Emmy Nominations
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6395
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Score one for the unions!
TV academy and CBS reversal on Emmy Awards time-shifting
After two weeks of mounting criticism over plans to "time-shift" eight of the Emmy Awards bestowed on the prime-time telecast, the TV academy and CBS have relented. Now all 28 Emmys will be presented live during the Sept. 20 awardscast.
Primetime Emmy Awards Cancel Time Shifting Entertainment News 2468097 On July 30, show executive producer Don Mischer announced that eight of the prime-time Emmy Awards would be showcased in taped segments that encompassed the reading of the nominees' names and acceptance speeches by the winners. The eight categories to be denied live presentation were miniseries, movie, movie/mini supporting actor and actress, movie/mini directing, movie/mini writing, drama series writing, and variety directing.
The broadcast networks that rotate presentation of the Emmy ceremony – ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox – have only four of the 40 nominations in those races. This year's telecaster, CBS, has only one nomination (supporting movie actress, Marcia Gay Harden, "The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler").
Most of the bumped categories involve movies/minis, and those are races dominated by HBO, which was furious about this news. "For a show that has always recognized the best in the television industry, it now seems to be increasingly focused on recognizing broadcast network television," said a spokesman at the time. "That is unfortunate given the range and caliber of talent represented in these categories which are being singled out for time-shifting."
The Directors Guild of America demanded that the TV academy relent or be found to be in "material breach" of an agreement promising that all prime-time Emmy Awards presented to directors be part of the live ceremony. And both the East and West Coast branches of the WGA protested this second-class treatment of their members. Both guilds planned to revoke the Emmys' access to free TV clips to use during the telecast.
In a statement released today, TV academy Chairman/CEO John Shaffner said, "This decision was made to mend relationships within the television community and to allow executive producer Don Mischer to focus his full attention on producing the creative elements in the telecast. Our goal is to celebrate the year in television, honor excellence and this year's great achievements with the support of our industry colleagues and our telecast partner, CBS."
TV academy and CBS reversal on Emmy Awards time-shifting
After two weeks of mounting criticism over plans to "time-shift" eight of the Emmy Awards bestowed on the prime-time telecast, the TV academy and CBS have relented. Now all 28 Emmys will be presented live during the Sept. 20 awardscast.
Primetime Emmy Awards Cancel Time Shifting Entertainment News 2468097 On July 30, show executive producer Don Mischer announced that eight of the prime-time Emmy Awards would be showcased in taped segments that encompassed the reading of the nominees' names and acceptance speeches by the winners. The eight categories to be denied live presentation were miniseries, movie, movie/mini supporting actor and actress, movie/mini directing, movie/mini writing, drama series writing, and variety directing.
The broadcast networks that rotate presentation of the Emmy ceremony – ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox – have only four of the 40 nominations in those races. This year's telecaster, CBS, has only one nomination (supporting movie actress, Marcia Gay Harden, "The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler").
Most of the bumped categories involve movies/minis, and those are races dominated by HBO, which was furious about this news. "For a show that has always recognized the best in the television industry, it now seems to be increasingly focused on recognizing broadcast network television," said a spokesman at the time. "That is unfortunate given the range and caliber of talent represented in these categories which are being singled out for time-shifting."
The Directors Guild of America demanded that the TV academy relent or be found to be in "material breach" of an agreement promising that all prime-time Emmy Awards presented to directors be part of the live ceremony. And both the East and West Coast branches of the WGA protested this second-class treatment of their members. Both guilds planned to revoke the Emmys' access to free TV clips to use during the telecast.
In a statement released today, TV academy Chairman/CEO John Shaffner said, "This decision was made to mend relationships within the television community and to allow executive producer Don Mischer to focus his full attention on producing the creative elements in the telecast. Our goal is to celebrate the year in television, honor excellence and this year's great achievements with the support of our industry colleagues and our telecast partner, CBS."
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6395
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
I personally think these efforts are all in vain.The Original BJ wrote:So the Emmys are planning to "pretape" a number of awards -- including possibly the series writing categories! -- in order to focus on popular programs like American Idol and CSI, which don't figure heavily into the nominations.
Amazing how both this show and the Oscars seem to be running super-scared of ratings this year (now BOTH shows will have expanded nominees AND demoted some awards from the main telecast). More fear sets in for me about the Oscars doing away with some of its categories during the main program to highlight Transformers.
