Talk:Family Guy

Demographics

I'd like to see some discussion of the average education level of the show's target demographic.

Trivia?

I laughed my ass off as I watched the episode about Stewie travelling to Europe. I think that some special jokes should be listed somewhere. I know that it's hard (maybe impossible) to agree on some, but for me as a German the joke about all the Germans being on holiday during the war was incredibly funny... Our comedians just start making fun of that part of our history, but there should be more stuff like this. 172.182.227.243 22:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That one was funny. I actually adore all of them, but my top two would have to be PTV and Deep Throats. --S-man 04:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarity with the Simpsons

I would like to add that in the section "Similarity with The Simpsons" there are several errors when it compares Family Guy's Griffen family with the Simpson's family.

One quote says that Chris is the first born child, much like Bart. But in Family Guy it is Meg who is the older child. Also Megs personnality differs greatly from Lisa's. While both are protrayed as social outcasts, Meg has very rarely taken on social cuases (eating meat, cleaning oil off a beach etc) in the vein of Lisa Simpson nor shows adult level inteligence beyong she years like Lisa. She is a far less confident a character and she has never been protrayed as a misunderstood genius. Stewie Griffin can in no way be remotly compared to Maggie Simpson beyond the fact they are both infants. Stewie is articulate and intelligent (though lacking in life experience) beyond his years and Maggie never speaks. Further character differences show tha Chris Griffin isn't like Bart in almost anyway. Bart is a cunning prankster where as Chris is a virtual retard much like his father. Beyond the cosmetic similarties of the families (2 adults and 3 children) and the father(eldaniel)

Archive One: May 2003 - July 2005

1. I agree for the most part.

2. Your grammar sucks. You should type slower and not mess up. :P

3. Chris is much smarter than he seems. It shows in some episodes.

--Gaming King 13:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Although from the analysis above the children are quite dissimilar from the simpsons, Peter Griffin exibites the same type of stupidity as Homer, as does Lois to Marge. For the most part the similarities lie within the script and the writers. For example, in season two Lois gets arrested for shop lifting and sent to jail. In season 4 episode 21 of the Simpsons Marge gets arrested at the 'Quickie Mart' for stealing some whiskey and also sent to jail. This is to name a more blatent example but they also appear to a lesser extent throughout vairious episodes. However the Simpsons have been going so long, that similairties are bound to occur. Which should not detract from how funny family guy is. --User:Timwspsc 18:06, 21 May 2006

I think that the similarities between Peter-Homer and Lois-Marge don't show similarities between the shows per se. The overwhelming majority of American sitcoms depict the husband/father as a blundering idiot, and the wife/mother as being full of common-sense, and seeing past her husband's idiocy. --Milton 03:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter is very similar to Homer in his stupidity, as well as his excessive alcohol consumption. --Gaming King 07:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's also worth pointing out that Bart shows many similar qualities to Homer, just as Chris shows many similar qualities to Peter. Also, both Maggie and Stewie are barely noticed by their family, despite their very destructive actions (i.e. Maggie shot Mr. Burns, Stewie makes numerous attempts to kill Lois)

Series 4 broadcasting in the UK

I turned on BBC3 on Tuesday, and there was a FG double bill! "North By North Quahog" and "Fast Times at Buddy Cianci Jr. High" were shown. Does this mean that the pages need updating? They all mention that Season 4 hasn't been shown on UK TV yet! JaffaCakeLover 18:36, 21 September 2006 (GMT)

Indiana Jones References

DavidNS1128 - There have been numerous references to Indiana Jones throughout Family Guy's history but most of these have been featured in the recent episodes. I believe this has to do with Fox's new Indiana Jones movie coming out. This is unfounded, but there have been a ridiculous amount of Indy references of late.

There are a number of them in the movie, "Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story.

Link9er 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest that Family Guy is promoting Indiana Jones. In fact, Seth MacFarlane has been making references to Indiana Jones for years, going back to the very start of the episode. It could simply be another favorite series of his, and he is known to make repeated jokes on a few movies/tv shows (such as All in the Family, Star Wars, Seinfeld, etc.). His references to Seinfeld shouldn't be seen as a promotion for viewers to watch Seinfeld re-runs, which are also shown on Fox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolfan1349 (talk • contribs)

Banned?

ssteedman - Banned in South Africa? I can't guarantee you that this is not the case. Please cite references for this. I know that SABC decided not to air it because the content was too American, and therefore not relevant to South African viewers. I will remove the South Africa reference.

"Due to the controversies within the show many nations have banned Family Guy, including Armenia, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Iran, Thailand, Belarus, South Africa, Egypt, Serbia and Montenegro, Vietnam, Taiwan, Zimbabwe, People's Republic of China (PRC), Albania, Portugal, and South Korea."

This is ridiculous. There are no banned tv shows in Portugal, no matter how offensive or controversial. The last time that happened, as a result of pressure from the Catholic Church back in 1987, it sparked a major controversy and only got the show (Herman José's Humor de Perdição) cancelled two episodes before the end. (At least one of these "objectionable" episodes was still aired a few years later.) Family Guy just hasn't been bought by anyone yet. --Goblin ^›talk 06:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

According to IMDb Family Guy has been banned in Portugal. I haven't found another source but I do consider IMDb credible. - murder1 23:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

IMDb's list of supposedly banned movies in TV shows in other countries is NOT accurate. I have crosschecked a number of things with people living overseas and found a multitude of errors Elijya 20:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that Family Guy was aired on Malaysia's TV3 station a few years ago, I do suggest removing that error-prone paragraph. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 08:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's aired in Thailand, may be censored though.

It's aired in Egypt as well last time I checked. 24.4.221.251 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I say just delete that section until more credible research is done. --Milton 03:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"sexually confused" Stewie

In the section about the characters, Stewie is described as "sexually confused". When was tthis established? -- Mjwilco 04:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure. I wouldn't consider him sexually confused, to be honest. Consider the episode where his "pee pee has been stricken with rigor mortis" at the sight of disrobing cheerleaders, and the episode where he falls in love with his babysitter. One time, he says something to the effect of wishing he were homosexual, but that doesn't really qualify him as sexually confused, I don't think. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I think the words "sexually confused" should be removed from his description. -- The Amazing Superking 06:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

