« What The Immigrants See | Main | Analogy of the Day »
August 09, 2007
Simpsons and Signaling
I sort of think that complaining about how the Simpsons are so much better, funnier, warmer, and realer than Family Guy is the Gen X way of saying, "I'm about 100-years-old now."
August 9, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Or signaling that you're not a moron. Which, admittedly, may amount to the same thing.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Aug 9, 2007 1:11:49 PM
Or it may be the way of saying "I have taste."
Posted by: Freddie | Aug 9, 2007 1:12:02 PM
"...the Simpsons are so much better, funnier, warmer, and realer than Family Guy..."
They used to be. Haven't been so for years, however. And yes, I do feel about 100 years old now (thanks for reminding me, pal). I think the Bush admin has affected the timeline and we've all aged about 50 years in the past 7. The Bush Presidency should be remembered as "the dog years."
But your point is well taken. Bearman's a crybaby. Tempus fugit, man. Get over it.
Posted by: Stiff Mittens | Aug 9, 2007 1:12:32 PM
No, that would be "The Simpsons has sucked since 1997, but is still 100 times better than the Family Guy's lame, plotless episodes punctuated by uninspired flashbacks and cutaways." Hmmm... sounds familiar.
Then you can reclaim your hipness by saying "Watch the fucking Venture Brothers or Frisky Dingo instead, or hold your pee-water until the new Futurama episodes come out."
Posted by: norbizness | Aug 9, 2007 1:12:33 PM
Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that Family Guy really does blow.
Posted by: Gabriel | Aug 9, 2007 1:14:27 PM
Shorter Family Guy Critics: "You can't even defend this mindless crap can you."
Response: "Hey........ shutup."
:D <3 Family Guy
Posted by: themann1086 | Aug 9, 2007 1:20:59 PM
Family Guy is better than the Simpsons is now. The Simpsons is not only a pale shadow of its former self; it's actually a bad show, and has been for some time.
Of course, Family Guy doesn't compare to Simpsons in its prime, but what does? Also note that Family Guy is one of the few shows on television that is willing to take substantive shots at the Bush administration.
Posted by: Jason G. | Aug 9, 2007 1:22:54 PM
Evidence of the suckiness of late-era Simpsons can be found here.
Posted by: Jason G. | Aug 9, 2007 1:25:10 PM
But they are . . .
And I am . . .
Posted by: Morris Berg | Aug 9, 2007 1:26:43 PM
I think South Park had it right when they revealed that Family Guy was written by manatees.
And hey, respect your elders, boy! (and get off my lawn!)
Posted by: robsalk | Aug 9, 2007 1:26:46 PM
Just because they're both animated, doesn't mean that they're alike. The Simpsons is closer to a traditional 3-camera sitcom, where Family Guy is much more freeflow and random (and it's that randomness that people either love or hate. I tend to enjoy it. I also like more traditional shows that employ said randomness, such as Scrubs).
Mind you, lately, I'd rather watch Robot Chicken than either of the two shows, but that's just me.
Posted by: Karmakin | Aug 9, 2007 1:31:05 PM
Add:Of course, I loved Stella. So take that for what it's worth.
Posted by: Karmakin | Aug 9, 2007 1:31:35 PM
Get off my lawn!
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Aug 9, 2007 1:33:32 PM
ahhm randomness. meaning that there is no joke.
cut to: star wars reference followed by 80's pop song reference followed by...
can't be worse than aqua teen hunger force, the toon for the humor impaired.
Posted by: christian | Aug 9, 2007 1:36:20 PM
I can't help but think some of these hailings of The Simpsons' genius and how unappreciated it is seems a bit like a film buff complaining that there are people who think there are movies better than Citizen Kane. Just because something was the most brilliant most innovative thing in existence when it first arrived doesn't mean it gets to keep that reputation decades later when everyone else has gotten a chance to develop those innovations further-- and because of this, with hindsight, it becomes more and more difficult to appreciate the genius of the original product if one wasn't there when it first appeared.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 9, 2007 1:37:24 PM
I find Family Guy too scattershot and sardonic to really challenge the Simpsons crown; after 19 years - the most for any scripted series on prime time television - crediting Gen X with The Simpsons popularity is cute, but Gen X has always been distinguished by being too small to matter in terms of mass taste. The Simpsons succeeds because it is flat out excellent at what it does (and I would agree, only in the last 2-3 years has that slipped, and even now remains consistently strong for what it is). I think Family Guy has shown remarkable resilience, but without checking Nielsen, I doubt it does Simpsons level numbers for Fox, even now, and will end its run well before touching anything near Simp-sonic longevity. And as long as we can largely agree that Friends is/was crap, can't we all just get along? :)
Posted by: weboy | Aug 9, 2007 1:40:07 PM
But Family Guy isn't funny. It is objectively unfunny, and has only gotten less funny since making its comeback from the grave as an unholy zombie cartoon bent on eating the brains of America. I'd say it was turning into a black hole of funny, from which no humor could escape, except that Seth McFarland already created the sucking black hole of humor known as "American Dad" and it STARTED OUT well past the event horizon of unfunny. Simpsons, OTOH, still occasionally remembers to write jokes into their show. Advantage: Simpsons.
