I enjoy Family Guy, but the parody on South Park was spot-on with how utterly lazy Family Guy's jokes are. Peter: "Hey, do you remember that time when [FLASHBACK TO A JOKE ABOUT THE 80's]?" But still, Family Guy hardly tries to be as thought-provoking as other shows on TV, so it's hard to be too harsh with them for not doing so. It's a fairly funny rapid-fire joke machine, but not a whole lot else.
Originally posted by hansen9jFor me, the best part of the episode was when they did the long setpiece (the car chase), which is exactly what Family Guy does so many times.
Not only that, but the first thing I noticed about the chase scene was the animation (of the highway). There was something about it that seemed not-South Park, as if it was some sort of high-end digital animation. The point behind that is MacFarlane commented on upgrading the animation when Family Guy was brought back...in particular, the animation of the highway in the scene from the first new episode where Peter and Lois are driving away for their second honeymoon. I took it as some sort of weird homage.
I re-read the articles that Zeurel linked to earlier in the thread and I though this was fairly interesting...
Originally posted by wikipedia.com"Clerks director Kevin Smith and David Mandel (co-producer on Smith's short-lived Clerks: The Animated Series), have gone on record as Family Guy haters: in the final episode of their cartoon they included a scene in which a bad comedy writer consults a book entitled "How To Write Cartoons by Seth MacFarlane." Upon consulting the book, he suggests that the writers send the characters to Gilligan's Island and make gay jokes about them, illustrating their opinion that the show lazily attempts to disguise poor writing by alternating between pop-culture references and offensive humor. Interestingly, Family Guy actually did something very close to this later on, in "The Perfect Castaway" in which the four main male leads from the show, Peter, Joe, Cleveland, and Quagmire get stranded on a deserted island and make jokes/get into situations all related to being gay. On the DVD commentary to Clerks: The Animated Series, Smith refers to Family Guy as the show's nemesis. When it is pointed out that Family Guy won an Emmy, Mandel refers to it as "Emmy Award-winning shit."
The show's animation has also come under fire by Ren & Stimpy creator John Kricfalusi, who expressed concern over the fact that the current generation of aspiring animators will be negatively influenced by the animation present in Family Guy: "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."
On Smith's comments: I like most of Smith's work, but I was EXTREMELY disapointed in the Clerks animation series. A little bitterness on his part due to the fact that Family Guy got brought back to TV with new episodes after being cancelled and off Fox for years, while the Clerks animatied series was only able to have the remaining un-aired shows appear on DVD?
As for Kricfalusi; ATTENTION-Smug Alert over the city where Kricfalusi currently resides. Please. I loved Ren and Stimpy when it first came out, and the show did suffer greatly in quality after he was forced out, but everything I've seen Kricfalusi do since has been garbage. As for "concern over the fact that the current generation of aspiring animators will be negatively influenced by the animation present in Family Guy", yeah god-forbid they might be influenced and inspired by a successful show and end up creating better work than you ever did.
(edited by BOSsportsfan34 on 7.4.06 1817) "Speaking of Thomases, I loved your recent Atrocious GM Summit column, although I think that you flatter Isiah Thomas far too much by suggesting that he is merely one of a number of atrocious GMs. The truth is that Rob Babcock and Billy King are Einstein next to him. The mess he is creating right now in New York will be studied by business school students 50 years from now alongside Enron and pets.com."
Originally posted by Mr ShhNot only that, but the first thing I noticed about the chase scene was the animation (of the highway). There was something about it that seemed not-South Park, as if it was some sort of high-end digital animation. The point behind that is MacFarlane commented on upgrading the animation when Family Guy was brought back...in particular, the animation of the highway in the scene from the first new episode where Peter and Lois are driving away for their second honeymoon. I took it as some sort of weird homage.
I've been watching South Park lately only off-and-on, but I've noticed this kinda high end animation in several places. Chef's funeral comes to mind, as does the Professor Chaos episode from Season 6. So I'm not really sure if this has anything to do with Family Guy at all. I feel that it's more just them moving beyond the super simplistic construction paper cutout animation that the show started with.
Originally posted by BOSsportsfan34The show's animation has also come under fire by Ren & Stimpy creator John Kricfalusi, who expressed concern over the fact that the current generation of aspiring animators will be negatively influenced by the animation present in Family Guy: "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."
Not to get too off-topic, but (if his later projects are any indication) Kricfalusi is lucky that he had the Nickelodeon censors looking over his shoulder when he did, or else "Ren and Stimpy" would have been pulled after the third or fourth episode and he would just be an overlooked footnote in the history of American animation ... and some of the non-JK "Ren and Stimpy" episodes were pretty darn good; I'll put "Hermit Ren" up against anything that appeared in the first couple seasons of the show (except for the wrestling episode, that was pretty good).
Well they did show part 2 of the episode. But strings were attached. They teased another Terrance and Phillip special, for about a 1 minute, and then the actual episode started. It was a great tease and throwback to Cartman's Dad part 2, April 1st, 1998. But you kind of half-expected it, knowing Parker and Stone.
I certainly wasn't expecting what the Family Guy writers turned out to be, but it makes total sense for South Park.
Originally posted by CRZAnother factor is a lot of SP episodes are written solely by Trey* while FG episodes are written by a veritable committee, so it's usually a lot easier to see a "vision" behind the SP episodes - I don't know if that necessarily makes it better or worse, but it's definitely visible.
