Talk:American Dad!

The movie Fever Pitch has a three minute American Dad Cartoon.

Brian and Lois

That happened in one episode. This makes it sound like Brian lusted after Lois the entire series. Mike H 01:32, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's hinted at in more than one episode. --Sketchee 02:56, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

What other episodes? If it was Season 3, please cite (I haven't seen them so I'd want to know). Mike H 07:52, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

What is this "(an episode of The Simpsons)" in the first paragraph? What does it mean? --Zippanova 05:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd assume it means a Simpsons episode aired in between the Super Bowl ending and American Dad starting. Mike H 07:53, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Er, wrong series? --Matthew 17:35, 12 Dec 2006

Name

"American Dad" or "American Dad!"? The logo uses the exclamation mark, but the fox website doesn't when referring to it, compare with Yahoo!. ed g2s • talk 10:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it's in the logo, and is also used on the tvtome guide [1]. Moving... ed g2s • talk 16:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The only place FOX ever refers to it with the exclamation point is in the logo, where it's probably just used for emphasis. I would believe the intent of the creators was for the title to omit the exclamation mark. ral315 07:04, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

If that were the case, why does the show use an exclamation mark? Family Guy doesn't have an exclamation mark in the title sequence, obviously the ! was intentional.--Will2k 13:11, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

If there was a big face on the logo, would we put that in the title? The exclamation mark is illustrative; it's not part of the title of the show. The Macy's logo has a star, not an apostrophe. But everyone knows the name as Macy's, not macy*s, and the company uses that convention (except in the title part of their web site, but that's an anomaly). I salute Fox for refusing to bastardize the English language by writing the exclamation point in prose.

The TV Tome/IMDb argument is moot. In general, Wikipedia favors self-identification (that link refers specifically to more sensitive issues, but the guideline has pervaded the site), whereas those sites go by what's on the title card of the show. For example, at IMDb, Ghostbusters is Ghost Busters because the title card for the movie was written as two lines: GHOST/BUSTERS. Fox calls the show American Dad, not American Dad!, so we should favor that rendering.

– flamurai (t) 06:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"I salute Fox for refusing to bastardize the English language by writing the exclamation point in prose." How exactly is the utilisation of a punctuation mark a "bastardisation" of the language? The American Dad! title is also not an example of prose, but simply of televised marquee-style text. Your comment, in a sense, is a bastardisation of the language - using a word for something other than that which it is strictly defined. jglc | t | c 18:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Using it as part of a name, and therefore in the middle of a sentence, is. The exclamation mark isn't supposed to go anywhere other than at the end of a sentence. Nik42 05:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I went and changed a couple of instances of "American Dad" to "American Dad!". I know that a decision on this has not been made but I did it to make the title uniform throughout.murder1 06:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete "List of American Dad! characters"

Contains no information of value. Skimpy, and all the details are on the main page. (Main American Dad! page is getting a bit full, but that's a separate issue. Should be split at some point in the future.) Chevychaser 02:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, the current format is in line with the Family Guy page. Perhaps when it gets a little bigger the article could be spilt with a new "Cast of American Dad" page. Currently however it doesnt hurt. Also can we clarify - is Deputy Director Bullock actually voiced by Patrick Stewart?

Roger claims to be Pakistan and calls India:

"oh, and I'm punching a cow right now"

character comparison

" although both can be seen as science fiction type characters (talking baby genius - alien). " If you were going to compare the Family Guy characters to the American Dad characters, wouldn't a better comparison be Stewie to Klaus and Brian to the Roger? --81.110.6.135 16:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hard to say. I think the person who wrote that drew the line between the two pets which were both infatuated with the mothers.

To me this list seems pretty useless. Sure there are similarities, but if someone reads this list without having seen an episode it sounds like a total (100%) rip off. You could make a list of characteristics similar to family guy, but this seems to be just a way of someone who dislikes this series to show how unoriginal it is. Otherwise why isn't there included for example that Peters a very unhealthy, lazy guy and Stan is rather a disciplined guy (tho stupid) -- 14:15, 27 April (GMT+01:00)

• I agree. They're two half-hour animated sitcoms about families by the same creator. Of course there are going to be simularities. But you could probably just as easily "prove" that All in the Family was a direct rip-off of The Addams Family. MK2 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to be a dick, but isn't that whole section completely opinionated and belongs in the category of ORIGINAL RESEARCH? If so, at least the table shouldn't be there at all. To state, that they are often compared would be sufficient and appropriate, but that box is too much of a stretch, considering the guidelines—at least in my view. — Mütze 18:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

