"Fox Reuniting Itself with 'Family Guy'" (1 Viewer)

[NickSo]

hehee gregg, i see you were able to find the episode okay

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

And that's my biggest problem with the show -- it strikes me that most of those jokes are only supposed to be funny because they reference something the writers (and the show's youngish viewership) are familiar with. It's the equivalent of a standup comedian who gets laughs by dropping the names of celebrities or doing impressions of movie characters. It may get a laugh if you recognize the reference, but it's very lazy comedy writing. And while it's my personal opinion that FG isn't funny, I think it's a little bit more than a personal opinion that good comedy writing should be about more than pop-culture references (whether FG has more than pop-culture references is a matter of opinion, though).

 

[TonyD]

couldnt bill, or someone just start a thread for those who dont like family guy?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I won't ruin anything for people that are waiting to watch the episode legally (as I plan to do again tomorrow), but 4x01 has one of the great cold opens in television history. The episode's so so after that, but by no means on the level of that American Dad debacle. The voices and animation were slightly rough around the edges as well, but nothing too noticable. It's good to have it back.

 

[MarkHastings]

So why can't comedy be lazy and still funny? Have you ever heard of "Slap-Stick"? Vaudeville theater's main source of comedy was smacking a guy in the face with a pie (or dropping of ones trousers). There is no thought process behind that, yet audiences ate it up and it was funny.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

The point is that it's lazy, not bad. I love family guy to death, but it's not particularly witty or intelligent. It's fun.

 

[GuruAskew]

Comedy can be lazy and funny, or dumb and funny. There's no real "rulebook" of what is and isn't funny. "Family Guy" just isn't funny. It's just not a well-written and well-produced show.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Ya know, a friend of mine (not me I assure you) who adores Family Guy made a comment to me once on the phone while we were talking about it, she said very bluntly and I quote...

"Anyone who thinks Family Guy isn't funny, has NO sense of humor!"

Now, i'm not saying I agree or disagree, but there you go.

All this talk of production values and writing as it partains to a comedy series just makes me smile, who cares about those things!? Mark, you nailed it with your last post, comedy does NOT have to be smart and it CAN be lazy, as long as the end result is laughter.

I'm a huge Three's Company fan, I didn't watch that show for the production value or writing (although it was good), I watched it because it was hilarious! As long as it was funny and Jack fell over something once in a while, what do I care if it isn't "intelligent" comedy...the dammned thing made me laugh!!

I don't want to turn this into a 'Homer Simpson could beat up Peter Griffin' thread, but I watched The Simpsons for years before tiring of it, and I see no distinct difference in either production value or writing between the two shows. Now, are The Simpsons still funny? Probably, I just grew weary of the charactors same shtick after, what is it now, 15 years!? It simply wore out it's welcome.

Look at The Three Stooges, was there anything particularly intelligent about Moe slapping Curly or Larry getting his hair ripped out? Nope. Was it still funny? You bet your ass it was! As Mark pointed out, comedy has no rules, the funny bone has no concept of intellect or production values, it's whatever hits it in just the right spot and makes us laugh.

Look at me, I hate Freinds, but if something funny happens on that show, I will still laugh. Laughter is spontanious, I can still find something to laugh at, even during a show I can't stand. A battle with the humorous parts of my brain is a battle that can't be won...what's funny is funny. For the record, it was the cast I didn't care for on that show, not the quality of the comedy.

It just seems to me, and i'm not naming anyone, but some people are too stuffy for comedy such as this. Just let your hair down and have a good time!

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

For the record, I don't think the Three Stooges are funny either.

And if I thought Family Guy was funny, I would like it in spite of what I see as its flaws of craftsmanship; there are lots of cheesy, badly-produced things I like because they're funny. Now, the fact that I find Family Guy unfunny may stem partly from what I see as its bad craftsmanship (e.g. I don't think the jokes are funny because they're not well timed, or because I can see them coming before they happen), but basically I just find it unfunny, and therefore I wind up concentrating on its flaws of craftsmanship because I'm busy not laughing.


I realize your friend is joking, but it's an unfunny joke. Much like most jokes on Family Guy.

