Jump to content

Talk:Family Guy controversies/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Jimmy Corrigan

Where is that panel from? I have the hardback collection of Jimmy Corrigan but I've never seen that panel before (though the art is unmistakably Ware's).

Deletion

One minor point is that Deicide and crucifixion are not synonyms.

I'm still not sure why this page isn't deleted. Essentially any form of entertainment (and TV shows particularly) can be simplified to one or two base elements, and then those elements can be (over)exaggerated to prove lack of complexity. It's almost self-perpetuating.

In the beginning Southpark essentially revovled around shock topics and vulgar language (and arguably still does); the "messages" they seem to pride themselves on are incredibly anti-everything, holier-than-thou and pretentious. Unfortunately any criticism of Southpark is immediately branded as Christian conservatism, both being spheres of thought I certainly do not consider myself a part of.

Its also apparent with recent seasons that the Simpsons' producers have decidedly attempted to 'adultify' or tone up their jokes, to make them more cross-referential, and ultimately, more like Family Guy. This is not to say the Simpsons has become a carbon copy of Family Guy but its is in my opinion impossible to deny that Family Guy has changed somewhat the teen to adult cartoon industry.

I like all three of these shows for different reasons, but I find the Simpsons is often far too kiddie, South Park far too anti-everything, and the Family Guy far too repetitive. So shouldn't we thus have a page of 'Cross-criticism of the Cartoon industry' or something more general? Because I don't see any Criticisms of South park or the Simpsons, yet this article is longer than the one on the East Coast of the United States. Go figure. --Cuomo111 06:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (ed: sorry for the multiple edits, forgot I wasnt logged in)

Furthermore, I just want to quote some opinions form this talk page, a re-statement if you will...

My point, however, was that their cases for unorginality as presented here are weak, consisting of things like "the characters are somewhat similar"--which isn't compelling or damning evidence that proves anything of worth. everything the Simpson writers say is just basically "they copied us"--it's not an obvious enough parallel to objectively mention in detail and is basically the vague opinions of these writers." (Unsigned)

"...the only effective analysis of the show's actual comedic content (the Simpsons issue is differnt) comes from--unsurprisingly--South Park, however this relates to a sinlge episode of South Park and belongs in that article, not this totally irrelevant one. In any case, most comedy fans care not at all about these petty arguments, especially considering Family Guy's huge success; I'm not advocating removing everything here--frivolous moral criticism deserves at least a passing mention and the Simpsons connection is of note, but these belong in highly edited forms on the Family Guy page." (Unsigned)

"The only section with any merit is "Moral Criticism and Controversy", since it is verifiable. I might suggest that this article be deleted or have the moral controversy section merged into the main Family Guy article." User:Dreyvas

"With an entire episode of South Park making fun of Family Guy this page can not be deleted now. My only suggestion is that if it does get deleted a new page needs to be made that talks about the comparison and criticism of all three shows, Family Guy, Simpsons and South Park." User:DidYouLoseASock

"As long as the article is written from a non-biased perspective then it is worthy of a home here-" User:L T Dangerous

"So why does The Simpsons have no mention of Criticism? There was one, but someone just deleted it. You cannot deny that people are starting to turn their back on that show, and yet all we see on that page is how successful it is. I for one, find this article misleading and absurd as people are lead to believe that FG is some show everyone hates and copies the simpsons." (Unsigned)

"The "Family Guy vs. South Park" section should link to the actual Cartoon Wars episode instead of detailing the entire plot and details in this section" User:Vivek "Criticism exists for every show, especially the Simpsons these days. Where is the article on that. South Park did an episode (The Simpsons already did it) on the simpsons and they have no mention of criticism even on the main article." User:Marcklar

"a lot of notable people hate "Family Guy" and this article perfectly documents their hatred." User:GuruAskew

"HA! this is too funny. You know, Cartman has a cat. That is a little too similar to the Griffins owning a dog don't you think? And stan has a sister. As does Chris and Stewie. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!" (Unsigned)

"The flaw in the “Criticism of Family Guy” is when you look up other topics of criticism[1]. Notice how this (so-called) topic stands out-of-place next to topics like Legitimacy of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia or Criticism of libertarianism or even Criticism of Christianity. Where is the other criticism for cartoons? I don’t see a comparison of the Simpson’s vs. the Jetsons, or South Park vs. Peanuts?" (Unsigned)

"it's unfair to have an article ... and only list the negative criticism; we should give equal time and space to the *good* things that have been said about the show." (Unsigned).

While I don't agree with all of the statements I think it puts the need for this article (and the article's sole focus on Family Guy) to be re-evaluated. Perhaps an article called "Cartoon Wars" would be more appropriate. Or perhaps "Cartoon Fan Wars", since it seems to be something that originated with the viewers rather than the creators. --Cuomo111 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would make a hell of a lot more sense to just include "Criticism" sections under each cartoon;most articles based on movies or what not have these sections and I think it would probably make more sense to do that.--Ashmole 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

MacFarlene's Harvard Speech

I think the speech speaks for itself and we don't need to explain to the reader what he ment. Other opinions are welcome.Jaderaid 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • "Firing back,' rebutting, whatever one want to euphemize the point as, MacFarlane is a hypocrit based on his own self-imposed rules.Gnrlotto
  • How? He said that crying foul would be hypocritcal, not firing back. He didn't cry foul. Regardless, it's not up to us to give an anaylisis of the information, simply present the facts and allow the reader to decide.Jaderaid 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Firing back is the same as crying foul. Any mention in regards to feelings of having been sniped is crying foul.

Eg.

Dave: Bob's mother is fat.

Bob: I will refrain from commenting on what Dave said, as I have said similar things about other people.

TWO WEEKS LATER:

Bob: Except to say that Dave is a jerk.

