Talk:Family Guy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive

Archives
1 2 3

This is the first archive for the talk page for Family Guy. For the active talk page click here.

Contents

Pronunciation

Why, exactly, is the IPA [ˈqɔːˌhog] if the pronunciation is "KOH-hog"?

Name

Isn't it just called Family Guy? If so, does it need the word "The" before it? Just checking. -- Oliver P. 19:08 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

You're right, it's just called 'Family Guy' Grunners 13:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stewie

Seth MacFarlane said that everyone can understand Stewie but they just don't take him seriously. He came up with the idea when someone's three year old son told his mother "I'll see you in hell" totally deadpan. They all laughed then wondered "what if there was a kid who was serious about that?" And thus, Stewart Griffin was born.

Ok, at the very bottom it talks about rumors and it said "Stewie finding out that he is a homosexual." I changed this to "Stewie making an active decision concerning homosexuality." I don't see what is wrong with that, it pretty much says the same thing. I didn't like the former because people don't "find out" they are gay. As indicated in the history people don't just wake up one morning and find out they are homosexual like they didn't realize it before. I know this seems like a trivial thing but I just came back to the page and saw that someone had reverted my changes back to the original without giving a reason why. If this continues I'm going to add an NPOV dispute and post the page as needing attention so the masses can resolve this.

As I recall, Stewie does in one episode say something along the lines of "wouldn't it be just fabulous if I turned out to be a homosexual." Based on this it does sound like he is just "finding out" that he is gay, and McFarlane seems to be lampooning the whole issue of "discovering" one's orientation. Stewie's sexuality is never really nailed down, so "making an active decision concerning homosexuality" is inaccurate, IMHO. After all, other episodes have Stewie expressing amorous opinions of his female peers. I'm in favor of keeping the original text, but perhaps a NPOV flag could help bring more informed opinion to the article. --Pontifex 20:00, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Well I rewrote it as "furthering the series' (often blatant) hints that he is homosexual" which to me is a good enough compromise. violet/riga (t) 22:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I can see where everyone above is coming from. I think violetriga's edit is best. Though Stewie might have said "wouldn't it be just fabulous if I turned out to be a homosexual" I think that is more of something like the writers speaking through the character to the viewers rather than the character Stewie making a declaritive statement to himself. The Simpsons does that sort of thing all the time.
Stewie may also be be bisexual as in one episodes he talks about his sexy parties were he and some girls dressed in bekines are running around.While in another episode stewie says to himself "well i know were i go when i need to relax" and it cutaways to him dancinging in a gay bar with other men.
There are very many instances of Stewie expressing attraction towards girls and women. The subject is much subtler and more complex than anything yet edited here. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
But the thing that everybody seems to miss is that stewie appears to be gay because we all see him as an adult when he is, in fact a child. Honestly how many children played with their mother's makeup? Does that constitute them to be gay? And the example of the gay bar. As smart as stewie thinks he is i think he sometimes misses the obvious simply because he doesn't understand it yet. Besides, many times Stewie has hit on or been attracted to women. For example, when stewie hides in the girls locker room. His "winky seems to have suffered from rigor mortis." And you cannot forget the episode where stewie fell in love with Janet.

Dispute Factuality

Two things about Stewie strike me as wrong

  1. I think Stewie has a South African, not a British accent. Can anyone else verify or discredit this?
  2. I know for a fact that more characters than Brian have had conversations with Stewie. (See above). It's late so I'm not at 100%, but I remember he had a conversation with his "sperm brother". I know there's a million more too, but that's one I remember clearly. →Raul654 06:53, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

In response to Raul654 Stewie's accent is indeed British, In many of the Interviews that creator Seth MacFarlane did he states that Stewie's voice is that of an evil Rex Harrison. How you got his accent to be Afrikaans is beyond me. I know people who are from South Africa and their accents sound NOTHING like Stewie's. Misterrick, 07:30, 15 January, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough (thanks for the message on my talk page, by the way) - I had heard that not to be the case, but I might very well have heard incorrectly. As to the second dispute, I don't think there can be arguing with it. I'm almost positive he's had conversations where the other person acknowledged something he said. →Raul654 19:19, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Raul654 that other characters do understand what Stewie is saying, Here are some conversations that Stewie had and were acknowledged by other characters:

(From 'When You Wish Upon A Weinstein')
Stewie: Ah! What the hell are your doing?
Meg: Watching you sleep cutie pie?
Stewie Why you sick sick little moo cow you shall watch no more!