There have been many references to Stewie having both heterosexual and homosexual tendencies; one example of the latter is in the episode "Emission Impossible". Trying to prevent Lois and Peter from having sex, Stewie puts on lipstick to smear it on Peter's shirt collar. He glimpses himself in the mirror and soon gets carried away, saying something along the lines of "Oh, you're a dirty girl, you like being a slut because you have low self-esteem and that gets you off." Another episode showed a "flashback" of him dancing in a leather thong in a bar full of similarly leather-clad bikers. Maybe he's bisexual; in any case, he is certainly a bit precocious. -DynSkeet (talk) 12:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he's sexually confused - he doesn't really know what sexuality is! He's still a little baby! He does state (and I paraphrase) "Wouldn't it be wonderful if I grew up to be a homosexual", thus hinting that he's neither way. I think there is certianly evidence to say that he's got a 50/50 chance of going either way, but to use the term "sexually confused" is somewhat misleading as it implies he's trying to make a decision. I'd agree with removing it. violet/riga (t) 12:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll remove "sexuallly confused." If someone comes up with a good way to summarize this discussion into a few key words, go ahead and add them, but I think this may be a case of "less is more." -- Mjwilco 16:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sexually ambiguous? --TheMidnighters 21:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Bisexual or Metrosexual if you ask me. The Republican 03:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Stewie is obviously bi-sexual, cant you tell. checked out those girls at quagmires party, but also sang a homosexual song, the sailor one where he says "...but I'd rather get it on with you." in the end of the song. God 15:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Stewie is most likely bisexual. In the recently-aired episode, "Deep Throats", Stewie and Brian try to expose Mayor West's relationship with Meg. At one point, they go to a restaurant. Brian and Stewie wear disguises so they go unrecognised. They pretend to be dating. Stewie dresses up as a blonde woman in a white dress, and when they see Mayor West walk by, they make out to avoid detection. Stewie then says things that strongly suggest that he enjoyed it. --Gaming King 04:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In one of the director's commentaries in the DVD volumes, Seth MacFarlane comments that they were in talks of creating an episode where stewie "comes out of the closet". But this episode was never created. If someone can go through those commentaries that would create evidence of this. I think Seth talks about this in the commentaries for the episode where Stewie sings the sailor song where he says "I'd rathere get it on with you". --hman716

I think the sailor song is just intended to poke fun at the ongoing joke that sailors are homosexual. In reference to "Deep Throats", though, Stewie and Brian pretend to kiss, and Stewie seems to wish it was real. Stewie then says, "Brian, shot in the dark but - you wanna do something sometime?" or something like that. This is definitely an invitation to date. --Milton 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. See my comment above. --Gaming King 07:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, he is. In one episode, a psycologist writes that one of his symptoms is that hes Sexually Confused. Toasty! 23:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The term he used was "gender confusion". PrometheusX303 13:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons people hate Family Guy?

I don't know about the guys who wrote this article, but in all the Simpson guides I've read they've all told me that people who make the Simpsons are fans of Family Guy, and that the jokes against the show are actually tributes to it (similar to when they showed the "Ren and Stimpy: Season Premier" on the Simpsons, and it said that was a tribute to Ren and Stimpy, because they love it) and I've read invterviews with Matt Groening, and he says he likes the show. As for Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and John K., I've never heard anything about that. Somebody please change the Simpsons thing. I don't want to edit it, because my edits are always deleted.

Well Matt Groening isn't cited as a person who thinks negatively of the show, and he hasn't had much to do with the Simpsons for about a decade now anyway. But I think it would be nice to see some sources for a lot of this information. I do know that Kevin Smith wasn't a fan, and the source is cited accurately for him. --TheMidnighters 06:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I just tried to find some verification through google for remarks made in interviews by Trey Parker, Matt Stone and John K in regards to Family Guy and couldn't find anything. I'll remove those bits for now until there are some sources. --TheMidnighters 06:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the Simpsons staff hating Family Guy that is verified by Seth himself in his Onion A. V. Club interview [1] which references a quote from a member of the Simpsons staff[2]. Just search for the phrase "staff hates" on each page. I've seen other quotes in the past from Simpsons writers inwhich their main complaint is that Family Guy copied them somehow. --TheMidnighters 06:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the article, my sources of the Parker & Stone's opinion as well as John Kricfalusi's opinion are located here:

Kricfalusi's comment: "If you're a kid wanting to be a cartoonist today, and you're looking at FAMILY GUY, you don't have to aim very high. You can draw FAMILY GUY when you're ten years old. You don't have to get any better than that to become a professional cartoonist. The standards are extremely low."

source: [3]

Comments by Parker & Stone: "What's the meanest thing ever said to you before, during or after a gig? MS: When people say to me, “God, you guys have one of the best shows on television. You and Family Guy.” That fucking hurts so bad. TP: Very well said. It's such a kick in the balls."

source: [4]

Great. Thanks a lot. --TheMidnighters 23:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Come on now, do you honestly think they're being serious? I honestly doubt if they were truly saying they hated Family Guy, they would have used "Fucking hurts so bad" and "kick in the balls" to describe their unhappiness. They're both well educated, and when heard in a serious interview they come off very well. 154.20.135.89 00:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Kricfalusi is reffering to animation quality, not the show as a whole.

He is, and that's what the article states. --TheMidnighters 09:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Additional comments: The Simpsons is hardly original in terms of a family-centered animated show - remember a little program called The Flinstones? It seems hypocritical to dump on Family Guy for lack of originality.

That's a ridiculous argument, The Simpsons and The Flintstones are both animated programs about a family, but the style of humor between the two is very different. The Flintstones was pretty much a children's cartoon that aired in the evening. The Simpsons is much more satirical and edgy and it features marketedly more "adult" humor. The Simpsons covers topics the Flintstones would never have touched (homosexuality, gun control, medical marijuana, etc.). Fintstones was a very tame show, with most of the humor derived from taking a modern appliance (eg vaccum cleaner) and replacing it with it's prehistoric equivalent (eg an elephant).

The difference between "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" is minute compared to the difference between "The Simpsons" and "The Flintstones".

"The Simpsons covers topics the Flintstones would never have touched (homosexuality, gun control, medical marijuana, etc.)."

yeah, well it is a different generation. But the simpsons would never have been created without the flinstones.I am so sick of the simpsons lovers being so narrow minded and snobbish, thinking the simpsons "invented" some new genre and then HATE it when something else comes along which is becomng equally popular. So they have to get petty little victories by makin a whole page devoted to criticism of family guy and then deletes any evidence of cntorversy in the simpsons page!

simpsons dont hold a candle to family guy. on a lighter note, i just pooped a lil. i actually made up word for this: Palimp= Pooped A Little In My Pants miggy not 'god' a-holeGod 15:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot hold a show like the Simpsons, which has been on for what seventeen years?, to Family Guy whoch has already been cancelled once...besides the fact that the humor is a bit different. I mean Family Guy is a great show in it's own right but tends to be a lot less concentrated towards social issues but the simularities between the 2 lie in the jokes and issues, not the actual presentation of them. 69.217.195.50 09:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

POV regarding fantastic and non-realistic elements

The article states "[i]ts brand of humor is radically different from similarly described series such as The Simpsons; brief, frequently nonsensical cutaways and flashbacks to various points in history, geography, and reality involving the characters and their ludicrous actions are a staple of the show's comedy". Describing the cutaways as "frequently nonsensical" is a POV that not everyone would share, and there is no indication that various levels of reality are involved in the show; indeed, the fact that at one point in the series a college class in the distant future is watching it suggests the whole series may not be real. But that aside, I don't know of any indication to support these types of assertions -- are any of these things fantastic or unrealistic in the context of Family Guy? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with this; I'd have to say that the series is largely dedicated to nonsense, insofar in that there is no consistent sense of normality or reality, and uses as many or as few levels as necessary to pull off a joke.