 

[GuruAskew]

It's not that I have "no sense of humor". I get the jokes in "Family Guy". I watch them and I recognize why they're supposed to be funny. It just occurs to me that the writers aren't able to succeed in crafting effective comedy. That's all there is to it. As for the animation, "The Simpsons" blows it away. First of all, the characters actually "act" on "The Simpsons". Acting is an important aspect of animation and "Family Guy" is a mess in that category. Just compare the shows and watch how much more expressive the characters on "The Simpsons" are. Secondly, "Family Guy" is full of animation glitches, the most notable one being a result of literally freeze-framing animation in order to hold a shot longer. This caused jagged lines and is very obvious and distracting. "The Simpsons" isn't "Beauty and the Beast". The character designs are simple, there isn't much grandeur or action, but the animation presents the show exactly as it is intended to be seen. Third, and most important of all, the "Family Guy" character designs are just ugly and unappealing. While "The Simpsons" clearly has the edge in the character design department, the "ugly and unappealing" criticism could admittedly be applied in there case as well, if not for the top-notch character development and voice acting that we've come to expect from "The Simpsons". The show has been on the air for 16 years but it's impossible to deny that the characters were much more defined, memorable and unique going into their fourth season than "Family Guy" is at this point. Think of Homer facing death in "One Fish, Two Fish, Blowfish, Blue Fish". Think of Bart desperately trying to avoid failing 4th grade in "Bart Gets an F". Lisa has had too many significant examples of character development to even begin listing. I ask you, as "Family Guy" fans, a simple question: has the show ever come close to making you feel for any one of the characters in it's entire 50-episode run? I didn't think so. On top of that, "The Simpsons" is just mercilessly funny, which "Family Guy" fans can't deny because the amount of times where they've ripped off "The Simpsons" is obscene.


You know, I once had a friend that couldn't understand my hatred for this show. He asked me "what is it about this show that you dislike"? I said "Well, I guess I'm just some sort of purist, but when I sit down and watch a comedy, I like to laugh".

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Jaime,
if you knew my friend, you would know that she was NOT joking. That's why I advised her not to join this forum, because with her direct and unflinching honesty, she wouldn't last ten minutes here.

It just so happens that I do feel something for the charactors on Family Guy...I feel like laughing.

I disagree with both of you, Bill and Jaime, on pretty much all of your points, so i'll just leave it at that. I can see neither of us is going to change our opinions, so that's that.

I tried, folks.

 

[TravisR]

Different strokes for different folks

 

[MarkHastings]

Bill, I find the first season of South Park to be MILES above a LOT of animated shows, and the production value was GOD AWFUL! They even say (jokingly) in the warning message how bad it is and should not be watched by anyone.

I don't see why I need an expensive prop or extravagant delivery to make someone laugh. I once made a co-worker laugh hysterically with a sticky pad and a smile. No, you have a bitter anger toward this show and will not let anyone reap the slightest glee from it. If you hear someone laughing at it, you will douse the laughter like an angry fireman dousing a fire. It's one thing to not like a TV show (I don't like a lot of tv programs myself), but it's another thing to let that dislike consume you to the point that others enjoyment fills you with complete and utter scorn.

I think you hate the fans more so than the actual show. Their laughter and enjoyment angers you way too much.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'd feel more sympathy for that argument if "The Simpsons" hadn't been spending the last several seasons mocking the early moments of sincerity and character development.
The Family Guy characters have me hooked enough that I can stay invested for the entirety of an episode. That's all I need from them. Early Simpsons was better television than FG, but modern Family Guy versus modern Simpsons, no question FG comes out funnier in my book.

 

[Matt Stone]

Amen, Mark. I agree with you completely.

 

[MatthewA]

Jaime, your posts are getting repetitive and tiresome. Just like modern Simpsons. Mark has hit the nail on the head. Deriving anger from the pleasure or good fortune of others is every bit as bad as deriving pleasure from the misery or misfortune of others. I've been down that road before and it is unhealthy. Two words: Frank Grimes.

