Yawn...

Oh, sorry. I was just watching an episode of Futurama.

On 07 May 2000 16:22:12 GMT, [email] (Ramalama7) wrote:

That's funny. It's not on until another four hours.

But I want it watch it now!

That's ok. From the Family Guy newsgroup I am quite aware that you are someone who has absolutely no taste when it comes to televised animation, and you wouldn't know quality satire if it bit you on the ass.

Apology accepted. Now be a good boy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Dave wrote:

It isn't fair to criticize all of the fans of a series, simply because one of them behaves like an immature troll.

I happen to enjoy both shows, in addition to "King of the Hill" and "The Simpsons". (despite its continuing decline) Your comments are no better than Ramalama7's "Futurama" bashing. There's simply no need to sink to that level. Just respect other people's opinions, and ignore those who choose not to.

David Levy

David Levy wrote in message news:[email]...

I know I'm new here, but I thought this was kind of amusing, as it relates to experiences I've had in another newsgroup. I post to alt.pro-wrestling.wcw, and we get trolls from the wwf newsgroup who bash us for watching WCW. It's really kind of sad that people feel the need to chastise fans of a program that they don't care for.

Amen. I enjoy most any animated prime-time series (never really got into Family Guy though.) Do I expect other people to stop watching the program I don't like? Nope. Competition only serves to provide better shows for us, the viewers.

Really? Why not?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Dave wrote in message news:[email]...

The original promo's for the pilot episode didn't interest me. They were so over played in my area that they actually turned me off from the show for a while. I've watched it a few times, but never really laughed out loud at the episodes. A few quiet chuckles here and there, but never anything that got me interested. I just don't fine the writing to be that entertaining. It's just a personal thing.

I felt the same way. Far too much hype for a product that I FELT didn't live up to it. Maybe FOX will have learned something from this.

Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                        [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

I don't see how you can like both the Simpsons and Family Guy. Peter is a such an unabashedly cheap copy of Homer, it's almost insulting to watch. I wonder how Groening feels.

I agree. But my slams against Family Guy are much more concrete.

I understand what you're saying Dave, but I've been slamming that horrible excuse for prime time programming in the Family Guy newsgroup since I saw the first lame episode, and Ramalamadingdong thought he'd have some fun retaliating. Besides, my response was merely a parody of his nastiness in response to my off-topic Pratchett post from 2 weeks ago.

Fortunately, it appears as though FG will be removed from the programming grid for good shortly, so the trolling will surely stop soon. Thanks for understanding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Dave wrote:

They both contain jokes that I find funny. Is there something wrong with that?

This type of comment never ceases to amaze me. Do you honestly believe that Homer was the first character of his kind? I hate to break it to you, but there have been other dim-witted television comedy characters. It could be argued that he's a cheap copy of Fred Flintstone. (Of course, Fred Flintstone was a copy of Ralph Kramden.)

I'm a fan of comedic popular culture references. I also enjoyed "The Critic". I suppose that you didn't. After all, Jay Sherman was overweight. Therefore, he was a shameless rip- off of Homer Simpson, whom he all know was the first overweight character on television. Plus, the show was drawn! Al Jean and Mike Reiss must have stolen that technique from Matt Groening! Oh, and the characters were carbon-based and breathed oxygen! The list goes on!

Incidentally, I noticed that you're a fan of "South Park". If you honestly believe that it didn't borrow a few elements from "The Simpsons", you're deluding yourself.

Based upon the recent bastardization of his elder series, I wonder if he even cares about it nowadays.

That's simply laughable! It's a matter of opinion! Why are your comments "more concrete"? Because it's YOUR opinion?

In that case, you're the troll. If you feel the need to attack a television show, simply to upset people who don't share your tastes, you obviously have too much free time on your hands.

He was wrong to do so, but I can almost understand his actions.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls - introducing the brand spanking new "Ratboy Mathematics System"!

Wrong + wrong = right!

There are plenty of series that I don't enjoy, but I don't wish for their demise. There's a much easier solution: Don't watch them.

Somehow, I doubt that. You'll find some other way to torture people for your amusement.

Sorry, but I don't understand your logic or your motives.