Pop culture references abound in Family Guy, but its presentation is decidedly malleable; featuring its characters both as detached viewers (such as literally watching an episode of Jake and the Fatman on television) or unquestioned participants (such as Peter appearing as a Cavity Creep from the old Crest commercials). Peter can be portrayed as an ex-member of Simon and Garfunkel despite the fact that he's about ten years too young; characters, both real and fictional, appear out of nowhere and disappear just as quickly without being questioned by in-show characters. (My favorite example: in a paintball match with live bullets, Peter says, "At least you're doing better than Peter Weller from the beginning of RoboCop"; pan right to show Weller's character Murphy getting his limbs blasted off by the other characters.) Nothing really has to make sense except as jokes and sketches within themselves; even then it doesn't always follow the rules.

The climax of the episode to which you refer -- "E. Peterbus Unum" -- is a perfect example of this. The episode-long story of Petoria is presented by the teacher as a history lesson, but the students treat it as if they were audience members, in a self-reflexive reference to the television show ("Yeah, so, uh, can the family understand the baby, or how does that work exactly?"). I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's a matter of POV to call the show nonsensical; I'd say the show prides itself on its nonsense. Captain Yesterday 07:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Family guy is funny because you dont have to question why. I think Seth must have realized he could do a better job than the simpmsons writers, and so he did it and in many "different" ways succeded. The best decission Family Guy could ever make is to stop. If it did it would be remembered as one of the greatest animated programs ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.111.22 (talk)

You actually want Family Guy to stop? Are you afraid it will go the way of The Simpsons and eventually get 3 smirks per episode? It's almost impossible. One reason is that it is based on pop-culture. This is something that is always changing. Out of jokes? Wait a couple days, some celebrity will drunk. Guaranteed. Also, fans of the show can easily submit their episode ideas. They don't need to find some PO Box # or something, they can simply go to the Official Message Boards, register, and send a PM. So as long as there are creative fans, there will be material. They are currently only doing fan-submitted shorts (Family Guy Viewer Mail #1 was 3 fan episodes) but they might do an entire episode if they all suffer Writer's Block. The Simpsons is about the characters, Family Guy is about the situations the characters get in. They are two different styles, and Family Guy's is an immortal one.

Family Guy Season 5 starts on FOX September 10 (USA)! Family Guy Season 4B comes out on DVD Box Set November 14 (USA)! And the PlayStation 3 comes out November 17 (USA)! An eventful year.

Theme song

Why were the theme song lyrics taken out?- B-101 18:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

LGagnon was concerned that putting the complete song lyrics here was taking "fair use" too far. Quoting the line "laugh 'n cry" is fair use. Doing a complete episode transcript is not. I'm not sure on which side of the line this would fall. Cromulent Kwyjibo 18:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's just fine to but the lyrics up. It's only 7 lines, and it's the same for all episodes. And it's not as if any fan doesn't already know them.

Wasn't there some controversy about the "laugh & cry" line as well? It really DOES sound like "effin' cry", which would be funnier. The kicker for me there is Stewie's pronunciation...it comes out as an "eh" sound like the letter "F" instead of an "aa" sound like the word "back."

Singing it "Leff & cry" makes no sense linguistically or comedically.

Song lyrics are copyrighted. We cannot quote the entire song's lyrics. Music labels are making major efforts to kill webistes that serve song lyrics. This is clear Wikipolicy under Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. --Tysto 07:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of extraneous information has built up in the Theme Song section. I've therefore removed some really confusing and poorly-written bit about an inside joke in the theme song. Also, I took out some of the stuff about other versions of the theme song (that kind information belongs in the individual episode articles, if anywhere), and left a more general remark. Also, given that the theme song was changed in response to one part of the lyrics being misheard, I figured that warrants mention. The fact that other lines are also mistaken by some is too POVed to merit inclusion, however.

According to the commentary, Stewie has always said "laugh and cry". However, in the original cut, there was an instrument hit just as he said "laugh", making it sound like "effin' cry". This is fixed in the later seasons. Prometheus^-X303- 17:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Who else but Quagmire?

If you want to say somthing about this song, write here.

Preferably here: Breaking Out Is Hard to Do. --TM ^(talk) 11:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

One its funny. Two not alot of people care no offense (User:Benjida 9:29 PM, 21 January 2005)

Controversy due to leaks

The article says that there's been controversy due to leaks of season 4 premiere episode and Stewie movie on the internet - what kind of controversy? There has to be some explanation.

My guess is the controversy is about the legality of pirating. Seth Macfarlane has a cavalier attitude to pirating, but whenever he says something to that effect feels compelled to note that his lawyers do not condone. Cromulent Kwyjibo 17:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This clarification probably should be added to the article with some links to McFarlane saying something about it, if there are any such links (and the lawyers commenting maybe). Otherwise it's unclear what the controversy is.

Simpsons vs Family Guy

The article says in "Criticisms from From Peers and Critics":

"In one of the recent Treehouse of Horror episodes, Homer creates an army of clones of himself that are each progressively dumber than the real Homer. One of the clones is shown to be Peter Griffin."

The article describes this as a "blatant potshot" at Family Guy. I don't think this can be classified as a blatant potshot, in fact I don't think it's a potshot at all, it seems more like a reference to Family Guy. Opinions anyone? Should that statement be in the article? Akamad 08:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd qualify it is a potshot to label another character a dumb clone of another character. I'd say it can be called blatant considering how open Simpsons writers have been concerning their belief that Family Guy copied them. --TM ^(talk) 11:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahh yes. I see what you are sayig. I stand corrected. Akamad 20:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I also removed a statement claiming that Simpsons ratings and DVD sales were consistently higher than Family Guy. Can the editor provide evidence of this? Currently, the top selling DVD on Amazon is the Family Guy movie... Any relevant facts you can provide to this article are welcome, but broad claims need to be backed up with references. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to remove that statement you must remove the statement that alleges jealousy. That is an opinion statement and it has no place here. Granted, the article says "many fans would suggest" but that could potentially give credibility to any ridiculous comment. I could say "many fans would suggest that Seth MacFarlane and Osama bin Laden are the same person" but it would still be inappropriate for a reference source. As for my sources (or lack thereof) I provided links to Zap2it (though you would have to scour weekly ratings reports since there is no all-encompassing comparison between "Simpsons" and "Family Guy" ratings, the only time a new "Family Guy" episode has ever scored higher ratings than a new "Simpsons" episode on the same night was when "Family Guy" had it's first new episode after years, whereas the new "Simpsons" that night was only the first new episode in a week. After that period the "Family Guy" ratings dropped to where they are now. 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment is unbiased as owner of both shows and they advertise "The Simpsons" by saying "BRING HOME THE BEST-SELLING SERIES OF ALL TIME!" The "Family Guy" direct-to-video movie is currently outselling the latest "Simpsons" DVD release for several reasons: it's a brand-new release (it just came out yesterday vs. Season 6 of "The Simpsons" which came out six weeks ago), it's brand-new content (which has never been done in the case of "The Simpsons") and it's much cheaper than a season set of "The Simpsons" (selling for TWICE as much as the "Family Guy" release on Amazon). My whole point is this: if you're going to include an opinion statement alleging jealousy you MUST point out the COMMON KNOWLEDGE that "The Simpsons" is a cultural juggernaut with success that "Family Guy" hasn't even begun to approach. You can dismiss the show's success and claim it is undeserved but you cannot deny that it has achieved a much greater success than "Family Guy".