Gnrlotto

You are misunderstanding Macfarlane, but I'm not going to argue this with you because it does not effect the article.Jaderaid 03:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Explain my misunderstanding; if your point is actually arguable, it should be easy.Gnrlotto

Not on the talk pages. If you can explain how it will help the article I will. I'm here to contribute to wikipedia, not change your opinion.Jaderaid 23:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Then find someplace to do it. I'm not saying it will or won't improve the argument. I'm asking for someone who has already publicly called into question my understanding of a most basic sentence in the English utterance to either back up his claim or stuff his pot or remove said miscalculated miscarriage of speech.Gnrlotto

Crying foul, the exact phrase used in the article, would mean claiming that what South Park did was wrong or inappropriate. For example, when Janet Jackson exposed her breast at the superbowl many people cried foul. Had MacFarlane said "That was uncalled for and Trey and Matt should take it back" he would be a hypocrite. Rather he acknowledged that they shit on everyone else just like he does so he can't complain. That doesn't stop him from making jokes at South Park's expense in the way South Park made them about family guy. Now get over it, it has nothing to do with the article. Edit: And if you really feel that Seth's own words make him a hypocrit, then stop reverting my edits and allow them to stand for what they are without your commentary. If you are right, people will see it.Jaderaid 18:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the most semantically based false-reasoning I've ever heard. I'd suggest finding a real debate class somewhere.Gnrlotto

How immature. Maybe you should put some time into contributing to wikipedia instead of trying to egg me on.Jaderaid 07:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Look, you win. You're obviously a fan come rain or shine, and there's no logical, human, sane reasoning with that (like we all can get on topics we love), but you're also not a troll, and that's commendable. Don't worry, be happy.Gnrlotto

YOU asked him to explain a phrase (which, my fanboy friend, is made up of words), and then accuse him of semantics? Gnrlotto, thy name is Irony.

This is not a message board or fan-forum. Build a bridge, get over it, and get back to the matter of improving this article. Happy cricket 04:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A little late on that one. Jaderaid 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarities with the Simpsons

I added the fact that most of these can be found in other sitcoms. Feel free to revert if you have just causeJaderaid 05:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "The Simpsons" just takes the formulaic elements of other "dysfunctional family" sitcoms, such as Roseanne and Married... with Children and puts it into two-dimensional animated form. Criticizing a show for having some very basic elements is nothing more than a cheap shot – indeed, any animated series can be compared to The Simpsons (or any other sitcom for that matter) based on a fat father, three kids, a dog, etc., but that doesn't necessarily mean plagarism was involved. That's like saying all animated series copied Mickey Mouse.
There isn't any documented comparison of Family Guy to The Simpsons; even Matt Groening says he doesn't really care. I think most of the criticism comes from bitter Simpsons fans. The whole "Family Guy vs. The Simpsons" area should be shortened to only include verifiable facts, not just heresay and angry fanboy rants.
Feel free to revert my changes, but don't make crazy accusations. --Tokachu 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed all of the similarities because they are just so common and it's pointless to have them here. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and we can discuss the pros and cons here. Jaderaid 23:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevance/Merge

  • Although family has received a lot of criticism from various sources (much of it frivolous and reactionary), I'd question the overall nature of this page. Why is it so detailed? Why are the criticisms presented in such a comprehensive manner? What is the significance of these criticisms that they are given such prominence and such a large article? I think it can be objectively said that many of these criticisms are silly and/or not worthy of significant attention, since Family Guy's critical and fan reputation is very, very strong and most criticisms of the show presented here come from mean-spirited rival comedians, silly pop-culture publications, and relatively unknown animators. Wikipedia users should note that when articles such as this are afforded so much detail and space, it tends to emphasize the importance of the said article's contents, sometimes presenting a strong bias. In this case, some of the criticisms repeated so many times are feeble and uninformative--offering no insights into either the show, the people criticizing the show, or any specific thesis; specifically, the charge that family guy has "bad/poor writing"--this is a vague and facile criticism, it's highly elitist (ie, it implies that the writing is obviously weak and could easily be improved, without any conrete support); it essentially doesn't require any meaningful analysis of the show--in other words, it's the equivalent of saying "many people think the show is bad...these are some of those people. They all say that the show is bad." This is quite clearly a frivolous sentence and emphasizing how many people think that Family Guy has poor writing doesn't add anything but aloof, esoteric opinion that isn't even necessarily wide-spread. In other words, just because some prominent figures have presented that criticism doesn't mean it's a notable viewpoint that should be afforded so much space. I'd suggest that people continuously charging family guy with "bad writing" are using that deliberately vague and simplistic criticism in lieu of any effective, concrete arguments against the show's quality. In other words, they don't like it and it's popularity, so they just say it is bad. If one were to say that the show lacked much in the way of conventional plot structure, that would be a more accurate and insightful comment--but complex, original story-lines are not what people watch the show for, therefore that argument is easily destroyed. This is just one example of these many criticisms--while wikipedia isn't POV, the presence of this large and in-depth article brings these criticisms into sharper focus. By placing so much emphasis on the Simpsons connection, for example, it makes it seem as if Family Guy is self-evidently derivative of the Simpsons. This is a fallacy, despite similarities between Peter and Homer, since the concept of the nuclear family has existed long before either show. Another glaring example is the South Park parody--that belongs on the episode's own article, not on this highly problematic, repetetive article. I think this article, therefore, should be merged with the show article; if I devoted a whole article to saying how Family Guy is distinct and immune to these criticisms, citing the opinions of the shows writers and television critics, that article would be immediately deleted or merged with the Family Guy article for sure--even though it would be just as valid as this one. As it stands, this article basically provides a place for people who aren't even fans of the show to project their opinions in a prominent manner--this is irresponsible. The extent of this article should be reduced to something like "family guy recieved criticisms from [these conservative groups] for [these reasons (moral, pc, relgious, etc)].... Some comedians and others have also gone on record as disliking the show, of whom Trey Parker and Matt Stone are the most notable, lampooning the show in an episode of South park."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.137.57 (talk • contribs)

