Simpsons VS Futurama

[Reply #440 on:]

The First Ten Seasons of Simpsons are better than Futurama, but Futurama beats the crap out of anything past Season Ten.

Top Ten Adult Animated Comedies:
1. South Park
2. Simpsons 1-10
3. Futurama 1-4
4. Archer
5. Aqua Teen Hunger Force
6. King of the Hill
7. Beavis and Butthead
8. American Dad
9. Frisky Dingo
10. Rick and Morty

Sir, I'm sorry buuuuuuuuuuuuut...you just double-posted.
Take some time reading the rules, stan and please continue after reading the rules:
http://wiki.peelified.com/The_Rules

To not create a pile of Hormel's jelly, I believe overall The Simpsons are better. But for recent memory, Futurama is the better show.

[Reply #441 on:]

I'm just glad American Dad is ahead of Family Guy on the poll. That's all I care about.

Meeeee too.

Also, Mr. Laser-Captain and I both agree Futurama trumps the Simpsons. South Park and ATHF are up there for us too. Our relationship blossomed under the reign of Master Shake.

[Reply #442 on:]

I voted for Futurama. I've gotta admit though, a few years back, I was something of a Simpsons addict. At some point, though, The Simpsons got really boring and as I was flipping through the channels, I stumbled upon Futurama and voila! I got totally hooked on it and to be honest, the new Simpsons episodes are going down the crapper, IMHO.

[Reply #443 on:]

I'll just rank these in order of my preference:
1.Futurama
2.The Venture Bros.
3.The Simpsons
4.South Park
5.Family Guy
6.American Dad!

Yu-gi-oh's not on the list because I was/am more of a Pokemon guy.

[Reply #444 on:]

In order from best to worst (separated The Simpsons, Futurama, and Family Guy by their "Classic" and "Modern" runs because why not). The Yu-Gi-Oh series I'm just going to ignore because I can't really compare them well to the rest of the choices.

Classic Simpsons (Seasons 1-9) > Classic Futurama (Seasons 1-4) > South Park > The Venture Brothers > Modern Futurama (Seasons 5-7) > American Dad! > Classic Family Guy (Seasons 1-4) > > Modern Simpsons (Season 10-whatever) > > > Modern Family Guy (Season 5-whatever).

[Reply #445 on:]

What a bizarre choice of shows posed. What in the fuck is Yu-Gi-Oh?

And, obviously, Futurama's going to win the poll on a Futurama forum.

[Reply #446 on:]

What a bizarre choice of shows posed. What in the fuck is Yu-Gi-Oh?

One of these shows is not like the others. One of these shows doesn't belong.

[Reply #447 on:]

One of these shows is not like the others. One of these shows doesn't belong.

It's Family Guy, right?

[Reply #448 on:]

What doesn't belong is the two votes for Family Guy.
...
...
...
...
Fuck different opinions.

[Reply #449 on:]

One of these shows is not like the others. One of these shows doesn't belong.

It's Family Guy, right?

More probably Yu-Gi-Oh .

[Reply #450 on:]

One of these shows is not like the others. One of these shows doesn't belong.

It's Family Guy, right?

More probably Yu-Gi-Oh .

Hey, what was that thing that just went over your head?! Oh, wait, nevermind. It was the joke.

[Reply #451 on:]

Actually, it was Family Guy. The rest of these shows have plots.

[Reply #452 on:]

Actually, it was Family Guy. The rest of these shows have plots.

Must have gone over Beamer's head

Though -on a more serious note- early family guy had quite decent plots, and -despite not having seen every season 12 episode so far- some are rather solid.
Also the idea to grant Brian a supposed permament death, wiating for the outcry and let him return had really something. Cannot see anything bad about a "Wait? They are not REALLY gonna do this, right?" shock effect.

Futurama and Simpsons often go for a "Folks sharing our POV = Good, Rest = Evil" black and white picture. ("Proposition Infinity" one of the least glorious examples).
While Farlane often manages to give his critics (at least the "bashing for bashing's sake" fraction) the business, but manages to achieve so by ridiculing himself.