You have a point - I've removed that line, too, as it doesn't have a cite. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that in the section "Similarity with The Simpsons" there are several errors when it compares Family guy's Griffen family with the Simpson's.

One it states that Chris is the first born child like Bart but Meg is actually the older child. Also Megs personnality differs greatly from Lisa's. While both are protrayed as social outcasts, Meg has very rarely taken on social cuases in the vein of Lisa Simpson nor shows adult level inteligence like Lisa. She is a far less confident a character and she has never been protrayed as a misunderstood genius. Stewie can in no way be remotly compared to Maggie Simpson. Stewie is articulate and intelligent (though lacking in life experience) beyond his years and Maggie never speaks and intelligence is only sometimes implied but never confirmed.

Further character differences show that Chris Griffin isn't like Bart in almost anyway. While Bat is a academic underachiever, he is also a cunning prankster and often has quick wit. Chris Griffin meanwhile is a virtual retard, much like his father. The Simpsons clearly have no equilevent of Brain the dog. Yes there are two pets present in the Simpsonhousehold but 90% of the time they are background decoration while Brain is a main character in virtually evey Family guy episode. Brain also alternates between being nemesis and comedy partner of Stewie-a relationship hat has no equilivent in the Simpsons. Beyond the cosmetic similarties of the families (2 adults and 3 children) and the father being comically unintelligent there is very little that is similar between the characters of the show. Certainly that section of the article needs to be drastically changed or removed. (eldaniel)

In a recent episode, Peterotica, Peter mentions something about characters from The Tracey Ullman Show. The cut away scene shows the Griffins, drawn poorly, in a parody of the scene where the Simpsons bury Snowball. PrometheusX303 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Extended Lyrics

Does anyone know the rest of the Extended lyrics?--The Republican 00:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a question.When did they made extended lyrics I don't remember that, was that in a DVD? (user:Benjida) October 17,2005 9:19PM

-> they were on the family guy live in las vegas cd as mentioned in the text. easytiger

Rewrite

Is anyone opposed to me rewriting most of this article in the next week? A lot of it doesn't need to be here (i.e. the text of the petition to FOX, etc.) and there are numerous examples of nonencyclopedic writing. I'd be willing to do it next week if nobody objects. Ral315 W_S 20:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I object, I think its fine how it is, all the information in it seem relevant.--24.11.237.235 16:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The article is quite encyclopedic, accurate, and looks nice right now. And it would help to keep the petition for reference. There is no point in rewriting the article. --FlyingPenguins 16:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You think that this article is encyclopedic? Read the "Characters" section.

DVD Releases

I would like to redo the DVD release section to make it look cleaner. I'd like to set it up in a table format similar to the DVD releases for these television shows: 24, Friends, Nip/Tuck and Survivor. I could include an additional column for extra information that is currently there such as special features. Jtrost 15:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If no one is opposed to this I will go ahead and clean up the section. Jtrost 21:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How would you feel about me creating an entire article for Family Guy DVDs a la The Simpsons DVDs and King of the Hill DVDs? I'd obviously use a lot of the info you used in the article so that we don't use any valuable information, but I feel that FG is significant enough to warrant such a subpage. - Wezzo 20:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that amount of detail considered encyclopedic or fancruft? Listing the episodes is repetitive because we already have a detailed episode guide. And many of the special features are already noted. Jtrost 22:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm borderline on the idea, but considering how important DVDs are to FG's history I thought it may be worth it. - Wezzo 07:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

PTV Opening Sequence

Right now under The Simpsons section there is this line: In the opening of "PTV", Stewie (in a reference to the opening of The Naked Gun). I thought that the opening sequence was a reference to Bobby's World where Bobby would ride his tricycle throughout the house. I've never seen The Naked Gun, so I am not sure if there was or was not a reference. Should this be changed to reflect that it also reference Bobby's World? Jtrost 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I vaguely remember watching Bobby's World with my son a few years ago. If I'm not mistaken, Bobby rides his tricycle into an imaginary world. Now that you mention it, I do think this a Bobby's World reference, and not Naked Gun. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The music playing through this sequence was the Naked Gun theme tune. The way in which the scenes cut in this sequence was a complete take off of Naked Gun. I've never heard of Bobby's World, but unless Naked Gun was identically copying Bobby's World in terms of theme music, and cutting to outrageous incidents over and over, then it's safe to say it was a spoof of the Naked Gun. And if you've not seen it, then do see it. You'll love it! ...Just checked our article on Bobby's World. It first appeared in 1990. Naked Gun came out in 1988 (and the Police Squad TV series before that). It's definitely a Naked Gun reference. KeithD (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello! In case there is still any doubt, this is definitely a spoof of Naked Gun. Not only did it feature the theme song, it opened just like the show. If you remember, the Naked Gun opened from the viewpoint of the top of a police car driving out into different places. Eventually, the places would turn into something *wacky*, like a pool hall or a video game.

Agreed. The choice of theme music was clearly intended to refer to Naked'Gun and Police Squad. BinaryTed 20:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

However, I can understand the confusion. The opening of Bobby's World is similar to the parody. But then again, so is the part in The Shining when Danny is riding through the halls on his tricycle... ;-) Hfguide 02:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Is Seth MacFarlane

Anyway related to the simpsons, of is family guy it's own show? Pece Kocovski 09:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Family Guy is made by completely different people, although they're both shown on the same channel in America. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit Warring by 59.167.43.197

Some "contributor" from IP 59.167.43.197 is repeatedly placing a POV statement into the "other peers and critics" section. The quote in question:

"The irony itself being that many of the shows created by those who oppose Family Guy, share the same, if not poorer quality animation and character design, such as the Simpsons and South Park."

This quote was first (rightfully) removed by 65.200.136.182, who correctly stated: "Removed misuse of irony and posters value judgement", to which the incorrect original poster responded (while restoring the inappropriate comment) "Restored Irony comment, perfectly valid"

At this point, I removed it yet again, saying "Statement is POV/opinion, as such it is invalid and should be removed." but the contributer restored it again, saying "Statement is NOT a POV/Opinion. South Park does NOT have hte same quality of animation as FG and simpsons animation is same quality.".

