Family Guy or The Simpsons?

Family Guy is great for an unexpected trip on Saturday night. I feel Simpsons has a better thought out script and enjoy that just as much.

But Family Guy gets a strike against it for all the sexual content. I view the writers use sex as a replacement for actual substance and those episodes rank poorly IMO. I feel pre-canceled episodes are more creative with 2 hilarious exceptions.

If the South Park satire of family guy is any indication of how the show is I would say they are pretty much equal.

If not then my response it ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FRIKKING MIND? THE SIMPSONS HAVE BEEN SUCKING FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OF TELEVISION BEFORE OR AFTER IN ALL OF TIMES HAVE BEEN/WILL BE WORSE THAN THAN PILE OF MANURE

We arn't nessesarily talking about Family Guy or Simpsons NOW.

As far as simpsons, family guy, and south park, they are very much alike in two ways:

1) Character development & subsequent "inside jokes"
2) Immediate plot development and entertainment for each episode.
3) Humorous portrayal of real current events and pop culture and how it affects us.

As far as the 1st regard, family guy lacks, except for in my opinion stewy, where simpsons excels. As far as the second regard, family guy may win over simpsons SOME of the time. As far as the third regard, south park wins, followed by Simpsons and Family Guy. Family Guy tends to address issues that we as americans have within the family and every day life, whereas simpsons generally (but not always) addresses a less personal, more community/global issues.

I tend to agree with you, with one exception.... The side boob hour. Freaking hilarious!

"You like that side boob? We'll you shouldn't, because that's MY side boob..."

comedy gold!

The Simpsons and Family Guy are two very different shows, and I like them both.

The Simpsons had a few years (like 99-02) that were none too good, but I think they've rallied since then.

South Park is the dumbest, most unfunny show on television. That said, I love Family Guy and The Simpsons-- the early years at least.

I'll take the Simpsons, pre 2000. I find the new episodes to be rather lacking.

I used to love South Park but recently (the past 2-3 years) they have really let me down. They think they're so cutting edge, when in reality they only go after and pick on the easy targets (catholics, scientology, hollywood, jews, fat people, enviromentalists, PETA, etc.) and pretending to be the victim when CC censors their shows. You almost never see a politically relevent show picking on some gross corruption unless it personally affects them. I think they are fraidy cats. Yup, I said it: Fraidy cats.
When they are not trying to push some lame libertarian agenda, it's pretty funny though. For what it is; a 'fart joke' show.

I love South Park. I think it's very funny.

I'm just glad Kenny is back.

Come on, all the cool kids are watching Wonder Showzen now.

smash your tv and have adventures.

(wonder showzen is awesome for the excessively cannabissed. SP, simpsons and FG are all enjoyable sober.)

Aha! An error in your logic! If we smash the TV first, we can't tune to the Travel channel to see where we should go.

kids on the beat
kids on the street
beat kids
beat kids!

"The Simpsons" is a television legacy, and is a pretty solid show, but has lost all of the edge that used to make it great. I feel like it is being written by women, which for some reason is so often a recipe for disaster.

Your wife must be out of the room.

Sounds to me like you just don't like libertarians.


Wife?

Personally, I have more trouble with people who call themselves libertarians but somehow come off as right wing apologists, which is where "South Park" loses me (although I think it can be screamingly funny at its best).

The "pussy/dick/asshole" speech in "Team America" made it clear that Messrs. Parker and Stone save most of their contempt for those they consider "pussies", which they define like a 12 year old boy-- anyone that acts like a "girl", which, as we all know, is a characterization that is pretty much interchangeable with the current right wing take on "liberals".

So these particular "libertarians" have no use for anyone who is "emotional", anyone who appears "thoughtful", anyone who advocates for something other than short term gratification, and, most importantly, anyone who tells me what I can and cannot do.

Their self-regard as fearless iconoclasts would seem a lot more convincing if so many of their targets weren't relatively powerless and they had a taste for going after the people with some actual clout.

But the people currently with clout tend to be a bit thuggish so that, again like a 12 year old boy, they can't help but sorta dig it. A bad ass is always cooler than, say, a social worker, but that distinction doesn't really make for the scathing satire.

I think it was during the 2004 elections that I noticed the "South Park conservative" moniker being self-applied. My oldest brother said something along those lines.

I would say the only truly valuable message to get from South Park is that nothing is sacred. Beyond that it is pretty obvious that they are well right of center.

Also, the "libertarian" distinction is meaningless. If you call yourself "libertarian" you either don't really agree with the big tenets or you're a monster. It's nothing more than a haven for "legalize it"s and disgruntled conservatives.

u gotta c the show. it will explain everything. just ask tyler, he's special. grab a few dimes, roll a fatty and turn on mtv2. its bound to come on before you come down. its actually quite entertaining, but almost entirely unwatchable when i'm sober.

can you say, "smash the state"?

