The Only Winner Here is ... Umm ... Erm ... Eh ... I Got Nothin'
"The Winner" / The TV Whore
Feb. 28, 2007
As the notorious recent “South Park” episode noted, most of the humor in “Family Guy” is easy and derivative (and, apparently, written by manatees). But that doesn’t mean it can’t also be funny. I personally thought the pre-cancellation episodes were hilarious and, in fact, I’m one of the many who purchased all of the original DVDs, the sales of which ultimately led to the show’s return. Post-return, however, I find the show pale in comparison to its former life. But it is still leaps and bounds better than MacFarlane’s follow-up effort, “American Dad,” a show that manages to not only be unfunny, but to be a derivative rip-off of MacFarlane’s own show. And MacFarlane’s apparent downward slide continues with his latest offering, the new Fox live-action comedy, “The Winner” (Fox, Sundays, 8:30 and 9:30 p.m.).
I think it may be time to put Seth MacFarlane down.
But before I get into the review proper, let me open a window for a quick behind-the-scenes glimpse into my process. I decided to do this review when I found out Fox had four episodes of “The Winner” up on its website (which is two-thirds of the whole show, as they’ve only done six episodes so far). I figured I’d watch the first two episodes, and that would be plenty to go on. However, I wasn’t able to watch the premiere episode because Fox inexplicably declined to post it, instead posting the second episode and the last three episodes. And this is particularly odd given the fact that the show has a “bizarre and wildly unique” premise which is supposedly laid out in more detail in the premiere. It wasn’t hard to “get it” anyway, mind you, but this just seemed like an odd decision.
Anyway, once I saw which episodes were posted, I decided I’d just watch episodes two and four instead, and that they would form the basis of my review. I had to change things up a second time, however, because after barely getting through the second episode, there was absolutely no way in hell I could possibly watch another twenty-two minutes of my life trickle away. So this review is based entirely on “The Single Dates,” the series’ second episode, which will be on this Sunday night, an hour after the premiere airs (Fox is planning to air all six episodes of the show over the next three Sundays).
And if you haven’t quite figured it out yet, let me just make it absolutely clear in no uncertain terms — this show buh-loooooooooooows. It blows harder than anything’s blown in quite some time, and that’s saying something since I panned a Haggis show only three days ago (in fact, I’d gladly watch two seasons’ worth of “The Black Donnellys” before watching another episode of “The Winner” — I would take almost 2,000 straight minutes of Haggis over another 22 minutes of “The Winner”).
OK, you’re asking, where does all this angst and animosity come from? Well, here’s the premise of the show — Rob Corddry plays a guy who apparently, in modern times, is the richest man in Buffalo. But this show is a flashback to 1994, when the 32-year-old character is still living at home with his parents. Oh, and he’s a virgin (which he declares by telling a 14-year-old, “I’ve never fornicated a woman,” to the wonderfully forced laughter of the laugh track live studio audience). After watching the whole episode, I realized that I had absolutely no idea what Corddry’s character’s name actually was, and only when I went back to the very beginning of my notes did I see that I had written down “Glen Abbott.” But I’m going to stick with what I had been calling the character in my notes — ManChild. I had taken to calling him this because the character is essentially a pubescent boy stuck in a man’s body. Now I don’t know if the premiere episode really gives an explanation for ManChild’s stunted intellectual and emotional growth, but I doubt it (and any such explanation will certainly lack anything remotely substantive anyway).
Shit — can you excuse me a second? There’s someone knocking at my door.
[TV Whore steps away from his computer and opens his office door.]
TV Whore: Hello?
Man at Door: Hi. Just wanted to let you know that they made this show back in 1990 and it was called “Get a Life.”
TV Whore: They sure did.
Man at Door: It was quite hilarious and ahead of its time.
TV Whore: It sure was.
Man at Door: And this show?
[Man at Door and TV Whore turn to face the audience and speak in unison]
TV Whore and Man at Door: Not so much.
[Exeunt]
OK, sorry about that. So as I was saying, Corddry’s ManChild is a bit devolved. And it seems that his best friend is 14-year-old Josh, a kid in the neighborhood. Now why Josh’s mother allows a 32-year-old man to spend far too much time with a boy less than half his age is a bit beyond me. I actually kept imagining that Chris Hansen from “To Catch a Predator” would come walking into the house and start asking ManChild why he was really at Josh’s house, and then proceed to tell ManChild that he’s got a copy of the IM transcript between ManChild and Josh and he just wants ManChild to admit it. That imagined skit, which is basically akin to a bad “SNL” bit, was far more entertaining than any of what was actually taking place on “The Winner.”