-- I agree Mutze, it seems that the table is a basic comparison, and beyond people's opinions, it is a somewhat pointless table. You can compare television shows that similar ideas until the cows come home, there are similarities in almost everything on television today. And most television is derived from basic formulas anyway. Besides, there are no citations to back that information up, it may as well be someone's opinion. You could argue the similarities and differences between the two for ages. And half the comparisons are not even accurate anyhow. For example, it cites both Roger and Brian as eating, drinking and smoking. This is right except that Rogers sugar addicition is more of a central point to the show and the only time Brian is seen eating, is at meals with the family. In addition, Brian prefers martinis and Roger drinks mostly wine. As well, both characters were only seen smoking in a few episodes at best and it has never been a big part of the show, outside of very specific jokes, and one ep of FG. And this is just one character comparison! I vote to scrap it, seems pointless and inaccurate. --chewbacca1010

That table was completely useless, rather than pointing out comparisons of the two shows, it instead went out of it's way to show how they are similar. It looked forced and ugly. I changed them to more comparions so people can actually COMPARE the shows, instead of thread bare similarities over the bare arsed facts. Feel free to remove the whole bloody table, it is utterly useless JayKeaton 03:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I removed it. It seems idiotic, if you want to throw the blurb back in about the comparisons between shows, go for it, but the table is idiotic and useless, especially after the cleanup you did Jay. Once it was more detailed, they weren't all that similar. And the quote at the start of the blurb about how Seth said the shows were the same was taken from a Letterman interview. Doesn't anyone think he was probably joking? Hope I don't get railed for this...Chewy

I did my best with the clean up, but I wasn't exactly sure what the intentions were. It looked like someone was comparing the two shows based on, well I based on god knows what. I don't even see why they need to be compared, it's like having a table on the differences between Law and order and law and order criminal intent. Just doesn't make any sense. JayKeaton 03:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Stan Smith speech

I have the impression that Stan mispronounce certain words, says inexistent ones or uses words in sentences with incorrect sense. It could be possible that the producers established this in order to denote his low level of culture?

I’m a non-English speaker and it would be great if someone could clarify this to me.

Thanks a lot, Cristobal. 12:38 - 18 October 2005

• That's not my impression, and I am a native speaker of American English. I happened to be watching an episode when I saw your question, and the only time Stan used an incorrect phrase during that episode was when he said his daughter's boyfriend looked like a "stone man"; she corrected him by saying that he meant "stoner." But "stoner" is a slang term for a drug user (particularly a marijuana user), not formal English, so Stan's use of the incorrect phrase indicates his lack of familiarity with drug culture, not that he is uneducated or has a low level of culture. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Metal Gear in the section about Jack Smith

I'm a big Metal Gear fan but doesn't anyone think that the references to Naked and Solid Snake in the section on Stan's dad are stretching it a bit? The only similarity between Naked Snake and Jack Smith is the eyepatch. What about Charlton Heston's character from the film True Lies? There is much more of a similarity there. However, I don't think we should go looking for look-a-likes. I was tempted to delete the references to Metal Gear as I believe them to be irrelevant and it looks like some other Metal Gear fan has hijacked this article. 80.42.24.151

Doesn't Roger make some coment that makes the direct comparison? "Yeah, if anyone wants to get Snake here off of me that'd be a big help." Or something along those lines. 154.20.135.89 02:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

He compares the real father to the character of "Snake Plissken", the "hero" of the "Escape from..." films, on which Konami heavily based the character of Solid Snake. So the reference is already there, and more than adequate. -- ƒtr

To reinforce that, the reference was to Escape From and NOT from Metal Gear. Any mention of Metal Gear on this page should be removed JayKeaton 03:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan is NOT part of the Middle East!

Hello, it's me again. In the "Other Characters" section it says:

Bob: Pakistani neighbor to Stan who stan largley distrusted due to the fact that he is of the middle east.