Now, I'm fairly certain that most of the contributors here have been in grade school. I seem to remember learning the difference between "fact" and "opinion" pretty early on. As with every other aspect of art, the quality of animation is in the eye of the beholder and one cannot definitively judge one work as superior and inferior to another. I contribute to this article as an admitted "Family Guy" hater, I started the "criticism" section and I believe that dissenting views enhance the validity of Wikipedia. It is obvious to me that the poster at IP 59.167.43.197 considers the animation in "Family Guy" to be equal or superior to it's peers. I do not, and since the opinion is far from unanimous, the comment has no place here. For my money, The animation in "South Park" excells in terms of character design, "acting", and interesting location design, and the crude style is enormously endearing, whereas "Family Guy" features bland, unappealing and derivative characters with an incredibly limited "acting" range and uninteresting locations. That is my opinion, and just like the opinion of 59.167.43.197, it has no place in the "Family Guy" article.

I agree that it does not belong in the article. I don't agree with your opinion on Family Guy having "... bland, unappealing and derivative characters with an incredibly limited "acting" range and uninteresting locations." but this is a better place to voice it, rather than in the article. -- murder1 04:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree 100% with murder1. Act further if author continually adds that sentence. - Wezzo 08:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarrify the "irony" part, I removed it because, EVEN IF you think South Park has bad animation, it is NOT ironic for Ren and Stimpy's creator to insult FG's animation. It would only be ironic if SOUTH PARK creators had insulted the animation. All FG critics aren't forced to uphold the opinions of every other FG critic. - Drinky.

I agree that the comment is breaking the No POV rule, but i am so sick of the POV in wikiepedia in regard to family guyand the simpsons. The fact is FG fans are just more open mined. we allow there to be a section, hell even a page on criticism despite the fact that their fanbase is growing and growing, and the simpsons fans wont even allow a few paragraphs suggesting fans are noticing its decline in quality.

Pop culture references

I'm not a big fan of meaningless lists and I think that this section is one of those. So how about we create a new article, Pop culture references in Family Guy, and style it like the Issues addressed in Nip/Tuck article. I'd be willing to contribute a lot to this article if some other authors will too. Jtrost 18:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more productive to list pop culture personalities and shows that have been referenced in more than one episode and give a representative example of each. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see the point in that section. Unless it includes proper citations anyone could come along and add misinformation so very easily, if only from their only personal interpretation. It hardly adds anything to the article when it doesn't say when the reference occurs. violet/riga (t) 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that list could go on forever. Maybe a few examples in a sentence somewhere wouldnt go amiss, but a whole section is just ridiculous. Theres been too many; its like listing all the references in Spaced. Although it would be nice to have an article explaining all the references instead, i think that could get out of hand too. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My edit today will hopefully take that section in the direction I mentioned last week. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we just do away with this section altogether? I think the AfD for the main article pretty much sums it up. Jtrost 16:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Season 5 or season 4B?

The episode list is listing broadcast seasons not production seasons I don't understand why we are calling the latest season, 4B except as a snub at FOX, its clearly explained in the episode list article that the latest season is still part of the season 4 production schedule, and similarly to futurama while there has been 5 broadcast seasons there will be 4 production seasons released on dvd. I know this is fairly trivial but the page is listing broadcast seasons from FOX, their stupid decisions aside this is still the 5th broadcast season. Discordance 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.familyguy.com The episodes are listed as season 4. Jtrost 15:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes sorry I have seen that page before, I assumed that was dvd releases for some reason sorry it probably should be season 4B or maybe even merged with 4A. I am annoyied that some anon IP has changed it to season 5 I came here to discuss it before making changes. Discordance 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind they didnt do that they merged season 4A and 4B which is reasonable. The page needs tidying slightly now though. Discordance 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on the episode list

Theres two edit wars that have been going on, 2 anon accounts keep altering the dates of the upcoming episodes, ip 24.46.122.195 is in the wrong i checked the dates on familyguy.com and asked him to stop on the talk page. And now two registered users (G11 is 67.184.154.139 registering part way through the revert war, 24.46.122.195 may be patesta trying to edit anon) user:patesta being the most disruptive slowly reverting the page back to an older version over a few hours, user:G11 and him then reverted the page 10 times each I think?? I'm reporting them both for violating 3RR hopefully other users can help me keep an eye on things Discordance 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They were both warned, but have reverted again patestas edits have become practically vandalism so G11 will probably not be blocked Discordance 17:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fansite Listings

I noticed that the only fansite forum that is linked is the forums over at Quags Corner. I gave the other major players a mention, Planet-familyguy's damnyouall.net, and Spooner Street's Beautiful Peoples club.--Fish 13:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that MANY of the fansites need to be removed according to the WP:EL policy. Jtrost 15:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree i see far too many fan sites listed all over the place, I dont think anything beyond the largest communitys or fan wikis should be listed. Discordance 16:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox image

I like the older one better (with all of the characters). I'm not sure why it was changed, but is there any objection to changing it back? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Title cards are the uniform standard for infoboxes all over Wikipedia. From I Love Lucy to the Facts of Life. I makes sense that all sitcoms should have their show's title card on the infobox. HeyNow10029 19:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The television wiki project has no standard. In fact, the image used as an example on that page isn't even a title card. Just because a couple of shows have the title card doesn't mean that every shows should have it. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's just an example, true there's no 'official' standard, but just because it isn't official doesn't mean it isn't prevalant. The trouble with using cast photos as images in the infobox, are the questions that arise. For instance, in a show like ER where the original cast members are all long-gone, what cast picture would you use? A current one? Or a cast picture during the height of the show's popularity? Title cards make sense because they're the one consistent thing that represents a show. Plus, it makes sense that if a person were to go from page to page that there would be some kind of a uniform image in the infobox. HeyNow10029 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture Vandalism

I see that someone has changed the GI Joe reference picture. --Fish 02:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

er, nevermind, I must have been viewing an older version.--Fish 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody vandalised the whole page. I will revert it. The Republican 16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The promo pic is a vandalised version. I think. When I click on it, I'm shown a good version PrometheusX303 04:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurray Wikipedia contributors!

I read this article about 3 months ago, and returned today for some information on Family Guy's comedic approach. I notice that the article has been significantly cleaned up, the information flows nicely and all of the superfluous fan-fare rumours have been removed. Congrats to all the wikipedia contributors who made this article great! Vanessa kelly 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

