(S06E09) You'll have to forgive me: I'm an unabashed lover of Fox's Sunday night animation block. I know that the internet is alive with constant controversy as to the exact point where The Simpsons started sucking or how much random joke-telling is too much random joke-telling on Family Guy, but I've always looked at Fox's Sunday the same way a never-married 39 year-old woman looks at a potential husband: it has to be pretty bad not to be good enough. It's probably a good thing, then, that I don't review this show regularly. Brad's reviews are free of my good-enough slacker ethos; he's always got something intelligent to say about an episode. I'm sure you'd all tire very quickly of me finding an infinite number of variations on, "It wasn't a classic, but I laughed a lot, so I guess I have to give this a positive review!"
That being said: This episode wasn't a classic, but I laughed a lot, so I guess I have to give it a positive review!
This episode had two major things going for it:
1) Story. In a departure from our last episode, McStroke, which seemed more like three stories stitched together with as much grace as ManBearPig, tonight's episode carried a single story from beginning to end. There are some that argue that story-cohesion isn't really necessary when you're dealing with Family Guy, but I've always found the episodes to be stronger when they at least make an effort in the direction of story. Random gags are funny; random stories feel cheap.
2) James Woods. I was truly surprised when it turned out to be Woods who had stolen Peter's identity. I was prepared for it to be Barry Manilow or maybe Quagmire. Woods, however, made perfect sense: Family Guy has always (ahem) borrowed (ahem) from The Simpsons, so it stands to reason that it would eventually find its own Sideshow Bob. For my money, if you're going to have anyone fill the (admittedly very big) shoes of Kelsey Grammer's Sideshow Bob, you can't go wrong with James Woods. I'd be more than happy to see Woods as a recurring "villain" on the show.
My only complaint about this episode is a mild one: there seemed to be more "inside" references to past episodes than ever before. Perhaps on a show built around non-sequitors, a new viewer who misses an inside joke will simply write it off as a misfired gag, but I always get nervous whenever a show starts to feel too "insidery." It just brings up bad memories of losing Arrested Development or my constant fear that 30 Rock will soon disappear. When James Woods or the ghosts of the vaudeville guys show up without any explanation, my soon-to-be-canceled sonar starts pinging.
On the whole, though, we had a great returning guest star, a higher-than-average number of laughs, and a clear story from beginning to end. Like an almost-forty bride looking at her balding, overweight, under-employed husband-to-be: what more can you ask for?
Other stuff:
-- Brian was great this episode. I loved his tail-wagging when he thought James Woods had optioned his novel. This show has always been knocked as a pure entertainment show, in the shadow of The Simpsons' more accomplished satire, but it's little moments like this where Family Guy shows its satirical eye. Brian's reaction was dead on; as an insecure writer, I can tell you that my tail wags and sags with each and every one of your comments.
-- I had a history teacher who graduated from Brown...I'm pretty sure I could have gotten him to fall for the magical rope-shrinking trick too.
-- One more from that scene: "What are you doing tied to Meg's stake?"
-- Did anyone else think that this was a particularly harsh episode so far as the shock-jokes went? An extended scene about the benefits of bulimia and a 9/11 joke? They were both funny (I don't care how many teen-outreach programs you work for, James Woods doing the voice of Mr. Pukey is funny), but it seemed a little over-the-top, even for Family Guy.
-- Where do we stand on the vaudeville guys? I've always loved them (and, by extension, the Family Guy predisposition to "old-timey" humor), but I know there's a lot of internet dislike out there. Were you happy to see them back?
-- Who was doing the voice of David Letterman? It was so dead-on that I thought for a second that it was Letterman. Then I thought, nah... a big star would never be in an episode in which a joke refers to "9/11, Two Thousand and Fun." Unless, of course, that big star's name is James Woods.
TV Squad Ten: Cartoon women who should have Playboy centerfolds
Six Mad Men characters who are in limbo after the finale
Fact or Fiction: Big Bang, Brothers & Sisters and CSI
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-18-2008 @ 12:32AM
Jay Black said...