The Oscars were a good example. The "We saw your boobs" song was de facto the message "This is what you expected, right? Okay, here you get it. See how ridiculous your expectation was?". And he was doing so by playing a joke on himself, not others.
Or Brian vs Rush Limbaugh: Farlane allowed one his supposed "arch nemesis" to lecture him about his own hypocracy, and let him even be the "voice of reason stating the lesson learned" at the end.

One can say whatever one want about family guy, but Farlane has backbone, and he also confronts prejudiced hypocrites not only among conservatives, but also liberals.

[Reply #453 on:]

The first 3 seasons of Family Guy rocked. The writing nose-dived when it was brought back. American Dad not be the funniest on that list, but it's the most consistent.

[Reply #454 on:]

The first 3 season of Family Guy rocked. The writing nose-dived when it was brought back. American Dad not be the funniest on that list, but it's the most consistent.

Indeed. Stan's government background predestined American Dad for political themes. Unfortunately -when it comes to normal comedy- the Smith are mostly the standard family (though Roger's character concept stands out).

[Reply #455 on:]

Yeah, now they're just your typical zany family. The characters are all consistent, though, and the stories usually have messages about family. It's refreshing.

[Reply #456 on:]

Family Guy Season 1-3 is actually pretty underrated from the looks of responses here and better written than most episodes from Season 4 and beyond for me. I'd probably put the quality of "Classic" Family Guy (Season 1-3) somewhere between "Classic" Futurama (Season 1-4) and "Modern" Futurama (Season 6-7), where as "Modern" Family Guy (Season 4-12) would range from like a good episode of "Transitional" Simpsons (Season 11-12) to the bad episodes which would be like your average "Modern" Simpsons (Season 13-25) episode.

[Reply #457 on:]

In terms of fandom I'm a bigger fan of The Simpsons than Futurama. But which one is better, hmm, that's a tough question. All I can say is that nothing can beat The Simpsons' first 8 seasons, but Futurama had less bad episodes in its run than The Simpsons. About 10% of Futurama episodes I would consider bad, but in The Simpsons it would be about 30%.

[Reply #458 on:]

Family Guy Season 1-3 is actually pretty underrated from the looks of responses here and better written than most episodes from Season 4 and beyond for me.

I'd agree that the first three seasons are better than the rest of the show's run, in the same way that getting shot once would be better than getting shot dozens of times.

As for MacFarlane taking shots at all sides; It would be admirable if there was actually anything worthwhile being said. Family Guy's hardly an outlet for satire, let alone a means for the writers to make any sort of statement whatsoever. Its only M.O. is the jokes; it's essentially an animated sketch comedy masquerading as a traditional sit-com. Which would actually be fine if it were consistently funny, but it can't even do that right.

[Reply #459 on:]

The first 3 Seasons where actually pretty consistent in being really funny, while also being able to have something resembling an actual plot around the jokes. It's not as focused as something as the Simpsons, but the early Family Guy episodes where at least somewhat able to develop there characters and show they care for each other, while also making a few smart jokes on the side.

Now Season 8+ Family Guy, now that's a sketch comedy pretending to be a sitcom. Seriously, watching some of the new episodes, it's like they're trying to be Monty Python, but failing tremendously at it due to them usually actually being focused before and having boundaries to reality outside of cutaways.

[Reply #460 on:]

The show was always a sketch comedy in a sit-com's clothing. Look at how many damn cutaways there were in the pilot alone... And yes, the first 3 seasons have their moments, but I'd hardly call it "consistently funny" (save from maybe Da Boom, which is a genuinely hilarious 20 minutes of television).

Either way: Now, for the most part, the majority of Family Guy's attempts at humour falls into one of the below categories:
a) Simply referencing something else (usually from the 80's) without even making a joke about it.
b) Extreme violence and lewd sexual content - none of which I have a problem with, but the way Family Guy does it? There's no punchline, it's just being offensive for the sake of being offensive.
c) Frequent racist/sexist/homophobic remarks and actions from its characters, where the joke never seems to be on the ignorant party, but again, being offensive for the sake of being offensive.
d) Long, extended scenes where a single "joke" is drawn out to 2+ minutes at a time. Because, hey, if it doesn't get a laugh the first time, just shout it over and over again until it does, right?
e) Taking something that DID get laughs the first time around and re-using it in various episodes again and again - often without even tweaking the joke at hand - beating it into the ground well past the point where it's still funny.

