Yog, you are a brilliant writer, you should write for a newspaper!
I was musing on Frasier, in which the very intelligent central character had other intelligent characters to bounce off of and return his quips with quips of their own. As far as I can tell, Allan Gregory is deliberately submerging himself in a sea of “normals” to… I dunno… study them or something? Teach them? Offer them the generous benefit of multisyllabic insults that they cannot understand, let alone riposte?
I’m unfamiliar with your British examples so I cannot compare this show to them, but Two Many Cats gave the great example of Al Bundy. He’s a loser, hateful, makes no money, complains about his life, is mean to everybody, yet people like him because he’s a man struggling against forces he can’t control. He’s the one that gets picked on so of course it makes sense that he’s mean. But Allen Gregory is just mean because he’s been raised that way. He’s cruel to his adopted sister for no reason, treats others like servants, throws tantrums, and just acts like a classless douchebag. Even his pedophilic crush on his principal gets eventually whitewashed because the other guy, the superintendent I think, tells her to pretend he didn’t run crying home and accept the little turd back into school. It would be like watching the Beverly Hillbillies in the Bizarro World, where rich people from Beverly Hills move to the boonies and then starts treating all the hillbillies with contempt and using their money to make them miserable.
I wish they’d based the show around that then the obnoxious little asshole
Thanks, but that writing was borne of hatred. I couldn’t do that with something I liked. If I was a food critic, I’d be like Homer Simpson when he became one too, liking everything.
In fairness, he may be bisexual. Or maybe he was always gay, but only realised that when he met Richard.
This said, I didn’t enjoy that show either. I was making dinner while I was watching it so I may have missed some of the jokes, but I just didn’t find it funny, and I admit that I prefer having sympathetic characters in a show (which Allen Gregory definitely isn’t). I know that the authors’ idea is that we’re supposed to root against him, but… it just didn’t work for me.
On further reflection, the show strikes me as an animated Mary Sue story, in which the writer wishes he could be the one with the endless supply of trenchant biting insights and the ability to shush everyone else.
Others have mentioned Eric Cartman and Stewie Griffin and that’s the direction I think this show is going for. We’re not supposed to root for Cartman to kill all the Jews or for Stewie to murder Lois or for Allen Gregory to seduce his principal. They’re over the top egomaniacs whose abilities are completely out of touch with their ambitions.
The difference being that Stewie and Cartman aren’t really the center of their shows. They’re just supporting characters. Also we’re not expected to sympathize with them or otherwise find them adorable simply for being grade A douchebags.
And, those characters, as over-the-top as they may be, still often act like the kids they’re supposed to be, rather adult yuppies in kids’ bodies.
I’m not convinced that the bit I bolded is correct. There’s plenty of reason to think that Stewie’s assessment of her character is correct. Consider the recent episode in which Meg finally told her off. Lois is only less evil than her husband; she’s not good.
And, of course, Stewie is perfectly capable of killing an adult. His failure to off Lois is because in some ways he’s still a kid who wants his mommy,
I only first heard about this show on Sunday when I saw some commercials for it during football. I didn’t watch it because the commercials were terrible. If you can’t find 30s of funny material in however many episodes were already made, and presumable the commercials is going to be trying to make the show look funny or at least entertaining, then I can conclude that the show is likely horrid. Frankly, I’m surprised anyone bothered to watch it.
That said, being unlikable is fine. No one says you have to like the main character, but you do have to have SOME kind of connection with him, even if it’s pity or hoping he gets his comeuppance, but can you really base a series on someone getting that? Sure, it happens to characters like Stewie and Cartman, but sometimes they’re just normal kids too. Those reviews make it look like they took that one small aspect of those characters and tried to make a whole show out of it.
Definitely going to get cancelled.
I’m will to give the show another view before passing judgment. There were about two clever lines that show sparks of wit.
As for Bob’s Burgers the show will return in mid-season. It took about five episodes before it won me over.
If I had to find a redeeming quality for the show, it’s that the cast seems more or less competent. The writing, though, just isn’t there. I know pilots are rough, but it seemed like nothing funny happened, and the only attempts at funny were having quirky characters quirk at each other. Yeah, I’m coining “quirk” as a verb, meaning “to be quirky in the general direction of another character or the audience”. It’s one of the weaker forms of attempted humor, typically found in works whose writers don’t know how to craft actual jokes.
i was sure i wasn’t the only one who hated it, but it’s glad to see that there’s many out there whose passion burns as bright, if not brighter. on the other hand it’s troubling that there are those who like this show and are defending it.
allen gregory is devoid of any and all things entertaining. it doesn’t operate topical. cartman’s hyperbolic antics are exaggerations meant to emphasize the allegory that South Park prides itself with. nobody’s rooting for cartman, but his actions are necessary, identified as wrong, and often hilarious.
neither does AG operate under a traditional singular, wraps-up-nicely sitcom plot. bob’s burgers does this well, as did/does the simpsons. it’s improbable that the simpsons keep scoring free vacations around the world, or that homer hasn’t killed millions, including himself, but the overall premise is believable to an extent.
it’s definitely not a joke machine like the supremely awesome Archer. it surely isn’t a genre-changer like family guy with a 20-minute machine gun burst of quick cutaways, pop references, and juxtoposition of the absurd and the every-day.
hell, it doesn’t even do shock value well. oh, the 7 year old is crushing on a post-menopausal principal? cartman made scott tenorman eat a chili made out of his parents.
