Talk:Family Guy/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Unbalanced

This article is generally unbalanced against family guy. It reads as if a suburban helicopter soccer mom wrote it. Clean it up a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.177.46 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you give just one specific example from the current version of the article? Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I see little evidence showing unbalance. This article is very objective in almost all areas. Are you perhaps reading the criticism section in the wrong context? -washburnmav (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor, please add new topics to the bottom. As for article being unbalanced, please state particular examples you'd like to change or remove.--Loodog (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2008

Okay, so I was reading in Cleveland's section, and they said a show called the Cleveland Show was being made, and was set to air sometime in March 2009 after Family Guy So does this mean that Family Guy will end in March?63.166.254.137 (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is when the next season will end, The Cleveland show will be appearing on air after the season finishesFretwalkers (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, to a lesser extent, it may be meant that the Cleveland Show will be airing *following* an airing of Family Guy; I doubt the schedule would be announced in that format this early, and I'm leaning more towards what Fretwalkers is suggesting, but no need to rule out that it'll be airing following an episode of Family Guy (perhaps an episode of Family Guy where Cleveland leaves, resulting in the spin-off itself). --Snojoe (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

How it is going to work - and this was confirmed. Family Guy is followed by American Dad... and then The Cleveland Show will replace American Dad on the schedule. Not sure how this will work exactly, as both Family Guy and American Dad have the usual 24 episodes plus all the ones from this year that didn't air. 92.3.48.22 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The creator of Ren and Stimpy (!!!) accuses the Family Guy makers of bad drawing??? Shouldn't this section be limited to serious criticism? -- 134.102.101.61 (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Serious criticism" is relative. If he criticizes FG for bad drawing, then that is his opinion and should not be removed due to the questionable "seriousness". Moccamonster Talk 08:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy Pinball

There is NO NEED at all for this sections on the main page. JoWal (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

Adding a Very Important Link at the Bottom of the FG Page

If at all possible, could someone with better permissions than me (if that exists), put a link to the adultswim.com Family Guy show page (http://www.adultswim.com/shows/familyguy/index.html) at the bottom of this wiki? There is a wealth of information, hundreds of clips and even a mini wiki about the show, and I'd put the link myself if this page wasn't locked. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhumbug (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Brian's Dad

(copied from the Brian Griffin talk page)
Okay, I think that we can make an argument that Coco, Brian's dad, either abandoned or diddn't take care of Brian and his siblings because in "Screwed the Pooch," when Lois and Brian are talking about Carter getting custody of Brian's pups, Brian says that he wants to be there for his pups, unlike his dad.

I know that it was just a breif refrence and that it hasn't been brought up since, and that we usally don't take these things seriously, but that's because thoes split-second refrences are usally gags and jokes, but this wasn't. Lois and Brian's conversation is just straight dialog. The humor is in Peter in his glass case. I know that there isn't any other evidence, yet, of my theroy, but can't we just say something about it in the article? Talk amonst yourselves. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
(copy from the Brian Griffin talk page ends here)

Okay, I know that this is another one of my theroies (and I'm sorry for my theroy on Stan Tompson), but I didn't use nonsense logic on this one. The breif refrence wasn't ment to be funny. Like I said on 6-13-08, "Lois and Brian's conversation is just straight dialog. The humor is in Peter in his glass case," so I think that the line should be considerd at least a crediable refrence. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Effin Cry

Was the title sequence really ever changed because people thought Stewie said "Effin cry" rather than "Laugh and cry"? There's no references linked and it mentions that Channel 4 in the UK muted it which I seriously doubt they would have done. Muleattack (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they did. If you listen closly to the line in a Season 3 episode and compaire it to a Season 1 episode, "laugh and" sounds a little clearier. And, to back this up, (Yes, I do have proof) in a comentary on The Freakin' Sweet Collection, someone asks about the rumor and Seth says that it's false, and that he had to re-record the line. The comment was either on the Leathle Weapons commentary or To Love and Die in Dixie. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Stewie's homosexuality

it says stewie is homosexual but he has shown attraction to femal babies many times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.178.74 (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

True. (89.168.213.240 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

I believe in a TV Guide interview with Seth Macfarlane, he said that it's fun to have Stewie play the field for now, having sexual interests in all areas. I'll see if I can find the interview somewhere. It was about a year or so ago, I think. R e i k a 18:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardianpinkneko (talk • contribs)

"I Need A Jew" copyright infringement

This lawsuit sounds absurd. I think the fact should be mentioned that the melody used in this episode is very dissimilar from "When You Wish Upon A Star." Shiggity (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Lovely. Find a published, reliable source that agrees with you and feel free to add it. Otherwise it's just WP:OR. Dp76764 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that absurd. I could easily see it happening. And it may sound simalar enough that the company thinks they can sue. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy movie title: REAL OR SCAM????

