Family Guy Discussion Thread

[WinterSolstice]

What are everyone's thoughts regarding Family Guy?

Is it

1. the shining future for scripted television comedies/animated shows with exciting stories, hilarious moments, empathic characters and clever social commentary that is the future television and of humor itself?

or....

2. Is it an overrated sludgepile of disjointed and cliche comedic gags stapled onto a contrived storyline into a sputtering, IQ-reducing and sleep-inducing 22 minutes?

or maybe somewhere in-between all that?

Personally, I thought the first 3 seasons before it's cancellation were brilliant. The humor relied less on non-sequiturs and "Goes on for so long it's funny" gags and more on cut-aways that were either directly, or closely related to what was happening in the story.

After their renewal, they had what every canceled TV show dreams of: a fanbase that was so loyal, so numerous and so dedicated to the series, that it RESURRECTED THE SHOW FROM THE DEAD
and what'd they do?
they gave their fans what they thought they desired...
and in my opinion at least, it turned the series into the 2nd description above.

I cite Family Guy as precedent for my arguments that sometimes (though not always) a show's best option is to go out in a blaze of cancellation glory, leaving it's fanbase mildly disappointed, but at the same time hopeful in the anticipation for new content staring their beloved characters...*cough* *cough* FUTURAMA *cough* *cough*

[Fawkes]

I predict that this thread will devolve into a flame war within 10 posts. that said, I like Family Guy well enough, but its not one of my favorites. I prefer the first three seasons, but I don't think the new seasons are terrible.

Bottom line is, it's just a cartoon.

[Oregano]

I think the first three seasons are good with the fourth and fifth being okay but not great and the newer ones are much funnier but it's in a complete different way, either way I enjoy the show.

[snoopy13a]

Personally, I thought the first 3 seasons before it's cancellation were brilliant. The humor relied less on non-sequiturs and "Goes on for so long it's funny" gags and more on cut-aways that were either directly, or closely related to what was happening in the story.



The first couple of seasons really pushed the envelope at the time. I remember episodes where my jaw would just drop.

I don't think the shock value is there anymore and probably people watching those episodes for the first time wouldn't be shocked due to shifts in our culture. For example, The Simpsons was incredibly controversial when it came out. However, if you look back at the first season, you'd wonder what the big deal was about.

[BlueWizard]

I enjoy it, but I'd be between the two options mentioned above.

[Starscream]

I like it. I don't love it. I did for a while.

It's not so much that the show has dropped in quality, as I've found better things to occupy my time with. I still watch it whenever I happen to catch it, but it's not something I go out of my way to see anymore.

But yeah, it's just a show. There's much worse on television. Every now and then they show a burst of brilliance, like Blue Harvest. But for the most part it is better than the recent seasons of Simpsons, but not as good as the older ones.

[Salt_Crow]

I love it even if it's only for the cliches XD

it seriously needs more puns though :(

[Xuincherguixe]

I like it. It's not great. But like The Simpsons there actually is some stuff to think about buried in beneath the surface. There's a lot of stupidity, but there's too much actually smart stuff in there to call it dumb.

[Winter_Wolf]

Can't it be both 1 and 2? 'Cause I know I've had some eps which I really enjoyed, others which I like the first time I saw them, and some real stinkers. Generally speaking I find that putting musical numbers in an episode kills it for me immediately.

The one where Peter becomes a Patriot just died the second he started doing his gawdawful patootie song or whatever the hell it was. Schmoopy? Floozy? Something I just wanted to smack the writers for anyway.

Some of their gags run just a little too long, like they desperately wish they could just come out of the tv and bludgeon the viewer between the eyes with a frozen salmon or something.

But yeah, I like the show well enough, though I'm not a rabid fan.

[Starscream]

The one where Peter becomes a Patriot just died the second he started doing his gawdawful patootie song or whatever the hell it was. Schmoopy? Floozy? Something I just wanted to smack the writers for anyway.

It's Shipoopi from The Music Man. Seth McFarlane is a musical nut, and includes lots of this sort of thing. It tends to be funny if you get the reference, tedious if you do not.

My favorite was the shot by shot re-creation of "Somewhere That's Green" from Little Shop of Horrors. I had seen that movie and thought it was hilarious. My brother (a huge FG fan is ever there was one) had not and just wanted it to end.

[Mando Knight]

I like the ones with the more obscure, intellectual references.

I also find EVIL!Stewie better than Not-Quite-Ambiguously-Gay-Stewie. Because crazy evil schemes are fun.

[T-O-E]

Two.

I just don't think it's funny.

[Mr. Scaly]

I predict that this thread will devolve into a flame war within 10 posts. that said, I like Family Guy well enough, but its not one of my favorites. I prefer the first three seasons, but I don't think the new seasons are terrible.

Bottom line is, it's just a cartoon.

How many posts has it been so far?

FAmILy GuY IS TEH SUXXORZ!!!11! :smallbiggrin:

[Jølly]

It's ok. I used to love it back in the day but lately it just doesn't appeal to me as much.

Also...was never a big fan of Stewie. Everyone else seemed to love him but he was just meh for me. Peter was always my favorite followed by Brian. :smalltongue:

[Enlong]

How many posts has it been so far?

FAmILy GuY IS TEH SUXXORZ!!!11! :smallbiggrin:

13. You fail!

That was almost as bad as the time that slowpoke guy failed to get the 50 millionth post in his message board.


Anyway, it's... not that bad of a show, but there's a lot of times where the show just... really offends me. But that's political stuff, so I won't get into it here.

However, I think I actually like American Dad a bit more then Family Guy, though it isn't on as often.

[Mr. Scaly]

13. You fail!

That was almost as bad as the time that slowpoke guy failed to get the 50 millionth post in his message board.


Anyway, it's... not that bad of a show, but there's a lot of times where the show just... really offends me. But that's political stuff, so I won't get into it here.

However, I think I actually like American Dad a bit more then Family Guy, though it isn't on as often.

Darn it! XD

Ah well. Anyway, it's probably Peter who singlehandedly ruins the show for me. Ironic actually.

[kpenguin]

Anyway, it's... not that bad of a show, but there's a lot of times where the show just... really offends me. But that's political stuff, so I won't get into it here.

However, I think I actually like American Dad a bit more then Family Guy, though it isn't on as often.

It's sad how American Dad has actually become less political than Family Guy.

I agree with most of Seth McFarlane's views, but the anvilicious way in which he presents them in Family Guy make me cringe.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Brian's awesome and the only normal character on the show. Stewie is funny. Peter is a dumb jackass who should be hanged, shot and quartered.

Basically that sums it up... Episodes that are heavy on Brian or Stewie are the first type of episodes. Episodes that are heavy on Peter (with rare exceptions like the one with the car GPS) are two.

[zyphyr]

Episodes that are heavy on Brian or Stewie are the first type of episodes.

Especially the Brian and Stewie roadtrip episodes.

[kpenguin]

Especially the Brian and Stewie roadtrip episodes.

Man, I love those. I'm a sucker for musical numbers.

[Turcano]

Brian's awesome and the only normal character on the show. Stewie is funny. Peter is a dumb jackass who should be hanged, shot and quartered.

Basically that sums it up... Episodes that are heavy on Brian or Stewie are the first type of episodes. Episodes that are heavy on Peter (with rare exceptions like the one with the car GPS) are two.

Yeah. If Seth got rid of two-thirds of the main cast and turned it into The Brian & Stewie Show, it would probably be a lot better received. Still, at least it's not as bad as American Dad; that show reaches Carrot Top levels of unfunny.

[Dhavaer]

I like it almost enough to watch it. I really like the clip on youtube of Stewie beating up Brian over $50, but then it got buried under a bunch of 50 Cent music videos and now I can't find it. Very annoying.

[The Blackbird]

It's an okay show, Stewie turning gay was sorta lame though, it's not the fact that he's homosexual but he stopped being an evil mastermind, so that failed.

There newer ones are usually not very good. Though the one were Stewie kidnaps the cast of Star Trek was pretty good.

[Innis Cabal]

[QUOTE=Blackbird97;6015316]It's an okay show, Stewie turning gay was sorta lame though, it's not the fact that he's homosexual but he stopped being an evil mastermind, so that failed.QUOTE]

He was always homosexual....from the first episode...

[afroakuma]

Well, tonight's episode is the first to ever piss me off. :smallsigh:

[Mando Knight]

He was always homosexual....from the first episode...

Really? Huh. The early Stewie doesn't show that nearly as much as the later Stewie. Early Stewie's mostly about the evil plans to destroy Lois and Broccoli and Get Joe's Chair, etc.

[Innis Cabal]

Really? Huh. The early Stewie doesn't show that nearly as much as the later Stewie. Early Stewie's mostly about the evil plans to destroy Lois and Broccoli and Get Joe's Chair, etc.

Its there, even in his b-day episode. Its way overplayed as the series goes, but like all jokes from the start thats the case. Like Meg going from the families favorite and Chris being a freak to Meg being hated for -no- reason

[WarriorTribble]

Count me in as one who thinks Family Guy is ok fun, but doesn't like Peter, and thinks the show would be vastly improved w/o him. He gets to me not because he's annoying and stupid, but because he can get away with being stupid and annoying.