Such writing tactics weren't completely prevalent until after the show's return (season 4 onwards), but even then, there are definite traces of it throughout the earlier seasons. Some of this can even be funny in extremely small doses (the drawn-out gags in seasons 1-3 were fantastic, largely BECAUSE they were few and far between), but the show pushes it all to a point where it's just fucking painful to sit through.

[Reply #461 on:]

Re: C, offensive humour can be hilarious when done right. Once in a blue moon Family Guy does it right, (blind girl phone sex, for example) but it's almost always terrible. Everything else is spot on, though. I'd also add putting jokes above characterisation. An idiot will just become super smart for the sake of a gag, or a nice guy will suddenly be an asshole.

[Reply #462 on:]

Re: C, offensive humour can be hilarious when done right.

You don't have to tell me that, I'm a huge fan of South Park and other adult comedies. But without any concept of how to properly execute such material, it loses its punch and just becomes vile.

I'd also add putting jokes above characterisation. An idiot will just become super smart for the sake of a gag, or a nice guy will suddenly be an asshole.

I'd mentioned that the show's only M.O. was jokes, hence why I focused solely on why it fails at the only thing it actually tries to do, but yes, this is very true (the characters were relatively consistent in seasons 1-3, though even then, there were some troublesome moments - like when they were perfectly happy to turn Quagmire into a rapist for the sake of one shitty joke at the end of an episode... REALLY?). Likewise for story, too. Everything aside from the "comedy" is treated as ancillary anyway (characters, emotions, plot, etc.), so the only reason I think the writers even pretend to stick to a traditional sit-com format is because they wouldn't actually be able to come up with enough material to fill a 20 minute animated sketch comedy (also part of the reason I think they stretch so much shit out).

[Reply #463 on:]

I'm pretty new to Futurama but I don't normally like animation in general. I've watched a few episodes and Futurama is a lot of fun compared to other cartoons and I'm really enjoying it. So I vote for Futurama. What a surprise!

I never really enjoyed The Simpsons. Please try not to hate me for that. South Park and Family Guy are both just really childish and dumb. My sister really loves both of them and that by itself is enough of a reason for me never to watch them because then she would be there within seconds and I really hate my sister far more than I ought to but I can't help it because she very badly needs to shut up and go away for a while. A year seems like a good length for a while. I might actually miss her if she does that.

My favorite show right now has to be Game of Thrones. I'm disappointed that the Futurama episode Game of Tones didn't have any princesses or dragons but I still absolutely loved that one. It was one of the first ones I saw and it was so sweet.

One of my friends knows a really geeky guy who might even be one of you guys and he made me a playlist of the six episodes I should watch first. Game of Tones was the last one and it was amazing even without dragons or princesses!

[Reply #464 on:]

Generally the pop culture references in the episode titles aren't relevant to the actual episode itself. There are a few exceptions, but I'd say more often than not, there's no connection beyond a cheap pun.

Though, calling South Park dumb and comparing it to Family Guy =

[Reply #465 on:]

South Park and Family Guy are both just really childish and dumb.

Family Guy, yes. South Park, no, not at all.

[Reply #466 on:]

South Park and Family Guy are both just really childish and dumb.

Family Guy, yes. South Park, no, not at all.

Danny, you're spot on there.

Yeesh. South Park is actually one of the smarter animated shows. I can understand the hatred for Family Guy, but South Park usually have something intelligent to say (even if it's wrapped up in profanity, gore, and shock humour, most of the time).

I won't argue with the description of childish, since the treatment of just about everything is intentionally juvenile. But that's done partially as a juxtaposition to the intelligence of the viewpoint espoused, and partially to disguise the fact that an intelligent viewpoint is being espoused. So, I suppose that this demonstrates the efficacy of that particular method of camouflage.

South Park have had some ingenious episodes in the last couple of years, and have some pretty awesome nerd references (lots of them are in stealth mode, I'll admit, but surely that makes them all the better for those who do catch 'em?), as well as mining current events for humour in a way that's not always completely obnoxious.