no. this is just an extremely cliche’d, nothing show. it’s 20 minutes of half-hearted “jokes” (closer to predictable "compromisingly awkward situations), rushed deliveries, and confusing ambiguities. good lord the ambiguities are what KILLS it. are they broke or aren’t they? is the other dad gay or isn’t he? is allen gregory a tony nominated writer or isn’t he? when a comedy starts layering so many open-ended questions they lose the audience.
comedy is fast paced and easy to follow. the audience has to buy into what you’re saying. i’m surprised jonah, a veteran standup, is missing this. The show isn’t “Lost”. people don’t want to sit in wonder and confusion, scrutinizing every bit of nuance. they want to laugh and the second you scrutinize a joke, you kill it. plus, audiences want to be in on the joke. they don’t want to sit there and wonder if the show just made a joke, or is just being intentionally confounding and in turn, being laughed at by the show.
i mean, could you imagine if Seinfeld opened his act with “so i was on an airplane the other day and got these peanuts. well, actually i wasn’t but you do know what i’m talking about, right? packaged peanuts? i’ve never had them personally, or maybe i did, but that’s not important. the important part is that these peanuts exist, and what’s the deal with them? you don’t? well you’re a fucking moron, good night!”
this show borders on the absurdly bad. it’s such a comedic nightmare i’m wondering if it’ll even make it past 3 episodes. i’d rather watch syndicated family guy than this. hell, i’m ready for some mothballed episodes of the Critic.
So, did anyone watch the second episode last night?
Hmmmm, I either watched Allen Gregory, or slid down a razor blade into a pool of rubbing alcohol . . . can’t remember which one it was.
Yeah, I saw the second episode. While it didn’t suck as bad as the premier, it still sucked, quite horribly in fact.
I watched it. I didn’t have the extreme negative reaction of the original poster, but I didn’t think it was particularly funny. I think I smiled a little when the girl’s nerdy friends were so easily convinced that they were “sparkin’ doobies behind the gym”.
I watch it, and I chuckle once and a while. I’m not horribly offended by the content, and that seems to be the problem many online pundits on IMDB have. Many of the situations are silly, and illogical, and I play along within the universe.
At least some people online seem to understand that Allen Gregory’s father’s boyfriend is possibly “Gay for Pay.” I hadn’t though of that, but it helps defuse the whole – is he or isn’t he gay/tricked/seduced/failed by restraining order, or whatever. If this scenario upsets you, because it hits some personal nerve, stop watching, and definitely stop commenting on IMDB.
I am kinda enjoying Allen Gregory, his rapid fire quips delivered to his nemesis do seem to hit the mark for me. Especially when his nemesis give a half-decent response in an age appropriate way, and Allen Gregory has to scramble to respond. I also like the character of his adopted Cambodian sister – her lines, especially in the second episode, seem well written, and the voice actor is delivering them well – smart, simple and direct unlike Allen Gregory, maybe with some more petulance than he does. So that’s good. I accept her friend as remarkably stupid as required by the show’s universe, so I roll with it. Everyone with scoliosis, who’s deeply, personally, offended should recuse themselves from commenting.
I think its AG’s crush on his overweight, post-menopausal principal is a hilarious twist. Yes, the rash of teacher-student sexual relationships in the news is actually a harrowing topic, but this isn’t real. AG’s over the top sexuality is what makes the scenario funny. Teachers who’ve lost jobs to innuendo, please recuse yourselves.
I will agree 'tho, I don’t suspect the show will last years. I don’t think the scenarios can be regenerated endlessly. 'Course, I’ve said before, any producer who expects their show to last long on FOX is a fool. With the football pre-empting, and the switching of time slots, people will just lose interest. That may be the whole plan for a new Fox show, just make a few episodes and let it crash and burn.
He’s not gay for pay. When he was talking to Allen in the first episode he made it clear that he had a good job, a wife and family and had no interest in the other guy but Allen’s father is so persistent that eventually Jeremy decided it was easier to give up his actual happy life and go live as a weird maid/chef/personal buttmonkey for the whatever the fuck their last name is. He’s literally only there because if he wasn’t the other guy would make his life hell. It’s depressing.
Why couldn’t American Dad have been on at 7:30 and saved me half an hour?
I watched the first 5 mins of episode 2 before I had to turn it. I’m not horribly offended by its content, I just can’t stand the character and don’t think he’s funny. He’s still not funny, nor are his situations. His smug, pretentious character isn’t endearing, nor is his wit gratifying as its usually directed to people below him.
Its like the episode of the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob’s brother tries to blow up the dam. During the flashback on how Sideshow Bob got the job, Cecil was dressed like a clown and acting the fool with a pie in the face gag. But Krusty knew it wasn’t funny. He had no dignity to speak of. Hitting Sideshow Bob, the prim and proper besuited gentleman in the face was much funnier, because he had dignity.
Allen Gregory making fun of kids isn’t funny, nor is he funny talking down to his adopted sister. It just seems cruel.
AG suffers from the opposite problem that Bob’s burgers did. BB was a funny ass show, but it was poorly animated with a weird character design and some bad voice actors, (not Bob). AG on the other hand, isn’t that funny yet, but is beautifully animated and the voice acting is spot on. All in all, if the writers pull themselves together AG could be a decent show. I’d love some more BB by the way, but if they don’t get their technical stuff together I won’t be able to watch that show.