[Sequinox]

I like it... I'm not a diehard fan or anything, but I like it.

[Fawkes]

Well, tonight's episode is the first to ever piss me off. :smallsigh:

I didn't see it. What was wrong with it?

For the record, the first Family Guy to really offend me was Boys Do Cry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Do_Cry), where the message of the episode was basically "Texas sucks."

[Mr. Scaly]

I think the series died for me when Joe got leg transplants. Then Peter, Cleveland and Quagmire didn't like his new attitude and conspired to recripple. Never once is this treated as anything but a good thing.

[afroakuma]

I didn't see it. What was wrong with it?

Halfway song-and-dance about the joys of marijuana use.

[Xallace]

I started watching Family Guy because I needed something that wasn't intense and dramatic before I went to bed, and Whose Line is it Anyway? was canceled. Nothing too great, nothing too bad. I mean, it had the occasional gem (I still laugh just thinking about the "MC Escher Rap Video" and "I wasn't aware Greenburg was a Jedi name"), but for the most part it was just light, stupid cartooniness. So I suppose it did what I needed it to, but it never really stood out.

Now as the series went on, I started rolling my eyes more than I smiled, and then I started cringing. So I left Family Guy and instead watched Japanese game shows on YouTube. Those have yet to disappoint.

[chiasaur11]

Two.

I just don't think it's funny.

What the psychotic trenchcoat wearing vigilante said.

[kpenguin]

What the psychotic trenchcoat wearing vigilante said.

Which one?

[Tyrant]

Halfway song-and-dance about the joys of marijuana use.
That's all? I thought I missed something in the episode.

[chiasaur11]

Which one?

Aaron Stack, when available.

But as he isn't on this board, I'm going with Troll's answer.

[kpenguin]

I found the death of James detestable.

[Fawkes]

I found the death of James detestable.

Who's James?

[chiasaur11]

Who's James?

Tom Francis's blog.

However, that site is alive and well, so probably not.

[TheSummoner]

Worst show on TV. Wasn't bad at all in early seasons, before the cancellation and comeback... you know, when the references to whatever usually had some connection to what was going on and weren't so constant.

Nowadays, however, the show is nothing but non-sequitor, repetition to the point of annoyance, and slapstick all wrapped into the dirty threads of a plotline stolen from a better show.

Honestly, the fact that so many people like this trash is evidence makes me worry that foreigners may be right when they say most Americans are idiots...

[onasuma]

You clearly dont understand the word "worst." Family guy isnt as great as it used to be, but there are some steaming piles out there, and family guy isnt one of them. Id sooner watch Family guy to dozens of shows (Jeremy Kyle, Big brother, the starwars prequels, Britains got Talent... The list is endless)

[TheSummoner]

While I agree those are steaming piles, atleast they made an attempt to do... anything.

But I'm sure we can all see the hilarity in making a joke about that "One time I ate mexican food witht he pope in New Zealand" before randomly smashing a chair over a baby's head and farting.

[WinterSolstice]

I think the series died for me when Joe got leg transplants. Then Peter, Cleveland and Quagmire didn't like his new attitude and conspired to recripple. Never once is this treated as anything but a good thing.

This is an excellent example of a major problem I have with the show.

There is NO justification given as to why the characters have close friends/family relationships. They continually do horrible things to one another with little to no explanation or reasoning and feel no remorse, nor do they learn any lessons.

I realize it's "just a cartoon" but if you're just going to have the characters do whatever the plot requires regardless of everything they've ever done before, why even have characters to begin with? Just change the format to an animated version of Robot Chicken (which, despite being 15 minutes of random, pop-culture comedy, has actually produced far-better premises and storylines than most Family Guy episodes) and you've gotten rid of those annoying "story" and "character development" anchors that were so difficult to write fart jokes around.

Also, to the argument that there is far worse on TV, I fervently agree....but it's not really fair to compare reality shows with animated comedies, and I doubt there are very many scripted primetime cartoons that are worse than Family Guy.

-ps- James was Quagmire's cat, which his 3 "friends" decided was making him "a queer" so, being the loyal, trustworthy friends they are, decided to kidnap and kill it.

[Tyrant]

This is an excellent example of a major problem I have with the show.

There is NO justification given as to why the characters have close friends/family relationships. They continually do horrible things to one another with little to no explanation or reasoning and feel no remorse, nor do they learn any lessons.
Kind of like Seinfeld? Now, the "horrible deeds" in that show weren't quite as bad, but the final episode should have driven home the point that those four could ruin people's lives (in a humorous manner) and not have the slightest care about it. And it is considered one of the best shows ever. Family Guy, being an animated show, can push the envelope a lot farther (and is usually not quite as funny). Seinfeld had other things going for it, obviously, but that was a recurring factor in one episode after another.

As for the cast in Family Guy being together, there's only a couple I don't get. I don't understand why Lois would stay with Peter for any other than to stick it to her dad. Peter obviously stays with Lois because he knows he can't get another woman even remotely close to her. The kids don't exactly have much choice. Meg is probably the only one smart enough to realise she's in a bad situation. Brian sticks around purely to be entertained as near as I can tell. Joe laid out why he stays with everybody when he got new legs. Glen can realistically only hope to have a certain level of friends given that he is obviously a rapist among other things so he probably considers himself lucky. Cleveland has no self esteem so he will hang out with whoever will accompany him to the bar. And they all live right around each other.


I realize it's "just a cartoon" but if you're just going to have the characters do whatever the plot requires regardless of everything they've ever done before, why even have characters to begin with? Just change the format to an animated version of Robot Chicken (which, despite being 15 minutes of random, pop-culture comedy, has actually produced far-better premises and storylines than most Family Guy episodes) and you've gotten rid of those annoying "story" and "character development" anchors that were so difficult to write fart jokes around.
This also covers a huge number of Simpsons episodes. And about any animated show on Adult Swim along side Family Guy like Aqua Teens, Sealab, Moral Oral, Tom Goes to the Mayor, Squidbillies, Metalocalypse, and Xavier. I would include Frisky Dingo but there seemed to be a central plot running through it.

Also, to the argument that there is far worse on TV, I fervently agree....but it's not really fair to compare reality shows with animated comedies, and I doubt there are very many scripted primetime cartoons that are worse than Family Guy.
How many scripted prime time cartoons exist besides Family Guy? It's not hard being the worst when you're competition is single digits. That says nothing. If you're going to compare it to prime time, you need to compare it to the rest of prime time to have any meaning.

The show is far from perfect and I can understand why some people have a problem with it. However, calling it the worst show on TV tells me you're either engaging in sensationalism or you don't watch much TV. It's like hearing people say that about movies. Especially movies that have some redeeming quality. Calling things you don't like the worst ever just lets people know to tune you out later on.

[MCerberus]

I like Family Guy as an Id comedy. It's not meant to be serious or provocative; silly things are done because they are silly. That said, lately I think it's been taking that too far. What point was there really to have a 5 minute song about pot?

Regarding Adult Swim, a lot of what they do is parody of other things. Sealab2021 and Venture Brothers are the most obvious parodies, and they're (in my opinion) very funny and successful at destroying their sources. They managed to make Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ultra-violent. There's a lot of creativity in their warping.


Of course none of these hold a candle to Futurama in my eyes. It was funny and each episode had a plot made sense in context of the setting.

[JMobius]

Kind of like Seinfeld? Now, the "horrible deeds" in that show weren't quite as bad, but the final episode should have driven home the point that those four could ruin people's lives (in a humorous manner) and not have the slightest care about it. And it is considered one of the best shows ever. Family Guy, being an animated show, can push the envelope a lot farther (and is usually not quite as funny). Seinfeld had other things going for it, obviously, but that was a recurring factor in one episode after another.

This wasn't quite his point. He asked why the main cast stick together as friends and family when they do horrible things to one another on a regular basis. The main characters of Seinfeld were decided sociopaths, but not toward one another.

[WinterSolstice]

This also covers a huge number of Simpsons episodes.

what constitutes a "huge number"? The Simpsons hasn't been perfect, but from my perspective even a sub-par episode of the Simpsons is still a fairly consistent experience, and it's been around for 20 seasons. Family Guy has suffered from the problems listed above (from my reckoning) since the tail-end of Season 3, with a few exceptions in-between. That's roughly half the series.



How many scripted prime time cartoons exist besides Family Guy? It's not hard being the worst when you're competition is single digits. That says nothing. If you're going to compare it to prime time, you need to compare it to the rest of prime time to have any meaning.

fair enough. But even by those standards its definitely not high on the list


... Especially movies that have some redeeming quality. Calling things you don't like the worst ever just lets people know to tune you out later on.

I honestly see no redeeming qualities in Family Guy, apart from maybe a cheap laugh here and there, which any show can generate. As for the "worst ever" statement, I'm not sure that's exactly how I phrased it, but the series and everything it entails comes close in its category to such a level, in my mind at least.

[chiasaur11]

This wasn't quite his point. He asked why the main cast stick together as friends and family when they do horrible things to one another on a regular basis. The main characters of Seinfeld were decided sociopaths, but not toward one another.