As it happened, not four seconds after turning in this review, I heard on Howard Stern that the voice of David Letterman in tonight's show was David Van Dam (better known to Stern Show fans as "Evil Dave Letterman"). Now it makes perfect sense at how good the voice was/how willing to be inappropriate the speaker was willing to be. Anyone who listens to Stern regularly is well aware of Evil Dave. I say good for him! Next thing you know, he'll be the new announcer for The Tonight Show!
Reply
2-18-2008 @ 12:40AM
Gavin said...
Weak episode....the only highlight was Evil Dave's appearance.
Reply
2-18-2008 @ 5:36AM
fred said...
Yeah, well I disagree on one point : the story.
Yes, this episode had a story, but obviously writers of this show ain't too good at that, because this episode was pretty weak.
Maybe it was cool to see James Woods here, but I'd take a bunch of random jokes over that whole story anytime, because it didn't really made me laugh!
Couple things were funny, the "Totally Jewish" doctor or Meg's priceless reaction after the Reese Witherspoon line, but other than that, and the hilarious scene with Brian tied to Meg's rope, there wasn't much.
You mention the ghosts of the vaudeville guys, well I don't hate them, but the problem here is that it just wasn't funny. Like that whole concert bit, I was bored during the entire bit.
So I for one hope they go back & stick with what they're good at : silly random jokes. Maybe there's no story, but it's usually hilarious and makes me laugh for half an hour, and that's what I want from this show, not a story!
http://tvoholic.com/episode-reviews/family-guy-back-to-the-woods/
PS: oh so it was Evil Dave! Yeah I wondered about that too, this guy really sound like Letterman. A more "edgy" Letterman, usually.
Reply
2-18-2008 @ 8:03AM
KMF said...
I like James Woods' appearances on the show. He's willing to make fun of himself.
I thought the bulimia joke was kind of funny, because it was silly, no one should take that seriously. Plus Meg's reaction to the Reese Witherspoon line was funny. And the 9/11 joke, Peter was trying to sink James Woods' career and that would do it.
Oh and didn't Chris date Kate Moss when he was an artist? She slipped through a crack in the floor.
Vaudeville guys, are okay. I like the old guy, Herbert.
Reply
2-18-2008 @ 11:11AM
Sarah said...
so, i guess i was the only person who thought this episode was decent?
apart from a couple of unfunny gags (unlike previous episodes where there are only a couple of funny gags), the plot wasn't all over the place.
Reply
2-18-2008 @ 12:18PM
Rogphi said...
I thought this was a great episode. Brians "magic" rope was Hilarious and I hope we see " sideshow" James again soon ! For what its worth I look forward to the show and it rarely disappoints me.
Reply
2-18-2008 @ 8:08PM
backflip said...
In all honesty, this was one of the worst, most ill-informed reviews of a television show episode that I have ever read. The author chooses to focus on menial things that happened in the show (Brian's "tail-wagging"? A great addition to a no doubt flawless review). He was "surprised" to see that James Woods had stolen Peter's identity? If he is such a fan of FOX's Animation Domination, why had he not caught the spoiler in the numerous commercials shown earlier during the week? Don't get me wrong; I'm a strong advocate of powerful, well-written reviews that catch my ear and keep me interested. This review did none of that.
The author is damn right that it's good that he doesn't review Family Guy regularly or else everyone who read his reviews would refuse to watch it ever again.
Reply
2-18-2008 @ 8:57PM
Jay Black said...
Hey Backflip. First, let me say that I took no offense to your review of my review. There's a few points I'd like you to clarify, though, just to get a sense of the kinds of things you _do_ like in a Family Guy review.
1) Brian's tail-wagging was mentioned in a section entitled "other stuff." Meaning that it took place outside the review proper where "menial stuff" should probably be placed. Do you disagree with the inclusion of these sorts of odds and ends in a review? Things that made me laugh or that I found interesting? I ask because it seems to be standard procedure both on this and other episode-review blogs.
2) Further, I used the tail-wagging to bring up a point about the show's satiric elements. I was saying that it was a fairly dead-on parody of the way writers tend to react to the promise of compliments or the pain of criticism. I was trying to imply that while the Family Guy is first and foremost a "pure entertainment" show, it still has its satirical moments. Did you disagree with this assessment or do you think assessments like these don't belong in a Family Guy review?