I think you should get some information on libertarian policy and consider this again. It is true that most people who are libertarians are extremely bold. This is largely because it's a 3rd party that also happens to have an early supporter who was eccentric and wrote bad novels. Parker and Stone are definitely bold, but the speech from Team America wasn't at all ridicule of the things you mentioned. It's more of a pan on contemporary bureaucracy in general, which they find to be overweight and more concerned about offending people than actually serving their electorate (I'd say they use "pussy" to mean effete). There's also an overtone concerning the fact that there seem to be people in Hollywood who would rather have America lose "the war on terror" at the cost of soldier's lives than see Bush have any success at all. This is a depraved attitude. The reason why liberals, I presume, think libertarians are "right wing apologists" is because it's a libertarian's duty to defend a culture/philosophy that's under assault from lesser cultures. This happens to coincide with Bush's "war on terror," although it's unlikely that you'll find a libertarian who agrees with Bush's methods or the concept of fighting foreign wars in general.


No, it just means that you think the economy should be free-market and the social responsibility of the individual shouldn't be the concern of the government. The government should exist to protect ideals, not people. The reason why you see a lot of disgruntled conservatives these days is because the Republican party now spends out of control and does little to protect anything.

Uh huh. There's certainly no evidence in Team America that Parker and Stone are particularly concerned with "overweight bureaucracies".

Unless I missed the part where the Rummy puppet and the Michael Chertoff puppet and John Bolton puppet and the Alberto Gonzales got their heads blown off? You know, because of their effete allegiance to money and power instead of the best interests of the American people?

Or is "effete" just another "pussy/fag/liberal" synonym that can only ever apply to people with liberal politics because everybody in the Bush administration is such a swaggering macho dude?

Which, you might notice, is not really a political distinction and has more to do masculine status anxiety.


That's my point, right there. You start with a ludicrous right wing talking point and treat it as an objective fact, which apparently means that any grotesque burlesque of "people in Hollywood" is either "libertarian", or sharp satire, or both.

Whereas it's neither. People in Hollywood don't have any power, they don't enact policy, and they make stupidly easy targets for "satire".

So if Parker and Stone are libertarian, or good satirists, where were the hilarious barbs directed at someone like Bill O'Reilly, who surely is as pompous a windbag as you would ever want deflated? Ann Coulter? Michelle Malkin? Or what about the "all show no go" Bush admin in general?

These are people who have real power or speak for power. Don't they seem like the more worthy target, if what you are about is puncturing balloons and resisting the blandishments of the state?

Like I say, not libertarian-- just a queasy-making mixture of adolescent queer bashing, broad mockery of the powerless and a fondness for ass-kicking. Or maybe that is libertarianism?


I don't really know what that means and I suspect I don't want to, but my point is not that "libertarians" are secretly "right wing" but rather that Parker and Stone are more right wing (or merely juvenile, which I suppose might amount to the same thing) than libertarian, and that their idea of themselves as treating "nothing as sacred" seems oddly lopsided, in practice.

^One of my favorite posts of the year.

I used to only watch the Simpsons but something went wrong. I didn't even see it happen gradually. I jumped a few seasons and it was like someone had fired the original talent and they'd hired a bunch of people who they told to keep the show the same.

The voices on the show sound labored now. Homer seems to be trying to act dumb instead of just being dumb and it doesn't work. The voices are getting quite whiney now too and the scenarios are pathetic. What the hell was that N'Sync on the boat one all about?

I don't even watch the newer episodes now because I'm just tired of seeing them. Hopefully they won't screw up their upcoming movie but if they do they should just end it once and for all.

These days I prefer to watch Family Guy, American Dad and sometimes South Park. I don't mind the crude humour in those shows. In fact, the more I watch them, I think that puts me off the Simpsons more because it looks tame in comparison.

How would you end a show like the Simpsons though? Nearly every other show that is very popular tends to have a small set of main characters. Friends had the main 6 characters, Frasier had about the same. The Simpsons has tons.

Just knowing that this thread existsand that people are debating the relative merits of The Simpsons and Family Guysaddens me greatly.

You are all heretics and hate America.

Amen, addabox, something that always bothered me about Team America was that it took this platform from which a wonderful cultural satire could be launched and ended up with an extended attack on meaningless people (Alec Baldwin, in particular).

Now, mssrs Parker and Stone don't owe anyone anything. They were not obliged to make a more cutting and intelligent political statement with their puppet scat sex movie, but it is still valid to critique their choices.


That last sentence is telling, especially if one bothers to read the United States Constitution or think of life that exists beyond one's own situation.

Where libertarianism falls apart is that it is, as I said before, monstrous (fend for yourself and expect help only at the whim of others). Either that or it abandons libertarian principles and becomes a run-of-the-mill liberal republican party with some side gripes (legalize weed, duuuude).

You may mock the legalization efforts but doing so will do more to help the inner cities than any welfare program. Note: I have never smoked pot or done any other drugs.

Last night's South park was especially disappointing. It had potential with out the Al Gore part. Who the hell hates Al Gore that much? They make Al Gore behave and look like some bumbling moron while Bush (in the Family Guy episodes a few weeks back) is portrayed like some cool lovable baddie.

LAME.

I think most liberals and democrats are for the legalizing of most substances. I do appreciate the libertarian viewpoint that what you do in your own life/bedroom is your own business as long as it doesn't interfer with anyone elses. It's a notion that should be widely accepted.

I was also very upset with the episode. South Park is one of my favorite shows and it just disappointed me. Its hard to think who hates Al Gore that much.

Maybe people mistake him for the guy that can't spell 'potato'.

possibly

I vote for Farscape. Simply brilliant.

Definitly Family Guy.

That last family guy was a work of art.