At least not nearly as often as towards others.

[FatJose]

I watch it out of boredom but I don't like the show very much. The writers make a 5 minute story and fill the 17 other minutes with completely unrelated jokes. I think I stopped respecting the people behind the series after that Moby **** joke.

I find it annoying that South Park made fun of them while also admitting that they weren't perfect either. Matt and Trey admit in their own episode that South Park is preachy but if there is a worst offender it's Family Guy. South Park may have its own political views but they implement it in a well written show. The only reason it may feel like they force feed the moral to you is because the end of the episodes are a parody of all those kid's shows with an ending message or moral.

Family Guy just does 5 minutes of Point A-B plot and if Seth wants to make his views known he'll just slightly alter one of the 17 minutes of random jokes with a flat, unfunny message. Example: McCain/Palin Nazis, The entire Marijuana episode, Everything regarding religion. Its never even done as a joke, it will usually be done as a lecture or mean spirited slandering. There's a reason why Brian who's views are identical to Seth's has the exact same voice as him. It's because the character acts as his voice.

The FOX-y Lady episode they don't even explain how the status quo was kept. That's their little joke, "We're too lazy to care about ending this episode so we will flat out say we dont care." Bad writing, Bad bad writing.

[Fawkes]

I'm not sure Family Guy really qualifies as "prime time." It gets most of its airtime on a cable network (Cartoon Network/Adult Swim), and premieres new episodes on Sunday.

[TheSummoner]

FatJose, THANK YOU... I didn't want to be that guy who brought up McFarlane's political preachiness, but since you've opened the doors, I'm coming right in.

Whether or not you agree with any given political view, the most annoying thing is a preachy bastard. The kind of person who tries to force their views on you. This is made worse when they have no idea what they're talking about and worse still when they don't even TRY to justify their point. Yes, McFarlane... Hitler was republican, everyone who believes abortion to be akin to murder is an idiot whose never had consentual sex, there is no god despite the fact that he and jesus are practically recurring characters, randomly smashing an animal's face in for no reason other than shock comedy is perfectly ok.

Someone once told me that the "writers" on that show actually have a vault where they keep their "jokes." Whenever they half-ass steal a plotline, they simply pull enough "jokes" from that vault to fill a half hour time slot. I have no idea how true that is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it actually was true.

Also, Seinfeld was brilliant. It was a show about nothing, sure, but although there was no overarching theme, the episodes were clever and funny. Scrubs proves that cutaway humor CAN be used and actually be funny, but unlike Family Guy, Scrubs cutaway jokes are actually related to what is currently going on. Scrubs is also able to stand on its own both in humor and more serious stories (you try holding back that tear while watching "My Lunch").

[Jølly]

Wow...sounds like the show has become worse the past few seasons. I haven't been paying too much attention. Perhaps I should start watching again to see what all this is about. :smalltongue:

[thegurullamen]

I concur. I carry similar views as McFarland, but I can barely stand to see FG at its preachiest. The show practically redefines what it means to argue a strawman. The atheism ep was among the worst offenders.

I still think it can be funny, but this is a show that might need some Executive Meddling.

[Innis Cabal]

I find it annoying that South Park made fun of them while also admitting that they weren't perfect either. Matt and Trey admit in their own episode that South Park is preachy but if there is a worst offender it's Family Guy. South Park may have its own political views but they implement it in a well written show. The only reason it may feel like they force feed the moral to you is because the end of the episodes are a parody of all those kid's shows with an ending message or moral.

Thats really all up to personal opinion....its neither here nor there but to say that its better because its well written...there are some great joke in Family guy. Some absolute brillant moments of comedy.

[TheSummoner]

Such as?

That one time they made a joke about rape?

Or how about that one time they did a joke about animal abuse?

And how about that one time he fought the ****ing chicken for 10 minutes for no reason at all? Or the other 7 times he did that?

[Innis Cabal]

Its all up to personal tastes...it dosn't matter what I list, there is no reason for you to admit it if you really dislike the show.

I'm just saying that going off the "Well its better because its well written" is a matter of taste, and really what this whole thread is about, not really southpark that is...but in general.

[TheSummoner]

Yes, random, interchangeable jokes with no plot purpose is the pinnacle of comedic writing. I have seen the light *rolls eyes*

[kpenguin]

Yes, random, interchangeable jokes with no plot purpose is the pinnacle of comedic writing. I have seen the light *rolls eyes*

To be honest, that's a sketch comedy, a great form of comedy.

I sometimes wonder if Monty Python sketches were written as Family Guy cutaways they would draw as much fire as normal Family Guy cutaways.

"Geez, this is as annoying as when Lois tried ordering something at that restaurant that only served spam"

[Lord Seth]

I concur. I carry similar views as McFarland, but I can barely stand to see FG at its preachiest. The show practically redefines what it means to argue a strawman. The atheism ep was among the worst offenders.That episode was awful. It felt more like a Chick tract than a sitcom episode.

And the worst thing? The B-plot, that of Stewie and the Next Generation cast, was actually pretty funny, something Family Guy has been lacking for quite some time now. They could've gotten enough jokes out of that to fill up the entire episode, but didn't bother. I especially felt cheated because the TNG cast showing up was what they advertised, so I tuned in expecting lots of great Star Trek jokes, only to discover that the advertised section was the B-plot and the actual plot was an anti-religious rant they barely even bothered disguising.

I used to love Family Guy, but its quality declined considerably so I gave up watching it. Every time I decide to come back and check out a new episode to see if it got better, it just gives me more resolve to stop watching it.

[thegurullamen]

That episode was awful. It felt more like a Chick tract than a sitcom episode.

And the worst thing? The B-plot, that of Stewie and the Next Generation cast, was actually pretty funny, something Family Guy has been lacking for quite some time now. They could've gotten enough jokes out of that to fill up the entire episode, but didn't bother. I especially felt cheated because the TNG cast showing up was what they advertised, so I tuned in expecting lots of great Star Trek jokes, only to discover that the advertised section was the B-plot and the actual plot was an anti-religious rant they barely even bothered disguising.

I was ticked, too. That whole ep might qualify as a Wall Banger. 1) Anvilicious. 2) All of the guest stars but Patrick Stewart had only one or two good lines at the most. What's the point of bringing in so many guest stars if you throw them into a B-plot AND give most of the meaningful lines to the guy already on the company payroll? (Stewart's a semi-regular on American Dad.)

[TheSummoner]

To be honest, that's a sketch comedy, a great form of comedy.

I sometimes wonder if Monty Python sketches were written as Family Guy cutaways they would draw as much fire as normal Family Guy cutaways.

"Geez, this is as annoying as when Lois tried ordering something at that restaurant that only served spam"

No, its not a sketch comedy. Its random pointless garbage. If it were a sketch comedy, they wouldn't bother with an episode plot. If it were a sketch comedy, each joke would be given a setup with a plot of its own. Each plotline would obviously be shorter and would likely never be brought up after the particular sketch.

[kpenguin]

Actually, I could see the episode plot as a framing device for the sketches... although that's not the intent of Family Guy, I could see something like that being executed fairly well.

[TheSummoner]

Yeah... maybe if the writing staff on that show had any talent and half the jokes weren't complete idiotic nonsence, something like that could work. Not going to happen, but in theory it might become something watchable if you completly overhauled the show.

[FatJose]

Thats really all up to personal opinion....its neither here nor there but to say that its better because its well written...there are some great joke in Family guy. Some absolute brillant moments of comedy.

If it's personal opinion and not fact that a show that spends 10 minutes writing a script and then uses a manatee tank of random jokes to fill up extra time is lazy and terrible writing then yes that is my opinion. I'm not saying Family Guy is never funny, but the writing is non-existent. Stand-Up comics have better plot and continuity going on in their acts.

And yeah, they do have a vault of unused jokes that they now call manatee gags after the South Park episode. I'm one of those people who will watch a dvd and then re watch all the commentary. They have mentioned on those tracks multiple times of jokes that were used in an episode many seasons after being written and of jokes yet to be used.

Also, I don't care what anyone calls "opinion" or "varying tastes" when it comes to the last few episodes. CONWAY TWITTY. No! They used him twice in this last season and one of those times it was a full 3 minutes of C.T. It's not funny. It's not even in the vein of comedy.

[WinterSolstice]

... CONWAY TWITTY. No! They used him twice in this last season and one of those times it was a full 3 minutes of C.T. It's not funny. It's not even in the vein of comedy.

Good point. Earlier in the series, they at least animated their cheap, time-filling material themselves. This segment ate up at least 6-8 minutes of the episode, almost 1/3 of the entire runtime.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the script meeting for this episode.

Writer 1: "So Peter realizes he needs a distraction, and we cut to old footage of Conway Twitty for 3 minutes that we don't have to animate or write jokes into!"

Reviewer: "HAHA! sounds great!"

Writer 2: "then the gags continue for awhile, we throw in a bit more plot, and then...cut to 4 minutes of CONWAY TWITTY AGAIN! And if we still can't get the episode up to speed, we'll do it 2-3 more times"

Reviewer: "My God, you guys have a gift. This gag is too rich to be limited to just this episode!"