If you want sporadic random humor interspersed with nonsense and non-sequitor, Aqua Teen Hunger Force manages it much better than Family Guy ever has. Or the even more watchable Robot Chicken has more funny in 6 seconds than entire seasons of Family Guy have ever managed. And as a bonus, when the Robot Chicken guys tell a joke that falls flat they quickly move on before you realize it sucked. Family Guy's writing staff lingers over unfunny jokes that fall flat like a three year old proudly pointing out what he did in the "potty" and hoping you'll be proud of him - it's cute in a three-year-old, but very uncomfortable to see in a grown adult.
If Family Guy weren't animated more people would realize that it's just a meaner version of any given "fat guy with a hot wife" sitcom on the air but without even the meager attempt at silly things like "comedic timing" or "characterization" or "plot" that sitcoms still try to make. You might as well cast Jim Belushi as Peter Griffen and be done with it.
Posted by: NonyNony | Aug 9, 2007 1:49:49 PM
The ability to enjoy both shows clearly is a sign of superior intellect and exquisite taste. I feel sorry for all of you who are so narrowminded that life is a continuous stream of either/or choices.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 9, 2007 1:57:04 PM
Anybody who refers to their own taste as "exquisite" is reducing the credibility of having any. :)
Posted by: weboy | Aug 9, 2007 2:01:06 PM
Simpsons blazed the trail but they will definitely fade away rather than burn out. Comedy is similar to music. If you dont enjoy it then it wasn't meant for you.
Times have changed and many people here have not.....oh well. How many retired people like to watch the simpsons? Look at the crap our grandparents thought was funny and still watch. (Hey, I still love Seinfeld). Personally I 'loved' the Simpsons and Family Guy is fantastic and clever. Who the hell wants another cookie cutter. Family Guy is the only thing that has challenged Simpsons for years. If you don't enjoy it turn it off, buy some I love Lucy DVD's, drink some fiber, flush out the negativity and call it a weekend.
Posted by: Maestro | Aug 9, 2007 2:17:23 PM
Well, let me tell you kids -- after you get off of my lawn, of course -- that if you, like me, grew up in the era of Hanna-Barbera, the Studio That Almost Killed Animation, you'd realize that even Family Guy (which I like at times, but is nowhere near the best of the Simpsons) is light-years ahead of what we used to have.
Posted by: Glenn | Aug 9, 2007 2:21:50 PM
And as long as we can largely agree that Friends is/was crap, can't we all just get along?
Weboy, THANK you for that...I thought I was almost completely alone in my complete lack of understanding of that show and disdain for those who loved it (and copied its hair styles).
The few episodes of friends I ever watched (not by choice) were centered around people lying to one another, and the lies being eventually uncovered, and oh, ha-ha, the wrong person wound up in bed with another wrong person, and the pretty brunette used to be fat but isn't any more. Utterly unfunny.
Posted by: litbrit | Aug 9, 2007 2:23:24 PM
objectively unfunny
No such thing, Nony. Shaquille O'Neal is "objectively tall" - that is to say, Shaquille O'Neal is measurably larger than other people. "Tall" is itself a discrete, inherently measurable adjective.
"Funny," on the other hand, is not particularly quantifiable, and is arguably inherently subjective - it varies as to the observer. If "funny" has any objective meaning, it means "inspires people towards laughter and enjoyment." Since there's a non-negligible set of people for whom that is the case with Family Guy, it can't be "objectively unfunny."
Ezra is right, though, that those of us who grew up on the Simpsons and like it better than Family Guy are, objectively, 100 years old. Damn whippersnappers.
Posted by: SDM | Aug 9, 2007 2:41:20 PM
Futurama!
Posted by: gecko1 | Aug 9, 2007 2:56:57 PM
What I need is for the people to tell me what is funny. This way I don't have to bother thinking for myself. Who needs a broad sense of humor if they are pointed in the right direction?
Posted by: Maestro | Aug 9, 2007 3:00:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