Now, I am pretty new to American Dad, so maybe this is just reflecting the view of Stan Smith i.e. Stan distrusts Bob because Stan thinks Pakistan is a Middle Eastern country in his ignorance. Whatever the case, I reckon this sentence should be changed. --80.42.24.151 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I did a little editing on Bob and Linda's descriptions but it still needs work. -- murder1 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Mommaris were Iranian instead of Pakistani. -- phoenix_v2

Correct, Bob & Linda Mommari are Iranian. (And thankfully not Italian, as Stan hopes in the episode!) -- ƒtr

Letting character list get bogged down with useless trivia

In the past I've gone through the character list and culled out useless trivia based on one-off gags. IMO, for the major characters at least, the lists should talk about personalities, mannerisms, etc. but leave off stuff like "Roger has a tendency to knock TVs off his nightstand with his ass." and "Stan enjoys using air horns to drown out his daughter's speech". I've deleted "(Francine) gets aroused during spring cleaning" twice already, and i can see that it's back. Any opinions? --awh (Talk) 22:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of deleting them, change them to reflect the sporadic nature of their occurence. "Stan has been known to use air horns to drown out his daughter's speech" and "Francine appears to be aroused during spring cleaning". Remember that these are facts written into the episodes, so deleting them is pretty stupid --ƒtr

Season confusion.

There are references to "Season 1" and "Season 2" when the Fox.com site lists all episodes so far as being Season 1. I understand this is due to the episodes not being shown in a continuos run in the US, and don't get me started on the randomness of them being shown here in the UK. This could lead to confusion with the Fox website now stating Season 2 will begin in April.

--Pammybhoy 21:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct, only one season has been aired so far. Season 2 starts airing on the 23rd April. Due to the haphazard airing, this confusin may arise (Futurama is only 4 seasons, for example, yet was aired as 5). --ƒtr

Region 4 DVD

Someone should edit in that the complete first season (not the first 13 eps) will be released in region 4 on 24 May 2006 according to [[2]] --DK 04:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It has NOT been canceled

New episodes start again April 23: source --WorldsTallestMidget

Episode List

Can we PLEASE keep the episode list CORRECT? Fox has confirmed that Episode 20 "Roger 'n Me" April 23, 2006 is the start of Season 2, not the 4th last episode of Season 1. The clue is even in the production code... 80.192.14.224 23:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)ftr The problem was caused because of the difference between a production seaason and a viewing season. One should be used consistantly.

Klaus' accent

Other than being German, I see no resemblance between Klaus' voice and Peter Lorre's. MK2 18:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even know Lorre was German. Eastern-European, sure, but I always figured more like Czech. </ignorance>

Austrian, actually. — Mütze 19:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Klaus

The Parking Lot is Full (1996): It can't be a coincedence, surely? --Matthew 17:35 12 Dec 2006

No criticism or comparisons?

This entry needs to have some critical analysis and comparisons between Family Guy. --68.103.154.140 03:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That once was here, but it was removed, for the reason that this exactly what a Wikipedia article does NOT need. This falls under blatantly original research, and especially analyses are not at all appropriate here. — Mütze 15:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There obviously shouldnt be vague unsourced statements about how lots of people (even diehard family guy fans) dont care for it. But I feel there is a definite consensus that the show missed the mark and there should be some kind of section on its reception with links to legitimite sources backing this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.188.153 (talk • contribs)

If you can find some, feel free to throw them in. Just be sure to cite the appropriate sources. What Mütze refers to is an old list comparing that characters between FG and AD, that was both factually wrong AND irrelevant, so we decided to scrap it, since it wasn't really worth having. After all, the Futurama article doesn’t have a list comparing the characters to The Simpsons. The consensus was that the chart was WP:OR.

On the subject of criticisms, I personally think we'll have to wait a bit longer to see any sort of reviews of the show. And for the record, lots of people still like it, even if you think it "missed the mark". -- Chewbacca1010 07:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard lots of criticisms of this show, its a punching bag for critics. This article really needs a criticisms section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.180.169 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:SIG to learn how to sign your posts. There is a whole article devoted to criticism of FG, right here at Criticism of family guy. Cheers. L0b0t 14:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You've "heard lots of criticisms" where? Care to share the evidence? Otherwise, forget it, this isn't a soapbox. Anecdotal evidence that you and your friends don't like it doesn't count. Chewbacca1010 08:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tonight's Episode

Were they just saving tonight's episode for something like this whole thing with Ted Haggard? It's unreal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uniqueuponhim (talk • contribs) 01:51, November 6, 2006.