  • You say that "in other words, [critics of the show] don't like it and it's popularity, so they just say it is bad", which I think is overly simplistic on your part. Why would the Simpsons staffers quoted in the article be jealous of Family Guy's popularity, when arguably The Simpsons has achieved more popularity and cultural significance during its 17-year run? Isn't it possible that they just don't like the show and are just expressing their opinion to express their opinion, not because of some sort of cartoon rivalry or jealousy? Why don't they have "effective, concrete arguments against the show's quality" or "more accurate and insightful comment[s]"? Maybe because they realize it's a damn cartoon show and not worth expounding a 6,000 word essay upon. Rubber cat 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Saying that the writers and staff for the Simpsons "realize it's a damn cartoon show" is strange, because likely these people are notable only because they have devoted their entire careers to a cartoon show and clearly care enough about the issue to expound in interviews. Contrary to what you seem to imply here, writers care about what they write even if it is a cartoon show, and the Simpsons writers are not saying Family Guy is bad (others are), they are saying it's unorginial. If they just didn't like the show, then that doubly reinforces my argument that their gripes are irrelevant. My point, however, was that their cases for unorginality as presented here are weak, consisting of things like "the characters are somewhat similar"--which isn't compelling or damning evidence that proves anything of worth. everything the Simpson writers say is just basically "they copied us"--it's not an obvious enough parallel to objectively mention in detail and is basically the vague opinions of these writers. But if you're gonna say something is a direct copy, your arguments gotta be pretty strong in order to be mentioned in extreme detail on an encyclopedia article.
Let me just restate my main point: if the Simpsons writers and others had more detailed, insightful, and complex reasons for resenting family guy that were either extremely contentious, damning, or highly intricate in a way that provided indispensable information or about the show, then perhaps an article of this length and detail would be proper and necessary. As it stands, many of these criticisms are vague and not specefic and are presented on this page repeatedly so that they seem very prominenet, common, and highly important. They are none of these things, and I don't think that evaluation stems from a huge bias on my part--read them, there are 4 or 5 references to jokewriting quality without any elaboration; the only effective analysis of the show's actual comedic content (the Simpsons issue is differnt) comes from--unsurprisingly--South Park, however this relates to a sinlge episode of South Park and belongs in that article, not this totally irrelevant one. In any case, most comedy fans care not at all about these petty arguments, especially considering Family Guy's huge success; I'm not advocating removing everything here--frivolous moral criticism deserves at least a passing mention and the Simpsons connection is of note, but these belong in highly edited forms on the Family Guy page.


The reason behind the page is because the show has gone further than any show tomy knowledge.And it seems to be very controversy worldwide,hence this page.But the fan demograhic is there. I dont think this page puts the show down in anyway.

Mad Magazine

I deleted the Mad Magazine section because Mad mocks and criticizes almost everything, including itself.

Might still be worth mentioning however. Jmlk17 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. It should be deleted. --Tuspm 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. Mad mocked the show and it should be represented here and if readers want to say "hey, Mad mocks everything" that's up to them but removing it altogether is censorship and demonstrates an undeniable case of POV.GuruAskew 21:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Mad TV reference at the bottom at the page, Bill Gaines died in 1992, so I don't think he sold the rights to the name in '95 to create a TV show. Minor point, I know. But if I'm right it should be fixed. Vorenus 01:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Post-'Hiatus' Criticism

Is it just me, or has Family Guy transmogrified into Seth MacFarlane's vehicle to attack the Bush administration? I mean, isn't that what American Dad is for? At least when The Simpsons do it thru Lisa, they parody knowitall self-righteousness. The anti-Bush stuff just isn't that clever or funny, IMHO it's lazy. Polemics aren't funny, including this one.

This is a weird criticism. There have been maybe one or two significant Bush parodies; while I agree that they weren't the most

memorable incidents on the show, there is no way anyone can reasonably argue that Family Guy has become a "vehicle to attack the Bush administration"; to say so reflects a bias--ie, specific attention afforded to a very minor aspect of one or two recent episodes. All in all I'd estimate that less than 10 minutes of combined air time in the show's history has been used to criticize Bush or his administration (though I havn't seen the last 2 or 3 episodes).

How many episodes have they acctually taken a shot a Bush in? MacFarlane did say that he was going to make fun of Bush more when the show was revived and I agree he has; but I don't see how its gotten to be excessive.


The reason behind the page is because the show has gone further than any show to my knowledge. And it seems to be very controversy worldwide, hence this page. But the fan demograhic is there. I dont think this page puts the show down in any way.
The Bush shots I can think of...
  • Bush acting like a toddler and crying over toys or something similar.
  • "If you don't want to invade Iraq, you're gay."
  • The cutaway to Bush being late to fight in Vietnam (I believe it was Vietnam).
And I think there may be one more. I've heard this criticism before, and it's idiotic. 3 or 4 Bush jokes within 30 episodes? I could make a better argument that the show's sole purpose is to reference Star Wars by the same logic. And Bill Clinton was parodied in earlier seasons, such as, off the top of my head, E. Peternus Unum and Da Boom, and I believe there was a joke in the pilot. The difference is, like every political comedy medium, the focus of Clinton jokes was his sexual escapades, while the focus of Bush jokes is criticism of his decisions. Obviously, that's much more likely to be misconstrued as commenting negatively on the President, but what else is there to make fun of Bush for? -- Viewdrix 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fan Criticism

Is there any place where you got the fan criticism from? I think the episodes from season 4 are a little more original than the episodes from the first three season. Also, i rarely see any of the "other" characters mentioned in season 4

I've got to agree with that. It seems the author(s) of most of this article are using the page as a soapbox to publish their own opinion of the show. The only section with any merit is "Moral Criticism and Controversy", since it is verifiable. I might suggest that this article be deleted or have the moral controversy section merged into the main Family Guy article. I just kind of stumbled onto this by accident; it definitely needs sprucing up. Dreyvas 19:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged this article again (an anonymous user removed it), however I doubt anybody will cite any sources. If that is the case then I think this would be a perfect afd candidate. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

where are the sources...

i think this article is more or less someone who doesnt like the show using wikipedia as a soap box to complain about it.

where are the references. i would have this article removed or trimmed and merged with the main family guy entry.



"Too Funny To Sleep" citation added. Oddly enough, when I added it correctly it displayed incorrectly. Even when I just did it now, the entire page deleted. Must be doing something wrong.

the Simpsons VS FG page that had that cover of MAD displayed incorrectly and went to the bottom of the page where the notes were. So I just did link [1] and it takes you to the "Too Funny To Sleep" pageEAB 09:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)EAB

I think it's funny

Actually, I think its bloody damn ridiculous that people are not only offended by this show, but that celebrities are offended as well. Oh, for the Love of God. it's obvious now, why people prefer fantasy over reality. The real world sucks, because for the most part, people have lost their sense of humor. It's as if a collective of various bugs crawled up the asses of most of the people in this world, and died and festered there; unable to leave no matter how much that person tries, to get rid of their infestation. It's even funnier that people believe God would be offended by this show. The crazy thing is, God's got a strange and twisted sense of humor. After all, He made the dumbasses who get offended by this show. If people don't like this show, then they don't have to watch it. Nobody's coming to their house with a sawed-off shotgun, and forcing them to watch it and enjoy it, now are they?