If Futurama deserves a chance from people who don't like cartoons, then so does South Park. Of course, South Park also occasionally crosses lines that Futurama doesn't. So as much as it's not dumb, it's definitely not for everybody.

I forget if I had a point, so I'll just finish by reminding everybody that Game of Tones is waaaaay overrated. Anybody who'd rank it in their personal top ten is going to have to do so by displacing far better episodes, and therefore deserves to be forced to watch Family Guy.

[Reply #467 on:]

South Park does come out easily seeming dumb and crude, but then it has great points and storylines done well and humorously. It is very funny, but I think the humor is hard to get at first.

Game of Tones isn't one of the best episodes, but I like it. There's just nothing particularly wrong with it and it's well done, interesting storyline.

[Reply #468 on:]

1. Futurama
2. Family Guy
3. Simpsons
4. American Dad
5. South Park

[Reply #469 on:]

Viclace you don't hate The Simpsons,South Park and Family Guy, you hate your sister!

Anyway, even if actually I enjoy Family Guy I completely understand when someone hates it,because I used to do that. If you ignore that the other shows are better then starts be enjoyable,is what I did when I started to marathon it until season 9 months ago. Personally I prefer seasons 1 to 4 where the humor wasn't gross at all and Peter was a likeable,imo.

Family Guy is good when you're reaaaaaaaaally bored.

About South Park, I have mixed feelings, personally I still following it but I'm not that interested because now they try to put sense to everything (for example the whole Mysterion thing), I love when South Park is smart and gives it messages but I'm more into when they use that gross humor, it's hard to explain.

The actual Simpsons are trash and Futurama...why I even still liking Futurama? I don't know (ah! now I remember that reason is called Zapp Brannigan) but if I had to pick what show deserves to be my favorite in this moment I would pick American Dad, good for you Seth! you finally created something that can be bizarre but with sense at same time, and without these long gags.

Also, Bob's Burgers is pretty good,why people doesnt talk about it more often.

[Reply #470 on:]

The actual Simpsons are trash and Futurama...why I even still liking Futurama? I don't know (ah! now I remember that reason is called Zapp Brannigan) but if I had to pick what show deserves to be my favorite in this moment I would pick American Dad, good for you Seth! you finally created something that can be bizarre but with sense at same time, and without these long gags.

The Zapper has been somewhat of a letdown in the last few episodes.
The "A huge asshole, who for some reason always gets away with it" theme was heavily incorporated in that character. I even daresay it used to be an obligatory part of him.

Now, episodes in which he mostly appears as a nice guy (IaGGDL, ZD) -with some last second revelation he is still an asshole and gets his comeupance- heavily counteracts his initial characterisation.

Now -judging from Peel- several folks considered the Zappster one the most original characters ever made. Several other chars could have served "will get his comeuppance" plots. Zapp was one of the least suitable ones for that them, because this really damages his character.

[Reply #471 on:]

Just to 32x your point, Zapp's old 'Fuck up who always manages to worm his way out of trouble' character always helped me to figure out how he got in such a lavish position in the first place. Now it's just like, why don't they just murder this retard already?

[Reply #472 on:]

I absolutely love Futurama and the Simpsons. But I am also a huge fan of Family Guy and not sure why there are so many haters of it.  The style of shows are not comparable. Yes, Futurama, Simpsons, South Park have plots and are more character driven but Family Guy is meant to be pure sugar.  It is one punctuated joke after another with no connectivity but, I think, in a cleverly delivered way.  Its goofy slapstick comedy with a quality self awareness of what they do, which I appreciate.  They make fun of them selves all the time for their cut-aways and their plagiaristic comparisons to the Simpsons.  Its a very blunt and forward sense of humor but with a real orchestra and quality musical numbers.  I enjoy Stewie and Brian's interactions greatly.
As far as the plagiarism to the Simpsons.. The "oafy dad of a family" has been done plenty of times before the Simpsons.  They called it simply "Family Guy" to illustrate the simplicity of the format that has been done several times which in itself is clever.

In "Cartoon Wars" episode of South Park where they mention that some people just like that sort of comedy, and they want a break from overly deep and preachy cartoons.