David Levy

Well, kindly allow it to cease this time.

I'm fully aware of the fact that the inept father figure existed as a character long before the Simpsons took to the airwaves, I just think Family Guy brings nothing new to the archetype. The show is built around setups for one liners and parodies of other, more successful TV shows. Throw in examples of bad parenting, hit on one taboo subject or another for the cheap laugh, play off the dog and the baby as often as possible ("Research shows viewers *love* obnoxious babies."). Within the first half dozen episodes, they've leaned on both bestiality and necrophilia for humor. If anything reeks of a desperate attempt to gain a loyal following in the 18-24 age range, because the higher age ranges (read: more sophisticated audiences) will not touch the stuff, then this does.

If you want further proof, check the ratings. I don't want to get into a whole "Is a show good because people watch it or do people watch a show because it's good" discussion here, but the fact is people do not watch Family Guy. Notice how "hiatus" and "hate us" sound so similar? They probably sound very similar to an exec producer while he's crying.

-plenty of Mr. Levy at his sarcastic condescending best snipped-

Thank you, have a nice day.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Dave wrote:

So what? I would argue that the uniqueness of the incredibly loose format more than makes up for the generic characters and plots.

It certainly is. The entire thing is a thinly veiled method of stringing together jokes. The writers make no attempt to disguise this fact. It has almost no interesting stories, and I couldn't care less.

And I suppose that "South Park" doesn't rely upon shock value or repetition. ("Oh my God! They killed Kenny!" "You bastards!")

For the record, I'm not criticizing "South Park". I'm not a big fan, but it is a funny show.

They've made jokes which were even more offensive than those.

You're right. A talking piece of bowel movement is far more sophisticated.

For your information, my 53 year-old mother has found some of the "Family Guy" episodes funny. (Although many of the jokes were too offensive for her taste.)

Do you know what? I don't care what you think about the show. I find it funny. Am I proud of this fact? Not entirely.

Have you seen the ratings of "Futurama" lately? They're even worse! Both series are the victims of poor scheduling.

As a matter of fact, while airing on Sundays at 8:30, "Futurama" drew nearly identical household ratings to "Family Guy" (in the same slot) and LOWER ratings in the all of the prime demographics.

That's a relevant argument.

Yes, I'm often sarcastic, but you're every bit as condescending.

David Levy

And I find it a poor substitute. A good show must be driven by plot, character or dialog.

Lame characters + weak plots = Bad show. It's simple really. "Incredibly loose formats" don't fit into the equation.

Perfect for a stand-up comedy routine. Flat out wrong for a sitcom.

And yet it remains on the air. But not for long. Can't imagine why. Perhaps it's the very reasons you just mentioned.

"South Park" relies more on reputation now than anything else. AFAIC, it hasn't been funny since the 2nd season. Besides, South Park is aired at a more reasonable hour for its type of entertainment. I certainly wouldn't want to see it on network TV during prime time, but 10:00PM on a cable station? Fine with me. That's probably where Family Guy will end up after some cable station picks up syndication rights.

It's rapidly running out of sacred cows to ridicule. What next?

I'll consider myself fortunate to have missed them. Can't imagine what could be more offensive than sex with dead people.

No, a talking piece of bowel movement is about the stupidest thing the South Park creators have ever come up with. Of the SP fans I communicate with, none over the age of 12 (or the mental age of 12) disagree.

Fabulous. Did she sign the petition?

Do you know what? You have a very loose grasp on the concept of Usenet.

I just find it funny that you state plainly that you don't care what I think right after specifically informing me what your mother thinks. What am I to make of this?

Why not?

Futurama will die because the network has something against its creator. Family Guy will die because of the misguided arrogance of those in charge at the very beginning. With all the advertising during the Super Bowl, and the premiere episode after the game, this show had every opportunity to be the next big hit. But they chose to air it up against wrestling and Frasier, thus guaranteeing that neither children nor adults would be interested enough to watch it. This by itself would not have killed the show, as some very good shows have flourished after being moved from one time slot to another, but combined with the fact that show simply is not that good, there was very little chance for it to survive from the start.

No, it's a clever remark.