"Actually, I think its bloody damn ridiculous that people are not only offended by this show, but that celebrities are offended as well." What in the world are you talking about? The only celebrities mentioned in this article complain about the quality of writing, the quality of animation, and the originality of the material. None of the celebrities mentioned are complaining about being "offended." Methinks that far too many people jump to using the phrase "offensive" as a stock-excuse for not being funny, yourself included, even when it's not at all appropriate to the context of the conversation. Schrodinger82 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
To Schrodinger82 and the original poster,

Wikipedia talk pages are not chat rooms or message boards. They are soley for discussing ways to improve the quality of articles. Please do not post useless messages like this one on Wikipedia's talk pages. Thanks! --Tuspm 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

I think this article has been up long enough for authors to find sources it. However, there still are very few. If this article is not substantially cleaned up within one week (March 6) I will mark it for deletion. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that people let the lack of citation slide when they agree with what is being said but they come out of the woodworks demanding it when they don't agree. I see from your profile that you are indeed a "Family Guy" fan. As such, I expect you to submit the main "Family Guy" article for deletion unless every single statement included therein is backed up with a citation. Ah, the hypocrisy of Wikipedia at work.

If you do take objection to the lack of citation, I urge you to remove only the parts lacking citation, although I suspect that you are just looking for an excuse to censor criticism of something you like.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GuruAskew (talk • contribs) 03:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith from fellow editors anything controversial and unsourced may be removed on sight, this is wikipedia policy i quote from WP:CITE "Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion" the very nature of this article requires it be heavily sourced. It is not a place for people to make their own criticism of family guy but to report notable media criticisms. I too enjoy watching family guy and have recently been sourcing all the cirticisms on the main article for the sake of the encyclopedia. I do however agree that sending it to AFD its not a good idea unless intended to spur a clean-up. Discordance 15:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the third section and it is properly sourced now apart from the first paragraph. I'd like someone to try to find a screenshot of that scene from clerks. Discordance 16:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been more clear. I believe that there is not enough verifiable information for there to be an entire article on this. So unless someone can come up with a good, well researched article, I think it'd be best to delete this article and merge all relevent, factual information into the main article. If I were to remove all "disputed information" then this article would be virtually blank, hence why I believe we do not need this article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Jtrost, there are "entire articles" for individual episodes of Family Guy. In fact, from the looks of it, their are "entire articles" for each and every episode of Family Guy individually. Including some that haven't even aired yet. And although I've only glanced at a few of them, zero citations, zero references, and almost as long as the current article in question. Just out of curiousity, how many of those have you marked for deletion? Schrodinger82 02:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraphs as they are the most questionable and the only google results are pages regurgitating wikipedia and a vague reference to someones blog in armenia.

Because of these controversies many nations have banned Family Guy, including Armenia, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Iran, Thailand, Belarus, South Africa, Egypt, Philippines, Serbia and Montenegro, Vietnam, Taiwan, People's Republic of China (PRC), Albania, and South Korea-- Fyslee (collaborate). This was due to perceived insults or jokes against these countries. However, the show nowadays is leaked in the Philippines on cable (broadcast from Hong Kong), and some viewers there loved the show in spite of the apparently frequent "insults" to their country. Similar leaks on cable networks have made Family Guy available in Egypt, Vietnam, and Thailand.

It should be noted that several of the same mentioned countries also ban other mainstream American entertainment including movies and other television shows, animated or non-animated. In many countries, moral standards differ, and broadcasts vary. Discordance 17:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I moved the unsourced template to the middle section as that is the part that is most poorly cited and seems most like original research. The top section is fine and the bottom is pretty good, I added a few {{cite needed}}s in specific places. Generally a pretty good article. Thatcher131 18:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that Smith and Mandel's comments need citation when it says that they come from a DVD commentary? Sure, you can't link to a DVD commentary but ultimately the citation is specific and accurate. GuruAskew 22:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was taking a look due to the AfD and took the opportunity to make some quick changes. I may have left an unneccessary tag. Will go over it again. Thatcher131 02:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • One of us must be missing something. I moved the blanket tag to the Family Guy vs Simpsons section. The Other peers and critics section has cite tags regarding EW but not Smith and Mandel. Thatcher131 04:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
that's because I took it off as soon as I saw itGuruAskew 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think what should be done with DVD commentaries is to create a footnote and indicate in which episode or on what DVD volume the comment occurs. That is obvious in the case of Clerks TAS, but needs to be added for the Simpsons creators saying they hate FG. Thatcher131 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
that's gonna be tough. I supplied that info but with 7 seasons on DVD I don't even know if I could narrow it down to which season it was, let alone which episode. Hopefully someone going through them now will see this and provide the specifics, the "Family Guy" bashes are there and they're pretty common.GuruAskew 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's any special rush; leave the tag up and if no one else picks it up, maybe you'll find it by accident the next time you're home with the flu :) Thatcher131 05:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the comment that the Simpsons creators think FG is less family-friendly, I removed the comment about the Simpsons recent episodes being rated TV14, because the ratings are decided by Network Standards&Practices, not the producers of the individual shows, and many times producers feel their shows are rated too high because S&P are lawyers worried about a backlash, so we probably can't put that on Groening et al. Thatcher131 04:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly

The show was voted one of the top 10 worst shows in 2001 by Entertainment Weekly, ranking at number 5.

Maybe it was, but the source is a link to 5 television shows considered the worst of 2001 by Ken Tucker. It was not a vote, or at least that is certainly not apparent from the language he uses.

Here is a worthy successor to Arli$$ as the Awful Show They Just Keep Putting on the Air, a phenomenon as inexplicable as where Larry King gets all his suspenders. As long as they keep bringing back Family Guy, a hunk of ugly animation, I'll keep using it to line the bottom of this barrel.

68.9.205.10 00:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did. How does it look now? 68.9.205.10 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That looks fine. I did change the generic inline reference to the {{cite web}} template which provides a bit more information. The same (or related cite templates) could be applied throughout the article but I haven't done it yet. Thatcher131 16:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted?

please, this article is ridiculous. There are no sources and why does it need a whole page?!

this is obviously just for petty simpsons fans so they can have their little victory over FG. Don't blame them, it is creeping up on the simpsons damn fast.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.21.230 (talk • contribs)

This article cannot be merged with Family Guy since it would make that too large thats why it has its own article. Also the size of the article is worthy of an independent article. Also this subject is relevant since criticism of family guy is quite widespread and here on wikipedia we provide both sides of the story called NPOV. Thank you. Tutmosis 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the criticism for the simpsons is getting bigger and bigger and yet they dont even have a section. This article is pathetic and it has no place "here on wikipedia"

Criticism from who? Quantified how? -Schrodinger82 05:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

