Super pretentious. Super one-sided. Hopefully an interesting read regardless. Oh high school Nick…Anyway, thought this would be interesting to post.
‘Springfield – 18, Quahog – 6’
It is no secret that, since Seth MacFarlane’s Family Guy aired in 1999, there have been numerous comparisons between the program and The Simpsons, created in 1989 by Matt Groening. These shows represent two juggernauts of primetime animation, and they are able to coexist because they each cater to different kinds of humor. The creators of The Simpsons aim to develop the show’s characters and inject its complex storylines with emotion, hence the universal popularity of Springfield’s inhabitants. The minds behind Family Guy, on the other hand, are satisfied with achieving slapstick, crude, low level humor much more readily accepted by a younger audience. It all comes down to one’s preference. In short, MacFarlane delivers a laugh a minute but not much substance. Groening, on the other hand, might pen a compelling storyline with only a few chuckles scattered throughout. Which does America prefer?
The interesting thing about Family Guy’s appeal is the fact that most of it is derived from shock value. It has become almost a guilty pleasure for those nights when people don’t want to think before they laugh. The Simpsons, in contrast, never needed to shock anyone to be embraced. It just had to be real enough for people to relate to, and humorous enough for people to forget just how painfully real life can get. The show has always been full of heart, and there is a real sense of character development. Family Guy was always too impatient and superficial to care about character development. It aims more for character humiliation and the optimum level of hilarity at every possible moment. These styles are both effective and hard to achieve, and both shows have found their respective audiences over the years. The controversy which has recently arisen, however, originates from the fact that Family Guy borrows heavily – sometimes exactly – from plotlines featured on The Simpsons. Was this inevitable?
The reality is that The Simpsons has been around for nearly two decades, and it has experimented with a plethora of different plotlines with dozens of characters. After over four hundred episodes, one wonders if Groening’s well has almost run dry. There have even been mockeries of the abundance of storylines created by the show’s writers. In 2002, Trey Parker and Matt Stone wrote an episode of South Park entitled The Simpsons Already Did It. The point of the episode was to convey the simple truth that, even five years ago, The Simpsons was expected to be running out of ideas at any minute. It is not hard to imagine that when MacFarlane was attempting to be creative with a completely new show that he figured he would go with what worked. The family structure of the Griffins on Family Guy is essentially a more exaggerated lineup of Simpson clones – minus the yellow skin. Peter Griffin is fatter, lazier and more obnoxious than Homer Simpson. Lois Griffin is more of a gambler and a drinker than Marge Simpson. Meg Griffin is openly shunned (corresponds to Lisa Simpson) and Stewie Griffin is openly evil (corresponds to Maggie Simpson). To top it all off, how does MacFarlane top the lovable family dog Santa’s Little Helper? He creates a cynical dog who talks like a professor. Subtlety was never one of MacFarlane’s strengths.
The only missing link is Bart. Maybe MacFarlane’s conscience got the best of him.
Naturally, some of the similarities between the two shows are accidental, because one has been around for such a long time that it has gone into forbidden territory, set up camp there for a while, and then ventured even further. MacFarlane has barely tapped the vastness of Family Guy’s potential, so perhaps altering familiar story elements from another show is the safe route to securing a fan base. In fact, he could even be giving his loyal fans ammunition with which to attack the “older”, “slower” program. There is undeniable evidence that many fans have migrated from the Groening camp to the MacFarlane camp, and this fact is not surprising in the least. America’s sense of humor has changed, and its attention span has lessened significantly. Simply put, Family Guy can be appreciated for thirty minutes, five minutes, or thirty seconds. There is no investment required on the part of the viewer. One wonders if the writers of The Simpsons took note of this trend among former fans, and thus tweaked their show accordingly. It may not be a coincidence that 1999, the year of Family Guy’s arrival on the small screen, was the same year in which Groening’s show experienced a noticeable decline in quality. Perhaps, in a way, The Simpsons borrowed from Family Guy to regain its edge with a new generation.
The aforementioned similarities between the two shows are obvious, and it is clear that the writers of Family Guy shamelessly “borrow” from The Simpsons a few too many times. Simple gags such as Peter being attacked by a raccoon and Lois obsessing over a slot machine are so meticulously reproduced that one wonders if MacFarlane wants to see how far he can go before somebody realizes he has been locked away in his closet watching episodes of The Simpsons as a part of his “creative process”. While it is indeed difficult to compete with a show which has had a tremendous eighteen year run, there is no excuse for such laziness. There are plotlines to be explored and new jokes to be written even with the one dimensional characters that inhabit Quahog. Both of these shows, The Simpsons and Family Guy, need to return to coexisting rather than continuing to compete.
Adam McKay (Anchorman, Talladega Nights) and Judd Apatow (The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up) are two of the most successful comedy directors working in the industry today. McKay, like MacFarlane, is skilled at creating simplistic characters whose only purpose is to engage in amazingly hilarious situations. The centerpiece of Anchorman, for example, is a brawl in an alley between several mobs of news reporters. A horse, a man on fire and a grenade are all featured in the skirmish, and it is all blissfully nonsensical. This type of humor can be quite brilliant if done correctly. However, sometimes viewers want more substance. In Apatow’s The 40 Year Old Virgin, the premise is that of a man who has reached the age of 40 and has not had sex. The film, while hilarious, is also deep, emotional, and relevant. McKay and Apatow simply cater to different tastes, and they are both masters of their respective crafts. The problem with the apparent rivalry between MacFarlane and Groening is that one contender is experienced while the other has not really found his voice yet. Perhaps when its creator grows as a writer, Family Guy will strike a balance between potty humor and the elements of a substantial animated sitcom. The genre itself was created by The Simpsons, so expectations are immediately high for the only show to ever attempt the same formula.
Imitation is considered by some to be the sincerest form of flattery, so perhaps MacFarlane’s choices for jokes on his show are essentially symbolic of the realization that he has created a program which ultimately deviates from The Simpsons. That will always be true as long as Family Guy is on the air, so it makes no sense for the show’s creator to evade the presence of what is likely the reason for the overall prevalence of animated television shows today. These are two different shows with two different creators, and neither is going down without a fight. There is no denying that, with the recent release of The Simpsons Movie (which grossed $70 million in its opening weekend), one show is in the spotlight right now, but as of the fall season, the playing field will once again be leveled, and perhaps Family Guy will find its creative voice and become a more solid, consistent program. Until then, these two shows still have their respective audiences and are going strong.
Originally posted on my old blog, Nick vs. the Blog · More from my writing archive