Yours was in the form of a personal attack.

Show me where I insulted you first. You can't because I didn't.

I await your apology.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Dave wrote:

No, a show must be driven by plot, character or dialog for YOU to enjoy it. I have no problem with this fact, but I do object to your criticisms of those who enjoy "Family Guy".

Funny jokes = funny jokes. You might not find them funny, but I do. If the program was to be weighed down by complex stories and characters, (or any set of rules) the jokes would be impossible to execute.

Flat out wrong for YOU to watch.

Nah, it's Regis.

I do agree that 8:30 is too early for "Family Guy". As I said, Fox has scheduled it very poorly.

Nor do I. That was when I stopped watching.

You misunderstood. Although I disagree with it, I respect your negative opinion of the series. I simply resent your characterization of its fans.

I'm slightly ashamed that I enjoy the incredibly offensive jokes. It's extremely uncharacteristic of me.

I agree with this.

Again, that's merely your opinion. You're entitled to it, but it's absurd to cite it as fact.

You could have fooled me.

I'm not attacking you. I'm criticizing your statements.

"That's ok. From the Family Guy newsgroup I am quite aware that you are someone who has absolutely no taste when it comes to televised animation, and you wouldn't know quality satire if it bit you on the ass."

You weren't addressing me specifically, but you were describing all "Family Guy" fans as tasteless.

I apologize if my comments offended you.

Now, I await your apology.

David Levy

Fair enough. I'll restrict my criticisms to the show itself, and to the appropriate newsgroup.

Actually, flat out wrong for people who teach the sitcom style to aspiring TV script writers.

Thank you for being honest.

I stole it from Scott Adams. His show's been canceled too.

Maybe you saw it that way, but your ultra sardonic math lesson was over the top.

Not all. Not intentionally. That was a verbal smack in the mouth for Ramalamafucknuts.

Sorry.

Hug?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                        [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

In article , [email] wrote:

Actually, four new episodes will be shown. Too bad I don't have UPN...

Ben -- [email] -- http://www.netins.net/showcase/benssite/

In article , Dave writes:

You're in DNRC too? Cool.

In article , [email] (Jeremy B) wrote:

   0-

Hey, I work in tech support, it's a given. :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                        [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

On Thu, 11 May 2000 15:07:14 -0700, David Levy wrote:

SILENCE!! I agree. I like the Simpson's, even though it's not as good as it once was, it's still better than most crap on TV. I also like Family Guy. Sure, the plots are, well let's not kid ourselves, it has no plots. However, some of the one liners and insert scenes are instant classics.

And the creators never tried to hide that fact. Any time there is a major hit series, there will copies in no time. Of course, Ralph Kramden was just a copy of Neil Armstrong . . .

Wow! so am I. It's almost like you're more interested in having a good laugh than proving how cool you are by hating things . . .

Wrong, the kids from Easter Island are mineral based.

The whole anti-"nuclear family" concept has fed off each other and the massive rejection of "wholesome family life" that was portrayed in the 50's. Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, Leave it cleavage etc. . .

In entertainment, when you get copied, you know you're good.

Who is that? I don't see any post here from . . . Oh yeah, kill filters.

Two wrongs do not make a right, but three lefts do.

Trolling will continue as long as the fish are biting. That's why we have kill files.

--Larry

Ah, so you think people who publicly hate things only do so because they think it will make them cool.

You can't really believe this, can you?

And every day, thousands of fresh-out-of-the-box newbies hit the web for the first time. In other words, the Usenet lake is regularly and frequently replenished with new stock; the fish will *never* stop biting.

And like David Levy says, I'm only here to "torture people for my own amusement."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

I've seen people do this (mainly, in grade school, high school, especially junior high, and doubly especially in fandom) to pander to the cliques. That also goes for liking and doing certain things in public (eg: junior high kids who think "draggin' on these butts sure makes me look K3wL!").

<other stuff snipped>

DGH

On Fri, 12 May 2000 13:56:37 -0400, Dave wrote:

People publicly deride the works of others for a number of reasons. Trying to appear better than other people and thus 'cooler' or possessed of superior taste is one. Distracting attention from one's own failings is another. In rare instances, it is an educated and sincere attempt to communicate a sense of taste or to urge an improvement of the creative process. I find that discussing what I like is less hurtful to others and does a better job of showing my tastes and personality.

