POLL: Meg Griffin: Writer's Hate Figure?

L

luke_man40

New member
Has Meg become a bit of a hate figure among the Family Guy writers? Her character has changed vastly since series one and, no offense whatsoever to Mila Kunis, I think it's for the worse.

Is this change an improvement or has Meg become a stagnant character in the show?
 
I don't know about you, but every time I've seen the writers try to make her more than the person to dump on, the effort falls flat.
 
Irishman:

You bring up an interesting point. When the show first started, Meg was just an annoying teenage character. I think most people could identify with her teen issues: poor attempts at fitting in, trying to be popular (and failing miserably), being embarrassed by her family, wanting to get into college, etc.

But, as the show progresses, it seems that Meg has become an object of hate of the family. For the most part, I think this is for comedy's sake. We all have a family member we love but don't particularly like.

However, there have been Meg-centered episodes I don't care for. In particular, the episodes where she and Neil Goldman interact extensively. I also don't like the episode where she "fell in love" with Brian. The episode disturbed me so much, whenever it is repeated on Fox or Adult Swim, I switch channels.

Canonically (if that term could be applied to Family Guy), it could be explained by the fact that Meg isn't really Peter's child but is the result of an affair between Lois and someone else, as evidenced by Brian in an early episode.

It could also be explained by Peter's misogyny. On the surface, he cares more for his male family members and friends than the women in his life.

I do find Mila Kunis a more fitting voice for Meg, however. Lacey Chebert - as fine an actress as she is - didn't seem like a good vocal fit. Meg became more realistic to me after Mila Kunis took over the role.
 
That was in the episode "Screwed the Pooch", in which Brian says that Meg's real father is someone named Stan Thompson. But I don't think that should be considered canon. In another episode, there was a cutaway gag that suggested that Peter was originally a woman and that he only became "Peter" after undergoing a sex change operation. However, we've seen flashbacks of Peter's childhood where he was clearly a boy. Furthermore, this "Stan Thompson" was never mentioned in any other episode of FG, therfore it's canonity is questionable.

My theory on how the Meg bashing started is that the writers simply didn't know what to do with Meg up until that point. She's not an idiot like Chris. She's not a sexpot like Lois, nor is she an evil genius like Stewie, so the writers found a formula for Meg that they think works; treating her like crap. before, Lois was an ally of Meg's, but now, even she can't say "I love you" to Meg without mulling over the words. Peter went from embarrassing Meg, to ignoring her to being downright hostile to her. Meg has seem to become the one character on FG that everyone can put down and ridicule. One reason for this is the fact that Meg never does anything to defend herself. Peter abuses Lois and Brian also, but they usually get to extract their revenge on Peter at some point. Meg on the other hand, never sticks up for herself, which is probably why she regularly gets dumped on by everyone else on the show.

The writers went with abusing Meg because that's easier for them than trying to make her a better character.
 
My problem with the whole thing is that the reason for the Meg-abuse is that a majority of the fanbase hate Meg because she's not funny like the other characters. Instead of the writers trying to fix the problem by giving more jokes to Meg, they just pander by having bad stuff happen to her for no reason. Of course it's the writers' fault for not making her interesting anyway.
 
^Quoted for truth.^

I get tired of the whole "Meg deserves to be abused because she's a bad character" bric-a-brac. It's no different than comments like, 'So-and-so doesn't deserve to be seen more because they're boring', 'such-and-such shouldn't get their own episode because they're not funny or interesting', blee-bloo-blah. That's BS, frankly. If a character isn't very funny or interesting, it's because their writers and creators don't make them very funny or interesting. You can hardly blame it on the characters themselves.
 
I actually didn't mind the occasional Meg bashing during the show's initial run. I didn't hate her by any means, but I did think it was kind of funny how the writers recognized that she wasn't that interesting compared to the other characters. Of course, as FG so often does, they ran it into the ground. They over did it so much, and the bashing just got so malicious that it actually started to annoy me.
 
Hmmm, I don't know if this is ironic or not but the Top 10 this week on AS is Meg's most embarassing moments (maybe The Irishman saw that and it gave him the idea for the poll, I don't know). Although in truth some of the bashing is kind of funny it does boarder on ridicolous/stupid for the most part. I think it also stems from the fact anything that the staff really learned about writing for female teenagers probably went into American Dad, not Family Guy. Not to mention we've gotten to the point where peter basically shoots Meg point blank as a sign of mistreatment (see "Peter's Daughter"). And since there isn't ever going to be an ep where Meg is treated well that you know isn't forgotten by the next ep, we need something fufilling to the viewer at least. You know that Meg gets back at the family ep they've talked about for awhile and still never did. I hope that was done before the strike since they've had chances for it ("Hell Comes To Quahog", "Peter's Daughter") and never really delievered.

