family guy/simpsons cross over.....yes you read that right its happening

[KRYPTON INC.]

Funny how both shows have many message board detractors yet are popular and profitable enough to still be on the air and seen by millions in first run and syndicated forms.

 

[Piper Maru]

Yeah it's really funny!

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Yeah it's really funny!

(Squints at Piper then smiles) You magnificent Bastard! You know... in 100 years I may get like you. Ha ha ha (Freeze frame) EXECUTIVE PRODUCER STEPHEN J. CANELL

 

[Thundercrack85]

Funny how both shows have many message board detractors yet are poular and profitable enough to still be on the air and seen by millions in first run and syndicated forms.

The average human has an IQ of 100, think that about sums it up.

 

[X-Ray]

Interesting.

Which art style will be used?

The characters will probably keep their original form on the other shows. Like when the King of the Hill gang came to Springfield or when a handful of Simpson characters appeared on FG as members of the jurors.

[YT]q_DVBzyNPPE[/YT]

 

[Thundercrack85]

That would look terrible.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

The average human has an IQ of 100, think that about sums it up.

I can't argue against the collective and individual stupidity of the human race. But... I feel the backlash in general against Simpsons and FG is about 2 things. 1. People feel that the shows are shadows of themselves. Maybe that is true. Or maybe a lot of detractors just know these characters and the pacing and rhythm of the writing on these shows? Can Homer's stupidity or Stewie's misanthropy be as shocking and fresh as they were the first time?
2. The most passionate detractors sound to me most often like people who are so into a band until they hit mainstream success.

 

[Ghostvirus]

So this means the Simpsons are going to be on for at least 2 more seasons. Good god! Why not just kill it already!

 

[bored]

Meh, I'll watch it for fun. I'm hoping they make some fun reference to the time The Simpsons and The Critic crossed over. Maybe there can be a newspaper clipping of Jay Sherman shaking hands with Hank Hill. And at the end it can be revealed that Professor Farnsworth was showing a documentary about the meeting to Fry and Bender.

 

[Dr. Evil]

The Critic was the only good thing Jon Lovitz ever did.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

The Critic was the only good thing Jon Lovitz ever did.

But... but he saw Morgan Fairchild... Naked. Whom he was married to.

 

[Tanin]

The Critic was the only good thing Jon Lovitz ever did.

I ran through his career to see what I could come up with and...
The Brave Little Toaster... he was the radio. I love that movie and that's all I got!

 

[Thundercrack85]

I can't argue against the collective and individual stupidity of the human race. But... I feel the backlash in general against Simpsons and FG is about 2 things. 1. People feel that the shows are shadows of themselves. Maybe that is true. Or maybe a lot of detractors just know these characters and the pacing and rhythm of the writing on these shows? Can Homer's stupidity or Stewie's misanthropy be as shocking and fresh as they were the first time?
2. The most passionate detractors sound to me most often like people who are so into a band until they hit mainstream success.

Well undoubtably, all shows have a finite lifespan, which the Simpsons have certainly out-lived, hence why fans call it "zombie Simpsons". But writing quality has definitely deteriorated. The show became increasingly dependent on guest cameos (something former writers have even noted), premises have been recycled, and there has been much less focus on character development. It's rather hard to imagine some of the old episodes even working in the current show's "universe".

I would argue that most people detracting the Simpsons now, watched it in its prime (Season 2-8).

With Family Guy, the problems are less clear, but one obvious issue is the fact that the characterization of the characters have changed fundamentally since the first two seasons (pre-cancellation). The over-reliance of "sociopathic comedy" would be the biggest problem. The writing also just isn't up to snuff.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Well undoubtably, all shows have a finite lifespan, which the Simpsons have certainly out-lived, hence why fans call it "zombie Simpsons". But writing quality has definitely deteriorated. The show became increasingly dependent on guest cameos (something former writers have even noted), premises have been recycled, and there has been much less focus on character development. It's rather hard to imagine some of the old episodes even working in the current show's "universe".

I would argue that most people detracting the Simpsons now, watched it in its prime (Season 2-8).

With Family Guy, the problems are less clear, but one obvious issue is the fact that the characterization of the characters have changed fundamentally since the first two seasons (pre-cancellation). The over-reliance of "sociopathic comedy" would be the biggest problem. The writing also just isn't up to snuff.

