Misplaced Pages

Talk:Peter Griffin

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MBisanz (talk | contribs) at 04:16, 11 August 2005 (NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:16, 11 August 2005 by MBisanz (talk | contribs) (NPOV)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

That is NOT a picture of Peter Griffin. Get a real picture of him, please. Kakashi-sensei 00:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only difference I see is that his head isn't rounded. Other than that, it's quite real. Mike H 03:22, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Um...no...The face isn't even close to the real Peter. Kakashi-sensei 16:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I looked at two different pictures again, and it looks similar to me. In any case, if it isn't right, don't "um" me (the written equivalent of an eyeroll, if you ask me) and just fix it already. Mike H 21:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Too unfamiliar with Wikiformat. I'm sure if I did try replacing it, I'd violate a copyright law or two in the process.Kakashi-sensei 15:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe the picture is the hybrid of Seth McFarlane & Peter Griffin used in one of the shows. I think it's quite a cool pic to have in the article, although technically is incorrect. Nli10 16th June 2005 GMT
I deleted the picture, it's better to have no pictures than a cheesy fake. Citizen Premier 01:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't like the old picture either, but this new one seems worse somehow. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't like it either. This article needs a picture of Peter Griffin that looks like something you'd see in a typical episode of the show. If the picture makes you scratch your head and wonder what episode it came from, then it's not a good picture for the article. Robert Happelberg 21:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Added a new picture of Peter Xunflash 01:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
That's good. It suits the "something you'd see in a typical episode" criteria. Cromulent Kwyjibo 19:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter's sex change

User:B-101 added a line about Peter having a sex change, which I removed.

I think I know what episode he's talking about, but I'm pretty sure it was meant as a throw-away gag. Just about every other flashback of Peter's past seems to indicate that he was born male (e.g., when his life flashes before his eyes in "And the weiner is" Cromulent Kwyjibo 28 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Look, in the recent new episode on FOX, Peter says that he remembers when he became a man. Then, there's a flashback where a doctor says "the operation was a success" and "what do you want to go by now?". Then he says he wants to go by "Peter". That's where I got the impression that he had a sex change.- B-101 29 June 2005 00:46 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, it's from a recent episode. I still think it was meant as a throw-away. Cromulent Kwyjibo 29 June 2005 18:14 (UTC)
We have every right to be annoyed when Data's cat Spot changes gender for no reason. But on Family Guy, it's different.
We can put flashbacks into two categories depending on their effect on continuity: binding and non-binding. We call a flashback binding if the writers make an effort to follow its continuity in subsequent episodes, and non-binding if the writers ignore it. An example of a binding flashback is when Peter meets Lois at Cherrywood. Later episodes obey that continuity and elaborate it. An example of a non-binding flashback is Lois as a young girl shown as a circus freak. No episode afterwards refers to that.
So when it comes to Peter's sex change flashback, it doesn't fit with other flashbacks of Peter's past. He's always been a man in those flashbacks. For a comedy, it would be too much work to try to make the sex change flashback fit into Peter's back story. Of course, the writers could simply ignore all the continuity so far and write Peter a new back story, one in which he was born a woman. But we'll just have to wait and see if the writers take that route. Robert Happelberg 29 June 2005 21:08 (UTC)
its a cartoon for crying out loud! besides, everyone knows Peter can't tell the diffrence between his life story and whatever movie he watched last night.

Move comparison to Family Guy page?

It seems like the section comparing Peter to other cartoon dads, is actually comparing the cartoon shows. Maybe we should move it to the Family Guy page? Reub2000 1 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. Cromulent Kwyjibo 1 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
I've given this more thought, and I think only the show-level comparisons should be moved. The article has both character-level comparisons (both Peter and Homer are fat) and show-level comparisons (both Peter and Hank have a friend who lusts after their wives). Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter's weight

What's the source for Peter weighing 298 pounds? I can't recall a single instance of any number being given in any of the first three seasons of the show. (Unlike Homer Simpson, for which plenty of episodes indicate his weight is exactly 239 pounds). Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter Griffin based on other cartoon characters?

Can someone add this to the article or edit it as they see fit? I got this idea from the Family Guy newsgroup, in a discussion comparing homer simpson and peter griffin.

Comparing Peter Griffin to other cartoon characters is ill-informed because the character is an exaggeration of the all-american dad. Before Homer Simpson there was Archie Bunker, Ralph Kramden etc.... In summation, Peter Griffin is based on the general stereotype of an american dad etc....

If the comparison is ill-informed, it would be better to just delete the whole comparison section of the article. Robert Happelberg 18:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The more I think about that "ill-informed comparison" spiel the more it rubs me the wrong way. To put it in and keep the "ill-informed comparisons" seems to be saying "Yeah, it's ill-informed but we'll make the comparisons anyway." To put it in and delete the comparisons would be saying "All you who worked on compiling these comparisons, you were wasting your time, just because one person thinks so." Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:African-Americans

I put him in the African-Americans category in reference to the episode where he finds out he is part black. I see that RadicalBender has removed it, calling it "incorrect". I guess he either didn't catch the reference or didn't get the joke? On second thought, maybe it's better that he not be in that category.

I think the question here is whether real life African Americans want to accept Peter Griffin as a fictional black man? I suspect the answer to this is no. From what has been revealed of Peter's fictional genealogy, Peter is only fractionally black. Culturally, he's very white (a point that was abundantly made in the episode, when he used his reparations money to duplicate Pee Wee's playhouse). Robert Happelberg 20:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I think this statement in the comparison section "(The show itself also shows God, which is not allowed by the Ten Commandments.)" is a little non-neutral becuase it applies only to a select group of Christians who believe that all icons of God are impermissible, as opposed to the mainstream view that permits icons of God in movies, storybooks, religious icons, etc. Maybe just saying "Family Guy shows the actual image of God which is rare in television programming" or something like that.Mbisanz 04:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)