The fact that the Emmys are honoring "niche" shows and the Oscars have been honoring films that aren't exactly huge mega-blockbusters isn't the PRIMARY reason award shows have been getting lower ratings than 20 or even 10 years ago.
I think the Internet and other new technologies are the number one reasons ratings of award shows have been lower. People who want to know winners but don't wish sit through a 3 or 4 hour ceremony no longer need to wait until they read the morning papers to find out. They can simply log on-line and get real time info on who won while watching something else or doing something. I don't know if TiVO is counted among Nielsen ratings, if not, then that's another factor. Plus people can watch the highlights on-line.
Another major factor is the proliferation of other award shows/red carpet events and entertainment news shows. Seeing glamourous stars on the red carpet is almost a weekly occurence so seeing them on the red carpet at the Oscars is kind of old hat by that time.
They should just accept that times have changed and just try to make the best show possible to celebrate the winners and the nominees and make it for people who love film and TV and still enjoy watching awards shows.
Little Dorrit received decidedly lukewarm reviews when it was shown in the UK last year - it found a biggish audience, but critics almost unanimously hailed it as a failed attempt to capture the magic of the same stable's wonderful adaptation of Bleak House a few years ago. It was pretty much ignored by the BAFTAs this year, and I assumed it must have been much better received in the US than over here for it to have picked up so many Emmy nominations.
I didn't bother watching it but my mother, who laps up such things, did - and was sorely disappointed.
Agree on MacFadyen. How this guy became a major player is beyond me. Even in his breakthrough role in the spy series Spooks he's hopeless (although to be fair he received major raves for his role as a paedophile returning to society in a TV drama Secret Life a couple of years back).
I didn't bother watching it but my mother, who laps up such things, did - and was sorely disappointed.
Agree on MacFadyen. How this guy became a major player is beyond me. Even in his breakthrough role in the spy series Spooks he's hopeless (although to be fair he received major raves for his role as a paedophile returning to society in a TV drama Secret Life a couple of years back).
I've been trying to watch this Little Dorrit show that has nominations in a lot of the major categories.
What a tedious, uninvolving thing this is. These BBC Miniseries can be excellent, but the ones the Emmys recognize are always the stuffiest, most uninteresting ones. Tom Courtenay is pretty good. Matthew MacFadyen is a block of wood as usual. Eddie Marsan is Scott from Happy Go Lucky all over again, only in Dickensian London. Awful performance (wasn't crazy about him in the Mike Leigh film either), and makes me wish he'd get into another line of work. Nothing else about it registers. Costumes are fine, but everyone wears them exactly like they're costumes, and they handle the props like they're nothing but props.
If this wins Best Miniseries over Generation Kill, it'll be the worst choice since War and Remembrance beat Lonesome Dove twenty years ago. (Another awful choice: Shogun over Brideshead Revisited in 1981.)
Edited By dws1982 on 1249184990
What a tedious, uninvolving thing this is. These BBC Miniseries can be excellent, but the ones the Emmys recognize are always the stuffiest, most uninteresting ones. Tom Courtenay is pretty good. Matthew MacFadyen is a block of wood as usual. Eddie Marsan is Scott from Happy Go Lucky all over again, only in Dickensian London. Awful performance (wasn't crazy about him in the Mike Leigh film either), and makes me wish he'd get into another line of work. Nothing else about it registers. Costumes are fine, but everyone wears them exactly like they're costumes, and they handle the props like they're nothing but props.
If this wins Best Miniseries over Generation Kill, it'll be the worst choice since War and Remembrance beat Lonesome Dove twenty years ago. (Another awful choice: Shogun over Brideshead Revisited in 1981.)
Edited By dws1982 on 1249184990
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
So the Emmys are planning to "pretape" a number of awards -- including possibly the series writing categories! -- in order to focus on popular programs like American Idol and CSI, which don't figure heavily into the nominations.
Amazing how both this show and the Oscars seem to be running super-scared of ratings this year (now BOTH shows will have expanded nominees AND demoted some awards from the main telecast). More fear sets in for me about the Oscars doing away with some of its categories during the main program to highlight Transformers.