(From 'Brian Wallows and Peter's Swallows)
Stewie: Now hold on a minute. Don't diguise his alcohol dependence as a ticket to self realization.
Brian: Look, Your not one to talk alright. You remember that time I gave you Apple Juice and told you it was wine?

(From 'Road To Europe')
Brian: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Stewie: Oh yes just wait until they have to suffer through Jesus Jones.

Hippie: You should get some hash man, You can't go wrong.
Stewie: Oh not true, ground meat can go very wrong for me very quickly and everyone in this room will suffer the conseqences!
Hippie: You are out there man, In the ether.
Stewie: I'd love to further pursue our palaver but I am not fluent in freaka, so I'm just going turn back over here, Back towards my table.
Brian: Say, are you hungry?
Stewie: You know I wasn't when I came in but isn't that so funny? I'm getting there.

So clearly Stewie is able to have clear and rational conversations while his fellow babies barely can speak. Misterrick 04:45, 17 January 2004 (UTC)

I rephrased the stewie paragraph and removed the factuality dispute warning. →Raul654 05:34, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Seth McFarlane has said in the past that Stewie is understood, but obviously being a baby the adults don't take his threats seriously and so think him cute rather than evil. Only Brian fully recognises who Stewie really is, and so only Brian has proper conversations with him. Grunners

See the second season episode "Peter Peter Caviar Eater" for some "blatant" examples of Stewie being clearly understood by adults. The commentary for that episode addresses the issue, if I remember correctly. Cromulent Kwyjibo 14:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've heard on interviews that the whole issue is pretty informal and undecided. They basically switch it around when ever it seems fit. I believe I hear this in the commentary on the episode where Peter starts his own country called 'Petoria'. At the end they cut to the future and ask the same question and Seth Macfalane says they just like to switch it around whenever they feel. --681dragon 06:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody explain what, specifically, was so offensive about the When You Wish... episode? Tuf-Kat 09:41, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Fox pulled it because they thought it had anti-semetic content. For specificity, you'd have to ask Fox. →Raul654 16:23, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
Peter sings "Even though they killed my Lord, I need a Jew." If I was Jewish I think I might be pissed about that line. Cromulent Kwyjibo 14:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As a Jew, but speaking just for myself, I did not find "When You Wish Upon A Weinstein" offensive. As for the line accusing the Jews of killing Jesus, you have to look not just at what is said but who says it. Peter is an ignorant man, but going even deeper than that, he is a man ignorant of the basic tenets of the faith he was baptized in. Roman Catholic dogma holds that Jesus chose to die for our sins. Robert Happelberg 14:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The idea of converting a person from one religion to another in order to increase their intelligence is the main reason it being pulled, as far as I am aware. violet/riga (t) 17:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Region 1 DVD listing says there are 12 (6 + 6) episodes with audio commentaries. The Region 2 Box Set definitely contains (on the Extras disc only) 14 episodes with commentaries. So: does the R2 set have 2 audio commentaries that were not included in the Region 1 version, or did somene just miscount the R1 commentaries? Lee M 23:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article doesn't really capture the gist of how controversially funny Family Guy is. This is very offensive humour, pushing the limits of network tv. Hilariously. m410

Seriously folks, MacFarlane and company have repeatedly demonstrated that continuity takes second place to jokes. Whether adults react to Stewie's words depends wholly on whether it would be funny for them to do so. Don't lose sleep trying to figure out a logical explanation. -DynSkeet (talk) 12:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Well put. --TheMidnighters 13:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Just because you two are dullards doesn't mean there are people "losing sleep" over this. We discuss this not because it will change the world but because its fun, like pointing out all the times Data uses contraction even though he's not supposed to.
The only ones that might lose sleep over things like this are the writers. Listen to the commentary for "Brian Wallows," they were up late discussing whether the offspring of Brian and Pearl should be humans or puppies. ShutterBugTrekker 21:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
My earlier comment was not meant to offend anyone. If you choose to take offense at an innocuous statement like that, that's your problem. -DynSkeet (talk) 01:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Characters

I added a complete list of characters on a seperate page, as this is how the Simpsons page is set-up. It has practically every character, and took me a very very long time, but I'm hoping it's worth it. Grunners

RE: Censorship

Most episodes were censored in part, and the "When you wish upon a Weinstein" episode banned. This is due to the incredibly strict guidlines in the USA. Unfortuantly, as Family Guy is owned by FOX (an American company) these censorship changes apply everywhere else in the world.

This is a shame as many of the censored parts don't seem all that insulting! Grunners

Peter's job description

I changed "incompetent toymaker" to "incompetent production line worker at a toy factory." It might seem verbose, but I think it's more accurate.