Word has it on the Internet that the title of the rumored (and highly likely, according to MacFarlane) Family Guy movie for theaters is "Family Guy: Shown in the Cinema on November 23rd". It has also been said that it is slated for a 2010 release. That, however, I find hard to believe, and the user who added this to the Family Guy template is either "User:Anonymous from the 21th century" or an unregistered user. BUT, there was apparently a trailer released onto YouTube, but it was reportedly taken down due to copyright claims by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation itself, as evidenced by [youtube.com/?v=WSCO7LnpZGE this link]!!!! Either this is the real deal, or it's a scandal on a scale large enough to attract the concern of copyright violations. SOMEONE EXPLAIN!!! Immblueversion (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NOW THERE'S AN ARTICLE UP ON THE SITE: "FAMILY GUY: SHOWN IN THE CINEMA, ON NOVEMBER 23RD"!!! THIS IS EITHER MADNESS OR BRILLIANCE, BUT IT HAS TO BE FAKE!!!! IS IT NOT???!!! I DON'T SEE HOW IT CAN POSSIBLY BE REAL!!!! The user responsible for putting it up, who does NOT have a talk page: User:FamilyGuyMovie2010. Immblueversion (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Why anyone would think it's a title is beyond me. This doesn't look like a title at all, it looks like a quote from either a movie poster or a trailer. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, besides, November 23, 2010 is a Tuesday. Immblueversion (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I should go to sleep now. I will put this article up for deletion if it hasn't been done already by the time I wake up. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now the article is back on with unbiased claims that the film really was announced by Seth MacFarlane. There is no proof I can find on the Internet. WE NEED INFORMATION!!! Immblueversion (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What's weird is it's true that Seth was on Leno and said there was going to be a movie sometime around the end of next year or 2010, but he never said anything bout the titleOnepiece226 (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)OnePiece226

You can't even call that a title. All in that so-called title is just reading words directly from a movie poster, yeah, it reads like words directly from a movie poster, but not as a title at all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well lets not forget the Aqua Teen's Movie Title, the "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters"? So I can guarentee that it could be a title, but it's def not the real title.Onepiece226 (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)OnePiece226

I mean common, a release date in the title? This title can't be seriously real. How do you know somebody didn't just read the poster and wrote the title straight from the poster and assumed that was the title? I could see any poster and type some random stuff like "{The title of the movie} Coming to theaters on {release date}" and assume that's the full title. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but there's not even a oster online? If there was ANYTHING about a family guy movie...a poster, trailer, clip, picture. It would be up everywhere, and as a movie buff, ive seen nothingOnepiece226 (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)OnePiece226

Can someone try and find the Tonight Show clip that has Seth anouncing the frigin ' thing! Also, I don't really think that would be the title. It just wouldn't make sence. Family Guy's Cartoon Cavalcade of Fun and Ballons sounds like a more likely title. (No, that isn't a refrence to Cavalcade of Comedy, it's a refrence to a DVD commentary.)--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor (and Unnecessary) Typo

From the Family Guy/Setting:

"This ordering of buildings and the angle at which they are viewed (see figure at right) indicates that Quahog is primarily west of downtown Providence if it is to have a real-world counterpart."

The phrase "(see figure at right)" is misleading. In my browser, at least, the images appear to the left of the text.

Please edit as you see fit. In all actuality, the parenthetical text should probably be removed. The paragraph reads fine without it, and the reference to the accompanying photographs is obvious, given the placement of the photographs.

Herbert

Recent episodes have revealed Herbert is not only attracted to boys aged 15-19, but boys who are obviously younger. The word ephebophile should be changed to pedaphile.

Meta-humor

There's a sub-section in the article on meta-humor. This seems like a silly topic. Meta-humor as described by the subsection is not that significant in the show. (There are two examples, from one episode.) I think this is not significant enough to be in an article. It's not very distinctive or definitive of the show. There are dozens of other themes or devices used as much or more. Pulling out meta-humor is unwarranted. Stay or go?

