Talk:Family Guy

Arcive One: May 2003 - July 2005

"sexually confused" Stewie

In the section about the characters, Stewie is described as "sexually confused". When was tthis established? -- Mjwilco 04:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure. I wouldn't consider him sexually confused, to be honest. Consider the episode where his "pee pee has been stricken with rigor mortis" at the sight of disrobing cheerleaders, and the episode where he falls in love with his babysitter. One time, he says something to the effect of wishing he were homosexual, but that doesn't really qualify him as sexually confused, I don't think. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I think the words "sexually confused" should be removed from his description. -- The Amazing Superking 06:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

There have been many references to Stewie having both heterosexual and homosexual tendencies; one example of the latter is in the episode "Emission Impossible". Trying to prevent Lois and Peter from having sex, Stewie puts on lipstick to smear it on Peter's shirt collar. He glimpses himself in the mirror and soon gets carried away, saying something along the lines of "Oh, you're a dirty girl, you like being a slut because you have low self-esteem and that gets you off." Another episode showed a "flashback" of him dancing in a leather thong in a bar full of similarly leather-clad bikers. Maybe he's bisexual; in any case, he is certainly a bit precocious. -DynSkeet (talk) 12:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he's sexually confused - he doesn't really know what sexuality is! He's still a little baby! He does state (and I paraphrase) "Wouldn't it be wonderful if I grew up to be a homosexual", thus hinting that he's neither way. I think there is certianly evidence to say that he's got a 50/50 chance of going either way, but to use the term "sexually confused" is somewhat misleading as it implies he's trying to make a decision. I'd agree with removing it. violet/riga (t) 12:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll remove "sexuallly confused." If someone comes up with a good way to summarize this discussion into a few key words, go ahead and add them, but I think this may be a case of "less is more." -- Mjwilco 16:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sexually ambiguous? --TheMidnighters 21:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Simpsons people hate Family Guy?

I don't know about the guys who wrote this article, but in all the Simpson guides I've read they've all told me that people who make the Simpsons are fans of Family Guy, and that the jokes against the show are actually tributes to it (similar to when they showed the "Ren and Stimpy: Season Premier" on the Simpsons, and it said that was a tribute to Ren and Stimpy, because they love it) and I've read invterviews with Matt Groening, and he says he likes the show. As for Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and John K., I've never heard anything about that. Somebody please change the Simpsons thing. I don't want to edit it, because my edits are always deleted.

Well Matt Groening isn't cited as a person who thinks negatively of the show, and he hasn't had much to do with the Simpsons for about a decade now anyway. But I think it would be nice to see some sources for a lot of this information. I do know that Kevin Smith wasn't a fan, and the source is cited accurately for him. --TheMidnighters 06:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I just tried to find some verification through google for remarks made in interviews by Trey Parker, Matt Stone and John K in regards to Family Guy and couldn't find anything. I'll remove those bits for now until there are some sources. --TheMidnighters 06:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the Simpsons staff hating Family Guy that is verified by Seth himself in his Onion A. V. Club interview [1] which references a quote from a member of the Simpsons staff[2]. Just search for the phrase "staff hates" on each page. I've seen other quotes in the past from Simpsons writers inwhich their main complaint is that Family Guy copied them somehow. --TheMidnighters 06:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the article, my sources of the Parker & Stone's opinion as well as John Kricfalusi's opinion are located here:

Kricfalusi's comment: "If you're a kid wanting to be a cartoonist today, and you're looking at FAMILY GUY, you don't have to aim very high. You can draw FAMILY GUY when you're ten years old. You don't have to get any better than that to become a professional cartoonist. The standards are extremely low."

source: [3]

Comments by Parker & Stone: "What's the meanest thing ever said to you before, during or after a gig? MS: When people say to me, “God, you guys have one of the best shows on television. You and Family Guy.” That fucking hurts so bad. TP: Very well said. It's such a kick in the balls."

source: [4]

Great. Thanks a lot. --TheMidnighters 23:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Kricfalusi is reffering to animation quality, not the show as a whole.

He is, and that's what the article states. --TheMidnighters 09:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

POV regarding fantastic and non-realistic elements

The article states "[i]ts brand of humor is radically different from similarly described series such as The Simpsons; brief, frequently nonsensical cutaways and flashbacks to various points in history, geography, and reality involving the characters and their ludicrous actions are a staple of the show's comedy". Describing the cutaways as "frequently nonsensical" is a POV that not everyone would share, and there is no indication that various levels of reality are involved in the show; indeed, the fact that at one point in the series a college class in the distant future is watching it suggests the whole series may not be real. But that aside, I don't know of any indication to support these types of assertions -- are any of these things fantastic or unrealistic in the context of Family Guy? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with this; I'd have to say that the series is largely dedicated to nonsense, insofar in that there is no consistent sense of normality or reality, and uses as many or as few levels as necessary to pull off a joke.

Pop culture references abound in Family Guy, but its presentation is decidedly malleable; featuring its characters both as detached viewers (such as literally watching an episode of Jake and the Fat Man on television) or unquestioned participants (such as Peter appearing as a Cavity Creep from the old Crest commercials). Peter can be portrayed as an ex-member of Simon and Garfunkel despite the fact that he's about ten years too young; characters, both real and fictional, appear out of nowhere and disappear just as quickly without being questioned by in-show characters. (My favorite example: in a paintball match with live bullets, Peter says, "At least you're doing better than Peter Weller from the beginning of RoboCop"; pan right to show Weller's character Murphy getting his limbs blasted off by the other characters.) Nothing really has to make sense except as jokes and sketches within themselves; even then it doesn't always follow the rules.

