We get it Seth, you’ve seen Office Space. Gold star for you.

I’d much rather criticize them about the jokes that really aren’t very funny. Which is to say, “All the jokes that are based on being not funny, but being not funny for FIVE MINUTES STRAIGHT until you laugh just because they’re still doing it” and looking at you saying “Is it funny yet? *ten more seconds of vomit* Is it funny yet? *Ten more seconds of vomit*”

I really enjoy this thread, by the way. Good points all around.

Really, I was just saying that I don’t consider the episodes of the Simpsons which utilize the unconnected-first-act trick good any more than you do.

But your points are duly noted as well.

:)

I didn’t meant to say “What family guy does is bad, but look, Simpsons which is accounted good does the same thing!” which is what it sounds like you took from my post.

What I meant to say was “A show like the Simpsons which is accounted good does this, why should doing this be justification for deciding that Family Guy is bad?”

A direct comparison between Family Guy and South Park when their fundamental guiding principles are not the same is just not especially pointful. They are both animated, and both comedies, but conflating them on those grounds works about as well as assuming that two non-animated comedies, say Seinfeld and Frasier, are the same. They have -many- similarities, but while Seinfeld was an endless series of one-offs with no real cohesive structure beyond a few recurring themes and the odd extended plotline, Frasier was substantially more story oriented and paid more attention to its past and future in each episode.

Well, you’re not completely wrong, but…

That barely-connected first act was one of the hallmarks of The Simpsons‘ “middle period,” between, say, season 9 and season 16 or so. I think of this as the weakest time in the show’s history, and most of the people I’ve spoken to about The Simpsons agree with me. The first six or seven seasons were completely devoid of this device, focusing almost exclusively on narrative, character-driven plots and humor rooted in the same. Rewatch a season 2 episode sometime, and you’ll see that it doesn’t at all match your description. (I recommend “Bart the Daredevil” or “Bart Gets an F.”)

Also, in recent years (not coincidentally, the same time Bill Odenkirk took over as show runner… I wanna say Season 17?), they’ve abandoned that device, and I believe the show is much the better for it. I think now we’re in kind of a “Silver Age” of The Simpsons; it’ll never be as good as it was those first few years, but I for one actually enjoy watching it again. The last couple of seasons have been filled with episodes that tend to start out on a topic, and mostly stick with it the whole way through. Take, for instance, the recent episode “The Great Wife Hope.” It starts by showing us the town’s new obsession with a sport that strongly resembles (but is legally distinct from) UFC, and ends… with Marge taking on the stadium’s owner in the ring. Very structurally tight. Still ridiculous, but structurally much tighter than those meandering, middle-period episodes.

My issue with Family Guy was never the middle-of-the-story cutaways to imaginary flashback land, it was the fact that without the obvious disconnect of someone prefacing the random gag with “Remember when” or “It’s like that time” and everyone pausing to remember, you instead got irellevant gags that were right there in the middle of what’s going on. Kool-aid man bursting through the wall, ghost covered wagon being chased by Brian etc.

Everyone stopping what they were doing to remember a ridiculous past occurance isn’t nearly as disruptive to what little narrative Family Guy has, as the arbitrary sight gags in the middle of what’s going on.

Seems to me that’s only relevant if the plots described are actually compelling and artfully crafted – if the plots are the crux of the show, if they carry the weight of it. On Family Guy, the plots are secondary devices, existing only to create the illusion of cohesiveness needed to sell the show as half-hour scripted television. It is, like Seinfeld before it (although *shudder* less effectively,) stand-up masquerading as sit-com. The plot is merely window dressing for the gags. Which does not, of course, let them off the hook for interesting storytelling. It would be nice if the show had both.