Rldoan (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Critic's Reception on episode sections

Is it necessary to put critical receptions on each episode? Family Guy has had a track history of critics hating it, or warming less to it then other shows, so why with all the nitpicking little reviews on each episode? its kinda irrelevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybritches (talk • contribs) 10:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Accents

These need to go, the actors basing their voice on someone from a particular region does not make it the accent of that region. It's entirely subjective. I don't know about the American accents but Stewie is reported to have an 'English' accent. Accents vary hugely in England (as I'm sure they do in the US) It's not uncommon for someone to not be able to understand a word another person that lives 300 miles away says due to accent. Accents can't be proven so they either go or it's changed to say that the voice is based on someone from (insert region here). Muleattack (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This info is quite valid, and i have replaced it. Accents are well documented, recognised, quoted, and parodied. The fact that accents vary within a country is irrelevant. Stewie is said to "have what some consider an upper-class affected English accent and stereotypical archvillain phrases", It does not say he has just an English accent.--Dmol (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Accents cannot be proven, they are entirely subjective. "an upper-class affected English accent" - is that a Mancunian, Liverpudlian or Somerset accent? There are upper-class people in all these areas. If you want to include this information state what the accents are intended to be, not what they 'are'. Muleattack (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No mention of "Joe Swanson"

Isn't he the same class as "Cleveland & Glenn" ?

"Patrick Warburton: Joe Swanson" SHOULD be added to the main cast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.199.99 (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

It mentions that The Simpsons has referenced Family Guy unflatteringly twice, suggesting that the people behind The Simpsons are criticising Family Guy. However, Seth MacFarlane has always maintained that there is good feeling between the two sides (unlike with South Park). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.194.166 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Normally changes happen very fast on wikipedia. I am curious, if this page is so unbalanced with criticism why has it not yet shown how the show clearly violated many ethics and flat out lied by calling Senator McCain a Nazi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbfolsom122 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

  • You may want to look at Road to Germany. And: They did NOT call McCain a Nazi; they simply implied that Nazi's would support him. And, even if they did, they are well within their 1st Amendment rights to express that opinion. But regardless of all that, if you want to add something about this, please find a reliable source to cite it. Dp76764 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the first thing about this topic is right. The show often takes a Democrat viewpoint on various topics. Some messages on the show are: republicans want to control everybody, undecided voters are stupid, etc. There has to be some criticism on this.--poketape 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketape (talk • contribs)

I disagree, if you look at the people who like this show, it appeals mainly to democrats, the issues it deals with are two shocking for a lot of people on the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolsouimet (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The tone of the show is not something that sits well with conservative, religious people, and part of the reason is that some of the themes that they showcase those on the right find shocking. This is all meant to be satire, and draw attention to these issue, relating to gay rights for example.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolsouimet (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Brent Bozell has more criticism in his article, Fox's "Comedic Genius". Asteriks (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess Bozell represents a certain perspective, and might be worth including if given reasonable context, but per his Wikipedia article and his article's conspicuous tone of aggrieved outrage against liberal elites, he hardly represents a neutral source. Absence of a right-wing perspective is not "unbalanced".
Interestingly though, Bozell's article makes reference (albeit without hyperlinking) to several articles in news sources that can probably be found online—these might be good for this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Effin Cry

to the extent that UK broadcaster Channel 4 would edit the line so Stewie would only be heard saying "cry", and some versions of subtitles stating "F-in' cry!"

Family Guy has never been shown on channel 4 in the UK - it is only shown on BBCthree and FX.

77.100.255.190 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FG was shown on CH4, seasons 1-3 were shown on CH4 then repeated on Sky1. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Eh it's "laugh 'n' cry" Seth MacFarlane said so in the commentary of the episode "He's Too Sexy For His Fat" Reliable Forevertalk 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FOX got them to re-record that line in case of possible offence in Season 3-4. 86.112.184.69 (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New York Accent

"His wife Lois...has a distinct New York accent..." That's supposed to be a New York accent?? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't supposed to be a New York accent. Where would she get a New York accent when she has lived in Rhode Island her whole life? I think that She and Peter both have a New England accent. **And if you disagree with me, then you sir, are worse, than Hitler!**--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
**(JOKE! JOKE! IT'S A REFRENCE TO RED EYE ON FOX NEWS! RELAX!)**

I was quoting what it said in the article. I agree with you, it's not a New York accent. I think someone from the Midwest wrote that part of the article. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a mistake. Lois grew up in Newport, Rhode Island, so has a New England accent of some sort--definitely not from New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treasurehouse (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So, since the article is locked, how does it get edited? It says she has a New York Accent, from the Pewterschmidt family. Non sequitur. The Pewterschmidt family is from Newport RI. Both Peter and Lois seem to have some kind of fake Rhode Island accent, which doesn't sound like a Rhode Island accent to anyone from Rhode Island. Not as bad as the worst fake Boston accent (Ratzenburger as Clavin on Cheers), or the worst fake accent in hisory (Duvall as Holmes in the Seven Percent Solution), but certainly not an authentic quahog accent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.147.251 (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added that she has a New England accent. Gopal81ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The article say's that Stewie has a "Mid-Atlantic English accent" what is that as i've never heard that expresion? i'd have said it was an upper class English Accent. Stagehunk (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy Sings!