Back to the original topic.. Like many, I grew up on The Simpsons and will always respect and honor it as the originator of the prime time cartoons, however has grown stale. Futurama is one of, if not the best written, most intelligent, funniest shows I have ever experienced and I think David X Cohen is brilliant.  I've watched every episode over and over.. with and without the commentary, and it doesn't get old.

[Reply #473 on:]

I absolutely love Futurama and the Simpsons. But I am also a huge fan of Family Guy and not sure why there are so many haters of it.  The style of shows are not comparable. Yes, Futurama, Simpsons, South Park have plots and are more character driven but Family Guy is meant to be pure sugar.  It is one punctuated joke after another with no connectivity but, I think, in a cleverly delivered way.  Its goofy slapstick comedy with a quality self awareness of what they do, which I appreciate.  They make fun of them selves all the time for their cut-aways and their plagiaristic comparisons to the Simpsons.  Its a very blunt and forward sense of humor but with a real orchestra and quality musical numbers.  I enjoy Stewie and Brian's interactions greatly.

Even I will concede that Family Guy has the occasional moment of comedic genius, and even writing that could be considered clever from time to time, but it's so few and far between, it simply doesn't warrant sitting through the rest (which I generally find painful to watch). It's a real shame, they actually had something in the beginning... If they had embraced the Monty Python-esque weirdness and absurdity that was sometimes present in their earlier seasons, they could've made something really unique. But the bulk of the show's humour boils down to trashy gross-out comedy, referencing things without even making a joke, and being offensive for the sake of being offensive. I agree that the show isn't comparable to the other three; Futurama, classic-era Simpsons and South Park (after its early juvenile years) usually respect their audience's intelligence, whereas Family Guy tailors itself to the lowest common denominator.

As far as the plagiarism to the Simpsons.. The "oafy dad of a family" has been done plenty of times before the Simpsons.  They called it simply "Family Guy" to illustrate the simplicity of the format that has been done several times which in itself is clever.

The comparisons go far beyond Homer and Peter fitting the same character archetype. Watch some classic-era Simpsons - season 4 in particular is full of cutaway gags, and predates Family Guy considerably. Family Guy's only real attempt to differentiate itself in the beginning was by being more surreal and having more explicit content.

I will, however, give Family Guy the benefit of the doubt for this one; Obviously, any adult-oriented animated comedy is going to be compared to The Simpsons on some level, and as South Park has pointed out, The Simpsons has been on so long now that it's damn near impossible to do something that the show hasn't done. But still, the fact that ALL of MacFarlane's animated shows so far have been "wacky nuclear family" shows? It does set off some alarm bells. Groening only has two animated series to his name, and they're vastly different from one another. MacFarlane, on the other hand, has just taken the just plain lazy route, creatively.

On a side note, welcome to PEEL, nugzi. Nice to see a new face around here.

[Reply #474 on:]

I'd personally like to see Matt Groening give a crack at a new series now that Futurama is over.

How much of an involvement does he have with The Simpsons these days? I ask because I genuinely have no idea.

[Reply #475 on:]

But still, the fact that ALL of MacFarlane's animated shows so far have been "wacky nuclear family" shows? It does set off some alarm bells. Groening only has two animated series to his name, and they're vastly different from one another. MacFarlane, on the other hand, has just taken the just plain lazy route, creatively.

Groening's two shows (and Life in Hell) all share a common theme. They're each devoted to the subversion of a popular group of interrelated ideal or setting. Whilst The Simpsons explored the subversion of various tropes related to the American family and small town (at least throughout the first five seasons or so), Futurama explored the subversion of various tropes within the science fiction genre, bringing to life a distorted version of the present in the distant future, with dystopian overtones shadowing a relatively benign (if not completely utopian) facade.

Life in Hell, obviously, is a slightly different kettle of fish in that it deals with the subversion and satirisation of the many stock tropes that are associated with the stress modern life in a big city (Los Angeles in particular, and to a lesser extent, New York).

Just as McFarlane's schtick is to keep producing "wacky nuclear family" variants, Groening's schtick is "hey, what if this thing that everybody has similar preconceptions about was slightly more fucked-up than that?", which is a far broader remit and allows for a much greater degree of creativity.

I'd personally like to see Matt Groening give a crack at a new series now that Futurama is over.

