DVDizzy Forum

That's right, the mind behind Family Guy is bringing back The Flintstones: http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/yabba-d ... intstones/

Should be interesting.

-

I have mixed feelings about this.

I mean first of all more Flinstones ...
how many classic episodes do we have !!!!

I definitely don't want a peter giffin goes caveman aproach.

We'll see I gues, I do like Seth's shows

This is so wrong in so many ways. McFarland should let sleeping dogs lay and find something original to work with. "The Flintstones" were classic and we don't need a 'foul-mouthed' caveman any more than we need the lousy animation that is McFarland's forte.

Just my thoughts on this. I don't care for Family Guy, and I am so tired of The Simpsons.

-

Dr Frankenollie wrote: It will be even worse now that Seth McFarlane will turn it into nothing but badly-written and spectacularly unfunny cutscenes.

Why will it? Why are people so keen to "typecast" a guy. It's unfair to typecast actors, and its unfair to typecast creative people too. Did you know he worked on Johnny Bravo, Cow and Chicken and Dexter's Lab? He didn't just turn up at Fox and they handed him loads of money to make a TV show.

and does this surprise you?

Wikipedia wrote:On August 1, 2009, MacFarlane performed at The BBC Proms with John Wilson and his orchestra, singing a selection of songs from MGM musicals[72] alongside Kim Criswell, Sarah Fox, Sir Thomas Allen, and Curtis Stigers.[73][74] Three songs from High Society, Singin' in the Rain, and That's Entertainment were featured. Seth also repeated the MGM musicals show on tour in the UK with the John Wilson Orchestra during November and December 2010.[75] He made another appearance with the John Wilson orchestra in a BBC Two special, Swingin' Christmas, on December 25, 2010.[76]

The man like most creative people obviously has many talents.

It's simply nonsense to assume he'll turn The Flintstones into a clone of Family Guy. He's not stupid, and neither are Time Warner. They both know that people have expectations of what the Flintstones should be, but also that the Flintstones are still a successful franchise with an ongoing merchandise income. However, there's nothing wrong with bringing in a fresh, unified and cohesive creative vision and authority to help the stone age family transition to being relevant for the 21st century.

Or would you prefer more Flintstones Kids and other such embarrassments from the 1980s and 1990's?

-

Dr. Frankenollie wrote:

The Flintstones has always been awful:.... had cheap and ugly-looking animation, obnoxius canned laughter, uninteresting characters, annoying sidekicks..............

Just like The Simpsons and Family Guy and all the other abominations they call 'animation' on Fox. McFarland should leave The Flintstones alone and let them rest.

-

Amen!!!!

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

dvdjunkie wrote:Dr. Frankenollie wrote: Just like The Simpsons and Family Guy and all the other abominations they call 'animation' on Fox. McFarland should leave The Flintstones alone and let them rest.

Whilst I agree with your opinion on Family Guy, The Simpsons is not an abomination. It might be a bit overrated and is certainly overdue for a cancellation, but it's an often inventive and entertaining show. However, Simpsons is as bad as Family Guy compared to the brilliant South Park.

-

dvdjunkie wrote:Just like The Simpsons and Family Guy and all the other abominations they call 'animation' on Fox.

I never noticed they weren't 'animated', thanks for pointing that out.

I'm actually looking forward to this. I really don't see it as a new Family Guy in a Fred suit. McFarlane has a lot of knowledge and respect for past animation, and as Netty pointed out, a lot of various talents and past experience.

And I'm sort of surprised over the harsh attitude against the Flintstones here in the first place. It was a decidedly different era when it was created but it was groundbreaking as the first prime-time animated sitcom, which was targeted at adults (hence the Winston commercials). And yeah, we all know that it was "inspired" by The Honeymooners (or shall we say ripped it off), although it expanded in ways that never would have worked on the Honeymooners (like exploring the work place and having children). For what it's worth, Jackie Gleason chose not to sue. And yeah, the animation was limited, they had a television budget. But the designs were still solid (which I know is only a matter of opinion) and at least the artists were fully experienced with full animation and knew how to make limited animation work to the best of their given limitations.