I'm not sure where to put this in the article, but it's just been announced that the show's cast will be performing at Carnegie Hall for Family Guy Sings! links--> http://www.playbill.com/news/article/122248.html and http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/15753 Annie D (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of Non Sequiturs

The article says the word "Sequence" over a dozen times, but there's no mention of Non Sequiturs which is the primary joke delivery method of the show. Instead it describes it as vignettes. Is there some fanatical TOW deletionist against any reference to these as Non Sequiturs? --24.241.228.210 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion thread on this subject: Talk:Family Guy/Archive 4#Non sequiturs.2C non
Non sequitur is the wrong word for this, which is why the term cutaway gag is used in this article. If we have a source which says the term non sequitur is used by the Family Guy producers, or the industry in general, it may make sense to add something like

The show uses frequent cutaway gags—"non sequiturs" in the jargon of the show's producers—jokes in the form of tangential vignettes.

Using the term non sequitur without further explanation in this article would be misleading to readers who know what that term really means. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


This article http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/01/16/060116crte_television in The New Yorker calls them non sequiturs The Illusional Ministry (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

non sequitur noun a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. ORIGIN Latin, literally ‘it does not follow.’

New Oxford American Dictionary—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Illusional Ministry (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This sort of information is better linked than copy/pasted; there are plenty of online dictionaries, but I usually start with DICT. It also repeats a previous discussion.
Thanks for the New Yorker link—it doesn't provide a working definition of non sequitur and seems to simply mean "does not follow", so the term cutaway gag is still more appropriate and specific. However, this article is a good citation for fart jokes, which are not mentioned in this article at all, and generally one decent source discussing the show's style of humor, which this article does not describe well. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New American Dad! reference

Could somebody please add the American Dad! reference from 'I Dream Of Jesus' where Jesus is on Jay Leno and on the bottom of the screen it says 'Next: American Dad! season premiere'. Thanks. Peanut Butter Jelly (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that was a refrence on the show. I think that might have been a promo for the American Dad episode that was next. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just checked my tivoed episode of it, and it's just a promo. There was no refrence.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

CGI

Could we mention the increased use of CGI (see "Road to Germany" for an example). Its so noticeable that when I think of the episode those shots are most of what I'm reminded of. Cs302b (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This site posts the latest episodes after they air...

Latest Family Guy Episodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.119.215.193 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Reliable Forevertalk 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Another meta-humor reference?

I was watching the episode Brian Does Hollywood today and noticed that Peter makes a comment that in hollywood shows characters always say something funny just before the commercial break. After this he sort of looks into the camera and does not say anything for a second before the commercial break. These are not the exact words, but I'm sure someone can verify (I'm from Europe and bought all my DVDs there and are a different region code than my player here in the US).

I think this reference should be added to the Meta-humor section of the article.

--Dutchjoel (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unique title sequences

The episode Brian Does Hollywood (being a Part 2) also has an unique title sequence, recapping the previous episode (well, sort of).

--Dutchjoel (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a better place for the list of unique title sequences in WP or no place at all as Tako8Yaki implies? I liked that material, thought it was interesting and useful, and can think of no better place to find it, then this WP article. --DAW0001 (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, Wikipedia does not encourage lists of trivia type material (WP:TRIVIA). That section was also completely unsourced. My question on the topic would be: how is the fact that the entry sequence is different (on a few occasions) notable? DP76764 (Talk) 21:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons

I was just wondering why there isn't any mention of the individual seasons and the up and comming seasons and episodes. It would be nice to be able to read something about those in case people are contemplating buying one or the other, then they would know in which season what episode happened.--88.68.249.41 (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

See List of Family Guy episodes--DAW0001 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Character Section Is to Confusing and hard to read.

I think that the section is to hard to understand, it uses to many big words. please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.149.113 (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Griffin "well intentioned"

Calling Peter Griffin "well intentioned" is dubious. --76.126.149.246 (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is also original research. Remove this description. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging Family Guy: It takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One

noticed a merge proposal at the top of the article.

Why should it be merged? There are several publications and if one were merged then logically the others would have to be as well. I don't see why it shouldn't be kept as a seperate article. --Sturm55 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing too. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 06:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Style of humor

A previous post on this page links a decent article from The New Yorker describing the Family Guy's humor. Can we collect a few more of these in hope of cobbling together a well-sourced section on the show's style of humor? There have been a few attempts in the past describing the show as "black humor" and "meta-humor", but I don't think either really covered it. Starting with high-quality critical sources and just drawing points from those might be a good way to go. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

2 afds

FYI:

and

Ikip (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Dysfunctional Family?

