[mariomaniac45213]

Zidane wrote:

Last season Family Guy was probably the best adult-themed animated show. Which is too bad since it was King of the Hill's last season and I love that show. The Star Trek episode alone was beautiful. But I don't understand how you can hate on the character voices? What's wrong with them?

Most of the characters have the same voice well the minor ones in the cutaway gags

[The_Hangman]

I do enjoy Family Guy quite a bit. In the back of my mind I'm always thinking, "Wow, this is such absurd and tasteless humor" yet I can't help but laugh.

I saw one episode of Weeds wwaaayyyyyyy back when in '06 or '07 (I think). I did find myself laughing quite a bit when a pregnant black woman from South Central Los Angeles ducked under a table and puled a shotgun out. And the prospect of a suburban white woman selling weed was pretty hilarious. That's all I remember.

I've never considered Entourage to be all that funny. Quirky, yes. Entertaning, yes. A good show, yes. But funny? Only occasionally. It has one or two big laughs a show. But, I've stopped watching it as of late.

The music in Flight of the Choncords was pretty funny.

I've seen two episodes of 30 Rock, and it's hilarious. The absurdity. The silliness. The fact that if the characters were real people, they'd probably be institutionalized. How can I not laugh?

I have quite the anarchic sense of humor.

[WesFX]

I've barely caught new Family Guy this season, but I hate the show so much. It's certainly funny, but it's little things, like how unfunnily stupid Peter is, and that Lois hasn't divorced his ass for all the s*** he does. How the creator seems to channel his opinions through the opinions of the characters (Brian, mostly), and how Brian puts up with all the s*** Peter does.

Then there's the episode where Lois makes fun of Brian for dating a stupid girl. Really? You're married to Peter F*****' Griffin, and you're scolding someone else for dating someone stupid? F*** you, Lois Griffin, and f*** whoever wrote that episode.

And another episode, where they get the new dog (the first five minutes of this one are a prime example of how unfunnily stupid Peter gets), Brian shows off home videos of him as a puppy; in the Griffin house. Yet, when Peter got Brian, Brian was a homeless dog on the streets, already older than a "puppy". F*** the continuity checker.

And then how Glenn (Quagmire), Joe, and Cleveland put up with the s*** Peter does.

Yeah, yeah. It's a fictitious cartoon. Doesn't make me hate the logistics any less.

[Shiiva_Wilding]

I'm glad the series has been realised for what it is, the best animated comedy series to ever hit the telly and perhaps the most innovative when it comes to timing, structure and sheer ludricrous ideas Good on them, keep the good stuff coming

[whatareyouBUYIN]

WesFX wrote:

I've barely caught new Family Guy this season, but I hate the show so much. It's certainly funny, but it's little things, like how unfunnily stupid Peter is, and that Lois hasn't divorced his ass for all the s*** he does. How the creator seems to channel his opinions through the opinions of the characters (Brian, mostly), and how Brian puts up with all the s*** Peter does.

Then there's the episode where Lois makes fun of Brian for dating a stupid girl. Really? You're married to Peter F*****' Griffin, and you're scolding someone else for dating someone stupid? F*** you, Lois Griffin, and f*** whoever wrote that episode.

And then how Glenn (Quagmire), Joe, and Cleveland put up with the s*** Peter does.

Yeah, yeah. It's a fictitious cartoon. Doesn't make me hate the logistics any less.

That's going against a lot of comedies. I could name a number of shows that follow the same formula: a group of supporting characters having to put up with the main character, a bumbling fool such as Homer Simpson or Michael Scott. (Notice that Marge hasn't divorced Homer's ass for all the stuff he's done.) Do you really think the show would improve if Lois and Peter's friends just abandoned him?
And every writer channels their opinions through their characters, whether directly or through contradiction. Not just TV writers, but authors and screenwriters as well.

Shiiva_Wilding wrote:

I'm glad the series has been realised for what it is, the best animated comedy series to ever hit the telly and perhaps the most innovative when it comes to timing, structure and sheer ludricrous ideas Good on them, keep the good stuff coming

That's a bold statement. Wha' bout the Simpsons?

[WhatCD]

A post on one of my favorite websites (guess what it is) that mirrors my thoughts on this show precisely goes as follows.

Seth McFarlane sucks.