To me, "toymaker" implies a craftsman who designs toys and builds them by hand, one by one. We've seen Peter pitch toy ideas to Mr. Weed, but the actual building of the toys is all clearly done by assembly line.

What exactly Peter's job on the assembly line is, is something that has not been consistent. In the first episode, he appeared to be some sort of safety inspector (pace Homer Simpson). Mr. Weed something like "Your job is to make sure no toys pass that might be harmful to children." Peter fell asleep and unsafe toys passed to toy stores. In the episode "Holy Crap," Peter is a production worker, contributing one small detail to each toy on a repetitive basis ("You have to put this little cigarrette in his pocket," he says, holding a doll of a criminal convict). Robert Happelberg 14:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cleveland is BLACK, not African American

In regards to the information under CONTROVERSY, and the line about Racism, Cleveland should be called "black", not African American. There were no episodes to prove that Cleveland is really from Africa, for instance he could be of black middle eastern descent or so forth. Since there is invalid proof to write that he is from Africa, the word "black" would make more sense. Until there is an episode where we learn his real heritage, "black" is more accurate.

Fair enough. I reverted your edit at first because I thought it was a test or vandalism, but I changed it back when I saw your reasoning. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 00:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In the episode Peter Griffin Husband, Father...Brother, It is revealed that Cleveland (and also Peter) is a descendant of slaves who would have been from Africa. Since the implication is strongly in favour of Clevland as an african american, I am replacing black with african american.--Will2k 15:55, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Your argument is correct, and I agree with it. However, in another sense, it is still more accurate to call Cleveland black, as opposed to African American, because by saying Cleveland is African American, a person may think that he is a white African American, or a Chinese African American. I know, you are thinking, duh, any idiot knows that African American is referring to a black person, but still, when it comes to encyclopedias, it is vital that the writer is perfectly PRECISE, so as not to leave the reader with any doubt. You may as well call Peter Griffin a European American, because these labels do not provide any specific race of the characeters. Political correctness is extremely important in the recording of encyclopedias.

Read the article "African American". It states that an African American is an American who is descendant from black Africans. Cleveland fits this definition. By your definition, it would be necessary to change every entry linked from here to say "black African American". Generally, the term African American by itself is interpreted to mean a black American, descendant from black African slaves. Should someone be African American, but be white, or hispanic, whatever, then one qualifies it like you are suggesting. I entirely agree that an encyclopedia cannot have ambiguity, but there comes a point where the society definition supercedes the qualifications an encyclopedia might need. --Will2k 13:43, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC).

Yes, you are right. I still think, however, that there should be a compromise, and "black African American" should be used. I know this sounds redundant, but it is more accurate.

Someone should mention in some fashion the unusual and seemingly bad choices of humor that end up making Family Guy the great show it is, such as the Broadway parodies and annoyingly-long repetitive sequences (where most shows would pull away) like when Peter hit his knee and kept groaning in pain, or when Joe was sobbing in the bar and everyone slinks away.. Big Fat Paulie got shot for, like, 30 seconds. Did you forget that?

"Black" is not a scientific or even correct term for people of African descent. Why is it necessary to include the color of his skin anyway? They know that he's descended from Africans and that he lives in America. That's enough information. --Berserk798 22:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Road to Rhode Island - Osama scene uncut?

The article says that the Osama scene in Road to Rhode Island was cut from all DVD versions and is entirely unavailable except on videotape recordings of the episode. However, it later goes on to say that a DVD was released with that episode "uncut/restored", suggesting that the Osama scene was restored.

Which is it?

I have the Zone 4 DVDs and it is not included in the discs. Can't speak for the other zones. Evil Monkey → Talk 04:59, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
My region 2 copy doesnt have it. My region 1 copy does.  ALKIVAR™ 05:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Freakin' Sweet Collection!


In the North America DVDs, the scene is not in the original box sets, but yes, it is included on The Freakin' Sweet Collection.

nihilism is controversial?

Why is nihilism listed under controversial issues? There should at least be an explanation because I watched the show regularly and never recall anything controversial associated with nihilism. I'm not even sure why any reference to it would be controversial...

Separate article - the revival of FG?