Without a doubt FG has always had more of an edge to it's humor than Simpsons. But this critique of "sociopathic comedy" baffles me. These are cartoon characters in EVERY sense of the word and have been so since day one. Have there been times FG, even early FG made me mad, or offended some sensibility of mine? Yeah, for sure. Do I see how some gags and some humor might be too over the line for others? Yes again. But after seeing so many gored sacred cows in the first season alone why would someone who is offended by such humor even stick around for a second season? And the "mean and sociopathic" characters have been what they have been from the start for the most part. Much like Dan C. and Co. took a couple of years to zone in on Homer and friends through trial and error so to did Seth with the Griffins. But those changes that came are not that big, and the behavior that turns detractors off is not referenced in the next ep because like all cartoon sitcoms the reset button is hit come the credits. FG played around a little with this (Peter's string of jobs since the toy factory was destroyed) but just like Homer and his quitting drinking FG keeps these characters static because no matter how smart the humor may be, in the end these people are not supposed to be 3 dimensional. They are really just tools for gags and humor. So to be as judgmental as some are just seems over the top. Watch some Simpsons eps from the golden era and ask yourself, really ask what the real world legal, ethical and moral consequences would have been in any given plot. Also notice how what ever emotional or spiritual growth of the characters achieve are blown to the four winds come next ep. See how the Simpson's writers even metacomment on it in some shows.

 

[Lord]

I'll just repost what i posted previously

Big diference is The Simpsons is supposed to actually be a satire, sure, in the latest years a lot has changed but Simpsons isn't intented to be mean, i can't say the same for Family Guy though, an exemple is every Michael J. Fox joke in Family Guy has to do with him having Parkinson’s Disease.

Making fun of public figures is the bedrock of satire, but the point of what makes it such good satirical is making fun of people for them either doing something stupid, or being inept at their job. Family Guy’s Michael J. Fox jokes don’t fill either of those criteria. They’re making fun of him for no other reason than having a degenerative and incurable medical condition. That’s not being satirical, that’s being an *****le.

A good exemple of a show that is mean, but smart and good satire is South Park.

It doesn't matter the real world how something in any of these shows would work in the real world, it matters wether they're being satirical or offensive. South Park creators try to have each episode focus on something of our society, they don't go around and make fun of criples just to look for "comedy gold". SP also has some not as funny episode, as basically every comedy show.

I don't think the first 2 seasons of Family Guy were very good either, but they were certainly better than the new ones, Peter in least was a little more likeable. The only thing i allways liked and actually think had a good evolution is Stewie, i'm actually surprised they do so many Peter and friends episodes when Stewie & Brian's are usually the best.

And answering to your last 3 lines, just watch any of the episodes of Simpsons in the golden era, pay attention to the themes the writers were trying to explore in each episode, Homer's portrayal was allways supposed to be a satire of what society expect men of his age to be like and what was popular to be shown on tv and movies.

As The Simpsons became more popular and a part of pop culture, more and more imitations started to appear, but completelly missing the point. Because of this Homer has become less redeemable, and the show started to drop in quality.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I am not trying to be condescending here at all. Please believe me. But I think it's fair to say that this applies to your view and my view here. "One man's satire is another man's offense." I just don't find a whole lot to be so deeply offended by on FG in a way that some detractors seem to feel is almost a moral obligation on their part. If anything, I have always found SP much more blatantly bellow the belt offensive than either FG or Simpsons. And despite what some would say about Seth M.'s politiacal leanings and his often making many conservative ideas and personalities the butt of jokes (He seems to lances a few liberal sacred cows as well over the years, sometimes in a brutal fashion) I really think it's mostly boiler plate pop culture "liberal" agenda stuff that has any bearing on the plot or characters. Where as on SP I get a libertarian "lesson" along with my offensive humor. I think we've both stated our cases here. We just disagree. And I think that's fine brother/sister.

 

[Lord]

I see what you're trying to say, but i never found myself offended by any of those shows (well, except them having Brazilian accents for Portuguese people, there's big difference), and i'm not from the USA, so i could care less about Libertarians and conservatives, but i generally find Family Guy's jokes in bad taste, and not in a satirical way like south park.

There's even a big difference between Seth macFarlane and the creator of South Park, which was pretty obvious when Farlane's presentation of the Oscars was full of sexist jokes.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I see what you're trying to say, but i never found myself offended by any of those shows (well, except them having Brazilian accents for Portuguese people, there's big difference), and i'm not from the USA, so i could care less about Libertarians and conservatives, but i generally find Family Guy's jokes in bad taste, and not in a satirical way like south park.

There's even a big difference between Seth macFarlane and the creator of South Park, which was pretty obvious when Farlane's presentation of the Oscars was full of sexist jokes.

You may want to read up on either Stone or Parkers' divorce from his Japanese wife. It's why they often have such really badly caricatured Asian characters on the show.

As for sexism? Ask what big name stars like Sally Field and Jennifer Lawrence think who took part in the show if his humor was overly offensive to them or women in general.