3) Why would not catching the commercials for this week's Family Guy preclude me from being a fan of Fox's animation block? I own a TiVo and a SlingBox and have to say that other than the SuperBowl, I haven't seen a commercial except by accident in quite some time. Are you saying that well-informed reviews can only be written by people who watch commercials? Would this review have been better if I had written: "Aha! I knew that it would be James Woods because I had seen it on the spoiler-heavy commercial for this episode!"?
4) Because your comment focused almost entirely on the problems you had with my review, it was difficult to get a sense of the kinds of things you would _like_ talked about in a review. I'm asking because I did have some problems with the writing of this review... I was speaking to my editor today and mentioned that it's very hard to write a Family Guy review without basically just saying which gags were funny and which gags were not. I wanted to write something of a cohesive analysis of the character and plot but I soon realized that when you're dealing with the Family Guy, it's hard to do so because the writers don't really spend that much time with the characters or plot. (There's nothing wrong with this; indeed, it's one of the joys of the show. It just makes an analysis difficult). Your input would be greatly appreciated not because I'll be reviewing Family Guy ever again, but because I'm truly interested in this and it's obvious that you have a very clear idea in your head as to what makes a good review.
5) It's entirely possible that you were merely baiting me with negativity because I mentioned that I, like Brian, am an insecure writer. If that were the case, Bravo sir! If not, I'd love to get your thoughts on the above questions.
2-18-2008 @ 11:02PM
backflip10019 said...
Jay
Yes, there was in fact a serious case of irony coming from my side regarding your insecurity as a writer. When you wrote that in your review, I felt like I just had to capitalize on it. I applaud you at responding respectfully to my scathing criticisms and will likewise respond in the same manner to your comment.
However, taking your further explanation of the now infamous “Brian tail-wagging” episode into account, I still don’t quite agree that it’s something truly noteworthy enough to be put into an episode review. Sure, it may represent Family Guy’s good eye at satire on some level, but I feel like it was thrown into the episode to show the conflict that Brian is experiencing in losing his friend but gaining someone who appreciates his work. Also, it could just be Family Guy’s way of reminding the audience that Brian is a dog; this, in turn, seems ironic since he’s a dog … who is writing novels. Hence, it might be a little much to ascribe such a subtle gesture to being a sign of premeditated satire. To me, it just seems menial.
Ah, yes, TiVo. Middle class college students often forget about the possibilities of watching television without commercials. In that case, your failure to recognize the likeness of James Woods as Peter’s identity thief is acceptable.
I completely understand the difficulty in reviewing television shows like Family Guy. Hell, any comedy that’s heavy on the jokes and light on the substance and story would be difficult to review. I feel like, due to the inherent nature of the “random” jokes in the show, you’d have to base a fair portion of the review on those jokes, as they’re what the people keep coming back for. I guess that if I were to try and review the show, I’d focus primarily on offensive jokes, running gags, as well as the characters themselves. In an episode like this, focusing on plot is important as well. However, in short, I agree that reviewing Family Guy is very difficult. I hope that this has been somewhat helpful in clearing up what I was saying earlier.
And those Vaudeville guys … they have to stay! “Play me off, Johnny!”
Respectfully,
backflip
Reply
2-19-2008 @ 9:33AM
Alicia said...
The only way for the James Woods running gag to work is if they keep on trapping him with candy, and putting him in a wooden crate.
Reply
2-20-2008 @ 5:15PM
Ray said...
As far as shock and tastelessness is concerned, the segment on James Brady was up there with the Bulimia gag (pardon my pun). I don't mind shocking or offensive jokes, but I'd like for them to be funny -- this scene just fell flat.
Overall though, an excellent episode that made me laugh much more than others in recent memory. I even appreciated the mostly forced, disconnected Barry Manilow opening. If FG can keep this up, it'll be right back on top.
Reply
2-23-2008 @ 8:51AM
Rose said...
you can watch family guy - back to the woods at http://www.freetv123.com/index.php/family-guy/
Reply
3-07-2008 @ 10:04AM
Will said...
I thought those Vaudeville guys were gone for good. Maybe they were funny the first time we saw them, but not any more.
Reply