It did get admittedly dumbed-down and kiddified over the seasons, eventually reverting to more mainstream Saturday morning cartoon fare. And then there were all the incarnations that followed throughout the decades, like the Flinstones Kids and those god-awful movies that seemed to spawn the trend of turning every animated franchise into live-action films. Anyway, I think this may be one of the first times a reboot of the franchise will give the original concept any justice. Even if you don't like these characters, there's a reason they've lasted for decades.

Hmm . . . I wonder if it'll be anything along the lines of the On the Rocks movie.

-

enigmawing wrote:I'm actually looking forward to this. I really don't see it as a new Family Guy in a Fred suit. McFarlane has a lot of knowledge and respect for past animation, and as Netty pointed out, a lot of various talents and past experience.

And I'm sort of surprised over the harsh attitude against the Flintstones here in the first place. It was a decidedly different era when it was created but it was groundbreaking as the first prime-time animated sitcom, which was targeted at adults (hence the Winston commercials). And yeah, we all know that it was "inspired" by The Honeymooners (or shall we say ripped it off), although it expanded in ways that never would have worked on the Honeymooners (like exploring the work place and having children). For what it's worth, Jackie Gleason chose not to sue. And yeah, the animation was limited, they had a television budget. But the designs were still solid (which I know is only a matter of opinion) and at least the artists were fully experienced with full animation and knew how to make limited animation work to the best of their given limitations.

It did get admittedly dumbed-down and kiddified over the seasons, eventually reverting to more mainstream Saturday morning cartoon fare. And then there were all the incarnations that followed throughout the decades, like the Flinstones Kids and those god-awful movies that seemed to spawn the trend of turning every animated franchise into live-action films. Anyway, I think this may be one of the first times a reboot of the franchise will give the original concept any justice. Even if you don't like these characters, there's a reason they've lasted for decades.

Hmm . . . I wonder if it'll be anything along the lines of the On the Rocks movie.

AMEN!



But in all seriousness, I've severely criticized McFarlane before, so you can bet that I am dubious about this. However, I will say this, the guy does have talent.

The first seasons of Family Guy were rock solid. The gags were stupid, yes, but underneath it all there were some genuinely sweet stories with good character development, and even the humor worked from time to time. Obviously either McFarlane got full of himself or the writing staff got changes as the quality has obviously gone down, resorting to tired pop culture gags and ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE character development (as in, Meg is a punching bag and Louis is the target for all sex jokes).

This being said, I think this Flintstones remake might be along the same lines of American Dad. That show is far better than Family Guy (though not by much) because it focuses on the story and the characters rather than just gags. They MIGHT try to add more pop culture references to the Flintstones (let's face it, the Flintstones did this before... CARY GRANITE), but I think story and character will come first.

Also, let's not forget one thing...This isn't McFarlane's franchise, it's Hanna Barbera's. I seriously doubt they would let him turn it into an all out Family Guy with cavemen. Although, they did allow the creators of Harvey Birdman to do this and more to their franchises...
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lKonw1dwCV0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So at the very worst, the new Flintstones could be a mix of Family Guy and Harvey Birdman. At the very best, it could be American Dad.

Regarding the Simpsons, boy do I have a lot to say on that series...

I love them. I think both it and Flintstones should be given more credit. Flinstones got things rolling, and Simpsons solidified it. While now the series is nothing but an empty shell of its former self, on its glory days it was excellent. The animation may not have been the best, but the stories were fantastic, the humor great and the characters likable.

So without the Flintstones, we would have never had the Simpsons, and without the Simpsons would have never had the "brilliant" South Park (don't get me wrong, I LOVE South Park, but it doesn't need THAT much credit).