The Simpsons characters have DE-volved over time. If the Simpsons had ended five years ago, you may have had a point about characterization, but even then you would have had over 200 episodes to judge from. Look at them now: Lisa is a shrill PC thug, Homer is there only to have sharp objects thrown at him, Marge is slowly headed down the road to mental insanity, Maggie is like the dancing baby from "Ally McBeal", and only Bart seems to have any second or third dimensions. The show's attempts at trying to be satirical fall miserably flat; they hit at issues with a hammer and the pieces fly into everyone's face. Even if you agree with their perspective on these issues (which, for the most part, I do not), it's painful to watch. It's like a bad parody of a Norman Lear sitcom. With the exception of Nelson, Patty, and Selma, the majority of recurring characters are reduced to one-note characters, not even one note, half a note. Even the already one-note characters are down to eighth-notes at most. New Simpsons is the show Old Simpsons would have made fun of mercilessly. Good freaking God, even under Mike Scully's watch, you had jokes that were funny on their own that didn't congeal into a cohesive episode. Al Jean, who has been with the show since day one, doesn't even have that going for him.

And what does Matt Groening do about it? Does he call for Al Jean's head on a platter? His attention shifted to "Futurama" years ago, and with that gone, he seems to be sitting around collecting his money.

If this is the future of King of the Hill, then it's time to end that one now. The characters have gone as far as they can go unless they're seriously prepared to shatter the status quo, which I doubt.

But look at 351 episodes vs. 50. It's like comparing the impact and lasting appeal of "Gone With the Wind" to whether "Lord of the Rings" will have that same appeal. After 85 episodes, it's still too soon to tell whether the show will last as long. I don't think it will (I give it 7 or 8 years), and I don't want it to go down the same road The Simpsons have gone down (with Gail Berman out of Fox I'm cautiously optimistic). They didn't hesitate to pull the plug on Married with Children or X-Files when they went downhill, so why should The Simpsons be different? Or do they want it to go on for over 50 years, like The Guiding Light (1952-present, plus radio from 1937-1960)? Daytime and primetime are apples and oranges. Or maybe settle for beating the 29-year run of The Wonderful World of Disney (1954-1983)? Mickey and the gang ran 29 consecutive years on network TV partly because, with no VCRs or cable, they could use pre-existing material in addition to new stuff, and eventually pre-existing material was about 90% of its content. The longest a non-anthology prime-time series has run has been 20 years (Gunsmoke, 1955-1975), and it would have been cancelled if it were not for William Paley's wife. They would have renewed Gilligan's Island in its place.

This is from someone who has watched The Simpsons from day one, and can barely remember life without it (age 6 1/2 at its debut). It's like watching a close friend stuck in a persistent vegetative state but no one wanting to be the one to pull the plug.

Remind me to trash WKRP in Cincinnati and its fans mercilessly next time a thread comes up about it.


And we all know The Simpsons have never, ever done pop cultural references, right? Nope. Always beneath them. Never once mentioned a celebrity, they were too high for that. New Simpsons wrote the book on lazy comedy writing. Family Guy at its lowest has yet to sink to the depths of New Simpsons.

Anyway, tomorrow's the night to watch.

 

[TonyD]

to state the obvious, what one person thinks is funny may not be funny to another.

i went to see Sudden Impact (Eastwood) in the movies in the early 90's.
i was the only person in the theater laughing out loud, for much of the movie.
was it a comedy, no, was it funny, yes. to me

bill and jaime dont think FG is funny.
so what.
but it is just their feeling about the show.
because they dont think it is good isnt the definitive answer.
if something is funny to one person but to no one else.
then that makes it funny.

what else do you need.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Tony,
you laughed out loud during a film that others were trying to enjoy!? That's not cool. People who do that should be escorted towards the exit.

And I don't mind them having their opinions, of course what they find unfunny I may find funny, but their opinions are being delivered with a certain amount of cynicism and hostility. I was merely trying to gain a better understanding of where they were coming from, that's all.

 

[TonyD]

i tried to mute myself, but i really enjoyed the movie and couldnt help myself.

 

[GuruAskew]

And that's my whole point. You don't care about the "South Park" characters but it doesn't matter because the show is brilliantly funny. "Family Guy" isn't funny. That's all there is to my hatred for the show. I don't hate the fans, practically all of my friends love the show. I hate the show itself. It represents everything that's wrong with comedy today.