POV in Controversy

Unless someone can convincingly argue otherwise, I am going to remove the part of "controvery" reffering to derevational and simplisic comedy. It's clearly POV and if someone else described it as such it needs to be referenced. I've noticed that Criticisms/Controversy sections in articles are too often a place for people to insert their own POV, instead of the POV of people who actually matter (like myself- :-P). Angrynight 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I was going to try to reword the section sometime, most of the criticisms do come from peers in animation and the main article provides more detail. I was going to reorganise the section to explain which criticism came from which critic, which would hopefully make things clearer and harder for people to add nonsense. Discordance 02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but the statment reads as though it is fact. Saying "The Scots are criticised for their evilness and making of haggis" is POV even under a Controversy section. You can see why, do the Scots make haggis? Yes, that part is not POV because no one can argue with it. Are the Scots evil? That's a matter of POV. It is different from saying, "The Scots have been criticised for their making of Haggis and what some consider to be their evilness" (Nothing against Scots-it was the first thing to come to mind) The "simplistic and derivative nature" is POV because YOU may think it is "simplistic and derivative" others may not. If some consider it as such, then some should be mentioned. You can't just state it out-and-out. I removed it because it was POV and because their were no sources. You say you can link specific sources holding this viewpoint-Great link them, but change the wording to reflect that it is an opinion. I know what you may be thinking (yes I am telepathic)- surely anyone with half a brain understands it is a POV and I shouldn't have to label it as such since it's under the "Controversy" section. I never assume that a random person has half a brain or any intellectual capacity whatsoever. If you don't already I advise you to do the same. I'll leave it up to you to change-unless you don't. Angrynight 04:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont think its simplistic and derivitive, but im pretty sure thats been a common criticism especially in the US (havnt heard much criticism here in england it watches like some of our classic comedys) thats why i put the "needs sources" tag up, i'm not happy with the section as it is and im hoping people can provide the proper sources, I didnt want anything removing so people could see what theyve got to source. If none does ill start rewriting it as best I can in a few days. Discordance 13:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

New Entry: well, i don't see the point in having that section AND a whole article devoted to the controversy (which is ridiculous btw) when it repeats most of the things in that article anyway. AND ENTRY— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.21.230 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The individual article is a mess and merging is being considered. Ive already asked Jtrost but everyone else please help cleanup and source the controversy article so we can see how much of it is useful and how much is nonsense and then decide whether to merge it. Discordance 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Matricide

Ooops i reread WP:CITE and controversial edits should be moved to the talk page. So heres what i removed:

When young boys exhibit matricidal characteristics, many are quick to jump to the conclusion that this is an "effect" of watching too much Stewie Griffin{{fact}}.

A pretty useless comment unless its been reported in mainstream media, I had a little look for sources but couldn't find any please provide one if you think it should stay in the article. Discordance 15:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Simpson -- Family Guy realism

This isn't any critique since I like both Simpsons and Family Guy but isn't Simpsons trying to be alot more realistic while Family Guy has some outright real unrealistic things in just about every episode? Even go as far as breaking the laws of logic and physics 81.229.41.44 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the Simpsons not having aged in 17 years, I agree. Prometheus^-X303- 14:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Also agree. For some reason scenes from family guy that crack me up are usually unrealistic, and scenes from The Simpsons that I hate are realistic(such as hugging and family bonding moments). Tutmosis 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just remember, though that The Simpsons originally aired on Sunday nights: Family viewing time. Prometheus^-X303-16:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Manner of production

A good addition to the article (I think, anyway) would be, how it is produced. Is it produced by tradional animation or computer animation (like South Park). I think it's computer, since the episode animation is always so "clean". Does anyone know for sure? - ^R_H^e_o^d_t 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is animated. If you have the DVDs, listen to the commentary. At least twice, when slow motion scenes were used, they mentioned how the animators hate the scenes because they have to draw twice as many frames. Futurama is a blend of computer and hand animation. Prometheus^-X303- 18:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. The reason I thought it might be like South Park, was because, in comparison to other hand drawn shows, like the Simpsons, it looks "clean" (again, can't think of a better word to use). And yes I do have all three Seasons, but they're R2 so don't have commentary (and S4 isn't out here yet). - ^R_H^e_o^d_t 12:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It does look a bit "crisper" than the Simpsons (especially the first seasons) and other animated shows. It probably has something to do with the style of coloring the cells or something like that. I wouldn't know the details on how that works. Prometheus^-X303- 21:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

List of songs

I've made a new article: List of songs from Family Guy. Feel free to add more, it's obviously not done yet.

2 Controversy sections?

Why are there 2 sections regarding controversy and family guy? I will have a go at combining them and removing duplicate entries. -Localzuk ^(talk) 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons and Family Guy similarities.

1.Homer=Peter- Both the fathers

2.Marge=Lois- Both the mothers

3.Bart=Chris- Both the sons

4.Lisa=Meg- Both the daughters

5.Maggie=Stewie- Both the babies

6.Carl=Cleveland- Both the black friend

7.Lenny=Joe- Both the white friend

8.Ned=Quagmire- The complete opposite

9.Santa's Little Helper& Snow Ball=Brian- Both the pets

10.Milhouse=Neil Goldman- Both big losers

11.Milhouse's Dad=Mort Goldman- Both the sons of losers

12.Okily Dokily=Gigidy Gigidy- Both catchphrases

13.Mr.Burns=Mr.Weed- Both crazy bosses

If you can think of anymore feel free to add them.--Aots191 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)edit--Aots191 00:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbers 3, 4, and 5 AT LEAST are inaccurate, for reasons mentioned above on this page. (Inmate42, Not signed in)

You kidding? I think you're stretching this quite a bit. Bart and Chris seem pretty clearly designed to be different, and Maggie and Stewie are radically different. One of the shticks of Family Guy is Stewie and his comments, there is nothing analogous for Maggie in the Simpsons. And Quagmire == Flanders? C'mon!

There's no question that Family Guy is derivative of the Simpsons, but you're overstreching it, IMHO --Deville (Talk) 14:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I too think you are full of it. The Ned=Quagmire comparison is especially sketchy. I think you are tring too hard to find something useful to say on this site. Don't quit your day job.

You know, given time I could compile a list of ten thousand more shows that have a dad (1), mom (2), son (3), daughter (4), and a baby (5), as well as a black friend (6), white friend (7), or pets. Not worth mentioning. Listing these things only results on outlining most sitcoms to date. When you have a winning combination, you don't change it. --Milton 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Edited or Censored?

"Also, Teletoon shows unedited reruns of the series." I don't understand this sentence. I changed 'unedited' to 'edited' as Teletoon censors parts of the series. For example, in an episode in the first season, a priest talks about Job, and when God says something, Teletoon mutes the voice of the priest and skips the part when God talks. Is this what you guys mean by 'edited'? --Richard x 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They probably mean "unedited" in the sence that they aren't edited for syndication - that is to say removing sections entirely like many stations do with Simpson re-runs for example. Censoring would be removing controversal or in-appropriate content (which I'm sure they do) where as I think this article means editing in context to editing for time. :: ehmjay 23:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Film/TV References in Family Guy

Would anyone object greatly to the creation of an article on film and television references in Family Guy, namely listing as many as possible?

That's a terrible idea. Why would you want to do a thing like that? Brian G. Crawford 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I've seen much more pointless wikiarticles Satchfan 03:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that's a good idea - there's been lots of times that I've been watching an episode and wondered what they're referencing. But all the episode articles I've seen on here include a reference section. I'd say go ahead and make it, the submit it to the wikipedia community. --Milton 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a pretty good list of references on one of the Family Guy Web sites ... let people look there for them. --Dennette 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Trivia

This is currently on the page:

There are many similarities, or even stolen ideas, from The Simpsons.

• In one episode, Stewie Griffin sings a song "Grown acustomed to her face" about Lois, which is practically the same as when Sideshow Bob of The Simpsons sang about Bart.