At least ManChild’s friendship with Josh allows for wacky setups. Like when Josh is at school and hears a “psssst,” turning around to find ManChild cowering around the corner by some lockers. ManChild has come to the school to seek some advice from Josh, you see, on how best to bang the lady he’s supposed to be going out on a date with. And the lady is Josh’s mom, so you see, he’s asking the boy how best to bed his mom. That, sir, is comedy.
Aside from ManChild’s house, Josh’s house, and the school, the one other main set appears to be ManChild’s place of employment, although it was barely seen this episode. ManChild is a clerk at a video store, and this aspect of the show is particularly grueling. First, the video store looks to be about the size of my living room, yet it’s staffed with three employees. You know, it’s weird — sets for TV shows usually seem much bigger onscreen than they turn out to actually be, yet this video store set is so poorly designed that it feels absolutely as small as it surely is in real life and just winds up leaving the viewer with a claustrophobic get-me-the-hell-out-of-here feeling. A feeling that isn’t helped one lick by the actual employees. Aside from ManChild, there’s the fey guy and the guy with the worst fake accent you’re ever likely to witness on network television (I think he’s supposed to be Middle Eastern, but I wouldn’t place a bet behind that). They’re both the worst kind of clichéd stereotypes, which you usually expect in a Haggis production — the queer gossip and the foreign lothario.
If I still had my old pet lizard, Rufus, I bet that he could just walk back and forth on my keyboard for an hour or two and type up better characters.
But to be fair, while the setups are all completely derivative and hackneyed, the show does at least offer entirely obvious and rote sitcom jokes. For example, ManChild is talking to Josh about how he might end up humiliating himself while getting on on with Josh’s mom, which leads to this exchange:
Josh: You just need a little practice.
ManChild: Oh yeah? Believe me buddy — I’ve been practicing my whole life.
Josh: I meant with another person.
I was simply speechless when I witnessed this. After filming this scene, how Corddry didn’t simply stand up and walk off the set is beyond me.
And as is typical when every other element of a sitcom bites, the acting here is atrocious. Corddry is barely passable, at best, and clearly much better suited to being a fake news correspondent (and it’s now clear that his younger brother Nate, who was on “Studio 60,” is the Sir Lawrence Olivier of the Corddry family). The only other “name” actor on the show is Lenny Clarke, who plays ManChild’s father. He was barely in this episode, but he was in it more than enough. I loved Clarke on “The Job,” and continue to love him on “Rescue Me,” but here he is, umm, not good. The only question is whether this is due more to the source material or to the fact that he’s significantly thinner. I suspect it’s a little of both, and while it’s probably healthier for him to be in this shape, I hope he packs it back on and returns to “Rescue Me” where he can continue to entertain me the way he used to.
The other actors are all entirely forgettable, except for ManChild’s kiddie friend Josh. The similarly 14-year-old Keir Gilchrist, who plays Josh, is abominable. And in this case, it’s not just simply a matter of the material. He’s just awful. In the crappier sitcoms, one can usually be forgiving of a bad child actor. But that’s harder to do in a case like this, where his character is such a major part of the show. I mean, I just don’t get who saw this kid’s readings and screen tests and said, “Comic gold — sign him!” But then, that’s just one of many things I’m clearly failing to understand about this show’s genesis.
For example, I also don’t understand why the hell they set it in 1994. First, the mid-’90s isn’t really a time period rife for comedic mining because (a) we’re not far enough removed yet for it to have any retro kitsch and (b) there just wasn’t the same kind of ridiculousness around it like there was in much of the 70’s and 80’s. Maybe 20 years from now, I won’t still be making that second claim, but that’s just the point — it’s too soon for the time period to offer any inherent comedy, as is emphasized by the show itself — the time period of the show, at least in this second episode, is entirely inconsequential. There was only one moment at all where the show played with it, and the best they could up with was ManChild saying to his parents: “Please don’t forget to tape ‘Wings.’”
Sigh.
OK, I’m having ‘Nam flashbacks about this show and just can’t go on. But to end on a positive note, there is one good thing to come out of “The Winner.” Its complete suckitude means we’re that much closer to having Corddry back on “The Daily Show” where he clearly belongs. So at least there’s that.
Seth Freilich is Pajiba’s television columnist. If it wasn’t clear, he hated this show more than anything he’s watched in quite some time — probably since “Four Kings.”
