Animated Comedies: the last laugh?

In the episode of Family Guy entitled ‘Life of Brian’ – originally broadcast in November of last year – the Griffin family’s beloved canine companion was brutally bumped off from the series’ universe. Within minutes of the show’s airing on the Fox Network, the blogosphere exploded as casual viewers and professional commentators alike rushed to vent their thoughts on the matter.

Fans were outraged and mournful in equal measure, best signified by the conception of a petition on Change.org to resurrect the character. At the same time, Twitter was bombarded with protests to #BringBackBrian.

Two episodes (and a lot of furore) later, Brian returned to the show, via some time-travelling trickery from Stewie. Hooray for equilibrium, right? Well, maybe not.

Series creator Seth MacFarlane has since admitted that Brian’s death was principally a shock tactic; a reminder that “this is still a show where anything can happen”. But while some might be convinced by such a motive – certainly, the show hasn’t enjoyed such attention in years – many  others will find it incredibly flimsy, and given the show’s declining popularity among critics (and audiences, albeit to a lesser degree), one can’t help but consider that such a move smacks of boredom – of viewers and creative participants alike.

Family Guy is now partway through its twelfth season, and has thus far scaled over 220 episodes in its tenure. (Yep, I feel old, too.) However, ever since its restoration in 2005, the show has become more focused on shock value and overstretched cutaway gags, at the increasing expense of any real wit or finesse.

Series creator Seth MacFarlane has since admitted that Brian’s death was principally a shock tactic

MacFarlane himself believes that the show should have come to an end years ago, but supposedly the network has him in something of a stranglehold. By Fox’s logic, there remains enough of an audience for Family Guy to warrant its continuation, in spite of the argument that it’s not nearly as interesting or original as it once was.

Unfortunately, Family Guy is not the only animated comedy which has demonstrated symptoms of lethargy. The Simpsons – still undeniably at the bedrock of animated television – began in the Christmas of 1989, and is rapidly approaching a whopping total of 550 episodes. That’s a lot to take in from America’s favourite family, and after a quarter-century, interest in the show is similarly on the wane.

Its critics are much less poisonous than those of Family Guy (most likely due to the latter’s more polarising brand of humour), but one doesn’t need to search far to find commentators bemoaning the show’s over-reliance on tired conventions, such as flash-in-the-pan cameo stunts and parodic structures. Several articles have even quoted Matt Groening denouncing the show as “disappointing” in its current state, which suggests that authorial power is being muted in favour of corporate interest.

This is a concern for animated comedies across the board. What can creative teams do to keep their output appealing once those individual charms and novelties have become overly familiar? Things need to be kept consistently fresh, lest the eyes of viewers begin to wander elsewhere, in search of sharper doses of innovation. It’s indicative of why spin-offs are such a risky strategy – let’s not forget how poorly-received The Cleveland Show was upon its advent in 2010, until it was eventually canned in the spring of 2013.

Power to shock and the heightened creative licence which is inherent to animation makes for great kicks early on, but can lead to diminishing returns in the long run. Family Guy’s failing popularity can be partly attributed to its overwhelming emphasis on languorous non-sequiturs and the rehashing of old jokes.

What can creative teams do to keep their output appealing once those individual charms and novelties have become overly familiar?

There are very few cases where such negative trajectories have been defied. South Park, for instance – which currently clocks in at roughly 250 episodes – features a similar penchant for obscenities, but still regularly attracts viewers by the million. It is feasible to posit that it has retained such success because of its rapid-fire commentaries on contemporary culture.

At the show’s base level, it has always stuck to a basic template of potty-mouthed puerility, but thanks to its fast episode turnover, it is able to satirise modern events more or less as they happen, thus maintaining some sense of relevance. (For a case in point, check the episode ‘About Last Night…’, which was completed overnight following Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 United States presidential election.)

Additionally, more recent shows such as Archer and Bob’s Burgers (which debuted in 2009 and 2011, respectively), have been more modest with regards to viewing figures and critical acclaim, but have proved to be much more consistent therein. The former recently entered its fifth season, whereupon it rather elaborately reshuffled its show structure under the new title of Archer Vice. It’s an intriguing shift which seems to have paid off, but there is always the threat of such a transformation being perceived as overly jarring or inorganic, and there’s no telling how long it will be before this new dynamic starts to feel long in the tooth.

The unhappy truth is that there are no perfect formulas. As animated comedies run beyond their first few seasons, the tightrope walk becomes more of a challenge. It is a sad thing to acknowledge that most long-running television shows will pass their peaks eventually, and animated comedies are much less prone to quitting while they’re ahead.

As such, in order to achieve true longevity, the only option is to adapt, but there is a fine line between taking a bold new approach (Arthur Vice) – and an attention-grabbing gimmick – it’s okay: Brian’s not dead anymore. Is it possible for any one of the new generation of comedies to strike this balance and keep the laughter coming indefinitely? Only time – and time-travel, apparently – will tell.