[Avilan the Grey]

I was ticked, too. That whole ep might qualify as a Wall Banger. 1) Anvilicious. 2) All of the guest stars but Patrick Stewart had only one or two good lines at the most. What's the point of bringing in so many guest stars if you throw them into a B-plot AND give most of the meaningful lines to the guy already on the company payroll? (Stewart's a semi-regular on American Dad.)


2) They wantedto do it.

Other than that, as a general comment: I like the show; it's not my favourite, but I like it. However I find the criticism here funny since I am from Sweden, and like the rest of Scandinavia our politics are so much far to the left that even most "liberal" ideas "preached" in the show feels a little to-the-right-ish.

Besides, if there is something that needs a constant challenging it is organized religion.

As for Conway Twitty: Both me and my wife lol:ed at those.

[TheSummoner]

You laughed at something not even intended to be funny? You laughed at 4 minutes of straight nothing... twice? Do you, by chance, enjoy watching paint dry? Its roughly the same experience.

If they wanted to bash religion, thats one thing... but theres a funny way to do it and then theres the Family Guy way... A funny way might involve pointing out the holes in religious theory in a snarky way... the Family Guy way is to simply state the character's opinion several times with no proof, and then have the characters laugh at it even though theres not a grain of humor.

[Avilan the Grey]

You laughed at something not even intended to be funny? You laughed at 4 minutes of straight nothing... twice? Do you, by chance, enjoy watching paint dry? Its roughly the same experience.

If they wanted to bash religion, thats one thing... but theres a funny way to do it and then theres the Family Guy way... A funny way might involve pointing out the holes in religious theory in a snarky way... the Family Guy way is to simply state the character's opinion several times with no proof, and then have the characters laugh at it even though theres not a grain of humor.

It WAS funny. It was funny, unfortunately, because it is so incredibly dated.
Now I admit to actually go to one of his concerts, back then, would probably have been (for me) as watching paint dry. But in this context it was really funny, partly, as I said I am sorry to admit, because of the sheer "datedness" and camp factor.

As for bashing religion... Of course it could have been funnier, that's not really what I claimed anyway. I simply stated that I feel that one of the things that really needs to be held up to the light is organized religion as a whole.

[BRC]

Family guy is a prime example of what happens when a show flanderizes itself.
The earlier family guy episodes were more like the simpsons, based around a story. Occasionally, they would do a cut-away non sequitor joke. Once they realized that people found those funny, they started focusing on them, which is why nowadays the story itself seems to be a way to link together the cut-aways.
Another thing they did was draw humor from somthing boring or random, like Peter holding his shin in pain, and stretching it out for a long time. In this case, it was funny because the audience was surpised they would waste that much time with it. Now, we are no longer surprised by it, yet they keep doing it.for example, a recent episode they cut away to a live-action clip of some singer with sideburns doing a song. They played the entire song, three minutes of some guy with sideburns singing.Because all they have is "I can't believe they did that". Only it's no longer funny.

I have a feeling, that family guy is rapidly approaching the following format.
Theme song:
Cut of the family watching television. The show they are watching ends.
Character: This reminds me of the time I did [Activity] with [Celebrity].
Clip of Character doing [Activity] with [Celebrity]
And the rest of the episode is a still frame of everybody staring at that character. Because who would expect twenty minutes of still frame in an comedic cartoon.

Edit: Obviously, I havn't read the thread yet. OR I would have noticed they were discussing that very same sideburned singer only a few posts up.

[TheSummoner]

You forgot the part where they smash someone's face through the TV at the end for no reason at all. Also the fart. Also where McFarlane shamelessly whores his political views. Other than that, I think you're spot on.

[BRC]

You forgot the part where they smash someone's face through the TV at the end for no reason at all. Also the fart. Also where McFarlane shamelessly whores his political views. Other than that, I think you're spot on.
Ah, right. Let me re-evaluate
Theme song:
Cut of the family watching television. The show they are watching ends.
Character: This reminds me of the time I did [Activity] with [Celebrity].
Clip of Character doing [Activity] with [Celebrity]
Brain says something political Peter disagrees with it in a strawmanish manner using a laughable argument (one nobody with half a brain would actually use to disagree with said issue, in fact, one that implies all people who disagree with that issue are stupid). Then he farts. The fart lasts for 20 minutes with the family saying "Eww, Gross, Peter/Dad stop it" over and over again until the episode ends, at which point Meg passes out and crashes face-first into the TV.

[Lord Seth]

As for bashing religion... Of course it could have been funnier, that's not really what I claimed anyway. I simply stated that I feel that one of the things that really needs to be held up to the light is organized religion as a whole.Except it wasn't "held up to the light". It was arguing not against religion, but against a blatant strawman. You might as well say that pointing out flaws in Michael Moore's movies is a way of holding up the problems of liberalism to the light.

But, again, that episode of Family Guy was far more like a Chick tract than a sitcom episode. Gary Stu Who Is Portrayed As Correct About Everything? Check. Strawman Political Who Offers No Convincing Argument? Check. Gary Stu convincing the Strawman Political in the space of a few sentences, with arguments that are awful and unconvincing, but are slightly better than the Strawman Political's non-arguments? Check. Being blatantly unfunny? Check. Being so bad it's actually painful to watch? Check. (okay, the last two might just be my opinions, but other than that you can't deny the similarities)

Actually, I'd say it's arguably worse than a Chick tract. Jack Chick may be an awful writer and an even worse apologist, but at least he's bluntly honest about what his tracts are: attempts to convert people. He doesn't try to hide them as sitcom episodes.

[TheSummoner]

Brilliant! It will be the greatest episode of Family Guy since it came back from cancellation!

Dead serious as pathetic as that is.

[FatJose]

It really should have been seen coming. We are talking about the guy who wrote the episodes of Ace Ventura: the Animated Series.

[WinterSolstice]

Brilliant! It will be the greatest episode of Family Guy since it came back from cancellation!

Dead serious as pathetic as that is.

don't forget to add the point in the episode where the A-plot character blatantly states aloud what they're going to do (happens almost every episode)

"I AM GONNA GROW A MUSTACHE/EAT THE MOST NICKELS/START A ROCK BAND/KILL LOIS!" etc

also, FatJose, if we swapped the word "movie" in your sig with "cartoon", do you think Seth McFarlane would sit up from his office chair and yell "Uh Oh! The Jig is up!" before jumping through his windowpane? :smallwink:

[Tyrant]

This wasn't quite his point. He asked why the main cast stick together as friends and family when they do horrible things to one another on a regular basis. The main characters of Seinfeld were decided sociopaths, but not toward one another.
Someone below me covered this. They do act that way towards one another, just not to the same degree. How often do they put each other down or completely blow things for one another? Usually while laughing about it. Don't get my comparison wrong, Seinfeld was the superior show. I am not trying to compare their level of quality. I am saying that the characters acting like sociopaths isn't exactly something new and was in fact a cental part to one of the most popular shows ever so I don't see the big deal. I also see you totally ignored my reasoning for why they are together.

what constitutes a "huge number"? The Simpsons hasn't been perfect, but from my perspective even a sub-par episode of the Simpsons is still a fairly consistent experience, and it's been around for 20 seasons. Family Guy has suffered from the problems listed above (from my reckoning) since the tail-end of Season 3, with a few exceptions in-between. That's roughly half the series.
I was meaning that there is no central plot running through the series. Not that it's a clip show. With no real cental plot, it's not that different in concept. There is almost no character development. There is some, but not much. The only episode I saw that even brought up past plots was the episode where they blew up the casino. A character was suprised they bothered to move it down the road when the town had to relocate as per "plan B". It was obvious they were viewing continuity as a joke. That was my point. Family Guy takes a couple steps farther.

I honestly see no redeeming qualities in Family Guy, apart from maybe a cheap laugh here and there, which any show can generate. As for the "worst ever" statement, I'm not sure that's exactly how I phrased it, but the series and everything it entails comes close in its category to such a level, in my mind at least.
TheSummoner labeled it the worst and I didn't quote him. He has since elaborated on his view to the point I wonder if he owns stock in whatever Family Guy's main competition is.

My point about saying things are the worst (especially when they are at least somewhat popular) is that it's obvious you are trying to be sensational or you don't deal with whatever it is you are lebeling very often. Like movies. When I go to watch a movie and hear people saying that it's the worst movie ever I know right away that they don't watch many movies. I have seen movies that are truly awful. Most (not all) movies made in the last 10 years that were released in theaters can't hold a candle to some movies I have seen if for no other reason than the fact they actually have a budget. Even those I wouldn't label the worst ever because there are always other movies. The same applies to TV. There are enough shows that seem to be made as entertainment for coma patients that this show can't be the worst. Calling it that is meant purely to get a reaction or to have your view stand out.

I do not think the show is among the best shows on TV. I do watch it when I see it on (unless I have seen the episode too many times) and I do mostly find it funny. I mainly watch it on Adult Swim, so I tend to compare it to what else is on AS. If you want to see something far worse, check out anything Tim and Eric made. Or depending on your taste, Aqua Teens or Squidbillies. You wonder why the characters on Family Guy stay together, give me any reason the characters in Aqua Teens or Squidbillies stay together.