This implies that Family Guy stole it from The Simpsons, yet the Sideshow Bob episode in question aired several years after the Family Guy episode! It's also a reference to "My Fair Lady". 81.157.111.86 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge in List of Peter Griffin's jobs

Suggest merging in List of Peter Griffin's jobs. --John Nagle 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. Merging into article on Peter Griffin is probably a bad idea, too. In fact, take a look at the history of that article. Might give you an idea why the article "List of Peter Griffin's jobs" was created in the first place. Take a look at List of Homer Simpson's jobs while you're at it. ShutterBugTrekker 21:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. I agree, it's a lousy idea. ShutterBug's probably got the right idea as for the reason, but for everyone's benefit, I'll say it explicitly: the article on Peter Griffin was getting bogged down with listing, among other things, Peter's jobs in throwaway gags. Probably something similar happened some time ago with the article on Homer Simpson. The solution is the same. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. Anton Mravcek 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge I'm not sure I'm happy with the idea of such an article, but as argued above this is probably the best solution. And the precedent certainly exists with Homer Simpson. --Deville (Talk) 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge Just delete it instead, its awful. Damiancorrigan 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to nominate in Articles for Deletion if you feel strongly enough about it. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge but don't delete either. Though it's not yet complete, it's handled better than List of Homer Simpson's jobs, in my opinion. Robert Happelberg 16:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this constitutes a concensus not to merge. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Flashbacks as canon

I think we should be careful when using flashbacks to establish facts. A great many of them seem to be throwaway jokes. Plus, it seems that Peter has a difficult time distinguishing his memories from television or films he enjoys. PrometheusX303 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but also we should be careful to distinguish between historical flashbacks and throwaway gags. Peter as towel boy at Cherrywood is the former, Peter as magic mirror for Kevin Federline is the latter. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

it's a very clear distinction.Joeyramoney 02:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That example is. But on the Peter Griffin page we see "In the episode "PTV", a cutaway shows Peter and Jake from Sixteen Candles talking about Peter's birthday. They lean for a kiss, then Jake throws Peter to the ground and rapes him." I think this is an example of Peter confusing fantasy/fiction and reality. Obviously, "Jake" does not really exist, so could not have raped him.
Another line reads "Peter also admitted to losing his virginity to another man while being tackled in a football game." Peter was on bottom, so he didn't couldn't have lost his virginity that way. It's likely that he thought he did...PrometheusX303 04:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Lois was originally drawn as a blonde, which is why Chris is blonde, so Chris/Lois would be blonde and Peter/Meg would be brunette. Well after consideration by the drawers, they made Lois a red head, leaving Chris blonde.

Removed from the main text as it was placed badly, not sure if true or not either. Source? Mushin^talk 23:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no source. It should stay off. That trivia is placed badly and it doesn't make any sense. --Tuspm 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In the original pilot Lois is a blonde, so it could be added back, the original pilot is on Volume 2 disc 3. Tspydr10 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ollie Williams

Is it his "Black-U-Weather Forecast" or "Blackie-Weather Forecast"? Dcflyer 00:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just changed this, but now I'm not sure: is it "Black-U-Weather" or "BlaccuWeather"? I got the latter from a link at the end of the article.68.162.123.127 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's "BlaccuWeather" (not sure if it's spelled like that) a spoof of "AccuWeather" --Tuspm ^{Leave A Message} 03:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Familyguy.com says it's Black-U-Weather. --Milton 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Adultswim

Why is there no mention of ADULTSWIM ratings for bringing the show back, should they be added? Tspydr10 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

GA status On Hold

This article is in pretty good shape, given its apparent tendency toward fancruft and original research and interpretation. I'm inclined to promote it, except for a strong lack of references. The line between original research and a legit inclusion in the article is a source. Continue using the cite.php format, and keep looking for references for your claims. FA candidates should have, as a 'rule of thumb', at least one reference per paragraph. That may not be necessary, but keep it in mind as a goal. I'm leaving the nomination active, but On Hold for the moment. I'll check back in a few days to see how things are coming along. Phidauex 19:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There are cites but not done correctly. --Childzy _talk ^contribs 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted, there are sufficient URL references in my opinion. I would normally not interfere with an article on hold except there was no hold notice on the nominations page so I assumed this article had not been reviewed. Cedars 10:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Note on promotion

Please don't feel afraid to reference specific comedic events in the article. Statements such as "The show's writers, aware of the uncertainty of the show's future, referenced it in several episodes." could be illustrated with an example. Cedars 10:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Get Rid Of The Controversy Section And Just Give A Link TO Main Article

This section contradicts what has been said in the main article. It implies that Matt and Seth hate each other when the main article gives reason to believe otherwise. Either we have the main article alone, or delete that and merge it. Don't you family guy haters have anything better to do?

Gibberish in the controversy section

" Critics and peers have criticized the show for its derivative themes and characters, the simplistic artwork, liberal bias, and absurdist style of comedy", all true maybe, but it would be nice to see some sources for all that ("simplistic artwork" makes Family Guy bad????, thats just POV).

"Seth MacFarlane has stated in interviews that he and The Simpsons creator Matt Groening have an amicable relationship " (even Matt Groenning has sayd it, let it go fanboys, theres no real feud except amongts the fans, they dont hate each other whatsoever)

" Les Griffin (The Griffins), an obvious allusion to The Simpsons" (And i bet "The Flintstones" is also an obvious allusion to the simpsons as well, its 100% pure BS)

"publicly criticized Family Guy include quite a few fellow cartoonists" (actually just 2, or 3 to exact, the guys from south park and Kricfalusi)

and thats about it. I remember it was much larger and POV... my lord it has been cleanned up a little.

Nothing about God's apperance in the series?

I've searched the article, and apparently it doesn't list God as a recurring character. Now I only own the first DVD, but from what I've seen on that and on various clips on the Internet I'd say God is a recurring minor character. If I can find a good way to type that I'll do so, but otherwise, could anyone add it to the article? --213.237.66.155 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He's discussed in List of characters from Family Guy#Supernatural characters --Dennette 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cast List

Shouldn't there be a cast list somewhere? I also think that it should include Lachey Charbert and any info on why she left the show.

Ex.

Cast Meg - Mila Kunis (2002- whatever) and Lachey Charbert (Whatever 2 Whatever)

Lacey left the cast due to blah blah blah

See what I mean???? Jtervin 10:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Lacey Chabert NOT Lachey Charbert or whatever you said. --S-man 14:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New Article

I have just created List of places on Family Guy. Feel free to add and clean-up, it's obviously incomplete and looks a little bit messy. --S-man 14:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been adding places. Also, wherever applicable, made notes of what real-world places the fictitious ones might correspond to. And alphabetized.--Loodog 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion vote notification

Just thought I'd let you all know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on Family Guy. Supposedly this is a short list that will never get expanded because supposedly Family Guy lacks The Simpsons's word-coining brilliance. ShutterBugTrekker 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Understanding Stewie

The article currently says: "Stewie speaks fluently and eloquently, and even though the family can hear his ambitions of world domination and of Lois's demise, all but Brian wave it off as baby gibberish."

