Headline for an article I reluctantly read today:
“Family Guy stolen teddy bear suit”.
I feel the need to preface this with the fact that I only read this because I was half awake and thought it was going to be about Seth MacFarlane stealing the actual teddy bear suit from “Ted”, and doing musical numbers in it around town like a man in an ill-fitting animatronic costume en route to a furry convention. I quickly had to stow my popcorn and 3D glasses though, when I got the disappointment grenade that it was just about some talentless youtuber filing a lawsuit… for “stealing their profane teddy bear idea“.
Right. Wait. Before we go any further, let’s leave no stone unturned.
Let’s get Brickleberry involved, too – for making a cartoon version of the same thing. Actually, let’s just sue them anyway for wasting my time in general. I’ll never get back the two and a half minutes I survived giving that show a chance. (#neverforget) It makes no sense; Tosh is such a sardonic winner with his million dollar grin when he’s on stage or doing that show where he delivers jokes other people have written about internet videos really well. To bastardize all of that by being part of an animated holocaust parading as comedy is unforgivable.
After all, if we learned anything from the Cleveland spinoff fail, talking bears don’t translate well to ‘toon world. Even “American Dad” only gets away with a talking alien because he has that La Cage aux Folles voice. And that works for the same reason talking dogs and babies do on Family Guy – the “surprise” element. Surprise! They’re refined and well read and one of them’s even English when the man of the house is a loveable idiot.
But a talking stuffed animal? There’s too many layers of too-far-removed when it’s a cartoon and a teddy bear. What’s my basis for how it should act in reality? I expect a dog to sound doofy or a baby to stumble over words. A stuffed animal might sound like snuggles – but still, it’s risky. Maybe a regular bear might work – one’s who looks perpetually ferocious but actually has a voice like Napoleon Dynamite? Or Pedro? Or Fez from That 70’s show? Whatever.
I’m sure there’s a formula to it, but I feel like my suggestions might be getting racist.
And that’s ’cause I’m just a douchey armchair Ebert.
(Or Siskel. Or whichever one is still alive.)
This is why it took a comedy king to Midas its ass into multi-million dollar submission on the silver screen via green screen and superb supporting actors. To say that some piece of pig vomit that surfaced on the internet around 2009 was even remotely similar is just embarrassing. No, let’s be serious for a second. I get that times are tough and we’re all looking to profit, but “Charlie the abusive teddy bear” is one of those things you make when you’re having a momentary lapse of sanity, and then spend the rest of your life treating it like the sploshing sex tape your ex stole and you pray every night never comes back to haunt you.
I’m sure the people who made this are lovey. And these poor souls must be living in abject poverty to willingly exhume it all the way from back in two-thousand-and-when-there-was-still-two-consecutive-zeroes-in-the-year-number. So, I feel badly for them. I do. But – and I say this with love – it’s awful.
The jokes are unfunny. The canned laughter doesn’t even work ironically. I can’t tell what expression I’m supposed to be reading from those close ups on his face. And, finally, I’m disappointed in Vincent D’onofrio for reprising his brilliant roach alien from Men in Black to play voice-over for the bear.
Even on its own, this youtube abomination is hot garbage in a glaze of diarrhea. That said, I concede that anything the creators of Family Guy touch is tough to compete with (tough with which to compete? A tough thing with which to compete? Toug-… Fuckit.)
So, don’t. Don’t compete. Find something else.
Instead of carping, we can always learn from the people who are better than we are.
Part of why “Charlie” sucks is because of a thing Seth calls “tonnage”. If you want to make domestic abuse funny, you have to intersperse it with other jokes during the skit. Something unrelated. Like the game he’s watching is so bad that he’d throw the T.V. in the pool if he weren’t so lazy… or had a pool. And then the wife character jumps in with the surprise element of “this isn’t the game, this is our wedding video!” Even a terrible eyeroll two-part joke like that is better than some cyclical theme that feels like my brain’s being masturbated with sandpaper. Also, you’ve gotta make Charlie affable enough for his assholery to be funny, and the chick has to play off it well. Surprise is the key element of comedy and there’s none of that here, besides the initial “Oh. It’s a teddy bear – except he’s Al Bundy with a side of Ted Bundy. Funny. Now what?”
For example, this…
… is funny although it’s over the top because there’s always a “surprise” element like the housewife fighting back fearlessly or an infant with an English accent assuming the roll of a loan shark. Unexpected is funny; the trailer park version of Chrissy from Three’s Company being fearful is painful in its predictability. Also, Seth makes sure his punch-athons get punctuated with “we’re still laughing” moments (comic relief, I believe it’s called) via interjected zingers or pop culture references. And those “don’t have enough time to do all that for a Youtube video” arguments don’t work. Not when the superstars of Vine manage just fine in five seconds.
You know what? Nevermind. This whole thing is giving me a headache because I’m realizing halfway through writing this, that it’s just one of those things you either have or don’t. But, ya know, enjoy all the hits your videos are getting because of your lawsuit… ‘cause it’s probably the most this field will ever be willing to offer you.
I’m sure you’ll find your thing someday, my dude.
But in the meantime – don’t keep pushing the things you suck at.