Family Guy does have things I find very unfunny. I hate the jokes that just keep going that aren't funny to start with. Once in a while it's funny, but all the time it just gets tiring. The musical numbers are mostly a waste as far as I am concerned. That's actually one of the only things I didn't like about Blue Harvest, the stormtrooper dance number. That also tied into the other thing I didn't like about that which is that Jasper stayed in character while everyone else mostly assumed their role. I don't find Jasper that funny so having him around for so long and knowing he will be back just didn't do it for me. As for making fun of virtually everything else, I usually find at least some humor in it. I don't think it's genius or anything, but I usually get a few laughs out of it. I can see where others wouldn't like it however.

[ClericPreston]

{Scrubbed}

[Green-Shirt Q]

I actually don't know if I like Family Guy or not.

On one hand, every single time I watch it I am very angry at the amount of unfunny filler.

Yet I still keep tuning in to watch it and I'm disappointed when I miss it!

I suppose it is a show that, while admittably stupider then a bag of hammers and a LOT less funny, still induces some kind of weird enjoyment for me somehow.

Very strange and confusing emotions. :smalleek:

[FatJose]

FatJose, if we swapped the word "movie" in your sig with "cartoon", do you think Seth McFarlane would sit up from his office chair and yell "Uh Oh! The Jig is up!" before jumping through his windowpane? :smallwink:

Ha! Seth might if he hadn't reached a Duke Phillips level of ego that would never pay mind to such things.

"The boys at SouthPark are absolutely correct. Those cutaways and flashbacks have nothing to do with the story. They are just there to be "funny". A shallow indulgence that SouthPark is quite above." - Seth McFarlane

The links. one is in the commentaries. A lot of cursing in the first vid. (http://stewiesplayground.com/2008/05/27/seth-macfarlane-responds-to-the-south-park-family-guy-parody/)

[Tyrant]

South Park's main audience are mature, smart, open-minded, rational adults.
I think that's reaching just a bit. Not to mention you have no way of backing it up. This is on the same level of labeling something the worst ever, only your going the opposite way. The last time I talked with more than one person about South Park I was in high school and it was the extreme nature of the show that was being discussed, not the mature humor. That was a few years ago. I think the show's funny and some of it's jokes are aimed at a more adult audience. I'll even agree it's better written than Family Guy the overwhelming majority of the time, but your claims are ridiculous and trying to make it out to be something it's not.

{Scrubbed}
I assume your comment is an example of "adult, mature" themed humor right? I am absolutely none of those things and I find the show funny more often than not. I would go so far as to say a number of the people who watch this show are none of those things. A friend of mine who is a teacher finds the show quite funny (though he agrees the newer episodes aren't as funny) and I know he is none of those things. He actually complains too many kids he has to deal with are those things. My point is that your extreme generalization is pointless and wrong. I know it seems to be a completely alien concept to people these days but you can say you dislike something without trying to slam anyone who even remotely likes it. It's really not that hard and I typically notice it is people like you describe above who make those kinds of comments because they lack the ability to express themselves in anything other than insults. That's not a sign of maturity.

[BRC]

Personally, I don't think Family Guy was always a bad show. The popularity came from somewhere, and while it was never exactly artistic, it was entertaining, which was it's purpose, and it fulfilled that purpose admirably.

It's recently that the quality has declined, primarily because eventually, they managed to take a couple, simple aspects of family guy and brand them. They took what made family guy different from, say, the Simpsons, distilled that to it's most basic form, and made people want that "Extract of Family Guy" in of itself. Which means that rather than making quality entertainment, they just come up with something, pour this "Family-guy" formula over it, and have the masses lap it up, not because it's good, but because it's Family Guy.

Take, for example, these two most recent author-rant episodes. The idea is that you can take anything, even a one sided and oversimplified political argument, add in some cut-aways and a song. And it's now it's quality entertainment! They are treating Family-guy like Ketchup, pour enough of it on anything, and it's entertainment.
Concerning "All dogs go to heaven", I watched it on Hulu, and it was primarily packaged as a "Stewey hangs out with the cast from Star Trek: TNG". Only the title hinted as to the primary plot.

[MCerberus]

It seems that we're starting to come to a sort of understanding. Family Guy is a cake. Empty calories but many find it delicious. Some people don't like cake; some people prefer different flavors. Some people prefer different fare all together.

We can go on dissecting the whys and debating the individual merits of this show and similar ones (and I hope we do). At this point we need to remember that like or dislike of a TV show is not merit for personal attacks.


As for South Park, it's good for pointing out how silly the viewer is. I doubt anyone has watched the show and not had their own personal beliefs/hobbies/geographical region made fun of. The good episodes are funny and let the viewers laugh at themselves without insulting them. I'm a WoW player, and I found "Make Love not Warcraft" hilarious.

[Fawkes]

"The boys at SouthPark are absolutely correct. Those cutaways and flashbacks have nothing to do with the story. They are just there to be "funny". A shallow indulgence that SouthPark is quite above." - Seth McFarlane

I think it's pretty clear that he's making a joke. I'd bet that Stone and Parker probably laughed at that one themselves.

Cleric Preston, do us all a favor and repeat to yourself, "It's just a show, I should really just relax."

[WinterSolstice]

...It seems that we're starting to come to a sort of understanding. Family Guy is a cake. Empty calories but many find it delicious. Some people don't like cake; some people prefer different flavors. Some people prefer different fare all together...

-Edit-

South Park is a prime-example of how to present a viewpoint in a show. Their show on homosexuality, where Butters get's sent to a "reprogramming camp" intelligently critiqued the situation and delivered what I'd call a "F*** Yeah!" moment near the end.

-"I never thought I was confused until you all started telling me I was!"
-"Maybe you're the ones that are confused!"

I came close to applauding at the television after those lines. (It was also a pretty funny episode)

Compare this to the "Family Gay" episode (actual title) in which Peter gets injected with a "gay gene" which if proven effective, would prove that homosexuality isn't a choice and is genetic.....

This was just plain stupid. So homosexuality is only permissible if its genetic? That's the message I took from this episode.

...Also it ended with an "11-way" in which Peters "Gay Gene" "WEARS OFF"...somehow and he runs back home, disgusted. South Park's the clear winner here in every regard, and they've bested FG on multiple topics

[Tyrant]

I'd liken Family Guy to the entertainment equivalent of sniffing paint. Sure, it's... fun for some, but they're probably not better off for it, and the people that don't enjoy it can't understand why those that do are able to.
And here's why it's impossible to have a discussion with some people. You don't like it, so it is terrible and everyone who does like it is a retarded person sniffing paint. Wow. I take it this is the "adult, mature" mindset attracted to South Park? Trying to make the case for South Park being a superior show written for mature adults while belittling those with different tastes doesn't accomplish anything other than making you look even less mature. His analogy was fine and could easily be applied to a number of things where taste is involved. Your analogy is an insult. If I were to just look at the opposing comments I would pick his as the one coming from an adult. Continued insults don't help your case at all. We all get that you don't like the show. What's your goal aside from slamming a popular show (itself a popular way to look cool or edgy) and apparently anyone who likes it?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't insult other posters, individually or collectively.

[WinterSolstice]

And here's why it's impossible to have a discussion with some people. You don't like it, so it is terrible and everyone who does like it is a retarded person sniffing paint. Wow. I take it this is the "adult, mature" mindset attracted to South Park? Trying to make the case for South Park being a superior show written for mature adults while belittling those with different tastes doesn't accomplish anything other than making you look even less mature. His analogy was fine and could easily be applied to a number of things where taste is involved. Your analogy is an insult. If I were to just look at the opposing comments I would pick his as the one coming from an adult. Continued insults don't help your case at all. We all get that you don't like the show. What's your goal aside from slamming a popular show (itself a popular way to look cool or edgy) and apparently anyone who likes it?

I apologize, I didn't intend for it to be interpreted in that manner. I don't care for Family Guy, but I don't hate those who watch it or think less of their intellectual capability (I used to be a huge fan). What I said was a poor choice of words. MCerberus's analogy would certainly suffice.

[Avilan the Grey]

Also where McFarlane shamelessly whores his political views. Other than that, I think you're spot on.

I don't see the problem with this one. You don't like it, you don't watch it. There is a gazillion things I do not watch, read or listen to because it preaches to the quire that already sings the blessing of the politic views of the Show / Magazine / TV channel in question.

After all it is McFarlaine's right to state his opinions, and your right to ignore them.

As for the farts and violence: That is really not worse than southpark, it's just that it's "better drawn" (southpark being cutouts) so that the blood and guts is more visible.

[TheSummoner]

I don't see the problem with this one. You don't like it, you don't watch it. There is a gazillion things I do not watch, read or listen to because it preaches to the quire that already sings the blessing of the politic views of the Show / Magazine / TV channel in question.

After all it is McFarlaine's right to state his opinions, and your right to ignore them.

As for the farts and violence: That is really not worse than southpark, it's just that it's "better drawn" (southpark being cutouts) so that the blood and guts is more visible.

No, its McFarlane's right to have his opinions, not to preach them, especially if the best support for any of his views is that anyone who holds an opposing view is completly retarded.