With an entire episode of South Park making fun of Family Guy this page can not be deleted now. My only suggestion is that if it does get deleted a new page needs to be made that talks about the comparison and criticism of all three shows, Family Guy, Simpsons and South Park. DidYouLoseASock 23:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Family Guy vs. South Park" section should link to the actual Cartoon Wars episode instead of detailing the entire plot and details in this section --Vivek 13:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is absurd, some of the family guy/Simpsons comparisons are a little far reaching Jacknife737 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the "Petty Simpsons fans" claim, I'd like to point out that I consider myself an avid Simpsons fan, still willing to stick up for it long after many have abandoned it, but that doesn't mean I'll blindly follow the pack. I'd also like to point out that I am a huge Family Guy fan and greatly appreciate the fact they're pushing the envelope, but that doesn't mean I can't see it's sometimes pushed too far. I am also willing to see criticism of both shows. Seasons 13-15 of The Simpsons were hardly their three finest years. Family Guy is often amazingly distasteful. Things like this level of criticism need documenting so that people who, like myself, aren't biased, can reflect on them. Hell, I'm just as big a fan of South Park, but they're sometimes flawed over at Comedy Central, too, with Matt and Trey sometimes using the show to further personal agendas. Doesn't mean the show isn't funny. As long as the article is written from a non-biased perspective then it is worthy of a home here- fact is, it's much too large to fit into the Family Guy article. --L T Dangerous 22:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

" since criticism of family guy is quite widespread and here on wikipedia we provide both sides of the story called NPOV"

I'm sorry, what? Criticism exists for every show, especially the Simpsons these days. Where is the article on that. South Park did an episode (The Simpsons already did it) on the simpsons and they have no mention of criticism even on the main article. I know how Wikipedia works thankyou very much, and putting aside the fact that you're extremly patonising, I must disagree that this article is NPOV. No sources. Weasel words. Waffles. Writers opinions clearly coming through. No, this article needs to be deleted. --Marcklar

I believe this article is the very definition of NPOV and the fact that other valid criticism articles don't exist shouldn't discourage the existence of this one. Imagine if every time someone went to contribute to Wikipedia they thought "hey, wait, I can't submit this entry in good conscious because I don't have entries to submit that give equal weight to every single potential counterview possible." To suggest that this article should only exist if "Simpsons" and "South Park" articles existed is absolutely absurd. People are free to write those articles if they so wish but the fact that nobody has does not invalidate this article.

As for your statement "this article needs to be deleted" you should have put your two cents in when it was NOMINATED FOR DELETION. Not that it would have done any good, you and the person that nominated it would have been the only people voting for it's deletion. The vote to keep the article was unanimous. You need to face the facts: a lot of notable people hate "Family Guy" and this article perfectly documents their hatred. GuruAskew 19:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting. So why does The Simpsons have no mention of Criticism? There was one, but someone just deleted it. You cannot deny that people are starting to turn their back on that show, and yet all we see on that page is how successful it is. I for one, find this article misleading and absurd as people are lead to believe that FG is some show everyone hates and copies the simpsons.

So go make an article about criticisms of the Simpsons? I would love to see "criticisms of" articles for everything under the sun as long as they are sourced, cited and come from individual of repute NOT of wikipedians who just want to post their opinions. I've had a tough time with this article because rather than document existing criticism from those who have the authority to do so, people feel they can just insert their own opinions

Identical joke

In the Family Guy vs. The Simpsons section, where the examples of Family Guy referencing the Simpsons are, I removed the line "It should be noted that a practically identical joke appeared in the "Simpsons" episode "Treehouse of Horror IX." Someone has put it back. Given the different contexts, these jokes are nothing alike. It is ridiculous to think that Family guy was copying, or even referencing, the above Simpsons gag. I doubt they even knew or remembered it. I'm taking it out again. --128.253.179.184 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the exact same joke, recycling the famous "Simpsons" opening animation but slightly tweaking it so that Homer is hit by the car. I'm restoring it, it's a valid point in an article where plagiarism is alleged. The truth hurts GuruAskew 21:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • No, it's not the same joke. The first joke was used as the opening for a Halloween special; the second joke mocks The Simpsons. The jokes are completely different. (Ibaranoff24 00:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

No, both jokes slightly alter the opening "Simpsons" animation so the car runs over Homer. The similarity is undeniable. Back it goes. It's as valid as any of the allegations of plagiarism here.GuruAskew 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Homer is RUN OVER in the Simpsons episode. On the so-called "similar joke" from Family Guy, he hits the door and is knocked out. It is NOT the same joke. (Ibaranoff24 03:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Plus, Family Guy's joke was part of a larger joke which was a parody of the credits sequence for the Naked Gun films. The Simpsons episode was parodying itself when with that Halloween special opening sequence. (Ibaranoff24 03:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

That is just a semantics argument. They are very clearly similar, as similar as any other comparison in this article. The mere fact that the comparison has been drawn proves the similarity. Your user page shows that you are a "Family Guy" fan and I believe your agenda is to downplay a case of unoriginality. There's really no way you can deny the validity of the statement so I will restore it.GuruAskew 04:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • "Your user page shows that you are a "Family Guy" fan and I believe your agenda is to downplay a case of unoriginality"
My user page also shows that I am a "Simpsons" fan. Maybe I might try and edit this page to make it look like "Family Guy" constantly rips "The Simpsons" off, right? Don't judge a book by its cover, or you'll lose a lot of friends. (Ibaranoff24 03:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC))
  • By including it, you are alleging that Family Guy is copying the joke from the Simpsons. We are saying that all they are doing is parodying the opening sequence as a way of parodying the show. That the Simpsons also happened to parody themselves in a similar way is not significant because it is a very natural joke to do. I'm sure its happened before that many people have independently thought of the same joke, but it doesn't mean they are copying each other. Had Family Guy done an episode about Peter Griffin opening up a snow plowing business and competing with his neighbor, etc, I would be more inclined to agree they were copying the simpsons, because that is a much more specific, detailed, and unusual idea.--128.253.179.184 01:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Both jokes involve slightly altering the existing "Simpsons" opening animation so that Homer Simpson gets hit by a car. The sentence is going backGuruAskew 02:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Both scenes parody the very famous Simpsons opening, except the Simpsons scene shows the various characters dying and the Family Guy scene is a naked Gun reference until the very end. And even with the parts that are similar, in the Simpsons Homer is crushed by the car, and in Family Guy he fails to open the door. This reminds me of the argument that Family Guy ripped off South Park's Death character, when in fact both shows are using the famous death archetype, except in this case the Simpsons is referencing itself RentACop 15:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think GuruAskew's contention that this is plagiarism is absurd. It's a spoof. However, I've left their assertion in the text and added a small counter. 81.170.38.140 19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Every episode features at least a celebrity name and other pop culture-related things, much like Comedy Central's South Park." That's on the wikipage for Family Guy, how ironic considering the recent controversy.

lightning rod of controversy?!