Emmys alter show's format
05:26 PM PT, Jul 30 2009
EmmystatueStory Hoping to expand the appeal of the Emmy Awards, producers of the Sept. 20 telecast plan to truncate the presentation of many of the movie and miniseries awards in order to spotlight more popular television programming.
The winners of eight Emmy categories will be named approximately 45 minutes before the broadcast begins at 5 p.m. PDT, allowing producers to air edited versions of their acceptance speeches later in the program. That will free up time in the telecast to highlight shows such as “American Idol” and “CSI” that attract large viewership but little critical acclaim.
The board of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences approved the change Wednesday night in an effort to increase the relevancy of an award show whose nominees are increasingly from cable shows with small audiences.
“We’re trying to make the Emmys more relevant to mainstream viewers, while honoring the choices of the television academy properly and respectfully,” said Don Mischer, the executive producer of this year’s three-hour telecast, which is airing on CBS.
But the change drew protests from some cable networks and the Writers Guild, which complained that their members were being slighted so the program could pander to popular shows that otherwise wouldn’t have a presence on the telecast.
HBO, which has 18 nominations in the eight categories that Mischer has proposed to pretape, was particularly irked.
“For a show that has always recognized the best in the television industry, it now seems to be increasingly focused on recognizing broadcast network television,” the premium cable channel said in a statement. “That is unfortunate given the range and caliber of talent represented in these categories which are being singled out for time shifting.”
Mischer insisted that the categories that will be pretaped will not be given short shrift.
“I really don’t look at it as a second-class position,” he said.
The move comes after last year’s widely panned Emmys show drew one of the award program’s smallest audiences in two decades. Just 12.3 million viewers tuned in for the production on ABC, which was co-hosted by a bevy of reality show hosts. A record low number of 18-to-49-year-olds watched the program.
Mischer said that “alarmed everyone, including the TV academy,” which hired a research firm to study why interest in the show was waning.
“A key finding was that potential viewers said they did not tune in because the Emmys featured shows that viewers didn’t know and weren’t interested in,” he said. “Last year, 65% of Emmys went to what might be described as niche shows.”
The challenge facing this year’s producers is pulling in fans of broader television programming without undercutting the Emmys’ purpose.
“CBS, Don Mischer and the academy all share the same goal: to deliver the most entertaining Emmy telecast possible for the television viewers,” the television academy said in a statement. “We believe these changes will allow us all to do that.”
By time-shifting and shortening the presentation of eight of the 28 award categories traditionally given on the national telecast, Mischer said producers will save between 12 and 15 minutes. That time will be devoted to last year’s most popular television moments, along with live entertainment, sketches by host Neil Patrick Harris and opportunities for viewer interactivity, he said.
“Part of what we’re doing is to try to put in more content that would appeal to a broader range of viewers across this country,” he said.
The final list of categories that will be time-shifted will not be determined for several weeks. But a preliminary list Mischer proposed included many of the long-form awards whose nominees this year largely hail from HBO productions such as “Grey Gardens,” “Into the Storm” and “Generation Kill.”
The change would also affect the AMC show “Mad Men,” last year’s Emmy darling, which this year captured four of the five nominations for best writing for a drama series, one of the categories that may be pretaped.
The list also includes best miniseries; best made-for-television movie; best writing for a miniseries, movie or dramatic special; best directing for a variety, music or comedy series; best directing for a miniseries, movie or dramatic special; best supporting actor for a miniseries or movie; and best supporting actress for a miniseries or movie.
“The writers are the storytelling stars of television, and we are disappointed that the academy chooses to diminish our members’ invaluable and essential contribution to the medium,” said Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America, East. “We ask that they reconsider the decision for this and future Emmy broadcasts.”
The Screen Actors Guild and Directors Guild of America declined to comment until a final plan was approved.
Mischer promised that the time-shifted awards will be “presented with dignity and respect.”
Producers plan to tighten the winners’ walks on and off the stage and shorten their remarks, but he said no one would be cut out of the telecast.
“In every one of the categories, nominees are going to be listed and winners are going to talk on the air and they’re going to be able to make a coherent, substantial statement,” he said.
Some logistical challenges remain, including how to wrangle audience members to arrive in time for a show that will now begin around 4:15 p.m. That will push up the red carpet arrivals, as well.
“Whether or not this solves all the long-term problems, I don’t really know,” Mischer admitted.