I actually don't wach it anymore, but considering I have to have an anti-Family Guy rant every week either on the internets or to shut up the mindless fanboys in my classes, it seems damn near impossible to avoid. I'm sure not going to sit through a four hour class having to listen to them ramble off the same quotes a million times.

When South Park does violence, theres always a setup, a reason for the violence, and appropriate timing. Cartman didn't just randomly have Scott Tenorman's parents murdered for no reason other than the writers wanted some shock humor, it was because Carman had to deal with constant humiliation from Scott for the entire episode while trying to get back the money Scott tricked him into giving. Cartman's original plans were... pathetic. Given his obvious and sad attempts, no one would expect him to have Scott's parents killed, then grind up their bodies and cook them into a pot of chili, which he then had Scott eat. It all happened for a reason, it had a long setup that not only made the eventual realization that he was eating his parents even more shocking and horrifying, but also served to show just how far overboard Cartman would go for revenge. He didn't just randomly break a dog's face.

South Park rarely does fart homor other than Terrance and Phillip, and the only reason they exist is because back in the first season, protesters claimed that South Park was "nothing but fart jokes." Matt and Trey's reaction? Create a show within a show to show them exactly what a show that was nothing but fart jokes is. Everything they do has a reason, it may not always be justifiable (once again, Cartman made a kid eat his own parents over about $20), but theres always a reason for it. Its clever, Family Guy isn't.

Hey, remember that one time Family Guy told a witty joke? Wait...

[Tyrant]

I apologize, I didn't intend for it to be interpreted in that manner. I don't care for Family Guy, but I don't hate those who watch it or think less of their intellectual capability (I used to be a huge fan). What I said was a poor choice of words. MCerberus's analogy would certainly suffice.
I probably overreacted. I just get tired of seeing the attitude I outlined everywhere else (mainly the "news") and I just get so sick of being reminded that civil conversation is apparently a lost art these days. I know I myself hold those views about some things, I just don't say it in a public forum because I have a good idea what will happen. Anyway, I believe you didn't intend it that way. I know I have been less than civil before.

No, its McFarlane's right to have his opinions, not to preach them, especially if the best support for any of his views is that anyone who holds an opposing view is completly retarded.
I am reasonably certain he does have the right to express his opinions so long as it doesn't violate the very small number of regulations regarding such things. However, he does also have to deal with everyone else's opinion of his opinion. So, he does have the right to preach all he wants and the networks have allowed him to use their platform. You have the right to counter his preaching in whatever platform allows it. He's not the first person in media that uses his position to preach his views and he won't be the last. As someone else said, if it's a problem ignore him. That's your right.

Its clever, Family Guy isn't.
Fair enough. However, does all comedy have to be clever or witty? Personally, my sense of comedy is diverse (which is not some attempt to say it is superior). A lot of what others tell me is absolutely hilarious I do not find all that funny. I see some things as quite funny and others wonder what I am laughing about. Adam Sandler comes to mind as someone who is a lot more miss than hit with me. What I have seen of Will Farrel on the other hand (which is mainly Anchorman and his SNL days) I find funny most of the time. Something about Family Guy is funny to me some times. I know it isn't clever humor, but it makes me laugh sometimes. Given how much doesn't make me laugh, I will take what I can get and not force myself to stick to some higher level of humor for whatever reason. Some of my tastes are crude and I have no problem with that. However, I do recognise that they are crude which (to me at least) is important.

[ClericPreston]

Allow me to apologize for my words yesterday, I was a bit cranky from my work schedule, and I should not have taken it out on you guys. I am sorry. That being said, I still think that my observations about South Park being much better written, plotted, and paced are still valid. I guess I just like my humor to make sense within the context of the episode's main storyline, as opposed to a bunch of random non sequiturs. I also don't like being preached to in a patronizing, arrogant manner as McFarlane likes to do.

[thegurullamen]

I don't see the problem with this one. You don't like it, you don't watch it. There is a gazillion things I do not watch, read or listen to because it preaches to the choir that already sings the blessing of the politic views of the Show / Magazine / TV channel in question.

After all it is McFarlaine's right to state his opinions, and your right to ignore them.

The problem is that Family Guy suffers when it's used as McFarland's soapbox. Most people who like FG like the earlier episodes more, before strawmans became the norm and the only morals to the stories were Family Unfriendly Aesops. All of us want FG to go back to what it once was. We want to watch it and like it. What we're sore about is that it can't go back until its creators let go of the idea that the show is a mouthpiece for them. But we're willing to wait it out nonetheless on the off chance that the message gets through and things pick up. Until then, we're just stuck with being disappointed.

[Lord Seth]

Fair enough. However, does all comedy have to be clever or wittyNo, but all comedy has to be funny, something that Family Guy has been severely lacking.


I guess I just like my humor to make sense within the context of the episode's main storyline, as opposed to a bunch of random non sequiturs.I don't think non sequitur humor is the problem of Family Guy. BoBoBo-Bo Bo-BoBo, which is the definition of non sequitur humor, is my favorite cartoon, but I still don't find Family Guy's non sequiturs funny. I don't have any problem with non sequitur humor--my favorite cartoon practically runs on it!--so I can say the problem isn't non sequitur humor, it's the fact that it's unfunny non sequitur humor.

Though to be fair, I did find the non sequiturs in the early seasons funny, so there's just another example of how much the series has gone downhill.

[WinterSolstice]

The series is supposedly slated to continue producing episodes until 2012 (at least)...and I honestly have no idea how they'll stretch it out that long.

Couple that with the fact that McFarlame has American Dad...as well as the "Cleveland Show" in production at the same time...they may well dry up the "Manatee Tank" of Pop-culture gags.

By the way, can we establish that objectively, Family Guy is a poor show?
There are those that find it funny, and far be it from me to tell them what to think, for I myself have enjoyed several shows that I knew were poorly composed in some manner. I've seen people defending the humor, which is a valid argument, but that's really more of a personal taste. I have yet to see anyone claim that the show's story elements, characterization, animation and other aspects are anything less than what the shows detractors state.

(not including the "there's worse out there" argument) There are most certainly cartoons more poorly composed than Family Guy, but I fail to think of one that has the financial backing and projection power of a major network like Fox.

thoughts on this?

[Tyrant]

The series is supposedly slated to continue producing episodes until 2012 (at least)...and I honestly have no idea how they'll stretch it out that long.

Couple that with the fact that McFarlame has American Dad...as well as the "Cleveland Show" in production at the same time...they may well dry up the "Manatee Tank" of Pop-culture gags.
That may definately be a bit much. Even I think the well is starting to run a little dry as it is. Maybe the plan is to just keep redoing movies like they did wth Star Wars? Or course that's not terribly original and would also get old fast.


By the way, can we establish that objectively, Family Guy is a poor show? There are those that find it funny, and far be it from me to tell them what to think, for I myself have enjoyed several shows that I knew were poorly composed in some manner. I've seen people defending the humor, which is a valid argument, but that's really more of a personal taste. I have yet to see anyone claim that the show's story elements, characterization, animation and other aspects are anything less than what the shows detractors state.
I would agree with that. I find it funny (off and on) but I wouldn't label it as a well put together show in the way you outline.

(not including the "there's worse out there" argument) There are most certainly cartoons more poorly composed than Family Guy, but I fail to think of one that has the financial backing and projection power of a major network like Fox.
I see your point here. It can make it frustrating. Probably in the same way I get frustrated by the assorted reality shows run on the various networks.

[Cristo Meyers]

(not including the "there's worse out there" argument) There are most certainly cartoons more poorly composed than Family Guy, but I fail to think of one that has the financial backing and projection power of a major network like Fox.

thoughts on this?

Sad part is, until South Park, I think Fox was the only network that would run cartoons like Family Guy save for maybe the premium cable channels.

[Lord Seth]

(not including the "there's worse out there" argument) There are most certainly cartoons more poorly composed than Family Guy, but I fail to think of one that has the financial backing and projection power of a major network like Fox.

thoughts on this?I don't think Fox ever watches Family Guy anymore. They just look at the ratings because if they watched it they'd see how much the quality has dropped, and the ratings let them think "well, of course it's still a good show. We don't have to bother watching the episodes!"

So I figured I should see the newest episode to see what it is, and really...it was bad. Naturally, Brian gets to go on a rant about how marijuana is only legal because of a smear campaign. And the only response the other side gets is Peter farting and saying "THAT'S a smear campaign". Yeah, really subtle. It is, once again, a major part of the toolkit that is Bad Writing: Let your Gary Stu argue for what you believe, then only allow Strawman Political responses.

And the cutaway jokes...I mean, come on. They weren't funny at all and added NOTHING to the joke. In the earlier (and actually good) episodes, they worked because they either made a normal line funny or made a funny line funnier. Here's an example: Peter saying "First I tried painting, then I tried sculpting, then I tried orchestrating" isn't funny, but could pass for a normal line. Here's how they actually played it:
Peter: First I tried painting!
(cutaway to Peter painting a naked man)
Peter (to other painter): Am I...am I supposed to draw the [Male private part]?
(cut back)
Peter: Then I tried sculpting!
(cutaway to Peter making a statue of a naked man)
Peter (to other sculper): Am I...am I supposed to sculpt the [Male private part]?
(cut back)
Peter: Then I tried orchestrating!
(cut to Peter orchestrating)
Peter (to violin player): Am I...am I supposed to conduct with my [Male private part]?
^Sorry, I don't know if I can get away with the word that he used.