Family Guy is a disingenuous slab of tripe that hasn't been remotely relevant since the second season. It masquerades as an animated sitcom replete with per-episode plot arcs, but routinely proves itself a glorified game of madlibs wherein almost every joke is either 1.) a cultural reference of variable obscurity or 2.) a (usually) failed attempt at self-referential humor. It has its occasional moments to be sure, but the characters (save for Brian, maybe) are unlikable and there's no plot cohesion to speak of. I can handle it in small doses, but my interest begins to wane when subjected to extended viewings. South Park's parody of Family Guy's writing process - in which manatees in a tank picked "idea balls" at random in order to select for random flashback cultural-references - was pretty spot-on.

Compare first to something like Futurama. Even if you don't appreciate Futurama's particular bend toward semi-intellectual / scientific / science fiction humor (it had more PhDs on its writing staff than any other show in television during its initial run), it features diverse characters you can care about, a coherent premise / sense of plot development and still manages to be funnier than Family Guy on a routine basis. A fundamental tenet of most, non-postmodern humor writing is that the plot is no less essential than the jokes; the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams referenced Airplane! when they said that a chain of humor that's not well-grounded in some digestible narrative structure eventually just becomes an assault to the senses. In Airplane! 's case, the plot was the fundamental story of the redemptive hero who finds himself in a disaster situation and a love story to boot. It still managed to be random as furck, but it did so within a clear context. The random humor, then - and its particulars - became a unique quality rather than a sole basis. As a result and by repeated reference to the story we were following, we laughed harder. Without that context, it would be unwatchable.

If you take a number of Adult Swim shows, there's a distinct spectrum between shows with likable characters and/or strong plot arcs (The Venture Brothers, Boondocks, Metalocalypse, etc.) and those featuring the equally popular postmodern "blender" style of humor (ATHF, Sealab, T&E, Robot Chicken, etc.). Both approaches work in their own respects, but there's a reason that we devote 30+ minutes to the former and 15-minute blocks / skit-lengths to the latter (generally speaking; it's a spectrum, not a binary scale). Family Guy is just a monstrosity whose primary source of identity is a total clusterfurck of competing aesthetic values that, when taken together, result in a tepid hunk of poop that assaults the viewer.

[LuigiGBA]

WhatCD wrote:

A post on one of my favorite websites (guess what it is) that mirrors my thoughts on this show precisely goes as follows.

Seth McFarlane sucks.

Family Guy is a disingenuous slab of tripe that hasn't been remotely relevant since the second season. It masquerades as an animated sitcom replete with per-episode plot arcs, but routinely proves itself a glorified game of madlibs wherein almost every joke is either 1.) a cultural reference of variable obscurity or 2.) a (usually) failed attempt at self-referential humor. It has its occasional moments to be sure, but the characters (save for Brian, maybe) are unlikable and there's no plot cohesion to speak of. I can handle it in small doses, but my interest begins to wane when subjected to extended viewings. South Park's parody of Family Guy's writing process - in which manatees in a tank picked "idea balls" at random in order to select for random flashback cultural-references - was pretty spot-on.

Compare first to something like Futurama. Even if you don't appreciate Futurama's particular bend toward semi-intellectual / scientific / science fiction humor (it had more PhDs on its writing staff than any other show in television during its initial run), it features diverse characters you can care about, a coherent premise / sense of plot development and still manages to be funnier than Family Guy on a routine basis. A fundamental tenet of most, non-postmodern humor writing is that the plot is no less essential than the jokes; the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams referenced Airplane! when they said that a chain of humor that's not well-grounded in some digestible narrative structure eventually just becomes an assault to the senses. In Airplane! 's case, the plot was the fundamental story of the redemptive hero who finds himself in a disaster situation and a love story to boot. It still managed to be random as furck, but it did so within a clear context. The random humor, then - and its particulars - became a unique quality rather than a sole basis. As a result and by repeated reference to the story we were following, we laughed harder. Without that context, it would be unwatchable.

If you take a number of Adult Swim shows, there's a distinct spectrum between shows with likable characters and/or strong plot arcs (The Venture Brothers, Boondocks, Metalocalypse, etc.) and those featuring the equally popular postmodern "blender" style of humor (ATHF, Sealab, T&E, Robot Chicken, etc.). Both approaches work in their own respects, but there's a reason that we devote 30+ minutes to the former and 15-minute blocks / skit-lengths to the latter (generally speaking; it's a spectrum, not a binary scale). Family Guy is just a monstrosity whose primary source of identity is a total clusterfurck of competing aesthetic values that, when taken together, result in a tepid hunk of poop that assaults the viewer.

who posted that? that's EXACTLY how I feel about Family Guy, as well as comedy in general

[whatareyouBUYIN]

^I appreciate the highly intelligent contribution. But I hope that that was written in FG's younger days; this season and the last has matured a good amount, with far less cutaway gags and more satirical humor. South Park's hilarious two-part rip on FG was terrific, indeed. Every other show that was lagging behind in viewers because of FG (The Simpsons, King of the Hill) congratulated Stone and Parker for hitting on the nail on the head. In the commentary for those two episodes, they admitted that FG was indeed funny but they had zilch respect for it in terms of writing, which was a shame, they said, because they believed that FG has the potential for some pretty ingenious writing and that they'd be take more seriously if they put more effort making the jokes relevant to the plot.