The fist para. states that the Griffins are a semi-dysfuntional family. Surely they are a dysfunctional family (tick many of the boxes in the table on the wiki page on this subject). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.128.120 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Meta humor section

Discuss metahumor section here.--Loodog (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's completely unsourced. I don't think anyone can dispute that. Per WP:V, any unsourced material can be removed, and it has been tagged for a reasonable amount of time now. While I agree with you that disputes should be discussed, I am not disputing the suitability of the section, just that it is completely unsourced and appears to be completely Original Research. I suggest you look for sources otherwise it will have to be removed again. --Bill (talk|contribs) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried a quick google for "Family Guy meta humor" and "Family Guy meta reference" and found nothing peer-reviewed. We'll have to shelve the section, which is a shame...--Loodog (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Lawsuits?

there has been no update on these yet, these have to be like, what, 2 years old?

could we please look up some more information on these? --66.61.74.191 (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in this information, you could research it and add it to Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


What should be added to the lawsuit page is not so much individuals suing the show, but special interest groups. The Parents Television Resource council has just filled an indecency complaint against the March 9th episode of the show.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolsouimet (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

dude these law suits are bull famliy guy makes fun of stuff cuz people (mostly clebs) are morons wat do u think?? write me

I think they get away with things is because they insult everybody, although the show is getting out of line with all the sexual jibes with Stewie and people having sex with Brian! He is a dog that beastality! --Cooly123 (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Musical Acts table

I added a table with some of the songs sung by characters on the show. It got deleted, why? It was a good resource, sure it need expanding, but still. User: Danreilly123 04:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danreilly123 (talk • contribs)

What was the notability of those songs? And the reference used was a blog. BOVINEBOY2008 04:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy#International syndication

Should this section be removed? It does not cite any sources and seems to be against WP:NOTADIRECTORY. DP76764 (Talk) 20:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should, per WP:DATED and WP:NOT#DIR (sometimes quoted as "Wikipedia is not an electonic prograqm guide"). This has been discussed and removed repeatedly before. Wikipedia articles need to written in a fashion that remains accurate when read years in the future, and broadcast times obviously will change frequently. TV Guide.com already exists. Delete this section. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

This section is unclear. 33rd place against what? I looked at the only source, which was for the first statistic, it is a geocities page that could have been created by anyone. Family Guy in this article is ranked against virtually every other TV series, including NFL Monday Night Football. Shouldn't it be ranked against sitcoms or other entertaining TV shows?

Also, the other season rankings have no sources and they seem a bit suspicious. I could be wrong, but the first season of Family Guy was NOT popular, it was taken off the air, yet it has twice as many views as all of the succeeding seasons. This doesn't seem right at all.

Let me know what you guys think Crh0872 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah it probably shouldn't be trusted, but i'm sure there is a list of reliable ratings for tv shows somewhere.

please add to criticism

I would like to add the following information to the "Criticism" section of the page, but I don't have proper privileges.

In the unaired “Clerks: The Animated Series” episode “The Last Episode Ever,” one of the writers is seen reading from a book called How to Write Cartoons, by Seth MacFarlane. This writer proposes, “Let’s send [Dante and Randall] to Gilligan’s Island, and make gay jokes about them the whole episode!” On the commentary track, one of the commentary guests called MacFarlane the “other arch-nemesis.” Clerks creator Kevin Smith expressed his disbelief that Family Guy got to stay on the air, and was nominated for an Emmy that year. Producer Scott Mosier called Family Guy “Emmy-nominated shit.” Clerks: The Animated Series was cancelled after just two episodes.

The information can be verified by watching episode 6 on disc 2 of the Clerks Animated series DVD with the audio commentary on. The scene occurs about 19 minutes into the episode. I'm not sure which commentary guest called MacFarlane the arch-nemesis, but candidates are: Kevin Smith, Scott Mosier, Dave Mandel, Chris Bailey, Brian O'Halloran, Jeff Anderson, or Jason Mewes.

Seems like original research. Are there any 3rd party reliable sources discussing this? Also, this would be better for the Criticism of Family Guy article too. DP76764 (Talk) 01:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

More info on movie

We really need more info, if any, on the movie on this page. Seth said sometime within the next year, well a year has passed and little word has been revealed. Is it officially in the works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.32.203.75 (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Emmy Nomination

Family Guy is nominated for an Emmy in the "Comedy Series" category. As it is the first animated show to be nominated since the Flintstones in 1961, should this be added to the article?

Here are my sources: Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSTRE56G15O20090717, New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/arts/television/17emmys.html

AlexAH (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah, that should definitely be added. ESTEMSHORNtalkSign 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

2007 Emmy

The main website for the Emmy-award-bestowing Academy of Television Arts and Sciences DOES NOT list "Family Guy" as a recipient or a nominee for an Emmy for Outstanding Individual Achievement in Animation in 2007 or at any time.