As we can see, they took that throwaway line and made it funny (if crude), and even made a running gag out of it.

Contrast that with one from the newest episode. Peter says that he sang to lure sailors to their doom (or something like that), obviously a joke on sirens. Then we get a cutaway to Peter dressed up as a mermaid and singing badly for a while. What was the point of the cutaway? The joke was complete without it, and all the cutaway did was drag it out needlessly. If the only thing the cutaway is doing is restating what the character said and adding no joke to it, then there's no point to it.

[Avilan the Grey]

The series is supposedly slated to continue producing episodes until 2012 (at least)...and I honestly have no idea how they'll stretch it out that long.

Couple that with the fact that McFarlame has American Dad...as well as the "Cleveland Show" in production at the same time...they may well dry up the "Manatee Tank" of Pop-culture gags.

By the way, can we establish that objectively, Family Guy is a poor show?
There are those that find it funny, and far be it from me to tell them what to think, for I myself have enjoyed several shows that I knew were poorly composed in some manner. I've seen people defending the humor, which is a valid argument, but that's really more of a personal taste. I have yet to see anyone claim that the show's story elements, characterization, animation and other aspects are anything less than what the shows detractors state.


He also do (did?) Robot Chicken. Which I love.

I agree here we are arguing about different things. I like most of the humor. I also like all characters except Peter, which I realize is not a fact that speaks in the show's favor.
But the show is mostly quite badly written; that I can agree with.

[chiasaur11]

He also do (did?) Robot Chicken. Which I love.


No, Robot Chicken is by Seth Green, who also appears on Family Guy, making this whole bit more confusing.

Different people. Green's the one who played a Werewolf on a Joss Whedon show.

[Tyrant]

I don't think Fox ever watches Family Guy anymore. They just look at the ratings because if they watched it they'd see how much the quality has dropped, and the ratings let them think "well, of course it's still a good show. We don't have to bother watching the episodes!"

But, from Fox's perspective, if it is selling as well as before (I don't know that for a fact, but it stays on so I assume it is) why should they care what is actually in the show? So long as sponsors continue to buy commercial space during the show (which is the whole goal of any show from the network's perspective), what do they gain from meddling?

It's just like the situation with movie studios. They exist solely to make money. The fact that to do that they sometimes make good movies is a byproduct. Most movies are average at best (which I guess makes sense given what average means), but they make money so apparently average sells. From a business standpoint, why would they want to rock the boat? I wish better made movies were made more frequently, but apparently a lot of people don't have an interest in them. It sucks for me, but it's great for their bottom line when they keep churning out average to below average movies. This is basically what happens with TV as well. Every once in a great while you actually have a well made final product that also sells well, but it doesn't seem to happen often.

Unfortunately the track record isn't great for well made/interesting/original shows and movies that don't hit at just the right moment. Given that their bottom line is the bottom line that they care about, why would they want to mess with something that apparently is working?

That says nothing about the show's quality. As I said above I believe it's quality is questionable in the typical ways one would critique a show. I just think it's unrealistic to expect Fox to question how the goose is laying the golden eggs while it's still laying them.

[WinterSolstice]

And the cutaway jokes...I mean, come on. They weren't funny at all and added NOTHING to the joke. In the earlier (and actually good) episodes, they worked because they either made a normal line funny or made a funny line funnier. Here's an example: Peter saying "First I tried painting, then I tried sculpting, then I tried orchestrating" isn't funny, but could pass for a normal line. Here's how they actually played it:
Peter: First I tried painting!
(cutaway to Peter painting a naked man)
Peter (to other painter): Am I...am I supposed to draw the [Male private part]?
(cut back)
Peter: Then I tried sculpting!
(cutaway to Peter making a statue of a naked man)
Peter (to other sculper): Am I...am I supposed to sculpt the [Male private part]?
(cut back)
Peter: Then I tried orchestrating!
(cut to Peter orchestrating)
Peter (to violin player): Am I...am I supposed to conduct with my [Male private part]?
^Sorry, I don't know if I can get away with the word that he used.

As we can see, they took that throwaway line and made it funny (if crude), and even made a running gag out of it.




This is a prime example of the fluid writing that permeated the series in the first few seasons. Yes this was a 3-part cutaway, but it was a quasi-montage of Peter explaining to Lois the creative outlets he was attempting to find (the "theme" of that particular episode) after being inspired by her work on her broadway show. Also, it was hilarious...I still got a laugh, even by just reading the text and hearkening back to when I first saw it.


Also, this was one running-gag that they reused that actually retained its humor.

Peter explains the job's he's tried involving suits

Peter stands in front of a Fireman whose holding an empty firesuit
"What, I thought you could just wizz in the suit! Y'know, like an astronaut!"

Cuts to Peter standing in front of a clown holding an empty bunny-suit
"What, I thought you could just wizz in the suit! Y'know, like an astronaut!"

Cuts to peter in space in an astronaut suit working on some equipment next to another astronaut.
Peter- "Hey Hold on a sec pal, I gotta wiz"
Astro-"Peter NO! If you take off that suit...you'll die"
Peter-" Aw nice try buddy, what are ya trying to do, get me fired?!"
-unzips suit-fly and gets sucked into space

[Avilan the Grey]

No, Robot Chicken is by Seth Green, who also appears on Family Guy, making this whole bit more confusing.

Different people. Green's the one who played a Werewolf on a Joss Whedon show.

Duh. Yes. I did know that.

[chiasaur11]

Duh. Yes. I did know that.

We all make similar mistakes.

A complete list of mine would fill several pages.

[The Blackbird]

My generic view is this.

South Park does have a lot of lude humor that is not very funny, but when it does make a good episode or a single really good joke it's the laugh of the century.

Family Guy makes a bunch of little gags that make you chuckle, but the general ideas for the episodes for very poor and not funny.

[Avilan the Grey]

My generic view is this.

South Park does have a lot of lude humor that is not very funny, but when it does make a good episode or a single really good joke it's the laugh of the century.

Family Guy makes a bunch of little gags that make you chuckle, but the general ideas for the episodes for very poor and not funny.

Funny, for me it's the exact same but opposite:
Family Guy is basically fart jokes, but now and then they do brilliant episodes (among my favourites are the road trip ones, and the FCC one, "Pete TV").

Southpark for me is exactly as you feel about Family Guy.

[TheSummoner]

That says nothing about the show's quality. As I said above I believe it's quality is questionable in the typical ways one would critique a show. I just think it's unrealistic to expect Fox to question how the goose is laying the golden eggs while it's still laying them.

Indeed, if people will give you gold for garbage, who are you to complain? Thats really what Family Guy comes down to.

[Avilan the Grey]

Indeed, if people will give you gold for garbage, who are you to complain? Thats really what Family Guy comes down to.

Not that I understand what that statement has to do with Family Guy :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, this thread is just boiling down to the usual "low brow vs Good Taste". Or "Common folk vs Snobs", depending on what side of the argument you are on. Basically arguing taste is pointless.

[Innis Cabal]

No, its McFarlane's right to have his opinions, not to preach them, especially if the best support for any of his views is that anyone who holds an opposing view is completly retarded.


Actually, its his right to be able to say them as well. Not to get into politics but...its in the constitution.

[snoopy13a]

There's a very easy step to take if you don't like a particular show:

Don't watch it :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, it makes things quite a bit easier. Also, arguing over taste gets nowhere. Remember the two adages:

1) Different strokes for different folks
2) Whatever floats your boat

[FatJose]

1) Different strokes for different folks

Great show. Gary Coleman's big debut.

[Nevrmore]

To be honest, that's a sketch comedy, a great form of comedy.

I sometimes wonder if Monty Python sketches were written as Family Guy cutaways they would draw as much fire as normal Family Guy cutaways.

"Geez, this is as annoying as when Lois tried ordering something at that restaurant that only served spam"
"This is worse than the time I bought that dead parrot from the pet store."

"This is even better than my job as a lumberjack."

"This is more annoying than that cheese shop that didn't have any cheese."

Yeah, it works for pretty much every one of them.

[Lord Seth]

There's a very easy step to take if you don't like a particular show:

Don't watch it :smallbiggrin:But the thing is, I want to watch it. I want to see Family Guy be as funny and entertaining as it was in the first three seasons. I want to be able to sit down for half an hour and be virtually guaranteed a half hour of entertainment (like whenever I watch The Big Bang Theory). I want to see Family Guy, but the show hasn't just gone downhill, it's jumped off a cliff. That's what annoys me so much: I used to love this show. I want to like the new episodes as much as I liked the old ones, but the people making them seem determined to prevent me from wanting to watch it.

[TheSummoner]

Not that I understand what that statement has to do with Family Guy :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, this thread is just boiling down to the usual "low brow vs Good Taste". Or "Common folk vs Snobs", depending on what side of the argument you are on. Basically arguing taste is pointless.