I can, I have a permit.

An interesting non-sequitor, since Usenet is not part of the Web. A tech support person from my former internet provider once said I was not co-operating because I stubbornly refused to tell him the URL for a usenet group. Virtually all newbies on the internet use e-mail and WWW, however only a fraction of them use Usenet. The fact that there is a constant stream of newbies is correct. However, that will level off as the internet reaches saturation.

When you see an obvious troll, such as the one that started this thread, you have the option of kill filtering them and informing any newbies who are biting of their option to do the same. Since you are clearly not a newbie, why bite?

You have definitely contributed positive things to this group in the past and I predict that you will again in the future. If I didn't think so, your posts would have made to my computer. Remember I have kill filters and I use them.

--Larry

Larry F wrote:

Agreed. Also, they still manage to pull off a classic episode every now and then.

Exactly! And the popular culture references are outstanding!

Some people don't seem to like cultural reference humor, but it's one of my favorites. MST3K was one of the best at it. I have almost all of them on tape and I re-watch them periodically. My favorite bit from Family Guy was when they showed the opening to the Dick Van Dyke Show. I've almost worn out the tape on that segment. Of course, when Crow and Tom Servo were on Futurama I fell right to floor laughing. I just wish MST had lasted a little longer, I'm sure they would have returned the reference.

I don't know if this is where it originated, but I first heard it on Deteriorata by National Lampoon. It's on the Radio Dinner album. It opens with: "You are a fluke of the universe You have no right to be here and whether you can hear it or not the universe is laughing behind your back"

It was written by Christopher Guest. Dr. Demento probably has played it. I know I heard it before I got the album.

--Larry

Dave wrote:

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Every once in a while, I enjoy seeing a series that attempts to ignore the traditional style. That doesn't necessarily make a program entertaining, but at least it stands out from the crowd.

That explains it. I've never particularly cared for his humor.

I assume that you were a fan, and I appreciate your loss. I, on the other hand, never managed to enjoy the "Dilbert" program. Perhaps it was too faithful to the comic strip, because the style of humor seemed more appropriate for print than for a half- hour series. (in my opinion)

For me, the show had some strong points. The animation was good, it had a terrific voice cast, and the visual opening / theme song were solid. Mainly, however, it just seemed very predictable and repetitive. It was always obvious what was going to happen next, and the first season of "Working" did a better job of spoofing the absurdities of the workplace in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

I do feel that the series had strong potential, and I'm sorry that it isn't being given the opportunity to develop its niche.

I felt that your admitted retaliation to Ramalama7 (in a dispute which was apparently started by your "trolling") was over the top.

I think that my facetiousness seems exaggerated in writing. I honestly don't intend to insult people. So as to make this clear, I'll try to include more happy faces. It may seem silly, but it works. :) See? :)

Okay, but please try not to refer to entire groups.

Apology accepted! There, now we're buddies! Let's start a club for people with our first name only!

Only of the Hershey variety, if you don't mind... <David Alan Grier Mode> Oh, who am I kidding? Get over here, mister! </David Alan Grier Mode>

David Levy

I used to enjoy the strip, but the TV show was a mistake from the start.

The moment they put voices to the characters in the strip, they ruined everything.

I don't even read the strip anymore, I hear their selected voices in my head when I do.

Neither show had much of a future.

But it did. it was just a *really* small niche. :)

Well then you should be careful to use your power for good and not for evil.

:)

Dave's shouldn't fight.

LOL!

I liked In Living Color, it was like the black SNL.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                        [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Dave wrote:

Originally, a live-action version was planned for the Fox Network. Can you imagine what THAT would have been like?

Really? I thought that the voice casting was excellent.

Before the animated series began, I occasionally read the strip. The voices that I imagined were very close to the ones that were actually used.

"Working" might have stood a chance, but it was destroyed by second season retooling and poor rescheduling.

Yeah, and Jim Carrey was the token white guy. :)

David Levy