I think that now we've seen the Groeningian vision of the future, it's time for the Groeningian vision of the past. Something set in the early days of the British Raj in India, or the first years immediately after the American Revolution could be fun.

It is one punctuated joke after another with no connectivity but, I think, in a cleverly delivered way.

Is the list of jokes delivered in a punctuated and unconnected way, or is it clever? The former implies a complete lack of the latter, and that they're just running through a set of jokes, trying to fit them all in however they can (which is what I've seen of the show, to be honest. Post-cancellation, anyhow. Before it went off the air for the first time, it could be pretty damn smart). If you genuinely find the majority of Family Guy funny and smart, then congratulations on being a part of the lowest common denominator audience that they're courting.

Family Guy devolved into a cesspool of stupidity and the worst kind of cliché rather quickly. The first two seasons had some real high points, but it never hit the same heights as South Park's insight, Futurama's smartness and heart, or classic-era Simpsons' creativity and overall hilarity.

I find myself agreeing with Beamer here, with regard to Family Guy. It started out as a vastly different show from the one it's become, and could have been so much better had it not been taken down the lowest common denominator route.

Also, Bob's Burgers is pretty good,why people doesnt talk about it more often.

Bob's Burgers is pretty smart and funny, but it's not really constantly entertaining, or even engaging. The characters are all templates, the plots are all recycled from countless stock sitcom episodes, and the animation is pretty uninspiring. Honestly, I think that Bob's Burgers is an exercise in how much reasonably clever writing and humour can compensate for carefully orchestrated mediocrity in every other way.

[Reply #476 on:]

There are many well worded and well thought out opinions and arguments that seem to resemble mathematical equations regarding the logistics of what is funny, witty and high quality while also discovering a way to define a person universally as the lowest common denominator.

I'm not going to go back and fourth trying to prove what is funny and what is stupid, because that is all a matter of opinion.  I am a fan of both Futurama and Family Guy for different reasons.  I am confident in my repertoire of literature, cultural, philosophical, scientific knowledge base to understand I am not a "lowest common denominator".  Nor am I a self righteous, elitist, cartoon critic nazi.  

All humor requires perfect timing, delivery, and sense of the cultural's psyche whether you are writing an epic tale, a cartoon for the New Yorker, or recording Moleman getting hit in the nuts by a football.  I was always told that I was allowed to curse as a child, as long as I knew how and that it was funny.  If its funny, than its funny.  If anything is done correctly than any style is funny.  

Family Guy does stupid, simple comedy very well .. in my opinion.  Futurama does very well layering scientific, philosophical, emotional topics with wit and sarcasm in relation to the characters interactions giving a much more sophisticated humor.  

In the end, I appreciate them for what they are and consider my self lucky to apparently laugh much more than all those greatest common factors that look down upon me.

[Reply #477 on:]

I'm not going to go back and fourth trying to prove what is funny and what is stupid, because that is all a matter of opinion.

Whilst it's often a matter of opinion as to what constitutes funny, it's usually the case that stupid and/or childish, puerile, lowest common denominator, etc. can be demonstrated to actually be so. Humour is subjective, but the type of humour that an individual enjoys is easily categorised more objectively.

I am a fan of both Futurama and Family Guy for different reasons.  I am confident in my repertoire of literature, cultural, philosophical, scientific knowledge base to understand I am not a "lowest common denominator".  Nor am I a self righteous, elitist, cartoon critic nazi.

You clearly hold the humour value of the jokes (and delivery of said jokes) from Family Guy in high esteem, and this marks you as having the lowest common denominator sense of humour that's the defining characteristic of the audience that this kind of humour is aimed at.

The term "lowest common denominator" as used here simply refers to the joke which will get the largest cross-section of society to laugh at it, which usually means something simple, unsophisticated, often crude, and therefore understandable to a large majority of people. Out of that number who understand the joke, the idea is that most of them will either be relatively undiscerning in their tastes and so will laugh at anything that they understand to have been made as a joke, or aware that it's a cheap joke and not particularly bothered because they view that as better than nothing.

