Actually, it reads ‘You’re a poor writer who expresses himself vaguely and expects people to read his mind,’ but that’s okay, I can see how you’d make that mistake.
You’ll find that the Family Guy newscasters quite infrequently move the story along. Ditto Brockman, really. They’re both for comedic purposes. Incidentally, if you look up ‘plot dump’/‘exposition’ on Wikipedia, it will list for you the common methods used to provide exposition in fiction throughout the ages - newscasts are one of them.
You’ll note I met your five-sitcom challenge. Or maybe you’ll just keep on rambling randomly, hoping no one noticed.
And your phrasing strongly implied you thought the show was unfunny. But go ahead, backpedal. It’s sort of funny to watch.
This is true, AFAIK. Even so, MacFarlane has admitted that they’re basically the same show (although American Dad does have a more cohesive plot than Family Guy)- in fact, I’d argue that American Dad is closer to The Simpsons than Family Guy is.
I’ve watched very little Family Guy, but I do remember seeing an episode that ran at the end of 1999 where the Y2K bug causes all technology to go haywire and society to collapse. What a startling coincidence; the Simpsons did exactly that in the '99 Treehouse of Horror. And Stewie even turns into a tentacled monster, just like Maggie did in '98 Treehouse of Horror.
But I don’t know, maybe it’s just a coincidence. Perhaps babies sprouting tentacles is a standard plot device that’s been used by dozens of sitcoms over the years.
On one hand, the Simpsons have had great impact on a big number of shows just because of how ground-breaking and great it was. It’s just one of those things that you have to respect, that if your ambition is to start a satirical cartoon you’ll have the Simpsons in your shadows.
On the other hand, I think there have been occasions in Family Guy where there has been more than simply inspiration. I remember a storyline that had Brian mate with a female dog on the racing track. The scene was more or less lifted from the Simpsons episode ‘Two Dozen and One Greyhounds’. I’ve also pinned out singular jokes as stolen or loaned from the Simpsons though I can’t come up with specific examples right now. I’ve just gotten the feeling that Seth mcFarlane has studied Simpsons. A lot.
Still, I think it misses some points. Family Guy seems to center around a family just because. the Simpsons does it because it fills a very important political comment about the core family.
Wait, is it supposed to be a startling coincidence that two comedy TV shows did episodes about the Y2K bug a few months before the Y2K bug was supposed to hit in real life? Or is it the tentacled baby thing that’s the startling coincidence? Was tentacle Maggie from the Y2k episode, or from a year earlier?
Is this a whoosh? Is there a Godwin equivalent for racism comparisons? If you’re trying to be funny, you’re getting Kaufman-esque*. Dude, I promise you. I really do like Family Guy. That’s why I spend countless hours watching it. That’s why I spend money on the DVD’s. That’s why, situated next to my monitor, there is a Cleveland Brown bobble-head doll. That’s why, hanging from a hook on my window, there is a Stewie Griffin talking pen (“So broccoli, mother says you’re good for me. Well, I’m afraid I’m no good for you.”). I am sorry if I touched some sort of nerve.
Now, back to your earlier post:
Let’s go back over this. I wrote an OP about two specific cartoons (both of which I like) that have considerable, devoted fan bases. I wrote the OP to address what I perceived to be heavy “borrowing,” if not blatant and flagrant ripping off, by one from the other. One of the examples that I cited was the use of news programs for exposition. Misstated? In retrospect, yes. I should have just been more specific and wrote something along the lines of, “the idea for Tom Tucker appears to be lifted from The Simpsons character Kent Brockman,” but truth be told, I couldn’t remember Tom’s first name at the time. Still many in this thread were able to conclude that I was referring to the similarity of the two characters (i.e. Brockman and Tucker). You responded and in doing so quoted the particular passage you were responding to (as is protocol on these boards) by stating that the news program as exposition is a common sitcom device (this statement is true, in it’s general form – it’s even true more generally, in that the news program as exposition is a common device in story telling in general: so true, that a list of examples would take a lifetime to compile). I responded to you and like you included the text I was responding to with the request to “name five.” I see now that one might, for a moment wonder, “five what?”, but I am convinced that anyone familiar with the shows in question who was being intellectually honest in his response, would know that the request was to produce five other Brockman-like characters from TV sitcom history. Still, had you simply said, “five what?”, I would have happily clarified my request. But you didn’t do “just” that. You had to be cute and be a smartass to someone you don’t know from Adam’s housecat by accusing me of “trump[ing] up” allegations. This has led to our current vinegary exchange, the highlight of which has been your refusal to divorce yourself from the firmly held conclusion that I don’t like Family Guy. Take a breath kid. As for my “poor” writing, let me assure you that this isn’t my A work. You know why? Cause it’s a stinking message board, man. I’m betting James Joyce might have at one time in his life left an empty bottle of Jameson’s on the counter with a note taped to it that read, “need more,” not stopping to think some wisenheimer would ask, “more what? paper, tape, bottles.”
