# Furries on "Back To You"



## Kiffa_kitmouse (Feb 27, 2008)

So I'm watching the new Kelsey Grammer show on FOX, called "Back To You". Don't ask why lol. Anyway, it's set at a television newsroom in Pittsburgh... and in this episode, they're sending one of their reporters... to ANTHROCON.

Holy shit lol.


----------



## Fallen (Feb 27, 2008)

*RE: Furries on "Back To You"... right now*

I JUST tuned in when the guy was reporting from AC, what append before that?


----------



## Kiffa_kitmouse (Feb 27, 2008)

*RE: Furries on "Back To You"... right now*



			
				Fallen said:
			
		

> I JUST tuned in when the guy was reporting from AC, what append before that?



Basically, he was sent to the con, against his wishes, to interview furries. At the con, he tried to get a few to talk to him, but he kept making wisecracks... he asked someone dressed as a dog, "At the risk of getting personal, do you and your wife ever do it 'people-style'... heh-heh, like you have a wife" and things like that. Later, he was accosted by a group of furs in the parking garage lol... which is why, in the scene you saw, he was all nervous with them all standing around him.


----------



## Fallen (Feb 27, 2008)

*RE: Furries on "Back To You"... right now*



			
				Kiffa_kitmouse said:
			
		

> Fallen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, that scene was pretty funny though.


----------



## Kiffa_kitmouse (Feb 27, 2008)

*RE: Furries on "Back To You"... right now*



			
				Fallen said:
			
		

> Ah, that scene was pretty funny though.



I had a tape in the VCR, so I'm going back over the relevant scenes now... another crack he made at the con was, "I'm standing here with a wolf and a sheep. Ordinarily, natural enemies-- but here at Anthrocon, as you can see, the only natural enemies are dignity and personal pride". I have to tell you, I lol'd. But then again, I'm the kind of fur who has a sense of humor about the fandom and doesn't automatically go into hysterics every time someone pokes fun at us. I thought that overall, this was pretty good-natured, especially when you take into account that the furries kind of got their revenge on the guy in the end.


----------



## dsand101 (Feb 28, 2008)

I meant to comment on this last night, but I got tied up, (No pun intended).  Anyway, I was able to catch all but the last two minutes of it and I gotta tell you, I was not impressed at all.  First of all, of the sitcoms and such I've seen, the writers tried to create a fictional name for the con, (ie, Pafcon for CSI)  This one was the exception.  Ok, I'll give them points for using the actual name of an actual con.  Of course there was the usual initial barb in the beginning, trying to broad-brush the entire gathering, heck, they were in it for the laughs anyway so I allowed this to pass by.  When it came time for the con itself, that was when everything went way south.  The comments the reporter made was digging for comedy gold, but instead hit crude as in being insulting to the con goers.  Now, let's focus on the con itself.  Perhaps the writers did not do that much research, nor was this an after-effect of the writer's strike, who can say.  Did you get a load of those suits???  Oh, it would have been rich for some actual suiters to contribute to this show, I mean, I'm sure consulting would not have broken the bank for this show since it is one of those shows that is just starting out and from what I can see, heading for an early ratings grave.  Extras in mascot suits is all I could see.  Even if the show was trying to skirt the edge, they made a too wide a turn but I'm sure they did this for the laughs, after all, it is a sitcom.  If I seem a bit too picky here, yep, TV has done it again.  Now, let's focus on what was missing, shall we?  Are they to lead the viewing audience to believe that attendees all wear suits???  Sure the time constraints would not allowed them to do a stroll through Artist's Alley, nor a quick trip to the Zoo, nor watching Registration, the show was just hitting the meaty parts.  If it was for the lols, that would have been where to go, but no, just the suits, nothing but the suits.  Ooops, almost sounds like I'm ranting, I better control that.  Let's see, so far, unless I missed a few things, in the sitcom category, we have the Drew Carey show.  In the crime drama and such we had CSI and Alias.  Both left a slightly bitter taste in my mouth and I don't mean Civet oil.  Ok, I said my piece, perhaps TV will change it's way and present the genre in a more better light, and a humorous one as well... What am I thinking?


----------



## Poetigress (Feb 28, 2008)

I'm actually surprised they would use the name of a real con, given potential legal issues and all that.

Someone needs to put this on YouTube.  I'd like to see it just out of curiosity...


