|
>>
|
No. 377
>>179761
I'd chalk that up to him being a recurring, but minor character. His entire character basically consists of him being a dull, lawyer stereotype. How better to keep a dull character dull than to never change anything?
>>179782
I had to read that one twice, and I still think someone ID'd that wrong. I haven't seen the episode though, so idk.
>>179804
I think with Family Guy, whoever the tried to sell it to saw it as the shit it was and told them to get lost. Eventually it developed enough of a cult following from cable (I think) that Fox decided that there were enough idiots to make the ratings and decided to go with it.
I actually saw the 100th episode special, and though Seth was obviously playing up the whole "fuck you network television!" stuff, you could tell he actually felt like he had proved himself in spite of them. All he really did though was bring low-brow comedy to a new generation of people who were born after The Simpsons went on air.
The main problem with it is I think he's basically trying to be the next Matt Groening without really paying attention to what really made The Simpsons so groundbreaking. Simpsons used words like 'bitch' 'hell' and 'crap' back when it was taboo, and in an animated show no less. Now that's considered generally acceptable for television. It paved the way for South Park, which was somewhat the FG of it's time when it launched. I remember there was a Newsweek cover article about it. I'd heard about it a little from listening to my mom talking to people, but when I saw the cover that was the first I'd actually seen of the show and characters. I couldn't help thinking "There's no way something like this could be as evil and corrupting as adults are making it out to be." I was half right. Yes, it has expletives (though they were significantly more conservative in using them at the time) which is what parents objected to. But the parents were reasoning that the show was targeted at 4th graders, since it's animated and that's what age the main characters are. The show was for teens and young adults, and decided to use a different style of art, rather than the conventional actors/props/sets method.
Robot Chicken dodged that bullet because it was on cable and aired during the late night segment clearly identified as [Adult Swim].
So anyway, Seth sees that Simpsons used light curse words in a cartoon and correlates that to being the defining influence that caused the shift in public opinions and censorship regulation. So he decides to do the same thing but throw in some stuff that he knows will get censored so that he can sell DVDs and stir up some dissent in the younger generation with regards to censorship of 'fuck' and 'shit' etc. He also taps into the ADD tendency of modern teens by using the "random-access-humor" aspect to bring up irrelevant filler (Peter vs. the giant chicken pt. 2 anyone?) and establish lots of running gags (everyone hates Meg) and lowest-common-denominator, drawing-things-out-to-the-point-where-it's-not-funny-but-it's-established-shtick-so-that-makes-it-funny skits (90 seconds of Peter, Bryan, and Stewie vomiting all over the family room couch and floor). He also uses Bryan as a soapbox for politics, which comes off as more of an insult in that a talking dog represents liberals, and is also apparently the only socially-aware member of the household. Plus Peter makes Homer look like a decent, upstanding guy and loyal husband with a slight beer gut by comparison. Actually, that pretty much is Homer, at least the one I'm familiar with.
I don't mean to rap on FG in particular because Lisa has become more or less the same as Bryan, but who was first is beyond me.
Personally, I think American Dad is better than FG because it has some premise for what goes on, even if it still reuses the same old stereotypes. It also has significantly less of the pointless flashback jokes. But Seth is still just an unoriginal drawfag with a budget and air slots.
And what the fuck did I just write?
|
-