-

As a big fan of Hanna-Barbera productions, I'm REALLY worried about this one. Giving this to the guy behind "Family Guy," really? Saying I hate that show wouldn't be giving my true feeling about it justice, so I'm defiantly worried. I'm a big "Flintstones" fan, and would hate to see it become something different then it has been thus far.

I think, since the HB vault has become property of Warner Bros., it has been hit or miss with new HB titles, mostly miss. I'm happy that the Warner Archives has been releasing the original classics, but their newer HB stuff is garbage.

I'm not gonna lie, I'm also looking forward to this. Seth MacFarlane hasn't written for Family Guy since the first couple seasons (which were considerably less crass and vulgar); the only thing he does right now is approve scripts for all three shows, I think. He also worked on Johnny Bravo, Dexter's Lab and Cow & Chicken, which in my opinion were some of the best shows Cartoon Network has ever had.

One thing, though. I hope the animation is done by Warner Bros. rather than 20th Century Fox. Warner shows usually have higher production values, and generally just look better. So, I'm hoping it won't look like the skits they have in Family Guy, that would be a huge turn-off. And the voices are also important of course, which speaks for itself. But for fans of the Flintstones (obviously this isn't going to appeal to people who *already* disliked the Flintstones) I really wouldn't worry about the humour all too much. Judging by the copius amounts of meetings the Warner and Fox execs had, they are clearly very protective of the brand. As long as there aren't any overly political/abortion/cancer/murder/rape/incest jokes, or (overly long) cut-away gags, I'll give this a chance.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

pap64 wrote:But in all seriousness, I've severely criticized McFarlane before, so you can bet that I am dubious about this. However, I will say this, the guy does have talent.

The first seasons of Family Guy were rock solid. The gags were stupid, yes, but underneath it all there were some genuinely sweet stories with good character development, and even the humor worked from time to time. Obviously either McFarlane got full of himself or the writing staff got changes as the quality has obviously gone down, resorting to tired pop culture gags and ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE character development (as in, Meg is a punching bag and Louis is the target for all sex jokes).

Family Guy has always been garbage. Give me one example of a 'genuinely sweet' story or an example of 'good character development'. Oh, and it's spelt 'Lois'-'Louis' is a boy's name.

Oh, I can easily name a few...

In one episode, Brian is frustrated that the women he is dating are not satisfying him emotionally. After he encounters problems with the law, he is forced to do community service by helping out an old lady that's been secluded in her house for years. The lady is at first a bitch to him, always complaining, yelling at him, and making him lose his patience. It gets to a point where Brian pretty much tells her to kill herself due to her rotten attitude. Later on, he sees a documentary where he learns that the old lady was actually a famous jingle singer who tried to become an opera singer, but her efforts were destroyed. After Brian realizes this, he returns to her and they fall in love with each other. Brian even convinces her to get out of the house. But then, she is hit by a car. Brian apologizes for causing her this, but the lady tells him that despite the accident it was one of the best days she had ever had. Moments before she dies, Brian uses a VR headset so they can spend one last time together. We then see a clip of the life they could have had, which starts at their wedding and ends at the old lady's death.

It is an emotionally strong scene, perhaps the strongest in all of Family Guy. Then, before Meg was basically the punching bag of the show, both Peter and Lois (BTW thanks for clarifying the mistake ) did show genuine care for her, doing stuff for her like taking her to Spring Break events and Peter even tried to make Meg popular in her school.

These were small moments when compared to the series's raunchy humor, but showed that when they wanted to, they could create solid stories that were enjoyable and fun (for me at least).

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

pap64 wrote:This being said, I think this Flintstones remake might be along the same lines of American Dad. That show is far better than Family Guy (though not by much)

That doesn't make any sense. Do you think it's far better or it's only a little better? Personally, I think American Dad is much funnier and inventive than Family Guy, but making a funnier and more inventive show than Family Guy isn't very difficult.[/i]

Thematically and story wise, it is a far better series, but the humor is almost on par with Family Guy, IMHO.