All that it means is this: to be a part of the lowest common denominator is to be one of the masses who make up the mainstream target demographics of TV shows that are pumped out according to commercially successful formulae such as "wacky nuclear family", or "cop show with a twist". Some people really don't mind generic and formulaic entertainment. They'll laugh at fart jokes, they really don't want to have to do algebra to get a joke, or to need an appreciation of ancient Egyptian theology in order to understand a plot twist, and they're therefore happy with lowest common denominator fare.

Besides which, even if you do have a rich understanding and of cultural, philosophical, literary, and scientific topics (not that I believe for a second you do), this does not automatically mean that your sense of humour is any more refined than the next Family Guy fan's. It simply means that you have the capacity to appreciate much more intelligent and/or sophisticated humour than is to be found in the typical episode of Family Guy.

That capacity is obviously going unused when you're watching Family Guy. In primates and other animals, unused mental capacity requires stimulation and a lack of this results in boredom - a state that drives the individual to seek something which will stimulate them to their capacity, rather than only engage a small portion of their faculties. When this drive is overcome by laziness (for example, watching Family Guy rather than a more intelligent show), that capacity will begin to degrade until the individual is fully and adequately mentally stimulated by the available material (that is, Family Guy becomes consistently and legitimately hilarious to them).

All humor requires perfect timing, delivery, and sense of the cultural's psyche whether you are writing an epic tale, a cartoon for the New Yorker, or recording Moleman getting hit in the nuts by a football.

[T]he culture and zeitgeist of any civilisation tend to be immaterial to the sort of lowest common denominator things that will make people laugh or want to laugh regardless of their setting.

For an example, let's say that two tribes of palaeolithic warriors meet on a beach to have an epic battle. Their chieftains are facing off against each other with stony, thousand-yard stares, and somebody lets out a long, high-pitched, whistling, fart. This provides dissonance, and humour can be derived from the situation by men on both sides, regardless of the cultural differences that will lead to them killing each other in a few minutes. They'll have a laugh together before battle is joined.

Or perhaps somebody slips on a banana skin. Slapstick comedy ensues, and everybody laughs at the poor sod who fell on a spear and was impaled. Then they get back to the srs bsns of killing one another because their cultures are not aligned.

With that out of the way, I'll concede that humour requires timing and delivery. But neither need to be perfect - some comedians deliver the same joke better than others, and some comedians have better timing.

As for humour in an "epic tale", it would normally be pretty out of place there. As an example, go and read Lord of the Rings. It's pretty light on jokes. There are plenty of them in The Hobbit though, which differs in not being an epic.

If its funny, than its funny.  If anything is done correctly than any style is funny.

That's where the subjectivity you alluded to earlier comes in. If something's funny to one person, it's not necessarily funny to another, and if something is really only funny to individuals who lack a certain sophistication then it's not so much that it's funny in general as that the individuals concerned are perhaps in need of having their outlooks and/or general sensibilities adjusted.

As an example, some "humour" can be racist, homophobic, derogatory, and thus harmful. Unless handled expertly, this is generally not funny. Only racist, homophobic, or otherwise ignorant and intolerant individuals will laugh (and once their outlook is adjusted, they're normally going to find it as tasteless as anybody else).

Family Guy does stupid, simple comedy very well .. in my opinion.

Oh, I won't argue with you on that point. They do stupid very well. They're experts at doing stupid. They've made stupid into their bread and butter. Where we differ is that I don't particularly see this as laudable.

Futurama does very well layering scientific, philosophical, emotional topics with wit and sarcasm in relation to the characters interactions giving a much more sophisticated humor.

They did pretty well at this for most of the first four seasons. They kind of lost their grip on this during the movies, and for the CC run, most of it had just evaporated.  

In the end, I appreciate them for what they are and consider my self lucky to apparently laugh much more than all those greatest common factors that look down upon me.

They do say that ignorance is bliss. You must be a really happy person. Kudos to you, nugzi. You happy little bunny.

Edit: --pedantry;

[Reply #478 on:]

haha.. I laugh ANND  get laid more than you   You really are adorable Hubert. With our combined strengths we can enter sophistication death match competitions. I can put you on my shoulders and they will call us Masterblaster

[Reply #479 on:]

haha.. I laugh ANND  get laid more than you

Well, this debate is going places. Somebody pass me a popcorn gif.