In fact, according to that online archival list, Family Guy has only won 2 Emmys, not 3 as the Wiki article cites.

It seems the source -- the Intenet Movie Database -- is wrong.

Please resolve this.

Steve

Bartatheart (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy Video Game!

Shouldn't there be at least mention of the fact there's a game based on the series? Family Guy Video Game! Lmcgregoruk (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably worth a brief mention. I recall this article once having a rather excessive paragraph with overkill plot details—that has been reasonably deleted. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Emmy Nominated?

why is it said at the top of the page that family guy is an emmy nominated show? shouldn't it be emmy winning show? it won 3 times. (TheGreatAsian (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

The Family Guy Emmy's I'm aware of are for voice Acting, Music & Lyrics, and storyboard. Describing a show as "Emmy award winning" implies a major show category such as "Best Comedy", so it's a bit misleading.
Frankly, I think mentioning the nomination (or the cast Emmys) in the first sentence is a bit of fannish hype as well, but since the "Outstanding Comedy Series" nomination is unusual, it probably merits a place somewhere in the lede section. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cast member pictures

Why are these here? I understand some editors see free images and just go crazy, but they aren't helping this article at all. There isn't a single FA-article with a gallery of the main cast. And images are supposed to be used to enhance the text; the text is not talking about the appearance of the cast in any way. BOVINEBOY2008 00:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

click here CTJF83Talk 00:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. But that doesn't change my opinion. BOVINEBOY2008 00:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
should we do a poll, or just debate about this issue. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No poll, just debating/consensus...Bovine, why do you think they don't help? It shows who the main cast is. CTJF83Talk 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Is their appearance necessary? If someone wanted to know what one of them looks like, can't they just go to their article? You are saying that it is for identification, but their image doesn't add anything to the article. BOVINEBOY2008 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I Think it dose but as I sayed let's try to do a poll of some sort, and of my opinion it doe it shows who is who in one artical without haveing to change as Ctjf83 showed the simpsons do have this and it is a FA. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly it does for The Simpsons, why have to click on their article, if it can just be on the FG page. CTJF83Talk 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I could simply turn that around. Why have it here if it can just be on the individual articles? And I don't think we can use status quo here. Maybe my problem here is the gallery presentation. If there were an image with them all in it, then I would be okay; it would complement the text as them being a cast (altogether) and it wouldn't be a giant bar of images going across the page. Right now it just seems to be jutting into the article for not other reason than "ooo, look at the pretty pictures". BOVINEBOY2008 00:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay then lets find one of those images, who is up for it. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are two, but I don't have much experience in image loading other than with posters and such. image1 (source), image2 (source) BOVINEBOY2008 00:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have done this before, i'll do it. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I doubt either of those are free, so you won't be able to add them, with out some anti-image person causing a stir. CTJF83Talk 00:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Quick note, "Free images = good" is not entirely accurate. Free images, that are relevant, and don't clutter a page are good. A gallery of free images that serves no purpose other than to show what the voice actors look like, when their own articles can do that is not necessarily "good", warranted, or even necessary - that's my opinion on the subject. I would assume that if you went to FAC with a gallery like that, you'd probably be hit up for overuse of free images. That said, I would also say that the image of the family in the "Characters" section is also unnecessary, given that the infobox image is the family. We don't need two images when one serves the same purpose. The Xbox game image also needs to go. Unless there is critical commentary on the game cover art, then it doesn't meet WP:FUC/WP:NONFREE. The image in the "criticism" section seems good though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Spell Check

Should we do something to check the spelling?. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, spell it correctly the first time.--Loodog (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
So we should. --Pedro J. the rookie 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears most of the spelling errors and poor grammar is coming from you, Pedro. CTJF83Talk 05:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Crap... my native langueg is not inglish and it has been a time scence i write inlish.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please revise the word 'but' and change it to 'by' in the 6.1 Cutaway section. "cutaways have been criticized heavily but both critics and other" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinkella (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done It will show up in a little while after I finish all my major edits to the page. CTJF83Talk 20:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :-) Trinkella —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Drunken clam

Hey would it be a bad idea to do an artical abaout the drunken clam, it is a regular seen place in the series. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, there isn't nearly enough info to support a page. Quahog (Family Guy) couldn't even sustain a page, and it was redirected to Family Guy CTJF83Talk 08:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well i hope that some day we have enough info for the pages.--Pedro J. the rookie 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling errors