Notable in that no other show has ever been revived after cancellation on the same network, three years is probably a record too, and the first to demonstrate the effectiveness of DVD sales as part of the total profit forumula. Would help relieve the growing size of this article. Anyone else agree? Lotsofissues 19:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, so long as it's made clear that the DVD sales (both past and potential future) are the reason Family Guy came back. Recent interviews surrounding the revival by Fox executives have made that clear. I know there is some kind of romantic notion that fan outrage had something to do with it, but it didn't. --feitclub 20:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
While the DVD sales are probably the primary and only reason FOX brought Family Guy back, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the "romantic notion that fan outrage had something to do with it." Outraged fans spoke with their letters and their wallets, and the fact that their wallets were heard more clearly doesn't diminish the importance of their feelings. Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Continuity

I disagree with this edit: 10:04, 2005 May 11 JiFish (→Continuity - Removed "simpsons not violating plausible possibility". It's long and doesn't add much. Only one example is needed.) I think the comparison of continuity to the Simpsons is relevant and should be kept. Anyone agree? - Mark McCartney (talk) 16:48, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Violating plausible possibility has an example already. The other is simply the opposite. 500 characters is a lot to give an example of what the article is NOT about. I'm surpised you objected to this change. --JiFish 17:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a big deal, I just wanted to see if anyone else felt the same way. The text can stand either way - it's just that with the removed text, there was an actual example of how the Simpsons does things differently. Without the removed text, only a Family Guy example exists. - Mark McCartney (talk) 18:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Mentos and Mintos

I noticed in the early episodes, product names were called by their real names, and later they were subtly changed (Mentos became Mintos, Doublemint became Doublefresh, Twinkie became Twinkee). Did the producers get in trouble for parodying the products, and should this be mentioned in the article since the commercials are? Mike H 01:00, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Meg's Real Father

Are you sure that was about the music? And who is Stan Thompson the musician? He doesn't have an article.

Fleet Building?

I'm guessing this is now the Bank of America Building, assuming they haven't moved all their staff from RI to Bangalore or something. Can someone from PVD confirm? - PhilipR 22:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BDSM edit

Sorry, I just realized I'm an idiot for overlooking the wiki link hence my comment on that edit. I still think the more generic BDSM is probably equally good -- especially since the reference made is to femdom which would strictly speaking a subset of Domination & submission more than Sadism and masochism, right? -- but since I haven't seen the episode I'll change it back. - PhilipR 23:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pedophille Reference

In the article under Controversies under the subheading Pedophille it says that Meg lost her virginity to Jimmy Fallon in the episode "Don't Make Me Over". Technicially Pedophilla is sex by an adult with a child under 12 years of age and as I recall the Age of Consent in the United States is 16 and according to Brian in episode "The Cleveland-Loretta Quagmire" when he is propositioning Meg to "Screw Around" he stated that she was 17 so really Meg is an adult and there was no Pedophille committed. Therefore I removed this reference.

The "Age of Consent" in America is 18, so in either case, you're wrong.

--The Milkman 18:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's sixteen, but only if the person you're sleeping with is no more than three years older than you (i.e. a 16 yro can sleep with a 18 yro, but not a 24 yro). It still wouldn't be pedophilia, since she's post-pubescent, but Jimmy Fallon is presumably older than twenty, and so it would be illegal. It becomes interesting when you consider if Brian could legally have sex with Meg, animal cruelty and bestiality rules aside -- he's probably younger than she is, realistically, unless they use the multiply-by-seven rule to figure out the age of a talking dog... I'd imagine there's no legal precedent on that. Tuf-Kat 19:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    Quagmire: Hey Meg! 18 yet?
    Meg: No
    Quagmire: Hey Chris, how are you?
    Chris: Well, I'm glad..
    Quagmire:Alllll riight(walks away)
--Will2k 19:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

According to the website Age of Consent (http://www.ageofconsent.com/) in Rhode Island where the Griffin's live the age of consent for a man and a women to engage in sexual congress is 16, now in New York State where Saturday Night Live is broadcast and where Meg was deflowered the legal age of consent is 17 so I stand by my previous comments that Pedophillia was not committed between Meg Griffin and Jimmy Fallon because Meg is an adult in these two jurisdictions. Of course I have to wonder why this really is being debated because Family Guy is just a cartoon. User:141.150.123.192 06:26, 18 June 2005

Just to be pedantic, the only way Meg could be involved in pedophilia at this point in her life is if she molested someone prepubescent. While she may or may not be legally an adult in various parts of the world, there's no denying that she's well into the latter part of puberty and pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children. No matter the moral or legal ramifications, having sex with Meg could not be pedophilia unless she was having sex with someone younger than her. Tuf-Kat 06:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

opening lyrics

I fixed in the opening lyrics where it says:

Stewie:
Fucking Cry!

to:

Stewie:
Laugh and Cry!