It is clear though that the writers do enjoy jesting her and that Adult Swim supporters they're "love" of Meg bashing of that nature.
 
That makes sense. The writing staff of "Family Guy" has always looked for the easy way out ever since they got renewed.

The Season 4 episode "8 Simple Rules for Buying My Teenage Daughter" was the last episode of "Family Guy" I ever watched, and one of the reasons it drove me away from the show was that I realized that Meg would never be a worthwhile character again. I had already noticed that a significant amount of other characters had been reduced to one-note caricatures of themselves, and I was tired of watching a show whose characters I'm not made to care about.
 
They're just playing on the gag that teenagers are so inherently obnoxious, coupled with the humour that Meg is also very uncharismatic. It's juxtaposing the "poor misunderstood teenager" riff from so many after school specials with a "actually, teenagers are so unlikable, even their families can't stand them".

It's a joke. Not about hate figures, or about writers with nothing else to do, as with all long running shows, characters tend to simplify as part of the process - be for good or ill - and the long running gag is simply how no one likes Meg, which given how most teens are far more unlikable and uninteresting than they care to realise, the whole show enjoys playing this point. As with all cartoons, its taking a social observation (and in this case, a playing off a TV cliche) and blowing it out of proportion; the poor misunderstood teenager of so many dramas is actually just an obnoxious teen that no one can like.
 
Indeed that is the case. I forgot where I read it, but either Seth MacFarline or one of the writers actually stated that somewhere. They just don't know what to do with a female character like her. In the original version of the show (Life with Larry), remember, it was a Peter like figure, a wife, a Brian like character, and apparently a Chris like character. When it was picked up they added Stewie (who became the unofficial star of the show) and Meg. Now, I'm guessing the Meg was for network reasons, and they couldn't do to much with her.

While indeed they gave her a few episodes to herself in the beginning. And even then, she emmerged as the "hated" figure. i would say, if Canonical applies, it's due in part to her taking the blame for Peter Crashing into the Tv Transponder.

But over time, the character had less and less to do, so dumping on her was the only way to get any milage out of the character. And I agree a lot of fan hatred is suspect.

Which is why I like Hayley much better as a character. She does get dumped on, but she seems to have a sly humor about it.
 
See,that's how I feel about the show....In the earlier seasons,Meg wasn't treated much better or worse than Chris and Stewie....it's just in later seasons that they take the abuse way overboard,and it's long since stopped being funny {maybe if she did something to deserve it,it'd be funny,but aside from not being funny like the rest of the cast,she hasn't as far as I've seen}...
 
Meg has always just been...there. Whenver Chris, Brian, Stewie, Lois or Peter have an adventure, it always gets outlandish. With Meg, her most recent adventure was getting looked over for a job at the mini-mart, which went to Chris.
 
I find the bashing of her character to be funnier and funnier the more extreme it gets, especially because she is an absolutely AWFUL individual. I don't get how people can have so much sympathy for her and claim to "relate".

Yes, she gets unfairly picked on by popular kids because she's awkward and not considered very pretty, but that's the kind of popular kid she wants to be. She has the same exact mentality as the spoiled preps who have made her such an outcast and jumps at any opportunity to treat others like crap. Neil, for instance, might be an annoying and overbearing weenie, but if he were popular, wealthy and/or more attractive, Meg would be all over him. She would kill for that kind of attention from a pretty-boy, no matter what the personality, but treats Neil like dirt for being slightly lower on the social ladder than herself. Ironically, Neil is the one who doesn't even care and maintains a generally upbeat attitude while Meg endlessly craves pity and attention.

She deserves every ounce of abuse she's gotten in the series. It has never been too cruel.
 
Alas, The Irishman has yet to get cable at his new apartment :p

There seems to be a general consenses that Meg is not perhaps the best character on the show and has been somewhat deserving of the abuse sent her way.

However, (a word Frank Caliendo is afraid of), why is she still the least interesting? Case in point, Dr. John Zoidberg (Planet Express' physician on Futurama). Here's a guy (read: alien) who's basically been dumped on for the entire series, with numerous references to him being flat-out broke and yet he's a somewhat likeable, interesting character in my opinion.

Is Zoidberg proof that a character can be dumped on and still be appealing and couldn't Meg have been similar?
 
Zoidberg is awesome because he's so optimistic even in the face of constant abuse. It's kind of endearing. Meg, on the other hand, is an obnoxious little brat; I basically agree with everything that James said.
 
Plus, Zoidberg has actual problems such as lack of a meal and poor living conditions. Meg is bellyaching over popularity. I could understand the need to be popular if she was completely lonely, but she has friends, thus here social life isn't the wreck she makes it to be.
 
Back
Top