46 replies to this topic

[randomizer]

I hate alot of swearing when it doesn't add anything to the atmosphere or "feel" of the show. It's like saying "the" and "and" over and over; just swearing for the sake of swearing does nothing for me. If it fits in well, fair enough. If you don't like it, just don't watch it.

[furrykef]

And it's not that great a show in the first place.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and some of the points are valid, but some parts of that critique strike me as pretty, well, stupid. I mean, picking apart the 3/4 views and the shape of the freakin' eyelid? Come on! And I really fail to see how Seth's animation style is less animated or interesting than Homestar Runner, even with that video clip that shows only the movements in the Cavalcade clip. There's a good amount of movement going on there and it all flows naturally enough. Sure, if you're really watching the motion it does look a bit stiff and you notice in particular there's not a lot going on below the waist, but this is worse than Homestar Runner how?

Oddly enough, one part that was rather underanimated was the part that was left out of the motion clip: where Mario is fighting Bowser. Bowser in particular looks way too stiff. It could have been on purpose to evoke the lack of movement in the original game, but if so, it doesn't really work, 'cause Bowser did move around and shuffle his feet in the original.

Anyway, I found this part particularly egregious:

I can only imagine how mind-numbingly dull it would be to work as an animator for Seth McFarlane, who continues to stifle any sort of imaginative character design or fluid, expressive movement.

Huh? On what grounds is it Seth's fault and not the animators' that the animation isn't expressive enough?

- Kef

[Ratty Randnums]

I have looked at that sight, and all I have to say is this. Family Guy works. Seth relies on pop culture because thats what keeps his ratings up. It is what makes his show work. I am sure he could try to leave out the references, but then how funny would it be?

That's just it you see, he uses this one device as a crutch, I mean, it's (like) someone telling the same (or at least the same kind) of joke over and over again.
Just like any other device do it too often and it simply wears thin and may even get a little grating.
I mean, no matter how funny some "Walked into a bar..." jokes you have might be, if you did nothing but tell them back to back for 2 hours and call it a stand up routine- It's a guarantee that by the end most or all of the audience would be groaning by the last "Okay, so..."

If Stewie and Brain walked around Berlin without seeing a "McCain/Palin" button on a Nazi, how funny would that be?

But that's more a satire/comment than reference you see here he's comparing McCain/Palin to Nazi's, not just saying - "Hey, remember McCain and Palin?"

The Simpsons did the same thing 20 years ago. But instead of calling it bad, people called it satire. But for Family Guy...

Well, what the Simpson did usually was satire (instead of just a reference) like the example above.

[Anaesthesia]

And I really fail to see how Seth's animation style is less animated or interesting than Homestar Runner, even with that video clip that shows only the movements in the Cavalcade clip. There's a good amount of movement going on there and it all flows naturally enough. Sure, if you're really watching the motion it does look a bit stiff and you notice in particular there's not a lot going on below the waist, but this is worse than Homestar Runner how?

Because Homestar Runner is a lot more imaginative and visually interesting. There's genuine variety among the cast of characters, not just in appearance but in the way each character's movements and mannerisms are animated. The animation is a little stiffer than what you'd find in traditional animation, but the limitations of Flash justify this, and there's enough care put into the character designs and backgrounds that these limitations aren't apparent to the point that they detract from the animation.

And sometimes the Chapman Bros. use those limits to their advantage— the Teen Girl Squad shorts are more like slideshows than animations, but it's easy to tell that they were deliberately animated this way to look more like Strong Bad's cheesy comic doodles. McFarlane's style also looks crude when you really look at it, but that's not in a good way. He looks like he learned to draw by tracing over Simpsons characters in high school. Any limitations in his animation appear to be the result of his own limited skill, rather than a deliberate stylistic choice.

Oddly enough, one part that was rather underanimated was the part that was left out of the motion clip: where Mario is fighting Bowser. Bowser in particular looks way too stiff. It could have been on purpose to evoke the lack of movement in the original game, but if so, it doesn't really work, 'cause Bowser did move around and shuffle his feet in the original.

The article did point that out, actually, although the video itself was probably trying to illustrate how McFarlane's shorts all use the formula of characters bending back and forth and occasionally waving their arms. His animation absolutely fails once you hit the Mute button (or its equivalent in the YouTube player).

I can only imagine how mind-numbingly dull it would be to work as an animator for Seth McFarlane, who continues to stifle any sort of imaginative character design or fluid, expressive movement.

Huh? On what grounds is it Seth's fault and not the animators' that the animation isn't expressive enough?

Uh... because he's directing it? If he's in charge of the character design, he's the one imposing these limited expressions and any lack of variations in design and movement. Possibly. I could ask MysteriousAnimatorX how that worked, since he did work on that show for a while (and I'm interested in how the process works anyway, since I'm seriously considering animation as a career option down the road).

[BigWigRah]

I think south park/family guy made me realize there's a big difference between satire and offensive material. South Park/some of family guy is the latter as far as i'm concerned.

Satire use to be something in TV that was a lot more covert. True satires can tell an interesting story that stands on its own, but still criticize an aspect of society in a subtle manner. Being an "equal opportunity hater" as the South Park crew claims to be doesn't excuse them from being offensive to everyone.

Bear in mind that i'm not trying to argue on some moral grounds, but for the proper construction of satire. Putting a republican badge on a nazi is an inappropriate association with republicans and nazis that is completely false and in poor taste. It would be acceptable to make a joke out of something that is genuinely republican. The episode of the Simpsons where side show bob runs for public office is a fine example of republican satire because it pokes fun at election practices, while still maintaining an interesting story that can be followed by those too young to get the satirical references.