In the earlier episodes the line while remaining Laugh and Cry sounded like Fucking cry... after I believe the 2nd season, that portion of the intro was re-dubbed to make the lines more clear as to clear up any possibility of it being misheard. Jtkiefer 21:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed:
Seth has stated that it was always "Laugh and Cry;" however there is an obvious change from the first few episode openings to the ones later in the season. Perhaps it was, at one point, "f'in cry" and Seth had it changed (FOX orders). Another theory is that it was always "laugh and cry," but since there was a dispute about it, Seth had it changed to sound more like "laugh and cry," which would explain the change from the beginning episodes.
— http://www.quahog5news.com/index.php?p=faq
violet/riga (t) 21:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goodness, I had no idea so many people actually think "effin' cry" is what Stewie says in the opening credits. One good reason it couldn't have ever been "effin' cry" is because I really don't think a network, even Fox, would allow masked vulgarity in the opening theme of a primetime sitcom. The other good reason, at least as I see it, is that the opening theme is meant to be the only warm-hearted, wholesome thing about the show(as a juxtaposition with the decidedly unwholesome content of the show). To go with that, it's more likely Stewie would have said "laugh and cry," that being a common idiom, than it is that he would say "effin' cry." Why would a show's theme song say that it's just going to make you cry? "Lucky there's a man who positively can do all the things that make us cry?" It makes no sense. The music cuts off the L in laugh a little bit. Simple as that. All these edits make me want to effin' cry. The Amazing Superking 05:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Are we allowed to have the opening lyrics here? This could be a breach of fair use. -- LGagnon 01:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Exactly, what is hoped by tagging this article for peer review? And who is most qualified to do the peer review? Cromulent Kwyjibo 29 June 2005 17:57 (UTC)

Well, why not tag it? I realize that I've made a lot of changes to the article, but my aim was to make it more understandable to those who are not immediately familiar with the ups, downs, references and jokes of Family Guy. A broader perspective on that front - or, for that matter, on all fronts, particularly from those who are not tied to the article - certainly can't hurt. It's already resulted in a nice copyedit job. Captain Yesterday 29 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)


Peter Griffin's car

Can anyone find a decent picture of the station wagon? I'm a bit of an AMC nut, and I'm trying to figure out if he drives an AMC Ambassador, which is what it looks like. -Litefantastic 23:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Theme song

Is the theme song "man who'll; positively tell you" or "man who; positively can do"? The subtitles on the DVD says it's "man who'll; positively tell you".- B-101 23:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Man who; positively can do" just seems to make so much more sense, and if you listen to the song, it's pretty clear that that's what it says.--The Amazing Superking 03:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bad Edits By 24.41.48.25

It appears to me that someone using the IP address 24.41.48.25 has been making bad edits that are very subtle. Take a look at the contributions page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.41.48.25 One of the edits that have been made have said the Cleveland Jr is dead, I checked the episode that the edit claims this information comes from and I could not find anything of the sort. The edits also claim that Brian was previously the Smith's from American Dad dog. Can someone else check the edits from this IP to the Family Guy/American Dad pages and confirm that they are wrong so that we can revert? Qutezuce 08:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've not heard of any of the things he added being true, and can't back them up anywhere. I've reverted those edits. violet/riga (t) 08:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No banned in Poland!

It’s completely untrue that Family Guy is banned in Poland. In fact, it was aired in TV4 (one of our non-paid television) for quite a long time. FG also has many fans in Poland despite the fact that its emission ended a dozen or so month ago. I must say that I feel sorry for people living in USA (because of all this censorship in here).

Exactly, in Poland it's not possible to "ban" a show. Programs "not suitable for children" have restrictions at which hours they can be shown on broadcast tv, and the KRRiT often fights with TV stations on what is suitable for children, and what isn't. It's very likely the "Family Guy" had to be moved to late-evening hours because of that, however it could not have been "banned". It also doesn't apply to other media, like DVDs, satellite (which are often registered abroad, to get around tax, decency and other laws of both countries) or non-broadcast TV.

I'm speaking a bit theoretically, because I only know that exactly such thing happened in case of Futurama (also on TV4), and I don't know the Family Guy case. On the other hand, I think I've seen it in normal hours, so maybe the entry was completely wrong (or as a third possibility, they could have aired it in normal hours, and lost a lawsuit against KRRiT because of it). Taw 16:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio?

We cannot legally reprint the entire Famiy Guy theme song. I will revise this so that it still reads clearly. --FuriousFreddy 14:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)