I’ll note nothing of the sort, yet. You now must know what my intended request was. I don’t think your shows fit the criteria, but if you can just name the recurring newscaster in each, I will make the note that you have satisfied the request. Others have offered Married with Children, which by and large ran concurrently with The Simpsons. I don’t know whose newscaster showed first, but I’ll concede that MwC might fit.
I’ve already addressed the first part of this, but I wanted to include it for context. As for backpedaling, what part of “I am beginning to agree with you.” and “Knowing when I’ve been beaten and making a lame joke, my friend.” constitute backpedaling. I am beginning to think that maybe The Simpsons marks the birth of a new genre and that subsequent shows in this genre will inevitably look a lot like The Simpsons in a lot of ways. I still think Family Guy “borrows” too heavily sometimes, and others here have agreed. See, this is called discussing, thinking, reevaluating. It’s a concept most grasp by late primary school.
*Yes, I mean Kaufman-esque, not Kafka-esque. I am referring to what appears to be an absurd display of vitriol by CandidGamera toward me and my perceived Family Guy animus.
people have alleged lots of things, to which are you refering?
pssst. CandidGamera, see how that worked? I asked someone to clarify there statement without being a smartass about it. Neat, huh?
Tentacled Maggie is from the 1998 ToH, where it turned out she was actually the daughter of one of the Space Mutants (Kang, according to Wikipedia, but I can’t remember if which it was was actually named.)
The other segments in the 1999 ToH, which included the Y2K segment were:
I Know What You Diddle-iddly Did (The Simpsons accidentally kill Flanders, but he turns out to be a werewolf, so he isn’t really dead, and comes for revenge on them.) and Desperately Xeeking Xena (Bart and Lisa gain superpowers, Comic Book Guy kidnaps Lucy Lawless.).
The Y2K segment involved Homer failing to fix the plant’s Y2K readiness and therefor causing the apocalypse. They then find out there’s a project to save the human race by sending them to another planet (Mars, I think, but I can’t remember for sure, and Wiki is no help) Lisa, Maggie and Marge get to go to the new paridise planet with all the geniuses and great people, while Homer and Bart get shot into the sun with Rosie O’Donnel, Tom Arnold, Andy Dick, Pauly Shore and other annoying personalities, when they sneak onto another rocket they think is part of the project.
I see you’ve further retconned things by making it about Newscasters specifically, and not the news device itself.
If I’d said ‘five what’, it wouldn’t have been nearly as funny.
Futurama - Morbo and his human female ‘straight man’ whose name escapes me.
South Park - Though we haven’t seen him in recent seasons, there was a running gag about an always oddly-dressed “on the spot” newsman who’d get called upon by the local anchor. The first words out of his mouth were always : “Thanks, Tom, I’m standing here…”
Arrested Development - Featured former Daily Show correspondent Stacy Grenrock-Woods as a local reporter often reporting on the shenanigans of the Bluth family.
American Dad has the two gay life partners with differing political views who were featured prominently in a recent episode.
MASH’s contribution, of course, were Radar O’Reilly’s news snippets.
Hell. Kermit the Frog had a newscaster bit. “Hi, ho, Kermit THE Frog, here.”
FWIW, the first episode of FG that I saw was where they go to a Native American Casino, against the wife’s wishes. But then the wife turns out to be a gambling addict. I quit watching FG, assumming it would be easier to just watch the original versions on the Simpsons. That’s about all I know about FG.
You know, that strikes me as kind of stupid. Every time a TV show has a character that gambles, it’s a rip off of The Simpsons? Or is it just animated shows? IIRC, Lois gambling away the car was simply a plot device to get Peter and Chris out into the woods together. I didn’t see a lot of similarities to $pringfield, other than hey! They both have gambling in them! $pringfield was about Burn’s casino and the impact it had on Springfield. The Son Also Draws is about Peter’s relationship with his son.
I think what Rucksinator is saying is that is that everytime a housewife disapprovies of her husband going into a casino, but then ends up becoming a gambling addict, it’s a ripoff of The Simpsons. That, after all, is what Rucksinator said.
You know. I am trying to navigate this distinction between employment of a common gag or plot premise and “Damn that’s just a little too close to the original.” I recognize (and have from the begining) the prevalence of borrowing among comedy writers, and maybe that’s all this is, but sometimes, it seems like too much liberty has been taken.
I “further retconned things” in post #11. Are you even trying to keep up with this thread? This is really getting tiresome.
It sure didn’t have very far to fall.
And I’ll give you South Park, Arrested Development, and MASH. The American Dad example doesn’t even come close, and even if it did it’s a cartoon by the same guy we’re accusing of ripping of the gimick – do you see just how weak that is??? Finally, the Muppets example is just stupid. Kermit played a newscaster in a skit on a skit show. Did you include this lame ass example just so I would have to feel silly responding to it?
No, just to show the creaky old age of the comedy-through-newscaster bit.
And you can’t have it both ways - either you’re accusing Family Guy of lifting the bit, or you’re accusing them of lifting the character. American Dad’s newscasters are about as far from Kent Brockman as one can be.
Then again, I don’t find a lot of similarity between Kent and Tom Tucker, so you’re threshold’s a bit different than mine.
'OMG! Both these shows have a newscaster character! Somebody call the Supreme Court!"