Finally, and I want you to know I am trying to be delicate here. But I have to ask is English your first language or were you raised somewhere else and learned it later? Because experiencing these programs as a native speaker might be much different in either translated form or trying to follow it as a non native English speaker. If I had to see some television program in another language I was not very, very conversant with I think certain aspects may be lost and others magnified. Am I right about this? (Yeah, it may be a stupid question to ask you, but with translation software, ect. who knows how we are all actually communicating right now? )

 

[Lord]

What? Were you expecting them to say how offended they were? They probably knew the jokes already, and some actually didn't really find it very funny.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...car-jokes-inappropriate-exist-and-borderline/

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Yes-Seth-MacFarlane-Oscar-Jokes-Were-Sexist-Yes-It-Matters-35994.html

There was a great article with tumblr posts too, but i can't find it now.

As for my language, not i'm not American native, and i know what you mean about experiencing the jokes but around here it's in english with subtitles, and very very popular, so i wouldn't say there's a language barrier clouding the jokes.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

What? Were you expecting them to say how offended they were? They probably knew the jokes already, and some actually didn't really find it very funny.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...car-jokes-inappropriate-exist-and-borderline/

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Yes-Seth-MacFarlane-Oscar-Jokes-Were-Sexist-Yes-It-Matters-35994.html

There was a great article with tumblr posts too, but i can't find it now.

As for my language, not i'm not American native, and i know what you mean about experiencing the jokes but around here it's in english with subtitles, and very very popular, so i wouldn't say there's a language barrier clouding the jokes.

I see. I think humor is very hard to translate, and is much more nuanced in it's expression than we give it credit for.

I hope you at least see that someone who does enjoy Seth's humor is not some knuckle dragging sexist/racist insult machine that lives to offend. My parents (and mi abuela) raised me to be a good person. I don't think I am some how being immoral in my enjoyment of Seth's shows in the least. How I treat others is more important to me than what happens on one of my favorite tv programs.

 

[Lord]

I see. I think humor is very hard to translate, and is much more nuanced in it's expression than we give it credit for.

I hope you at least see that someone who does enjoy Seth's humor is not some knuckle dragging sexist/racist insult machine that lives to offend. My parents (and mi abuela) raised me to be a good person. I don't think I am some how being immoral in my enjoyment of Seth's shows in the least. How I treat others is more important to me than what happens on one of my favorite tv programs.

Don't worry, i don't judge somebody's intelligence or being based on something as subjective as tastes, if you find it funny more strength to you, i do give credit to Seth for entertaining people, even if i myself find his humor a bit off.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Yes. The Simpson's characters have never done terrible or disgusting things to one another EVER, EVER, EVER and they have never EVER EVER made light of or enjoyed the misery or even the deaths of others on their show. These things have just not happened on the show. The Simpsons has never done anything that could offend ones sense of real world morality.

Yet the simpson family actually cares about one another. There are sentimental moments sprinkled throughout. Whereas "Family Guy" is practically devoid of them


-Homer has to say goodbye to his Mom. The episode ends with just homer staring at the night sky.

-Homer looking for Lisa in "Looking for Lisa"

-Bart making up ruining a family photo

-Homer doing a crappy job for Maggie.

"Do It for her"

-Homer and Marge kissing in a Valentine episode

-Homer meeting Marge and Marge offering Homer a ride home

-Grandpa dedicating a wing of the senior home to his deceased friend.



The list goes on.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I haven't watched any new Family Guy in a couple years (although I still catch bits and pieces on like TBS and enjoy the show), and I don't remember when the last time I watched a new Simpsons was, but I think about the closest thing to Peter having like a bonding/caring moment with one of his children was when he and Meg became really close, and then at the end, he told her how it was going to be their secret from now on, and even though he is going to fart in her cereal while she's not looking and laugh about it with everyone else, he will still love her.

 

[Teelie]

The average human has an IQ of 100, think that about sums it up.

Not to point out the obvious, but 100 is the baseline for human intelligence. If you score 100, you literally are no smarter or dumber than 95% of the rest of the people around you.

Over 100, you're slightly smarter to a genius. Under 100, you're slightly dumber to completely ******ed (sorry PCer's, it's a clinical reference here) to brain dead.

So someone with an IQ of 100 is not really all that dumb, or smart.

Given all of that, the two shows appeal to a lot of people for different reasons. Liking one but not the other or both doesn't factor into intelligence, unless you're the sort who feels intellectuals or their opposites must be drawn to or repelled from them for whatever reason you think they should be, which is probably personally biased.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I have a rather low opinion of the average human... kind of a theme in my posts.

Though, I guess I can't call them stupid, since, technically they aren't, at least compared to other, even dumber humans.