Shouldn't this say something less colloquial?--Greasysteve13 04:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I took the leap and changed it. It may be a bit awkward, but go ahead and change it if you think of something better. Nice use of English in a talk page. Rare. =) --Mboverload 04:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I do my best.--Greasysteve13 06:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrance and Philips : a hero sits next door

In the fifth episode of season one : a hero sits next door, after about eight minutes, a guy in a red shirt offers gum to a guy in a blue shirt that appears to make him addicted to drugs. The guys in blue have a T on their shirt, and the red have a P on their shirt. They both start laughing in a dumb way.

Now Terrance and Philips always start laughing at each other, and they also wear a T and P on their shirt. The only difference is that Philips is the one in blue in South Park.

What do you think? Evilbu 09:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think you've got way too much free time on your hands. Read a book, eat something new, go get laid. If this kind of comparison is the best you can come up with, you probably shouldn't be thinking about these things. (Ibaranoff24 22:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

I disagree. Can't I get a second opinion or something. I know people who think it just obvious that it is a parody. You are convinced that this is nonsense but you don't give any arguments? Have you even seen the episode I am talking about? What I do in my free time is irrelevant... Evilbu 10:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with plagurism? Do you mean Dilbert? Evilbu 18:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

HA! this is too funny. You know, Cartman has a cat. That is a little too similar to the Griffins owning a dog don't you think? And stan has a sister. As does Chris and Stewie. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!


The Amendment song

Why was my edit of adding the amendment song removed? I don't get it?

Evilbu 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Because they're both in reference to "Schoolhouse Rock". There are plenty of examples of potential plagiarism of "The Simpsons" on "Family Guy" but this isn't one of them, they merely both did a parody of the same show.GuruAskew 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Would this belong in a real encyclopedia?

Would "Criticism of Family Guy" belong in a real encyclopedia or would it be rejected for its lack of necessity? If it would not belong there, why, then, would it belong on Wikipedia [aka Wiki Encyclopedia]?

A real encyclopedia probably wouldn't even have a page about family guy in the first place. I'm of the school that believes wikipedia should be as big and as comprehensive as we can make it. This belongs here. Jaderaid 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Jaderaid. The same argument could be leveled against half of the stuff on Wikipedia, lists of Fighting Fantasy books, episodes of Babylon 5, The Onion, etc. This stuff makes Wikipedia different. Who knows, maybe somebody out there is really really needing (not wanting, but needing) to find out the criticism of Family Guy. And for the record, I'm a Family Guy fan. Phileas 06:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Family Guy is an important part of American pop culture now, so responses to it are (in my opinion) a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. The fact that "real" encyclopedias lack articles on such topics is just one more reason why I never seem to use them. Difference engine 20:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Not only would a real encyclopedia no have a page on Family Guy, but I also seriously don't that it would have individual pages for each and every episode of Family Guy that ever aired, as well as pages for the episodes that haven't. Schrodinger82 01:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The flaw in the “Criticism of Family Guy” is when you look up other topics of criticism[1]. Notice how this (so-called) topic stands out-of-place next to topics like Legitimacy of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia or Criticism of libertarianism or even Criticism of Christianity. Where is the other criticism for cartoons? I don’t see a comparison of the Simpson’s vs. the Jetsons, or South Park vs. Peanuts? Maybe I should not have typed that… it might give someone an idea to create another frivolous comparison like the one on this topic.

A better place to put this rubbish is a wiki cartoon site – I found one starting in 0.56 seconds[!] with a simple google search: http://wikitoons.wikispaces.com/ . Might not fit the websites original idea, but items like “Criticism of Family Guy” and others would be more logical there than a Wiki for an encyclopedia!

PS: Why is “Clerks: The Animated Series” even on the list? For a show that had such a “cult audience” it could not even get past 6 episodes. They even had a shot with Comedy Central and blew it! That and the creator of Ren and Stimpy quoted saying “The standards are extremely low” seems like an unintended joke on his own shows dialogue. Remember “Happy, happy, joy, joy….”? Like that show had high standards.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criticisms

I see this article as a documentation of actual criticisms lodged by those in the industry. Like all of wikipedia, it is a work in progress. All criticisms should be cited; if a criticism of the show cannot be attributed to someone reputable, it doesn't belong here. I would like to see documentent critisims of every Television show out there if possible. Family guy being as popular and highly critized (and acclaimed) as it is makes it an excellent starting point. I hope this clarifys things.Jaderaid 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


You have to remember, though, that Wikipedia is different from a regular encyclopedia. Wikipedia covers practically everything. Even with cartoons, they have links to all of the episodes. If they make episode pages, then this would make sense. If the owners strongly felt it was that unnecessary, they would've deleted it and posted a rule stating that these types of postings are not allowed at wikipedia. Black Kat 21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Jokes About Mental Illness

There are numerous jokes on mental illness on the show? What's your say?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnatt (talk • contribs)

Maybe you can add something about Peter Griffin being too stupid. You will need sources though.--Greasysteve13 08:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I retract my statement. At the time I thought about what Meg Griffin said "I just wanna to kill myself! I'm going upstairs right now to eat a whole bowl of peanuts". This is sorta related to mental illness but afterall it's only fiction!Pnatt 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Peanut#Allergies
chocolateboy 20:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The constant whiny additions of "nor disavowed" to the Groening comment

I'm getting fed up with this. A long time ago (maybe even back when this was part of the main "Family Guy" article) I added the following statement:

"Groening, on the other hand, has never acknowledged any such friendship with MacFarlane."

You would think that this quote would be simple enough. It's NPOV, it doesn't say that Groening has confirmed the friendship nor does it say that he's denied it. It merely says that he hasn't acknowledged it, which is simple and more importantly, it's true.

What gets me is that the poor whiny little "Family Guy" fans that cling to their hopeless denials over the fact that pretty much everybody working in animation hates "Family Guy" just can't accept the reality of the situation.