“But I do feel really optimistic.”
By Matea Gold, Los Angeles Times Staff
Amazing how both this show and the Oscars seem to be running super-scared of ratings this year (now BOTH shows will have expanded nominees AND demoted some awards from the main telecast). More fear sets in for me about the Oscars doing away with some of its categories during the main program to highlight Transformers.
Emmys alter show's format
05:26 PM PT, Jul 30 2009
EmmystatueStory Hoping to expand the appeal of the Emmy Awards, producers of the Sept. 20 telecast plan to truncate the presentation of many of the movie and miniseries awards in order to spotlight more popular television programming.
The winners of eight Emmy categories will be named approximately 45 minutes before the broadcast begins at 5 p.m. PDT, allowing producers to air edited versions of their acceptance speeches later in the program. That will free up time in the telecast to highlight shows such as “American Idol” and “CSI” that attract large viewership but little critical acclaim.
The board of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences approved the change Wednesday night in an effort to increase the relevancy of an award show whose nominees are increasingly from cable shows with small audiences.
“We’re trying to make the Emmys more relevant to mainstream viewers, while honoring the choices of the television academy properly and respectfully,” said Don Mischer, the executive producer of this year’s three-hour telecast, which is airing on CBS.
But the change drew protests from some cable networks and the Writers Guild, which complained that their members were being slighted so the program could pander to popular shows that otherwise wouldn’t have a presence on the telecast.
HBO, which has 18 nominations in the eight categories that Mischer has proposed to pretape, was particularly irked.
“For a show that has always recognized the best in the television industry, it now seems to be increasingly focused on recognizing broadcast network television,” the premium cable channel said in a statement. “That is unfortunate given the range and caliber of talent represented in these categories which are being singled out for time shifting.”
Mischer insisted that the categories that will be pretaped will not be given short shrift.
“I really don’t look at it as a second-class position,” he said.
The move comes after last year’s widely panned Emmys show drew one of the award program’s smallest audiences in two decades. Just 12.3 million viewers tuned in for the production on ABC, which was co-hosted by a bevy of reality show hosts. A record low number of 18-to-49-year-olds watched the program.
Mischer said that “alarmed everyone, including the TV academy,” which hired a research firm to study why interest in the show was waning.
“A key finding was that potential viewers said they did not tune in because the Emmys featured shows that viewers didn’t know and weren’t interested in,” he said. “Last year, 65% of Emmys went to what might be described as niche shows.”
The challenge facing this year’s producers is pulling in fans of broader television programming without undercutting the Emmys’ purpose.
“CBS, Don Mischer and the academy all share the same goal: to deliver the most entertaining Emmy telecast possible for the television viewers,” the television academy said in a statement. “We believe these changes will allow us all to do that.”
By time-shifting and shortening the presentation of eight of the 28 award categories traditionally given on the national telecast, Mischer said producers will save between 12 and 15 minutes. That time will be devoted to last year’s most popular television moments, along with live entertainment, sketches by host Neil Patrick Harris and opportunities for viewer interactivity, he said.
“Part of what we’re doing is to try to put in more content that would appeal to a broader range of viewers across this country,” he said.
The final list of categories that will be time-shifted will not be determined for several weeks. But a preliminary list Mischer proposed included many of the long-form awards whose nominees this year largely hail from HBO productions such as “Grey Gardens,” “Into the Storm” and “Generation Kill.”
The change would also affect the AMC show “Mad Men,” last year’s Emmy darling, which this year captured four of the five nominations for best writing for a drama series, one of the categories that may be pretaped.
The list also includes best miniseries; best made-for-television movie; best writing for a miniseries, movie or dramatic special; best directing for a variety, music or comedy series; best directing for a miniseries, movie or dramatic special; best supporting actor for a miniseries or movie; and best supporting actress for a miniseries or movie.
“The writers are the storytelling stars of television, and we are disappointed that the academy chooses to diminish our members’ invaluable and essential contribution to the medium,” said Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America, East. “We ask that they reconsider the decision for this and future Emmy broadcasts.”
The Screen Actors Guild and Directors Guild of America declined to comment until a final plan was approved.
Mischer promised that the time-shifted awards will be “presented with dignity and respect.”
Producers plan to tighten the winners’ walks on and off the stage and shorten their remarks, but he said no one would be cut out of the telecast.