*if the credits are to be believed
Generally on a show like FG or Simpsons or whatever, one writer (or two) will write out the episode to get plot down. Then it'll go around the writers' room and jokes will be added and refined.
I enjoyed the episode, but I would have appreciated a few more jokes that we hadn't seen just the week before. The only really new funny bit was the FG Writers thing, everything else we'd already seen either in another episode of South Park or the one just the week before.
I did find the overall 2 episodes pretty funny and definitely interesting though. Especially picking out which parts reflect not only on our world, but on the show of South Park itself. With both the Bloody Mary and Scientology episode reruns having been yanked, is South Park facing extinction?
There is only one goal: Dominance Dominating you is pathetically easy Domination of me is frustratingly hard
I don't think so. Weren't they recently renewed for like another 3 seasons?
A lot of what they were saying in this episode really seemed to be pointing the finger at Comedy Central for pulling the Scientology episode. So I wonder how Comedy Central feels about that, since South Park was even pretty blatant about it in the next episode segment of part 1.
It still befuddles me that one really annoying and egotistical movie star gets South Park censored after all these years.
Originally posted by The Vile1It still befuddles me that one really annoying and egotistical movie star gets South Park censored after all these years.
In fairness, the Catholic Church beat him. The "Bloody Mary" episode either got pulled from reruns or heavily censored; I can't remember which. So the Muhammad jokes are a play both on making fun of L. Ron and making fun of the Virgin Mary. That's partly why they kept making jokes about how if you censor one episode, it makes it easier to censor another, then another, then kill the show.
This was a fun episode. From the Terrence & Philip fake-out, to the 'Bart' run-in, to the manatees, to the cartoon with everyone crapping on each other as 'retaliation', I enjoyed this. I loved how they not only basically said that its okay to like Family Guy, but they also made fun of how preachy they can be. Awesome episode. I'm still amazed at how many different real world issues and feuds they were able to cram into this.
Don't forget that FOX's refusal to show the Weinstein episode of Family Guy coincided (sorta) with the show's cancellation way back when. There's no causal relationship there, since FG was as good as dead anyway, but it's still funny. Look at all the layers!
I loved the Peter Griffin/Chicken Man fight scene.
The scene depicting the Islamic prophet handing a football helmet to a character from Family Guy (at least that's how another of the show's title cards put it) really was nixed by Comedy Central.
A source close to the show said safety concerns were behind the move. Earlier this year, the Danish publication of newspaper cartoons about Mohammed sparked deadly rioting throughout the world. Any rendering of the prophet is considered insulting by Muslims.
It's all too strange. A story about Fox censorship turns into actual censorship. It's almost TOO coincidental.
This came up shortly after I posted the link above:
Originally posted by LeroyIt's all too strange. A story about Fox censorship turns into actual censorship. It's almost TOO coincidental.
You know, I felt really dumb for not being sure whether the censoring of the football helmet scene was real or a work. I convinced myself that it was just part of the joke. Now.. I don't know what to think.
Meh. Considering all the shit that went down with the Danish cartoons, they shouldn't even be going there period. You can whine censorship all you want, and where it'll get you is straight back into an age-old debate about whether or not "freedom of speech" includes the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.
I'm not sure that most Christians appreciate the fact that in Islam the image of the prophet Muhammad is strictly prohibited, though not by all versions of the religion. What is unanimously agreed upon, however, is that disrespectful images are blasphemy. It's pretty common knowledge but the news didn't really mention this fact when they were widely covering the (not always violent) protests that resulted from the cartoon. There is no similar rule in Christianity with regards to depictions of Christ, thus his face is plastered everywhere like a corporate logo. That's to the detriment of Christianity I think, as Jesus can now be used to sell pop tarts if someone decides they want to go that way and wants to hide behind the first amendment so they can justify it.
In any case, I'm not a big fan of South Park, but I'll side with anyone in a war with Family Guy, which has the same artistic value as Jerry Springer. Family Guy clearly has nothing to say and is offensive for the sake of being offensive. While it does have its (uncreative and constantly repeated) moments, they're only funny once, whereas the Simpsons has as high a "rewatchability" factor as anything ever on television.
Even putting these moments aside, McFarlane is obviously a piece of a garbage. It seems the only argument anyone can make defend this show is to say that you "shouldn't take it seriously", or that you're "being puritanical", but to me there's always going to be the question of whether you should say something just because you can. I watched a bit of American Dad which is just as rank as Family Guy but worse, because it doesn't even have its moments, but the Natalie Wood joke kind of made me wish these people would contract something incurable. I mean, Natalie fucking Wood? A drowning victim? Can anyone coherently argue that this is a target worthy of mockery? I'm no big South Park fan, but whenever I drop in from time to time they (usually) seem to direct their venom at people who have done something questionable to bring themselves into the line of fire, not just everyone and everything because they secretly hate themselves.
South Park featured Muhammed in an episode before.
He was a member of religous prophet super heroes like the super friends. We never heard a peep about it before. I didn't hear this public controversy or outcry about depicting Muhammed as a cartoon character before in the media until after the Danish cartoons.
Just saying, South Park did it before, and no crap was slung.
As for what happened in the episode, I thought it was actually part of the episode. Not sure what to think that it was actually a network decision. Unless that's what Comedy Central wants us to think.
Exactly - not only do they have to be theatrical releases, I think there's some by-law that says they can't even be SHOWN on television before the awards (I remember some kind of complication with the Academy Awards preventing Michael Moore from showing F...