----------



## NinjaWolf (Feb 28, 2008)

oh please,post on youtube and subtitule it in spanish!


----------



## Kiffa_kitmouse (Feb 28, 2008)

dsand101 said:
			
		

> The comments the reporter made was digging for comedy gold, but instead hit crude as in being insulting to the con goers.



That was kind of the point, though, wasn't it? In the end the furries pushed back against him. How could they have done that if he hadn't pushed in the first place? And his jokes were just stupid... I mean, come on... counting two sheep as they go by and then pretending to fall asleep. Harmless. Some of them were more pointed than that, but _I_ certainly wasn't insulted. Hell, _I've_ made worse jokes about the furry community than he did lol.

On a couple of your other points... yeah, they made it out to be like everyone was in fursuits, even describing Anthrocon in the beginning as "an annual convention for people who like to wear animal costumes". But so what? How else are they _supposed_ to describe it? That umbrella statement did what it was supposed to; it got the general idea across to viewers who don't have any idea who furries are. Furry means so many different things to so many different people that if they tried to explain it in a way that reflected each and every one of us, it'd take the entirety of a two-part episode. And guess what, we'd come off painted in a hell of a lot of a worse light than we did.

And complaining about the quality of the fursuits is just kind of silly, IMHO. Every time a TV show deals with furries, people in the community act like they should have tailored the show to meet with _our_ approval. Well, they didn't write the show for US. No one's sitting in a writer's room saying, "You know, I really want to gain the acceptance of those furries, so I'll write an episode about them". When we're portrayed in the media, realistically, we should be happy just to get off pretty easy... which is what we did, in this case.


----------



## Poetigress (Feb 28, 2008)

Kiffa_kitmouse said:
			
		

> And his jokes were just stupid... I mean, come on... counting two sheep as they go by and then pretending to fall asleep.



>^_^<



> Every time a TV show deals with furries, people in the community act like they should have tailored the show to meet with _our_ approval. Well, they didn't write the show for US. No one's sitting in a writer's room saying, "You know, I really want to get the approval of those furries, so I'll write an episode about them". When we're portrayed in the media, realistically, the best we can hope for is to get off pretty easy... which is what we did, in this case.



True.  I mean, this is a _sitcom_ -- if we were talking about a documentary or even a drama, I think there'd be much more of a case for wanting an 'accurate' portrayal of the fandom (or at least a broader portrayal).  But a sitcom doesn't claim to be an authority on anything, and I don't think any viewer with half a brain would take it that way.

And yes, this wasn't comedy tailored to/for the fandom; it was comedy for people _outside_ it, so of course the jokes are going to be obvious and focused on appearances.  I would venture that the jokes that would have been sincerely funny to the fandom would be jokes that no one in the mainstream would even understand.

I mean, jeez, look at how Trekkers get portrayed, and that's a fandom that's a heck of a lot easier to get across in a sentence or two.  For something like this that has a definition for every participant, it's impossible.  When I first started finding out about the fandom, it was hard for me to figure out exactly what it was, and it was something I was interested in and _wanted_ to know about -- if someone's not even that interested, and just thinks it would make a good addition to a show, they're not going to be that motivated to dig any deeper than the obvious.

I agree, even without having seen it myself, based on what's been said here, it could have been a LOT worse.  I'll take being jibed at in a silly sitcom over being portrayed as a sexual deviant any day.  :roll:


----------



## Kiffa_kitmouse (Feb 28, 2008)

Poetigress said:
			
		

> I would venture that the jokes that would have been sincerely funny to the fandom would be jokes that no one in the mainstream would even understand.



Very true. Although I would've given _anything_ to have someone remark that they couldn't enjoy their sandwich LOL.


----------



## Poetigress (Feb 28, 2008)

And then you'd have everyone speculating which staff writer was secretly furry.  >^_^<

Personally (and I know that it's possible someone's already done this and I just never heard of it), I'd love to see a feature-length doc similiar to _Trekkies_ made of the fandom.  The good, the bad, the ugly, the silly, the sincere, the whole big glorious mixed-up buffet.  (My favorite quote regarding any sort of fandom comes from either the first or second _Trekkies_, can't remember which -- one of the guys in that Klingon metal band: "We'll stop doing this when reality stops being so lame.")


----------