[mariomaniac45213]

I just can't stand the same jokes rehashed over and over

Cleveland falling out of house in bathtub they even did it on the latest episode and cleveland doesn't even live in Quahog anymore gosh!
"Cool Whip"
Giant Chicken fight (though I like this one)
Bit between Brian and Stewie about novel where stewies voice keeps getting higher.
all the sexual Jokes

[Shiiva_Wilding]

@ whatareyouBUYIN

That is a bold statement and one I shall explain. The Simpsons, while groundbreaking, refuses to do anything remotely surreal, over the top or controversial, though they do try. Because Family Guy is prepared to go to these lengths, each episode is packed with more gags than you'll find in simpsons, the characters are just ridiculous, whereas the simpsons are all a bit predictable after so long and the broad spectrum of ideas thread together is second to none. The simpsons ran out of ideas a long time ago I think, while Family Guy keeps coming with strong material that blows the mind

[WesFX]

whatareyouBUYIN wrote:

WesFX wrote:

How the creator seems to channel his opinions through the opinions of the characters

That's going against a lot of comedies. I could name a number of shows that follow the same formula: a group of supporting characters having to put up with the main character, a bumbling fool such as Homer Simpson or Michael Scott. (Notice that Marge hasn't divorced Homer's ass for all the stuff he's done.) Do you really think the show would improve if Lois and Peter's friends just abandoned him?

The problem is I don't watch The Simpsons or The Office. The other problem is that the logistics are different; from what I've seen of The Simpsons and The Office, Homer and Michael never do anything as stupid or harmful to others as what Peter regularly does. The other thing is, notice I didn't point out people that basically can't leave Peter (his kids, his parents, his coworkers)? Everyone at The Office needs their job, and again, Homer is nowhere near as bad as Peter (again, from what I've seen) so Marge is perfectly fine. Even Stan (or whatever the dad's name is) from American Dad isn't anywhere as bad as Peter, and it's made by the same damn guy.

whatareyouBUYIN wrote:

And every writer channels their opinions through their characters, whether directly or through contradiction. Not just TV writers, but authors and screenwriters as well.

You say every but I can think of plenty of comedies that never make (real) political or cultural references (through which the writer might convey their opinions of); Squidbillies, The Oblongs, Home Movies, Saul of the Molemen, Fat Guy Stuck in Internet, Venture Brothers, 12 oz Mouse, Metalocalypse, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Mission Hill; basically everything that has ever been on Adult Swim, which is why I love the (sub)network, and why I hate that they show Family Guy. It's a sore thumb.

[whatareyouBUYIN]

@WesFX: sounds like you just really hate Peter a lot, which is understandable compared to Homer and Michael who are far more sympathetic characters.

@Shiiva_Wilding: I agree with you on that. I've always thought that what's really separated Family Guy and The Simpsons was that the latter plays it pretty safe. You'd love South Park. But on the matter of FG, I think it's pretty much replaced the Simpsons as the funniest show on its sunday-night lineup. The Simpsons has gone from pure genius to the range between average and above-average - still worth watching. FG is still pretty young and it's only getting better. However I've been re-watching some of Simpson's older seasons and I firmly believe that FG-today, and the Simpsons-then simply don't compare.

[WesFX]

whatareyouBUYIN wrote:

@WesFX: sounds like you just really hate Peter a lot, which is understandable compared to Homer and Michael who are far more sympathetic characters.

Exactly. I don't ever say it because I know -exactly- how ridiculous it is, but I think Family Guy would be a better show if they killed off Peter.

[Shiiva_Wilding]

I think if they did a few episodes without Peter, it would lose some degree of mindless stupidity that makes the show so funny. Some of the lines he comes out with are simply genius!! Stewie though, is the best character, so I don't know... could work without him I guess

[mariomaniac45213]

Poopyfacetomatonose and Redhineymonkey

"Chris can I see you in the kitchen"

One of my fave episodes.