This is what it comes down to: Groening hasn't said "hey, I hate Seth MacFarlane" just like he hasn't said "hey, Seth MacFarlane and I are BFF". If you must modify the line to say "Groening, on the other hand, has never acknowledged nor denied any such friendship with MacFarlane" you have to add all sorts of other extraneous hypothetical redundancies to the statement. Let me offer up a suggestion to those who insist on adding "nor denied":

"Groening, on the other hand, has never acknowledged, nor denied, nor described as orgasmic, nor praised to high heaven any such friendship with MacFarlane."

The word "acknowledge" is more than adequate to describe the situation here. For better or worse, Groening has not acknowledged MacFarlane's comments and that is what the sentence conveys perfectly.

If you insist on changing that line I suggest you hit up the Wiktionary and look up "acknowledge" and then think long and hard about what you should do about the fact that you're upset that the creator of one show you like doesn't like another show you like.</ref


Pot to kettle: "You are black",RentACop 20:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Why does there seem to be this obsession on the internet with who does and who doesn't like Family Guy? Does it really matter? Rubber cat 21:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't really matter. It's just something to discuss. --mboverload 22:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge With Family Guy

I don't see why this needs its own article. I thought we could merge it with the Family Guy article. The Family Guy article already has a criticisms section in it and I was thinking we could merge this article and put it in that section. If someone can give me a good reason why not to merge these articles, I will remove the tag. --Tuspm 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I originally planted the seed of what became this article back when I added the criticism section to the "Family Guy" article and I was sort of pissed when it was spun off into it's own entry because I thought the whiny "Family Guy" fans were trying to sweep it under the rug but it's grown to a substantial article and I now think that it's too big to be put back into the main article. I do think that anything but the most general description of the criticism in the main article is redundant, however. This article should be linked by the main article with a brief description. It's currently linked but I just think the redundancies should be eliminated, the fact that the article is linked by the main article and on the table on all "Family Guy"-related articles is satisfactory.GuruAskew 21:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just too big. Tuspm, you need give good reasoning why we should merge it with family guy. If anything, we should move more of the criticisms of family guy section of the family guy article to this page. I removed the merge tag as well, as this has already been debated. Jaderaid 00:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it was stupid for it to have its own article so I suggested we merge it. That's all. --Tuspm 13:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just stuck the merge tag on here. It does need to be merged with Family Guy, as it really has no real stand alone value. Toasthaven2 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How does it not have any stand alone value? If offers a broad yet still encylopedic account of criticisms lodged against family guy. If it were merged, a significant portion of the shows page would be devoted to critisms of the show. As it stands now, there is an acceptably sized section which allows the reader to enter this page and read further. What is the big problem with that?Jaderaid 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is just way too large to be merged into family guy. It would make up like half the family guy article. 72.130.177.246 07:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dave Chappelle

I deleted that section because it is unsourced and I can't find any evidence of it. Jaderaid 00:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Positive Criticism?...

Definition of Criticism:

The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.

^Criticism doesn't necessarily imply *negative* commentary. How about we include some POSITIVE criticism of Family Guy to balance out all the negative criticism? Surely SOMEONE notable out there must have something *nice* to say about Family Guy; it's unfair to have an article about criticism of the show and only list the negative criticism; we should give equal time and space to the *good* things that have been said about the show.

Go out there and find some, slugger! Jaderaid 07:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The first definition of criticism in my dictionary (New Oxford American) is "the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistake" Rubber cat 05:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't have a section dedicated to positive reviews, I'm just too lazy to go find them myself.Jaderaid 06:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nancy Franklin's New Yorker article is in fact roundly positive, she says that toilet humour IS very funny, that family guy ISNT JUST a 'fartfest', that '“Family Guy” is laugh-out-loud, timelessly loopy—it’s a Dadaesque vaudeville turn, often literally.' Furthermore, not only was the New Yorker episode of family guy not in response to the article, it is mentioned in Franklin's article, bemusedly apologising for the lack of toilets as a gesture of her fondness for the show. It'd be nice to keep reference to this article in, so for now I am going to remove the word 'rant' as it isn't a rant, as anyone who read the article may inform you.

Stupidity

Why isn't there a section discussing the stupidity of that show. It revolves entirely around stupid and unfunny 1-liners that the idiotic fanbase laughs at every time they are heard. It is a drain on people's intelligence, nearly equal to right wingism, alcohol, drugs, or tobacco. 205.166.61.142 18:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that, maybe, just maybe, that might be a little POV. Just maybe, but I'm throwing it out there. -- Viewdrix 19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This page should be three times the size it is now. Try to find what you can, there is plenty of criticism out there. Just watch out for Jaderaid, he will delete it.


Oh shucks hypermagic, I do my best. Would you like me to show you how to sign your comments?Jaderaid 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)



Just Stop

Can everyone please stop debating the issues and flaws of family guy? This article exists as a summary of criticisms lodged by those within the industry and anyone else of note coupled with the rebuttals of the family guy staff. Don't do original research by making whatever trivial comparisons you can, don't interpret criticisms for anything more or less than they are and don't use this as a place to vent about how stupid or poorly written or unfunny family guy is -- plenty of more reputable people have better articulated what you want to say so go out and find their criticisms and add to the article.Jaderaid 09:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you're a fan or not, but the purpose of this page is to read the article then state your opinion here if you wish to. If you don't like what people say, deal with it. This page is here for a reason. Black Kat 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If that isn't a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, than I don't know what is. Also, plagiarism should equally be accused of The Simpsons creators for stealing all the clichés of every single live-action "dysfunctional family" sitcom ever made. --Tokachu 03:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


So is it wrong for me to state how I feel about Seth MacFarlane? If MacFarlane can constantly blast people on television all the time, then I don't know why I can't be allowed to state what I feel on MacFarlane, which is that he is a shameless plagerist. (What's happened to free speech in America?) Black Kat 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can state how you feel about Seth MacFarlane but the discussion page on an online encyclopedia is probably not the best venue for you to do so --Rubber cat 10:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering it's an article about the criticism of Family Guy, I would think it's fine. Besides, I'm stating what I see about MacFarlane. He just throws insults at people for no reason. Besides, I'm not coming here telling people to stop bad-mouthing MacFarlane. That person continuously was telling people to stop getting annoyed with him, when his critcism was definitely not uncalled for. Black Kat 22:10 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually BlackKat, the TalkPags are NOT here for you to discuss what you think of Seth and Co., they are here to discuss the merits of this article and what should/should ne be included, how to improve it, leave suggestions. Quote from the help:talk page, "They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
So I suggest you take the discussion elsewhere, this is not the place for it. Thanks. Chewbacca1010 02:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Magazine?