Someone please change "merchendise" to "merchandise". Normann1974 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Guest stars

should we make a section for speacial guests, there are many. --Pedro J. the rookie 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Special guests tend to only have one or very few appearances in the series, none of which are that notable. On the articles for the individual episodes, all the special guests are noted. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane Template

Could someone who is able to add the Seth MacFarlane Template to the bottom of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.231.228 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit

I'm tryin to make FG a GA, so if any one has any suggestions or wants to help me say it to me. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, there are way too many images in the article. Most of them are non-free content and some don't really have a defined copyright. I don't know too much about images but eleven in one article is way too many. That is the thing jumps out at me first. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bovine. --Pedro J. the rookie 14:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Errors

Someone should fix the atrocious spelling errors in the second paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.106.58 (talk • contribs) 05:53 24 August 2009

Thank you, I'll take a look CTJF83Talk 06:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammer and Spelling

To whomever is running this page,

I understand it is a semi-protected page, so whomever does have access to make edits,could you please READ the paragraphs and CORRECT the spelling and grammer? Half of the article doesn't make sense.

Examples:

A co-worker presented MacFarlane to some producers at Fox and the pilot caught the attention of the producers, as which they gave MacFarlane 1500 dollars to do a pilot, and six months later he made the pilot and Fox accepted and Family Guy went on the air.[6] Run on sentence

The politicians on the show are some not normal laws, but the show those have some politics that do exist in the real world like for example the episode You May Now Kiss the... Uh... Guy Who Receives,[72] [73] Gay Marriage is band from the Quahog city because the mayor had made an error. In the show it is shown that the resident’s of the city have are close minded when it comes to religion, in the episode Not All Dogs Go to Heaven,[74] when Meg tells people that Brian is an atheist people go against him.What???

Thank you for pointing those out, I'll take a look. CTJF83Talk 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Someone really needs to go through the article and strip off the non-reliable sources. I took a quick scan, and half the URL references fail our verifiability policy by a long shot. In addition, could someone format the references? Bare URLS are not encouraged by policy. All in all, someone needs to simply sit down and go through every single ref. I myself am too lazy :P (That, plus I got 5 hopeful GACs). Cheers, I'mperator 14:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, we have a new user working on the article, once he gets done, I'll look over the page. CTJF83Talk 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception

This article only mentions negative reception of Family Guy. I'm sure there has been positive reception, I mean, the show was nominated for an Emmy after all. --68.189.106.158 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to look for some good reviews that are reliable but can't find any. Do you have any? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there are any good reviews Bovine,I have already looked and i did not find anything. --Pedro J. the rookie 20:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would really try and get some before GA nomination. There has to be positive reviews, otherwise it wouldn't be starting the 8th season. CTJF83Talk 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

dose anyone know where to find good reviws. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some some-what positive aspects of the show commented on by Catherine Seipp, of nationalreview.com, that can be found here: http://www.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200502040749.asp I don't know how much of it can be used, and whether or not it is a reliable source, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.194.195 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's relible Ctjf83, Bovine what you think. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NRO is a recognized literary journal. But we can't build an entire section or even a paragraph on one review without breaching WP:UNDUE. This will definitely come in handy when more sources are found. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:41, 15 September

2009 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. If I stumble across any more reviews, I'll post the links to the web pages her, and then it can be decided as to what can be used, where, and how much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.180.213 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

hey i am not very good at critics but those thease count as a Good crictisicam or just a review http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/13/arts/the-new-season-television-critic-s-choice-a-little-dysfunctional-family-fun.html, http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/tv--radio/tv-reviews/show-of-the-week-family-guy/2009/04/20/1240079595389.html. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely usable, but it will be difficult as it doesn't focus soley on Family Guy. We need some more general reviews like the NRO provided by the anon user. The second one is good as it is a more focused review, but it would be preferred to have reviews from literary journals and magazines (TIME) or national (USA Today) or major regional periodicals (New York Times, LA Times). BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Find a Time or a USA Today critics on Family Guy is a bit hard mostly becuase the USA critics i find is a man who anwsers Mail from readers, and from Time there is not much, do you think there may be a chance to do some work with the info we hhave?. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to right something up, maybe post it here or on a subpage of yours, it can be developed, but I really don't like seeing incomplete sections in articles (personally). I may get a chance next week to go through my colleges archives of journals, but I can't do anything now. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are several reviews and articles that I have found. Feel free to check through them, and decide what can and can't be used:

This is also quite interesting, and might be able to be to fit in somewhere. It is not so much about Family Guy itself, but it does seem relevant. In it, councillor Ross Hussey states that he finds people comparing him to Peter Griffin is quite funny, and sees it as a possible way to make young people become interested in politics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8254894.stm