“In every one of the categories, nominees are going to be listed and winners are going to talk on the air and they’re going to be able to make a coherent, substantial statement,” he said.
Some logistical challenges remain, including how to wrangle audience members to arrive in time for a show that will now begin around 4:15 p.m. That will push up the red carpet arrivals, as well.
“Whether or not this solves all the long-term problems, I don’t really know,” Mischer admitted.
“But I do feel really optimistic.”
By Matea Gold, Los Angeles Times Staff
Congratulations, Mike! Both on having an Emmy nominee in the family, and on a new member of the family making her/his debut soon.Mike Kelly wrote:Thanks guys - I still find it amazing. Chris lucked out with a dream assignment with the Survivor shoots. Not only did it give him a chance to work with a large diverse crew, the locations have been extraordinary. He just returned from Western Samoa, where Survivor 19 was made. The show has unexpected legs. Quite frankly, I thought it ran its course long ago. Chris and his wife are expecting their first child (and our first grandchild) in October. He is flying out for probably his last Survivor shoot (All-Stars) next month, after which if the show continues, he may have to turn over the assignment to a co-worker. They must all run together in his mind. When I congratulated him on his Emmy nomination, he asked me which Survivor was it. I had to tell him Brazil.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Hollywood Z
- Temp
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:07 am
- Location: Kentucky
- Contact:
My largest qualm with Family Guy has nothing to do with it's crudeness. Contrastly, I am a devout South Park fan, a show that continuously finds new ways to push the envelope, but in socially relevent and satirically clever ways. Family Guy just throws in completely random pop culture references (most of the times completely out of context with the entire episode), the jokes are simply unmotivated shock value, and then they proceed to unceasingly repeat the joke ad nauseum until whatever humor it had is drained and finally becomes obnoxious. The show's humor is the equivalent of the embarassingly drunk frat guy at a party who slurs his incomplete joke at you, then keeps repeating it and laughing at it the entire time, while you sit there and can either laugh out of pity or walk away in disgust. My reaction to the Family Guy leans towards the latter, despite how much it has isolated me from my friends, who thoroughly enjoy the show. Another reason my detest for the show is as great as it is.OscarGuy wrote:I love Family Guy because it isn't afraid to be crude, rude and socially unacceptable. And it may not be as sly as The Simpsons/Futurama (both by Matt Groening, surprise), but it's a fantastic show. I like it 100 times more than American Dad (also by Macfarlane). I'm surprised at all this hatred of Family Guy. I wonder if its crudeness is somehow the reason you guys detest it so much. But, it's one of the few laugh-out-loud funny shows I've ever seen.
"You are what you love, not what loves you." - Nicholas Cage; Adaptation
Me too. It had some bad seasons (bad casts mainly) and I quit watching for a few years. But I got unexpectedly hooked again last fall. Good casts, good twists and turns, good blindsides on voting night. I do wish they'd choose non-tropical locations once in awhile, but I understand why they don't--a season of people shivering in a hut on the Siberian taiga isn't as visually engaging as people in bikinis and boxer shorts stranded on a beach.Mike Kelly wrote:The show has unexpected legs. Quite frankly, I thought it ran its course long ago.
-
Mike Kelly
- Temp
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne, FL, USA
Thanks guys - I still find it amazing. Chris lucked out with a dream assignment with the Survivor shoots. Not only did it give him a chance to work with a large diverse crew, the locations have been extraordinary. He just returned from Western Samoa, where Survivor 19 was made. The show has unexpected legs. Quite frankly, I thought it ran its course long ago. Chris and his wife are expecting their first child (and our first grandchild) in October. He is flying out for probably his last Survivor shoot (All-Stars) next month, after which if the show continues, he may have to turn over the assignment to a co-worker. They must all run together in his mind. When I congratulated him on his Emmy nomination, he asked me which Survivor was it. I had to tell him Brazil.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
That's really awesome. Congratulations, and keep that mantle clear.Mike Kelly wrote:My son, Chris picked up his third Emmy Nomination (Sound Mixing - Survivor Tocantins: "The Poison Apple Needs to Go.") Locally, he has switched to Cinematography for the production company where he works. I don't think Roger Deakins needs to look over his shoulder...........yet.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Congratulations to your son! That's fantastic.