Our Daily Bread | | Amazing Grace
Comments
"Get A Life" was as much "Get A Life" as I need in my life.
There will only ever be one S.P.E.W.Y..
Posted by: Bucko at February 28, 2007 4:57 PM
OK, here's the deal. I watched all four episodes on the website about a week ago. Admittedly, I watched them at work, so I was a much more captive audience than I would be at home.
I watched the first one and thought it completely blew. Yet, I hung in there and miracles of all miracles, the show actually grew on me. By the time I reached the 3rd and 4th episodes, I was actually laughing out loud.
I still don't understand how this was possible, but I think the concept is so outrageous and the acting so over the top that it takes time for you to settle into the idea.
I will almost certainly be cancelled by the 3rd show, and I won't shed any tears, but it's not as bad as it appears.
Posted by: Leaf at February 28, 2007 5:18 PM
Corddry was great as Frank Wrench, let's not forget. In all reality, I only made it about 5 minutes into one of the episodes before I felt the will to live exiting my body.
Posted by: gah at February 28, 2007 5:48 PM
I'm totally freaked out by how much I resemble the "star" of this show. I have more hair (admittedly not a great deal more) but otherwise, this guy could easily be my brother. Now if only I could say that about Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp.
Posted by: bartap at February 28, 2007 6:25 PM
And here I was, all this time, thinking I was the only one who thought the new Family Guy was and is awful. I felt like one of those crazy people who preach on street corners. Has any plausible explanation been given for the immense dropoff in quality? Did they start pandering to a new audience? Did they just get lazy? I didn't stick around long enough to formulate any theories of my own.
Posted by: Matt B at February 28, 2007 9:34 PM
Matt B, you're not alone. FG has definitely changed, and not for the better. My theory? Too many cutaways. Before, it was just Peter, and it worked b/c it emphasized how lovably stupid he is. Now everyone has a friggin cutaway, and it's getting old.
I've only watched 2 eps of American Dad, and that was too much for me. MacFarlane needs to get back to basics. I'm not even gonna bother with this new show.
Posted by: Brie at February 28, 2007 9:48 PM
I, too, feel something resembling blame in regards to the new Family Guy. Bought the pre-cancellation DVDs, etc., looked back fondly on the show and... well, the results are clear to all whom care to watch. I'm glad that I really do have fond memories and I wasn't experiencing some sort of weird memory backlash.
As for "American Dad," a friend believes that it's MacFarlane's way of getting back for cancelling FG in the first place.
Posted by: Matt P. at February 28, 2007 10:17 PM
Oh thank GOD there are other people who think the new Family Guy sucks.
Everyone I talk to thinks I'm insane. They keep claiming it's hilarious, but I just don't see it. I think the problem is they're trying to be as shocking and outrageous as possible, but they're forgetting to be funny or at least clever.
And American Dad was just- it was just pathetic. I love how they were always pushing that Family Guy was the gag show and American Dad was going to be the story show. That was a brilliant move right there. Build an entire show on your weakest aspect: storytelling. Futurama you guys aren't. I remember laughing exactly once during that show, and only because that joke seemed like something that was written for pre-cancellation Family Guy.
So... who wants to go put Seth MacFarlane down before he can inflict further horror upon the comedy world?
Posted by: _cG at February 28, 2007 11:50 PM
Who is he getting back at, exactly? THe loyal viewers who watched Family Guy and didn't want it to be canceled in the first place? We are the ones having to suffer through the crapfest that is American Dad, not the Fox executives.
Posted by: Some Guy at February 28, 2007 11:57 PM
Okay, as a guy who didn't quite watch it pre-cancellation, I think Family Guy is hilarious...even some of the newer episodes. Also, I think American Dad has its own style of humor that sometimes works.
*ducks*
Having said that, I know what happened when a writer from The Simpsons (Mike Scully) tried his hand at making a live-action version of said cartoon (The Pitts) on FOX. It flopped horribly. After watching the second episode of The Winner online, I think Seth McFarlane may have hit that same wall. There are some things you just can't film in live-action.
Not to mention that the plot looks like the Cliff's Notes version of almost any Adam Sandler comedy you can think of.
Posted by: MrSparkle at March 1, 2007 12:31 AM
God how I wish "Get A Life" was available on DVD, there are two DVD's available but alas, only four episodes apiece on those.
Posted by: Overdere at March 1, 2007 2:34 AM
Isn't "exuent" a plural term? Only the man at the door left the stage, you kept talking afterwards... so I think it's wrong... but it's still a groovy word.
