WhenThe Simpsonsgraduated fromThe Tracey Ullman Showto get its own primetime half-hour series, television was changed forever. No longer were cartoons just for children on Saturday mornings. Grown-ups could enjoy the antics of Matt Groening’s yellow-skinned nuclear family just as much as their kids could.BothKing of the HillandFamily Guyare adult-oriented animated family sitcoms on Fox riding the coattails ofThe Simpsons’ success. But, whereasFamily Guyis often accused of ripping off Groening’s series,King of the Hillhas never faced the same scrutiny.RELATED:‘King Of The Hill’ Writer Excitedly Teases Possible RevivalThe Simpsonsmarked a watershed moment in the history of comedy. All the comedy afterThe Simpsonswas influenced by its unique, game-changing sensibility. The show’s combination of family situations and Pythonesque surreal humor captured the zeitgeist and made it one of the foremost cultural monuments of the ‘90s. Naturally, whenThe Simpsonsbecame a ratings giant, Fox greenlit a handful of other adult-oriented family sitcoms, includingKing of the Hillfrom Mike Judge andFamily Guyfrom Seth MacFarlane.While both series borrowed the concept of the animated adventures of a blue-collar American family fromThe Simpsons,Family Guyborrowed a few more elements. Lois is a housewife like Marge, the Griffins have three kids (a boy, a girl, and a baby) like the Simpsons, and Quahog is a fictional townfull of colorful supporting characters like Springfield. By contrast, Peggy Hill is a substitute teacher, Bobby is an only child, and while Arlen is a fictional Texas town, it’s an amalgamation of various real-life suburbs in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Even the things that makeFamily Guyunique – like the cutaway gags – are prevalent in the early seasons ofThe Simpsonsbefore the writers phased them out.Above all, what setsKing of the Hillapart fromThe Simpsons– and what makesFamily Guyso similar to it – is the comedic tone.Family GuyborrowedThe Simpsons’ absurdist anything-goes sensibility, butKing of the Hillpositioned itself as the anti-Simpsonswith a grounded style, minimalist animation, and relatable situations.In bothThe SimpsonsandFamily Guy, characters will be horrifically injured in one scene and be fine in the next; non-sequitur pop culture references can come out of nowhere and take over a situation; and celebrities show up all the time and no one bats an eye. By contrast,King of the Hillis much more realistic. Despite being a cartoon, it depicts everyday life with a naturalistic style. If something ridiculous happens, like a tornado blowing off all of Hank’s clothes, then the show explores the real-life ramifications of such a scenario (in that case, Hank has to choose between maintaining his dignity and racing naked to the nearest shelter).There’s very little that separatesPeter Griffin’s characterizationfrom Homer Simpson’s. They’re both overweight, dim-witted, negligent fathers who spend all their time at the local bar and get a random new job every other episode. Hank Hill, on the other hand, couldn’t have less in common with Homer. He’s smart, sensible, conservative, and although he spends his days drinking beer next to a picket fence with his friends, he always puts his wife and son first.In a typicalSimpsonsepisode – take season 6’s “Homer the Great,” for example – Homer stumbles upon a global secret society and learns that he’s the “chosen one” destined to be their de facto leader. Compare that to a typically groundedKing of the Hillepisode, like season 1’s “Hank’s Unmentionable Problem,” in which Hank suffers from constipation and later embarrassment when Peggy spreads the news around town. AtypicalFamily Guyepisode– say, season 4’s “North by North Quahog” – is much more on the absurdist, out-thereSimpsonsend of the spectrum. It starts off with a relatable situation (Peter and Lois going on a second honeymoon to spice up their marriage), but takes a zany turn when they steal a film print ofPassion of the Christ 2: Crucify Thisand go on the run from Mel Gibson and his band of sinister priests.The argument could be made thatthe outlandish style ofThe SimpsonsandFamily Guymakes full use of the creative freedom of the animated medium, whereas the grounded scenarios ofKing of the Hillcould just be shot in live-action. But that argument misses the point.King of the Hill’s subversively plain aesthetic offers a vibrant snapshot of Americana akin to a Norman Rockwell painting. A traditional multi-camera sitcom couldn’t possibly capture that.Frankly, there’s room in the comedy landscape for both styles. Absurdist comedy with no concern for reality is great –eight seasons ofThe Simpsons’ “golden age”can attest to that – but grounded, relatable situations like the ones found inKing of the Hillcan resonate on a deeper level.MORE:One Of The Worst Simpsons Episodes Retconned One Of Its Best