The climax of the episode to which you refer -- "E. Peterbus Unum" -- is a perfect example of this. The episode-long story of Petoria is presented by the teacher as a history lesson, but the students treat it as if they were audience members, in a self-reflexive reference to the television show ("Yeah, so, uh, can the family understand the baby, or how does that work exactly?"). I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's a matter of POV to call the show nonsensical; I'd say the show prides itself on its nonsense. Captain Yesterday 07:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Theme song

Why were the theme song lyrics taken out?- B-101 18:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

LGagnon was concerned that putting the complete song lyrics here was taking "fair use" too far. Quoting the line "laugh 'n cry" is fair use. Doing a complete episode transcript is not. I'm not sure on which side of the line this would fall. Cromulent Kwyjibo 18:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Who else but Quagmire?

If you want to say somthin bout this song, write here.

Preferably here: Breaking Out Is Hard to Do. --TM ^(talk) 11:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Controversy due to leaks

The article says that there's been controversy due to leaks of season 4 premiere episode and Stewie movie on the internet - what kind of controversy? There has to be some explanation.

My guess is the controversy is about the legality of pirating. Seth Macfarlane has a cavalier attitude to pirating, but whenever he says something to that effect feels compelled to note that his lawyers do not condone. Cromulent Kwyjibo 17:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This clarification probably should be added to the article with some links to McFarlane saying something about it, if there are any such links (and the lawyers commenting maybe). Otherwise it's unclear what the controversy is.

Simpsons vs Family Guy

The article says in "Criticisms from From Peers and Critics":

"In one of the recent Treehouse of Horror episodes, Homer creates an army of clones of himself that are each progressively dumber than the real Homer. One of the clones is shown to be Peter Griffin."

The article describes this as a "blatant potshot" at Family Guy. I don't think this can be classified as a blatant potshot, in fact I don't think it's a potshot at all, it seems more like a reference to Family Guy. Opinions anyone? Should that statement be in the article? Akamad 08:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd qualify it is a potshot to label another character a dumb clone of another character. I'd say it can be called blatant considering how open Simpsons writers have been concerning their belief that Family Guy copied them. --TM ^(talk) 11:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahh yes. I see what you are sayig. I stand corrected. Akamad 20:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I also removed a statement claiming that Simpsons ratings and DVD sales were consistently higher than Family Guy. Can the editor provide evidence of this? Currently, the top selling DVD on Amazon is the Family Guy movie... Any relevant facts you can provide to this article are welcome, but broad claims need to be backed up with references. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to remove that statement you must remove the statement that alleges jealousy. That is an opinion statement and it has no place here. Granted, the article says "many fans would suggest" but that could potentially give credibility to any ridiculous comment. I could say "many fans would suggest that Seth MacFarlane and Osama bin Laden are the same person" but it would still be inappropriate for a reference source. As for my sources (or lack thereof) I provided links to Zap2it (though you would have to scour weekly ratings reports since there is no all-encompassing comparison between "Simpsons" and "Family Guy" ratings, the only time a new "Family Guy" episode has ever scored higher ratings than a new "Simpsons" episode on the same night was when "Family Guy" had it's first new episode after years, whereas the new "Simpsons" that night was only the first new episode in a week. After that period the "Family Guy" ratings dropped to where they are now. 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment is unbiased as owner of both shows and they advertise "The Simpsons" by saying "BRING HOME THE BEST-SELLING SERIES OF ALL TIME!" The "Family Guy" direct-to-video movie is currently outselling the latest "Simpsons" DVD release for several reasons: it's a brand-new release (it just came out yesterday vs. Season 6 of "The Simpsons" which came out six weeks ago), it's brand-new content (which has never been done in the case of "The Simpsons") and it's much cheaper than a season set of "The Simpsons" (selling for TWICE as much as the "Family Guy" release on Amazon). My whole point is this: if you're going to include an opinion statement alleging jealousy you MUST point out the COMMON KNOWLEDGE that "The Simpsons" is a cultural juggernaut with success that "Family Guy" hasn't even begun to approach. You can dismiss the show's success and claim it is undeserved but you cannot deny that it has achieved a much greater success than "Family Guy".

For my own amusement

Feel free to add.

	Simpsons	Family Guy	American Dad!	King of the Hill
Father	Stupid	Stupid	Stupid	Overconfident
Mother	Overcautious	Overcautious	Oblivious	Upwardly mobile
Kids	3	3	2	1
Oldest child	M - Mischevous	F - Angsty	F - Activist	M - Oblivious
2nd Child	F - Bookworm	M - Slow	M - Ambitious	N/A
3rd Child	F - Competent	M - Diabolical	N/A	N/A
Year begun	1987	1999	2005	1997
Family Religion	Presboluthern	Protestant/Catholic	???	Methodist (?)
Dad drinks ___ beer	Duff	Pawtucket Pat	???	Alamo

...and on and on it goes. -Litefantastic 23:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Lite, I don't mean to be a dull fork here, but the comparisons between the shows have caused a lot of contention and NPOV unsubstantiated opinions. As its not really related to the content of the article, would you mind moving this to your User space? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but this is a talk page. But if you still think the comparison chart is inappropriate, then I'll move it elsewhere. -Litefantastic 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It's nothing on you, but there has been some pretty nasty edit-warring about vague generalizations about the two shows (see the section above this). If this stays here, it may not stay the light-hearted comparison you want. I think it's still a funny idea, but will probably be better received on your user space. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)