I believe that this is false. From what I can tell, the human family members respond to Stewie as if he speaking baby talk, that may be vaguely similar in temperment to the fluent speech that the audience hears, but the family shows no signs that they are hearing the same speech that the audience (and Brian) hear. I think the article should be changed, but I would like to know if other readers agree. (However, I did notice one episode early in season 4 that was anomolous, in that Chris appeared to acknowledge the content of Stewie's speech. But I believe that to be a lone exception.)

Rldoan 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is one of the running gags in the show. (It probably should be added to the list, but I'm too busy at the moment, and about to crash. :-) At the end of "E. Peterbus Unum", the whole episode turns out to be a video in a social studies class 200 years in the future. One of the students says, "I'm confused ... can they understand the baby, or what's up with that?" --Dennette 07:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Drunken Clam discussion

Drunken Clam does not seem to merit an article of its own and would better fit within this article. My only hesitation is the size of this article already and may also suggest a "List of Family Guy Locations" (?)...except that I'm loathe to be the one to seriously suggest "List of..." articles. Personal opinion, that's all. Ideas? Thoughts? ju66l3r 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There really is no need for the Drunken Clam page. Merging or just giving the heave-ho would be best.

• I don't think it should be merged into this article, but I DO think it should be moved into Quahog (Family Guy). We can just start a section on that page about places in the city, and the Drunken Clam would be one of them. I don't see why we'd need a whole article about that place. Cheater1908 23:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Great, that's the kind of page I was looking for to not merge it straight into the main article. Thanks. I'll modify the merge tags and give it another day or two for opinions at the Quahog article. ju66l3r 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Hi, everyone. List of places on Family Guy--Loodog 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

We seem to get vandalism on this page every other day. It's amazing how many people think no one has ever before written "Family Guy is a derivative of The Simpsons". Is there a way to lock this page, or make it editable by registered users only?--Loodog 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Seth MacFartlane". Hilarious. I'm glad someone brought his sophisticated sense of humor to the page.--Loodog 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sep. 11 section

Would it be possible to rename this section and maybe make it seem a little less... I dunno, ridiculous and sensationalist? I've removed the line that ended it that read "Without Seth Family Guy would have definately parished as I don't think they would ever be able to find a person who could duplicate all of Seth's voice talents. I just think that maybe the section should be cleaned up a bit. Or possibly removed altogether, since it's more relevant to Seth MacFarlane himself (his page already having the incident mentioned on it) than having any real connection to the show itself.--MythicFox 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I took it out altogether - it's a piece of information about Seth McFarlane, not about Family Guy itself, and is already mentioned in Seth's own article. Robin Johnson (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ironically enough, that little piece of information is almost true for actor (and Family Guy guest star) James Woods. But there's no real citation for what supposedly happened to Seth MacFarlane, so the above tidbit really doesn't belong in this article. --Tokachu 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Inspiration

I think too much of Family Guy is credited to "The Simpsons" and "The Flintstones." Seth MacFarlane has admitted that one of the greatest inspirations was All in the Family. In fact, that can be shown with Peter's clothes. The white button down shirt tucked into green pants is an obvious shout-out to Archie Bunker. In earlier versions of the show, according to MacFarlane, Family Guy was trying to make a more modern version of All in the Family. There is mention of the obvious similarities in opening scenes between the two, but in a recent episode, the ending was actually an animated version of All in the Family's closing credits (switiching Quohogue for Queens). Obviously, in the progression of the episode, the creators moved away from political commentary to just pure, random comedy. The original politcal commetary idea is possibly the inspiration for American Dad, another MacFarlane creation. However, the willingness of Family Guy to go above and beyond what is considered appropriate does indeed remind one of All in the Family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolfan1349 (talk • contribs)

Accents

The information regarding Peter and Lois' accents is largely incorrect. First of all, describing Peter's accent as that of "Rhode Island / Massachusetts" is confusing, since any New Englander will tell you that the accents of eastern MA and RI are noticeably different. And while Peter's accent does emulate that of eastern MA / Boston in some respects, it is hardly a "classic" example, since it also incorporates elements of a New York accent. It is largely Seth MacFarlane's personal creation. Lois' accent should not be classified as "New England," since it is clearly a variety of the New York accent.

I'm not sure of the best way to edit this information. The truth is a bit more complex than the current description so it's difficult to simply replace it. Any suggestions?

Also, I'd be happy to support my claims for anyone who questions them. Terr Mys 07:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, from personal experience, Lois displays a "Lawn-guy-land" accent, and would make sense, considering she grew up on the Long Island Sound. Peter's accent is certainly not Bostonian. The classic, and perhaps stereotypical, example of a Boston accent is, when saying "Put your car keys in your khakis" the words "car keys" and "khakis" are almost indistinguishable, with the word "car keys" being distorted, making the "r" silent, and using the same "a" sound as in "khakis". Peter doesn't seem to display that. I would guess that his accent is that of someone from Providence, RI. McFarlane has commented on how he based Peter Griffin on the multitude of people in RI that display a number of distinguished characteristics.

—My mother happens to be from Providence, RI, and Peter's accent is definitely not characteristic of that area. One distinct difference is in the so-called "short o" sound: Peter often pronounces it as "aw," like in eastern MA and northern New England (for example, "Oh my Gawd"), while in Rhode Island, it is pronounced as "ah" - "Oh my Gahd." Additionally, Peter exhibits the "short a"-raising characteristic of New York City, but not Providence (it does occur in Providence and Boston to a degree, but not to the extent that Peter pronounces it) - for example, instead of saying "bad," Peter often says "bay-ad" or "bee-ad."

We should certainly revise the comment about Lois sounding like a "New England Edith Bunker," since she clearly does have a Long Island accent. As for Peter, it would be fair to say that his accent is inspired by Bostonian, Providence, and New York speech, but does not represent any one of those accents exclusively. Terr Mys 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

FamilyGuyFiles.com site closed!?!?

I say, it would be safe to say to take off the link to The Family Guy Reference Archives (http://www.FamilyGuyFiles.com) since they closed down? Or should the link be left up for resource sakes? I doubt the site will be ever coming back. Also, since this website closed, is there another website similiar to that? I thought it was the best family guy reference website, and now it's gone for good. :( 71.77.31.113 05:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• What the heck? It re-opened, but looks as of it's some freakin MySpace user page? Has some NSFW areas, I might add. 71.77.31.113 02:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's what the website's news page says.
    • Quote - October 2, 2006 at 2:20 am :

"No your eyes are not deceiving you. Stewie Says has merged and reborn Family Guy Files. Expect a new reference database soon. Please feel free in the meantime to sign-up, new users are granted author status so you can post about The Family Guy."

• So, It seems like they have somehow merged with another Family Guy related website. 71.77.31.113 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Family Guy Drops F-Bomb?

Does anyone want to add info regarding the accidental letting through of the F-Bomb in the Sept. 24 episode of Family Guy? Video Here :: ehmjay 23:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)