like “straight-defaulting”. And I’m pretty sure you don’t either (?). I think we’re all in agreement here. Which brings us to our points:

            Your point(?):

            “There’s little gay m/m representation in TV. These men on TV are affectionate. They might be gay, and if they are, I support it and, honestly, hope that’s the case. Modern television, especially children’s programming could really use that and SU has been a great vehicle for fair representation of special groups. This would be a great opportunity. But if not, and they happened to be strictly straight men that are affectionate, that’s fine too.”


            My point:

            “These men are affectionate. Cool.”

          • Dylan Hysen says:

            So I think you’re arguing that you’re not straight-defaulting, you’re non-romance defaulting because you think that’s what that scene presented. Completely fair, but I’m saying that it’s also 100% valid to interpret that scene as romantic. I don’t think kissing or love declarations should be requisite to interpret scenes that way (even though I do get annoyed when people do this for male-female ones). Basically, I don’t think I’m applying something that isn’t there, I think that scene is that way. That’s why it’s a different interpretation!

  3. Geri Danton says:

    Mr. Frowney reminded me of Eeyore.

    At the risk of sounding obtuse, there were some things about this episode I just didn’t get. What did Mr. Frowney realize at the end when he said he finally got the joke, and why did he realize it now and never before? Why did Mr. Smiley act like he had some big epiphany after Steven asks him if he ever told Mr. Frowney how sad he was making him? Mr. Smiley never really tells him that even when they meet at the bus stop. Am I missing something?

  4. Alex says:

    Justin stock WAY UP. He’s not cynical often, but he’s chosen the perfect spot to do it and I loved it.

    This wasn’t as disappointing as Justin made out at first, but nowhere near as good as Dylan expressed. Frankly, the show has given very little reason to care about Smiley or a one-off human character. (One-off gems have been handled much better imo.)

    I’m on your side Justin.

  5. Steve says:

    This episode was okay, thought I am frustrated why can’t they incorporate more gem involvement in this Beach City plot episodes, wouldn’t be too much if Peridot was one of the customers in this episode, how much better would it better.

    I don’t know, this episode is okay, is not as great as Dylan thinks, or as bad as Justin thinks. This episode was just meh to me.

  6. Steve says:

    So there have been changes to the SU schedule, “Last One Out Of Beach City” is airing next week, and two weeks from now “Tiger Philanthorpist” and “Gem Harvest”.

    I know the episode description for “Last One Out Of Beach”.

  7. Steve says:

    If Mr. Smiley and Mr. Frowney are a couple, I want them to meet Lapis and Peridot, and go on a double date.

  8. akp13 says:

    #JustinStockDown Leave Mr.Smiley alone!

    Honestly though, the show doesn’t really take Mr.Smiley caring a lot about money as a negative, and neither does Steven. I don’t understand the hate for him. And genuinely, I didn’t care one way or the other about him but I still emotionally resonated with the ending regardless. I’m gonna rewatch the ending scene again soon. This is definitely better than most of the boardie episodes from Summer of Steven AND it was gay!

    I know school’s back and it sucks, trust me I have 16 engineering credits this semester I understand, but don’t let that cloud your mind!

    Watch next week’s episode be not plot heavy…

  9. Roy says:

    The episode had some cute moments and some funny moments but didn’t particularly stick out in either a good way or a bad way for me. Although it did sort confirm something for me. Future Vision isn’t infallible and seems to be dependent what information the user has. Steven could see a good outcome and yet there was one . I imagine this shortcoming of Future Vision will come up again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *