MacFarlane and co. at Comic-Con

The fact that I needed more characters to fill out the drawing. I looked around my room, saw that "Family Guy" poster I bought at college two years ago before the show got revived, and said "Sure, what the hell, they might look funny in my style."

And more specifically, I do think the first three seasons are okay (I'll watch 'em if they're there, but I wouldn't want them in my DVD collection), but the fourth made me want to hurt something, and I haven't watched the show since.

Oh, and...



"Trivial"? That's five entire minutes of a 22-minute episode completely wasted. The writers think that this stuff is funny because they've got a free ride now - FOX is probably never going to cancel the show again, out of the fear that there'll be another fan backlash, so the show now has guaranteed immortality, and the writers have said "Hey, we're never going to risk cancellation again - we can do whatever we want and the show will still be popular!" Hence why people like me say that they aren't even trying to make a quality show. It's because they aren't.

Ratings, schmatings. I care about the plot and the characterization, both of which are pathetic jokes on "Family Guy". It's nothing but a half-hour of pointless pop culture references and bathroom humor, without an ounce of sophistication to be found. The day this becomes "the funniest show on television" is the day I will be certain that intelligent humor is dead.
 
I think the show could be just as funny as it ever was if they would stop trying so hard to push the envelope and stop trying to do these ridiculously long gags, and focus on simply being funny. Easier said than done, I guess, but I believe they really are quite capable of doing it.

It's kind of funny, actually; one cause for decline in The Simpsons was that they shifted to more Homer-centric plots, which felt like Family Guy plots about Peter. And yet now I think part of the reason for FG's decline is that they're not focusing on Peter enough. We're getting to know more about the other characters, but the other characters aren't good.
 
I agree that to call a gag which wastes a bunch of time 'trivial' isn't right. Your complaints on those of us who dislike current FG come across as if you just want us to back off regardless.

Personally, I think the show has shown the good and bad of continuity. It can be fun when one episode does a gag and they'll reference it down the line as a "If you've been following us, you'll get something extra out of this". Then again there are the drawn out jokes. I'd note alot of these sequences involve characters voiced by Seth. Along with that and the constant amount of times he has an episode have him do a big band number...

(I like that kind of music. My point is if he's gonna keep doing that he might as well just release a whole seperate album).
 
What I don't understand about the overly-long gags is, does anybody really find them funny enough to be necessary? I mean, I just can't picture someone watching one of those scenes and actually laughing all the way through. Maybe after the first ten seconds or so, but when it goes on for literally two minutes, surely people aren't actually still laughing by the end?
 
But does a drawn-out gag really matter? One of you brought up the fact that the series does this and then you bring up the fact that the characters aren't up to snuff in the same point. I hate to do this because it makes me sound like a jerk, and all I'm really doing is trying to have a conversation, so try to ignore the 'sound' of this if I'm coming off like one, but gags like that aren't supposed to be tremendously funny... it's more like a mental understanding like 'Oh I get what they're trying to do' after the first 30 seconds.

Let's face it: Most of the Family Guy core base of fans are complete idiots (If this seems like a gross overgeneralization then check pretty much every FG forum or TV.com episode page to see the proof). It's no suprise that they're not really putting effort into these smart elaborate jokes if the fans aren't really going to find them appealing. I would, sure, I love when they pop something in like that, it makes me feel like they're adding that bit in just for those kinds of fans... but I know when I bring it up with some of my friends that watch it that they'll kind of pass it off as a 'meh moment' of sorts. I'm not looking for a smart show with Family Guy, because it never really was something to see wit in. Every so often there will be a really funny moment that I wouldn't expect from the writers, but if I'm looking for something a bit smarter and less edgy, I'd watch The Simpsons.

Were the characters that deep to begin with? Nah, we had a bunch of archetypes that played in their feild and paired up with another character now and then to have some adventures. I think the only chance they've ruined is with Meg (and they're fixing it in new episodes), but that's me.

So I don't completely get where these complaints are coming from when in all reality it's where we started off. The show was more sincere in the beginning, for sure, and there was less needless death, but still...
 
Are most live action sitcoms any better? I mean, would you really rather watch According to Jim than Family Guy?

By the way, I'm a bit curious what show you would pick as the funniest show on TV. I mean, sitcoms really aren't all that popular nowadays. I doubt you could find too many shows that are funnier than Family Guy.
 
TV isn't funny anymore. All the good, funny, smart shows are either cancelled or being run into the ground (I can't even watch "Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends" anymore out of the fear that it'll start slipping). And "Family Guy" isn't helping to reverse the process, not one bit. I have "Seinfeld", "Mystery Science Theater 3000", and the first eight seasons of "The Simpsons" on DVD, and that's all I need to be entertained. They were smart, sophisticated, legitimately funny shows that withstand the test of time, don't settle for cheap humor, and expect a certain level of intelligence from their audience. "Family Guy" is weak, crude, juvenile, and actually panders to the lowest common denominator, written by people who don't care. It's not funnier than everything else on TV; on the contrary, it's the worst of the lot.

I think my hatred of "Family Guy" is rooted on a much more personal level. I aspire to create smart, sophisticated humor in all my stories and cartoons, and I hope to make a career out of it someday. If "Family Guy" is setting the entertainment industry up for a future of stupid humor aimed at audiences who don't give a damn, then it could stifle my chances of breaking into the cartooning business. Hence, when they get heaps of recognition for the complete opposite of what I hope to someday achieve, it really really really hocks me off.
 
Back
Top