I'll post more links if I find any more. Kinda difficult to find any possitive ones, and even then, there is so much stuff that probably can't be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.101.163 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

They are pretty reliable, but i am not very good at critical recepction related, lets Bovine come to see the new info and maybe we can work and make a good recepction. --Pedro J. the rookie 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy has also been got positive reviews from critics. Catherine Seipp of the National Review Online called it a nasty but extremely funny cartoon.[1] Caryn James from the The New York Times called it a show with outrageously satirical family, includes plenty of comic possibilities and parodies.[2]The Sydney Morning Herald gave Family Guy a positive review calling it the Show Of The Week in April 21, 2009, and also called it pop culture-heavy masterpiece.[3] Frazier Moore from the Seattle Times called it an endless craving for humor about bodily emissions. He also called it breathtakingly smart, blend of the ingenious with the raw helps account for its much broader appeal and also called it rude, crude and deliciously wrong.[4] And actress Emily Blunt called it her favorite series.[5]

I think it would be good to put it in the artical. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of those listed so far, I'd favor including the NY Times review (as it's the newspaper of record) and the NRO review (as it's a source one would expect to condemn FG) and the Associated Press writer (as published in Seattle Times). The rest seem trivial (Emily Blunt?), limited in scope (reviews of a single episode or DVD volume), self-published, or plausibly puff pieces (the intro to a MacFarlane interview isn't likely to go negative).
I would strongly recommend removing the references from other cartoons as they are not serious criticism—a brief mention of Parker & Stone's (South Park) interview and similar criticism from John Kricfalusi (Ren & Stimpy) can be kept since these are interviews. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps changing the last sentence to "Actress Emily Blunt has stated that Family Guy is her favorite series, and has expressed strong interest in becoming a guest star on the show.[6]" would be more appropriate? It would certainly make it more relevant, as it shows her eagerness and willingness to become involved in the show itself, professionally, as a voice actress, as opposed to just being a big fan.

 Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-GAC review

  • Usually references are not used in the lead, as they are suppose to be covered later on in the text  Done
  • 2nd paragraph doesn't flow well in my opinion from Larry Shorts to being canceled in the 3rd season
  • History section: I don't really like how it flows, it might just be the poor grammar Done
    • A year for cancellation is needed
  • possibly combine executive producers and writing, not sure the producers need their own section, since it basically just lists who they are Done
  • re-order voice section so Meg is before recurring charcters  Done
  • cancellation section "There was a great deal of debate and rumor during the second and third seasons about whether Family Guy would be canceled or renewed." debate and rumor by who? Done
  • "In an attempt to convince Fox to renew the show, dismayed fans created websites, signed petitions, and wrote letters—some even sent diapers and baby food to the network to "save" Stewie" nothing on the source says any of this Done
  • "A shift in power at Fox resulted in the ordering of thirteen new episodes forming the basis of the third season." A shift in power involving who at Fox? Done
  • "For its first three seasons, Family Guy did not use an especially large cast of recurring minor characters. Since returning from cancellation, many one-shot characters from prior episodes have reappeared in new episodes, although most of the plotlines center on the exploits of the Griffin family."[citation needed] Done
  • Many problems in the Themes section Done
    • However, because of its animated nature, Family Guy's scope is larger than that of a regular sitcom.[citation needed] Done
    • "The town of Quahog acts as a complete universe in which characters can explore the issues faced by modern society." What?? Done
    • "By having Peter unemployed for many episodes and him getting jobs for just one episode it has opportunity to show the town of Quahog" This doesn't even make sense, why would he have to be fired or working a new job to show around Quahog and I don't see it mentioned in the source. Done
    • I don't think the last sentence is needed, and it is poorly written Done
  • I am doubting any of the songs are "critically acclaimed", plus there is no source for that.  Done
  • The music and score for the episode "Lois Kills Stewie" was nominated for an Emmy award in 2008[citation needed]  Done
  • What kind of source is this?  Done
  • Family Guy has been commercially successful in the home market.[citation needed] The show was the first to be resurrected because of high DVD sales.[citation needed] Done
  • I don't think we need the ISBN numbers listed...but I'm not sure it hurts anything either Done
  • It would be a great thing for someone to get Family Guy and Philosophy: A Cure for the Petarded, which will probably contain valuable info for the article. Also, I don't see any DVD commentary, which will be a great source for inside info.

Overall it is much improved from what it use to be. But, even with my suggestions, I'm not sure if it quite reaches the GA level (depending on how hard the reviewer is). I'd say watch DVD commentary and read the book I suggested. It'll take time, but GA/FAs are a lot of work. Good luck! CTJF83Talk 21:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Guy/Archive_7&oldid=1142438403"