Posted by: bucko at March 1, 2007 2:51 AM
I've been watching previews for this show and I thought "That doesn't look funny. I bet Seth has too much on his plate."
I still enjoy FG but I'm losing my joy at the extended scenes of dead silence or the intake and outtake of painful breaths.
Posted by: Razorburn at March 1, 2007 4:16 AM
Here's the deal. When we all first saw Family Guy it sucked bad and hard. It was so terrible we couldn't watch it. I remember watching the nonsequitors and thinking, "in one year this shit is going to be so dated!"
One year later, I rewatched family guy and I thought it was the funniest thing I had ever seen. The shows original premise, laziness, waffling of content and form, resulted in the sleeper hit of the fucking decade. Who knew. (I know some people still hate it but you people are turning over to our side everyday).
Then American Dad. The same thing. It goes from reprehensible crap, to kind of funny, to muse own on dvd.
It is clear that Seth McFarlene sense of humour is so advanced that he can see a few months into our future. Or he has made a deal with Satan.
Posted by: Black Jesus at March 1, 2007 9:01 AM
No Black Jesus, No.
Posted by: Sandy at March 1, 2007 10:55 AM
The show takes place in 1994 so when they reach April of 1994 in this show ManChild can kill himsef in agony over Courtney Love's murder of Kurt Cobain (or his suicide - not sure how big we are on conspiracy theories here).
Needless to say this will bring the show to its much needed violent conclusion
Posted by: Brian at March 1, 2007 11:57 AM
Sorry, but I gotta disagree with the author's opinion of American Dad. I happen to think it's become what Futurama was to the Simpsons that apart from having the social commentary the Simpsons USED to have. Family Guy is still just as good as went it satarted, all it needs is for Stewie to become homicidal again.
And as for the creators of South Park, they need to shut their fucking preachy pieholes, they don't have an original bone in their bodies. They know it too, "Simpson's did it!"
Even so, I still enjoy South Park.
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 1, 2007 12:03 PM
Bucko - "exuent" is definitely the plural. The way I was visualizing it, the stage of my little play was just the door setting, and so I was exiting the scene as well when I returned to my review writing.
Must I explain everything?
Posted by: Seth at March 1, 2007 2:06 PM
While I don't have the same amount of venom for post-cancellation FG or American Dad (the former does need more homicidal Stewie and less superlong gags, while the latter has its moments off and on), NO WAY IN THE NINE CIRCLES OF HELL SHOULD AMERICAN DAD EVER BE COMPARED TO FUTURAMA. Futurama was pitch-perfect with the blend of wacky humor, social commentary, and actual character development. A show that had so many people claiming it on that 'Tearjerkers' thread deserves more respect than that.
As far as "The Winner" is concerned, I agree with Seth that Corddry needs to go back to The Daily Show. Apparently, the only network DS alumns are good on are NBC and Comedy Central.
Posted by: Vermillion at March 1, 2007 4:25 PM
Thank you, Vermillion, for defending Futurama's honor.
After that episode of South Park, I'm totally convinced that if they're not manatees, the writers for Family Guy at least use some sort of "mad-libs" writing formula. It just explains so much.
Posted by: Gudrun at March 1, 2007 5:40 PM
Futurama's honor doesn't need to be defended, it stands on its own. I was only using it as an analogy within the context of AD being Family Guy's Futurama. I wasn't comparing THEM against one another so you don't need to get your panties in bunch.
And hey, they can't ALL be South Park, thank god, those dudes are becoming bitter and, like I said before, PREACHY AS HELL.
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 1, 2007 6:24 PM
I actually thought the last season of South Park was pretty decent. Not their best, but solid. Especially after the crapfest that was their previous season.
After some thought, I think Family Guy's problem is the proportion of filler gags went way up with the new series. In its original run, every episode would have one or two jokes that just...wouldnt....land. This would be followed by an awkward silence/forced laughter among the audience. You all know what I'm talking about. With the new series, these jokes have become more and more common, to the point that they make up about 90% of the material.
Also, I feel like their fanbase, formerly made up primarily of a more hipster-ish crowd (for lack of a better term), did a complete 180, and they began to cater their jokes toward a more "Frat Boy" audience. You know, the same kinds of people who make Dane Cook a millionaire and Will Ferrell a successful movie star. Does that make sense?