I'd like to quote the new VG Cats parody of the Colbert Report for your first point.


Why make something great when good sells better?

To take it even further, "Why make something good when aweful sells better?" You're right, why should Fox try to get a good show when people eat up Family Guy? The golden goose may smell like a toilet, but as long as the gold eggs keep coming, why complain?

I wouldn't say its Low Brow vs Good Taste or Commoner vs Snobs... I would never call South Park high brow or for snobs, but its a million times wittier than Family Guy.


Actually, its his right to be able to say them as well. Not to get into politics but...its in the constitution.

I'm not talking about legal rights. If someone stood on a soapbox and began to preach his views, some of which you may agree with, some of which you don't, giving no other support other than having a friend of his argue against it with idiotic arguements that no one really believes, wouldn't that annoy you? What right does the soapbox man have to try to force his opinions on you, especially when hes too lazy to give half-decent support for his views. Legally, you can preach that theres nothing wrong with NAMBLA, but what right should anyone have to shove their views on others?

In the case of Family Guy, its worse... every other day people start talking about it, its enough to drive me insane! (well, more insane anyways)

Because of the cult following of people who just eat up this garbage, its gotten to the point where I pretty much can't just ignore it. With people constantly talking about how much they looooooooove Family Guy, I have to resort to the next best thing, debating how much I LOATHE that show. Honestly, its probably not even because its such a terrible show, its more likely than not because its a terrible show that people love for reasons that make absolutly no sence to me, and never shut up about.


Great show. Gary Coleman's big debut.

Heh... Gary Coleman, he lost everything after that show ended.

[Harperfan7]

I think it's somewhere between one and two. In the early-mid/mid seasons, it was 1 for sure, early on and lately though, it's not so good.

I will say that, regardless of it's quality as a show, it is pure comedy gold and cannot be matched in hilarity, quality or quantity wise. Anymore, it seems like everytime I think of something funny, it's already been on family guy.

I hate how it is a soapbox for seth's political/religious/cultural views, especially through Brian, who used to be my favorite character. I don't care if it expresses a view (it has every right to), but like certain political groups, it whines about close mindedness then bashes other peoples opinions and does plently of demonizing.

Bottom line, the show is great if viewed as a whole. It has the occasional bad episode and frequent bad skits, but overall, it's just great.

EDIT: also, if you don't like it, don't watch it. Nobody forces you to.

[WinterSolstice]

EDIT: also, if you don't like it, don't watch it. Nobody forces you to.

I agree, But this was never really an issue for me. Once King of the Hill and The Simpsons (and now Sit Down and Shut Up) have run their course each sunday, I usually tune out. (Seth McFarlane may fancy himself a genius, but a Groening or Mike Judge he is not)

I'm just curious as to if/why people enjoy the show for reasons other than cheap laughs or guilty indulgences.

I'm also intrigued by people whom I've encountered that state that it's a brilliant show and offer no evidence to substantiate their claims. Enjoying a show is one thing, I try never to attack anyone's personal tastes, but to state that it's a brilliant show in the face of all the reasons that have been laid out on this thread as well as several that have been neglected clearly show that it is not (when critiqued objectively) has me confused.

That said, it is really, for the most part, a fairly harmless show...except for the people that go around quoting snippets from it's political rants and then consider themselves well-versed intellectuals

-"We'll did you know Weed's Illegal because William Randolf Herst started a smear campaign in the 30's and blah blah blah blah blah"

-"Oh really, where'd you find that out?"

-"A fictional talking dog told me"

It's one thing to agree with the points the show makes, but the above has always bothered me.

Have you ever found yourself rooting against a sports team just because the teams fans were acting like jackasses?

Rooting against what you'd normally be for?

This is the effect Family Guy has on me. My views and Seth McFarlane's are very similar, but he presents them in such an obnoxious and anvilicious way, lamenting intolerance and smear-campaigns....and then perpetuating them towards the opposing viewpoint, that I find myself rooting against my OWN VIEWS. For the 22 minutes it runs, all undecideds become Seth-McFarlane-liberals...and all real liberals become fervent conservatives

[Innis Cabal]

I'm not talking about legal rights. If someone stood on a soapbox and began to preach his views, some of which you may agree with, some of which you don't, giving no other support other than having a friend of his argue against it with idiotic arguements that no one really believes, wouldn't that annoy you? What right does the soapbox man have to try to force his opinions on you, especially when hes too lazy to give half-decent support for his views. Legally, you can preach that theres nothing wrong with NAMBLA, but what right should anyone have to shove their views on others?

In the case of Family Guy, its worse... every other day people start talking about it, its enough to drive me insane! (well, more insane anyways)

Because of the cult following of people who just eat up this garbage, its gotten to the point where I pretty much can't just ignore it. With people constantly talking about how much they looooooooove Family Guy, I have to resort to the next best thing, debating how much I LOATHE that show. Honestly, its probably not even because its such a terrible show, its more likely than not because its a terrible show that people love for reasons that make absolutly no sence to me, and never shut up about.

As I said when everything like this first came up. You hate the show so nothing anyone can say or do will sway you. So you'll see malicious intent in everything associated with it.

But he does have a right to tell his views, and if people hold those views as well they have their right to share them, and use FG as a backdrop for their argument. A little silly if you ask me but thems the breaks.

Whats not alright is to tell someone to stop trying to pass their views along to those that agree with it simply because you feel singled out. Regardless if its true or not.

[Nevrmore]

In the case of Family Guy, its worse... every other day people start talking about it, its enough to drive me insane! (well, more insane anyways)

Because of the cult following of people who just eat up this garbage, its gotten to the point where I pretty much can't just ignore it. With people constantly talking about how much they looooooooove Family Guy, I have to resort to the next best thing, debating how much I LOATHE that show. Honestly, its probably not even because its such a terrible show, its more likely than not because its a terrible show that people love for reasons that make absolutly no sence to me, and never shut up about.
Okay. Seriously, shut up.

I found your constant complaining against Family Guy annoying beforehand, but I ignored it because it had nothing to do with me, and I don't like Family Guy that much, anyway. But here you are, going pages and pages on a tirade about how horrid Family Guy is and how it's the worst show on TV that doesn't deserve any of the praise that it receives, and then you have the gall to call out its fans for being too preachy and vocal?

Opinions operate on a circuit, my friend. It doesn't matter what direction you're going, eventually if you're whiny enough about it, both sides end up at the same place: Aggravating.

We get it, you don't like Family Guy. You've made your point abundantly clear. You were preaching to the choir from the very offset, now all you're doing is jumping into the front row and kicking all the tenors in the face. Give it a rest.

[kpenguin]

EDIT: also, if you don't like it, don't watch it. Nobody forces you to.

Yeah, but then once you stop watching it, people start telling you that you shouldn't complain about shows you don't watch.

It creates this vicious cycle where people who don't like the show and watch it are called out for watching a show they don't like and people who don't like the show and don't watch it are called out for not liking a show they don't watch.

Eventually, the only people who can post about the show are people who do like it, not providing a fair and balanced discussion at all.

[TheSummoner]

As I said when everything like this first came up. You hate the show so nothing anyone can say or do will sway you.

I'd like to hear how you're any different. You clearly love the show and I really can't see anyone convincing you otherwise.

[Innis Cabal]

Its there, even in his b-day episode. Its way overplayed as the series goes, but like all jokes from the start thats the case. Like Meg going from the families favorite and Chris being a freak to Meg being hated for -no- reason




I'd like to hear how you're any different. You clearly love the show and I really can't see anyone convincing you otherwise.



I have not once said I love the show. Defending the people who like it does not mean I like it what so ever. Above is a good point against your....argument?

I actually dislike Family Guy. But I just could not help myself when it came to some of the arguments here.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, when someone wants to deny someone their opinon because they disagree with it I feel at least someone should step in and bring some reason to the table

[Lord Seth]

I think it's somewhere between one and two. In the early-mid/mid seasons, it was 1 for sure, early on and lately though, it's not so good.

I will say that, regardless of it's quality as a show, it is pure comedy gold and cannot be matched in hilarity, quality or quantity wise.No. First off, if nothing else, that should be "it was pure comedy gold". And there are definitely shows out there I find to definitely outmatch Family Guy in hilarity in either quantity or quality, even back when Family Guy was better (though it was quite funny). Of course, the later episodes are extremely easy to match in hilarity; write four decent jokes and you're already funnier than them.


Bottom line, the show is great if viewed as a whole.No, if you average out the great earlier episodes and the weak later episodes, you end up with a...well, average show. So looking at is as a whole, it's average.


It has the occasional bad episode and frequent bad skits, but overall, it's just great.In the earlier seasons, yeah. In the later seasons--especially the current one--a more proper phrasing would be "It has the occasional good episode or good skit, but overall, it's just bad."

It's hard to make an "overall" about Family Guy because it's such a contrast. You had great episodes, then you had okay episodes, then you had really bad episodes. So for an "overall" you either have to average it all out and declare it to be an average show, or just say "it was great, then got much worse".

[Atreyu the Masked LLama]

I really Laugh-in. I wonder whatever happened to that show? SOCK IT TO ME!

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i278/wolfshonor/llamas/hippie.gif