I don't love or hate Family Guy. I think that as a show it's steadily improved. I 100% loathed the first one or two seasons. Those episodes still rank among some of the least funny and unintelligent television ever produced. Terrible animation, dumb plots, dumb gags. Then somewhere in the third season it started to steadily improve. I was really shocked when it was cancelled because I was just beginning to enjoy it. Then when it was revived, I found it to be hilarious. Was I changing? Was the show growing on me? No, the first two seasons are still a waste of space - and not in a "Oh, the show is just finding its footing!" No, just terrible. It just drastically changed its direction when it was brought back on the air. Those seasons are terrific. I think it had a fairly weak season this year but there are some very funny episodes and I'll take it over anything in the first two years.
The thing about Family Guy isn't that it's "afraid to be crude, rude and socially unacceptable" (saying that you like it 100 X more than American Dad isn't saying much; that show is just worthless). I can't think of another satire with less-thought-out thesises. It doesn't say ANYTHING about the "stances" that it takes. A character (usually Brian) will say what the "correct" thing to do is, someone (usually Peter) will contradict him, and the show will show Peter failing until (in the weakest moments of every episode) he feebly accepts. Unlike South Park, The Simpsons, or Futurama, Family Guy has no degree of insight or purpose and just goes along with the flow of whatever is ideologically sound that week. It's unchallenging and simplistic. It's also funny, admittedly in the most base way possible.
There's nothing wrong with enjoying Family Guy, but one of my pet peeves is when people say that the show is "smart". Family Guy isn't smart. It's snarky. It's very easy to make fun of something in the most random way possible. That's no indication of intelligence. But I would say it can be pretty funny.
I haven't seen King of the Hill in almost a decade but I remember it as a sweet show that could have very easily have just been live action. I can't say I was any kind of passionate about it but I was glad it was on the air. No idea how it made it on the air for so long while Family Guy and Futurama fought cancellation so much.
I love Family Guy because it isn't afraid to be crude, rude and socially unacceptable. And it may not be as sly as The Simpsons/Futurama (both by Matt Groening, surprise), but it's a fantastic show. I like it 100 times more than American Dad (also by Macfarlane). I'm surprised at all this hatred of Family Guy. I wonder if its crudeness is somehow the reason you guys detest it so much. But, it's one of the few laugh-out-loud funny shows I've ever seen.
I don't love or hate Family Guy. I think that as a show it's steadily improved. I 100% loathed the first one or two seasons. Those episodes still rank among some of the least funny and unintelligent television ever produced. Terrible animation, dumb plots, dumb gags. Then somewhere in the third season it started to steadily improve. I was really shocked when it was cancelled because I was just beginning to enjoy it. Then when it was revived, I found it to be hilarious. Was I changing? Was the show growing on me? No, the first two seasons are still a waste of space - and not in a "Oh, the show is just finding its footing!" No, just terrible. It just drastically changed its direction when it was brought back on the air. Those seasons are terrific. I think it had a fairly weak season this year but there are some very funny episodes and I'll take it over anything in the first two years.
The thing about Family Guy isn't that it's "afraid to be crude, rude and socially unacceptable" (saying that you like it 100 X more than American Dad isn't saying much; that show is just worthless). I can't think of another satire with less-thought-out thesises. It doesn't say ANYTHING about the "stances" that it takes. A character (usually Brian) will say what the "correct" thing to do is, someone (usually Peter) will contradict him, and the show will show Peter failing until (in the weakest moments of every episode) he feebly accepts. Unlike South Park, The Simpsons, or Futurama, Family Guy has no degree of insight or purpose and just goes along with the flow of whatever is ideologically sound that week. It's unchallenging and simplistic. It's also funny, admittedly in the most base way possible.
There's nothing wrong with enjoying Family Guy, but one of my pet peeves is when people say that the show is "smart". Family Guy isn't smart. It's snarky. It's very easy to make fun of something in the most random way possible. That's no indication of intelligence. But I would say it can be pretty funny.
I haven't seen King of the Hill in almost a decade but I remember it as a sweet show that could have very easily have just been live action. I can't say I was any kind of passionate about it but I was glad it was on the air. No idea how it made it on the air for so long while Family Guy and Futurama fought cancellation so much.
"How's the despair?"