PS Brie, you can just call me Matt. I only stuck the B on the end because someone confused me with the "Sand in vaginas" guy a while back. :)
Posted by: Matt B at March 2, 2007 12:12 AM
I think everyone who watched "The Winner" missed the point/style of comedy. Seth MacFarlane likes to use "funny because it is so unfunny". Also, he likes carrying jokes on so long that they become unfunny, then return to funny again. Example: the Peter scraping his knee scene that goes on and on. In addition to the unfunny humor, I laughed out loud the first time I heard the laugh track because it was so ridiculously inappropriate for a network show. A laugh track set to a 32 year old man discussing bondage with a 14 year boy is not something you expect to see.
It's okay if you don't understand Seth MacFarlane's sense of humor - he's not writing for you.
Posted by: arrrealpirates at March 2, 2007 7:42 PM
I owe you a beer at the very least. You've saved me from watching the show, which I would have given a chance, based on the Daily Show's track record with Cordry. Seth McFarlane, on the other hand...well, he's shown to be incapable of dealing with living characters, frankly.
Hope Rob Cordry can recover - maybe take it on the road, like Margaret Cho did with her brief bid for sitcom ascencdence...
I don't think he'll pull off the bulemia and Ketamine use so well. I'll recommend poppers and ritalin from his agent's "stash".
Posted by: Damien Walder at March 3, 2007 5:56 PM
Granted I'm in no way a McFarlane fan, no hatred, just indifference and boredom. But having only read this review, and not seen 'The Winner', I'm thinking 'I would watch this, if the main character's name was actually 'Manchild'." I think it could work.
Posted by: Mango Miasma at March 4, 2007 10:54 AM
I'm proud to say that I've always thought the Family Guy sucked, and I'm glad more people are beginning to notice.
Arrrealpirates, are you defending Seth McFarlane by saying that his work is funny *because* it's not funny? Touche, sir/madam. Touche.
Posted by: Gumbercules at March 4, 2007 11:59 PM
Family Guy sort of suffered like the Simpsons, it was good for a while, but then it sort of declined. Except with FG it happened a lot faster. At least it knows well enough to parody itself.
American Dad... I kind of like it. But then again it's about a conservative who follows is beliefs so blindly it causes bad, funny things to happen to them and I am, after all, a heartless liberal.
Futurama, unlike FG, I've been able to watch over and over and over and over again and still laugh nearly as hard at the same jokes, while FG, early and otherwise, don't quite have that sort of staying power.
And finally, as for the Simpsons, it's picked back up since they started releasing the DVDs, I'd like to think looking at all the old, good shows got them to get back to the basics a little. And I never really got how people saw it as "political" or "Satirical" or anything, it's just a good funny show.
This show was just boringly bad. And it's also using predictable sitcom plots but doesn't really add any sort of new spin or twist to it.
Posted by: Gumbercules? I know that guy. at March 5, 2007 1:56 AM
I watched some of the pilot last night, and I think (perhaps only because I really, really enjoy Rob Corddry) that the show wouldn't totally suck and may possibly even be marginally funny if it weren't for the laugh track.
I get it that the laugh track is supposed to be a joke in itself, but it's maddening. It's like someone making too much noise behind you in a theater, to the point where you can't even focus on the movie.
Posted by: litelysalted at March 5, 2007 2:19 PM
Thank you for pointing out the Get A Life rip off! Supposedly Chris Elliot is fighting to have more episodes released but it's been an uphill battle. I hope he wins, I haven't seen the Toolbelt fight episode in more than a decade. And Family Guy can be amusing at times but it's definitely not smart humor.
Posted by: LCD at March 7, 2007 1:01 PM
Futurama is far and away one of the best shows to ever be aired.
Once upon a time, The Simpsons was a funny show.
The only thing funny about Family Guy, ever, was Stewie. Was.
And tonight, quite by accident, I watched an episode of The Winner. It was incredibly campy, I noticed with some of the scenes of the parents. I think the acting and staging hearkened back to old sitcoms, somewhat. I think I can see what they were going for. But I'm not saying it was funny. No, it wasn't funny even a little bit.
Posted by: Ari at March 12, 2007 1:44 AM
THIS SHOW IS GREAT!
Posted by: Rob Corddry at March 12, 2007 1:53 AM
What if they made an animated show like the Simpsons...but without the humour? Thus Family Guy was born.
Posted by: Janis at March 14, 2007 2:08 AM
I knew "Get A Life." "Get a Life" was a friend of mine. This is no "Get a Life." This is painful to watch. Very very bad.
Posted by: Stringer at March 17, 2007 12:30 AM