Perhaps even more lumped together than things that fall within the huge umbrella of "science fiction" are cartoons. Since the rise and rise of The Simpsons, cartoons directed toward adults have been increasingly prevalent... however, despite the fact many of them are totally different - they're all just kind of assumed to be the same and often looked down upon because, obviously cartoons are just for children.

Anyone acquainted with the likes of The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park - probably the three best known cartoons in the West - will know that while there are some similarities (they're all cartoons, aimed at an adult audience with the intent of being funny) they are three very different shows. These days, The Simpsons favours wacky acomedic adventures... but then, I guess if you'd done over 300 episodes you'd struggle to be funny. Family Guy is mired in pop culture references and cut-aways... And of course, South Park - never far from controversy and easily the most offensive and funniest of the three.

South Park tends - especially these days - to be rather topical. Totally irreverent, not afraid to make fun of itself and there is often a message in there... beyond the one that is hammered home with all the subtly of a sledgehammer. In many ways, this is the kind of counter-culture The Simpsons had in its earlier years, before it lost sight of its roots and simply became a bland, inoffensive kid's show.

Admittedly, if you'd been going for 18 years it would be hard to have the same set of characters go and do something new and exciting every week and probably about the first 7-8 were (well, after season 1/2) extremely enjoyable, well written, clever and not afraid to be satirical and comment - albeit rather backhandedly - about various social situations in the USA. Now though, just wacky adventures... which is rather sad. The only way in which the new episodes are an improvement is that they happen to have a far more polished quality of animation... outside of that, this is a shadow of the original show.

Family Guy started out being rather edgy... and relied a LOT less heavily on pop culture references that are probably lost on most people who don't keep up with contemporary American celebrities and far less of the cutaways, which -as South Park pointed out several times - mean that all the jokes are interchangeable. It's a valid point - Family Guy episodes seldom have any plot of merit and ever since it returned from televisual oblivion many of its episodes have been hit and miss. Not to mention that - by and large - the show has been far more bland and inoffensive since it returned, presumably after the episode with the Jews in it - they got told to cool their jets.

South Park is probably the most consistent of the three... although, admittedly, it's got half the episodes of The Simpsons. It has become more topical - and somewhat more preachy - lately but it's aware of that and it's still as offensive and funny as ever... and while Family Guy had some implausible or surreal elements, South Park uses them with such regularity, it can go pretty much any direction and still be South Park.

Amusingly, Matt Groening has recently said that he thinks that The Simpsons could go on forever... One assumes that means he hasn't watched it in the last ten years or he's just keen on getting the bags of cash that being an executive producer on a cash cow like the The Simpsons entails. Ironic that the words of one of the show's own characters summed it up... "Who knows how long there is between now and when the show stops being profitable."

In any event, they're three rather different programmes and simply because they're all cartoons does not mean that they are instantly analogous to one another... Far from it. Simply because Frasier and Friends were both live action sitcoms, they didn't warrant being lumped together... why should cartoons be any different?