Has anyone ever heard of The Magazine before? Sure, there is a picture proving it's existence but is it really that well-known to be included on this page? It's obvious that The Simpsons, South Park, the Clerks cartoon, Jimmy Corrigan, and animation legend John Kricfalusi should be here. Two highly esteemed and celebrated magazines like The New Yorker and Entertainment Weekly belong here too. But The Magazine seems to be something that came up when someone did a google search looking for a positive review of Family Guy and this was the only thing that was found.--Hypermagic 19:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If no one steps in with an objection in the next few days, I say get rid of it. The article claims it to be a "popular Canadian youth magazine." However, I'm a young Canadian and have never seen it on my newstand. Jaderaid 12:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

cites needed

I've tagged two unsourced claims in the Family Guy vs. The Simpsons section, and there appear to be several others. As an uninformed outsider just reading this for the first time, I am struck by the lack of adherence to WP policy, but for now that section reads poorly and in a contradictory manner. I see some other cites are to DVD episodes or commentaries. A reader will be unable to easily verify these, shouldn't the article quote a source that has published a reference to this commentary? -213.219.141.119 14:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How exactly would one cite this? Numerous writers associated with The Simpsons, such as Matt Groening, Al Jean, David X. Cohen, Matt Selman, Tim Long, and Joel H. Cohen have attacked Family Guy during public appearances, in interviews and on DVD commentaries. [citation needed]
And this one, after a de-editorializing rewording, would just be general knowledge: Given the sheer number of The Simpsons episodes, and the fact that they are both 30-minute animated shows that air on the same network, comparisons between The Simpsons and Family Guy, as well as other Fox animated series, are sometimes unavoidable. [citation needed] --Rubber cat 06:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

After season 3

It's a very common opinion among fans that, after season 3, the humor fell sharply. The change is incredibly obvious, so it seems possible to write about that objectively. Anyway, if the majority of fans are aware and critical of the change, it makes sense to put this in the article.

I honestly don't get that; I don't see this "incredibly obvious" change. The show feels exactly the same to me and there's been plenty of funny material in seasons 4 and 5. Either way, this article isn't a soapbox for fans (or non-fans) to preach their opinion of the show. That's the sort of stuff that belongs on a messageboard, not wikipedia; not until someone notable says "The humour declined after season 3", anyway.K00bine 21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The show becoming mainstream and the awareness of that mainstream in the show does not mean the humor fell Portillo 03:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, just go to a popular family guy messageboard, ask if they think the humor fell... and most likely the majority will agree, seriously. As much as I hate attributing opinions to fans on wikipedia, it seems like this has merit. And humor is subjective; some people do think that going more "mainstream" is less funny. Jimmycracker 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

To quote The Simpsons...

  • "Milhouse: We gotta spread this stuff around! Let's put it on the Internet!
  • Bart: No! We have to reach people whose opinions actually matter!"

The internet population generally represents only a small fraction of a show's audience. Family Guy is more popular then it's ever been and until someone *notable* brings up this supposed decline in quality or until someone on the Family Guy cast or staff acknowledges it, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. K00bine 01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Supposed decline? There definitely should be a section on the horrific decline of this once truly great show. Or at least divide the Family Guy section up between the first three seasons and the mediocre crap that followed. At least then former fans like myself won't have to read the misguided views of the delusional "fans" who believe the show is just as good as ever. Just a suggestion. And wtf does someone "notable" mean? Like one person's opinion holds more water than the general opinion found throughout the Family Guy internet comunity that the show aint what it use to be. Look for it, believe me it's there. And let's not forget the fact that it was partly thanks to said internet community that the show was recomissioned in the first place. Oh yeah and the current Family Guy staff are a bunch of talentless hacks so I wouldn't go holding my breath waiting for them morons to admit the show has gone to the dogs. --Dogturd 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a claim would be inverifiable and would also go against wikipedia's "no original research" policy. Until someone notable says it, such as someone in the business, someone on the staff, or until a sharp decline in TV ratings shows that Family Guy is less popular then it used to be, then it has no place in the article. Obviously it's a very vocal minority that holds these views- if it represented the majority, then Family Guy would be suffering in the ratings, which it isn't.

And FYI, there were more of the season 1 writers on the Family Guy staff in season 4 then there were in seasons 2 and 3. The current FG staff is made up of mostly the same people who wrote the old episodes.

EDIT: OTOH, the "Wal Mart Exclusive" disc included with the 4th DVD volume set features a meeting between the Family Guy writers and the fans at Comic-con, and one of the fans says that the "New episodes are really heavily reliant on the flashback gags" and asks if they're going to "continue that"... and the writers just make fun of her."We need to keep the manatees working!" "You don't like jokes? 'Cause that's kinda the way the show's always been..." Clearly the writers don't acknowledge a difference between the old and new episodes.

Perhaps there is some merit to it after all....

K00bine 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned in V. South Park part but maybe not strongly enough?

I love Family guy but one thing that really frustrates me is their inability to pull together all the jokes into a story. They have so many cut-aways and at times it almost like a cartoon sketch show. Anyway, I noticed in the Versus South Park section this is mentioned, but I wondered whether it warrants a section of its own?

Is there enough criticism of the way the show is written to warrant this as a seperate section? The cut-aways are often very good, but I do think that Parker & Stone have got a point - i'm impressed because I thought I was the only one who was frustrated by it.

ny156uk 15:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything it is the single most defining aspect of the show's hummour and thereby the entire show. At least since season 3. This is explained at great length in the "comedic approach" section of the Family Guy article. If there was to be an own section in the criticism article however, we would have to gather enough sources to show that this is indeed a common criticism, prefarably one that existed before Cartoon Wars. — Mütze 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I hadn't checked the main article, just stumbled across this from a Southpark page. Having had a quick read of that part I, personally, think it tackles the issue reasonably well. Thanks ny156uk 19:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Why does the citation of Groening's statement about an affectionate relationship between the two shows link to a MacFarlane interview? Did Groening actually say those words? I can't find it in the linked page.

I would like to officially voice my opinion that this is the lamest and least noteworthy article I have ever read on Wikipedia. This entire article could be summed up in 3 sentences on the Family Guy article itself:

"Family Guy has come under criticism from other animated television show creators for its non sequitur humor and fairly mundane animation. It has been the subject of parody on The Simpsons and South Park. MacFarlane and the Family Guy staff has always taken these criticisms well in interviews, while insisting the show does provide an original and humorous take on American life."

See that wasn't so hard, was it?168.39.166.218 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Guy_controversies/Archive_1&oldid=1083404669"