Author Topic: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane  (Read 13942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Plugabugz

  • *continues waiting*
  • Score: 10
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2007, 12:18:24 AM »
Pity nobody can strike up in canada so something can shake up the stargate franchise. It's well overdue and after 12 or so years its too stuck in its ways.

That said, the very idea will set me out amongst the dogs wont it?

Offline SixthAngel

  • Score: 18
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2007, 01:59:01 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Good points Ian, personally I side with them as well when it comes to royalties based off stuff like iPod and perhaps other pay media. What i do not side with them in that area is getting much if anything from free programs that you can watch on the website in case you missed an episode. As a consumer I like the ability to see shows I missed for free and I feel if they start getting a percentage that could change. You can't tell me they make much money from them either, because the ads are minimal and I doubt they bring in much revenue.


The videos you watch without paying are just like television because they have ads.  The studios still make money whether you watch it from their website or on tv because the ads pay for it.  The difference is the writers see no money from the cash the studio rakes on the online advertisements with the videos.  If you are watching from veoh or something then nobody is making money because you are technically illegally watching it.

I can't find the video right now but it has the ceo's of the major studios talking about how much money they are making and will increasingly make through their online videos.  They then turn around and tell writers that they can't share this "untested" market that they admit is not only making them money now but they expect to make more and more in the future.

I haven't watched Family Guy in about a year so whether it is on or not it doesn't bother me.

Offline BranDonk Kong

  • Eat your f'ing cat!
  • Score: 10131
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2007, 07:33:37 AM »
The Family Guy is terrible. I've never seen an actual joke on the show, it's just random flash-backs to stuff that is funny, but makes no sense and has no place in the show. It sucks.
I think it says on the box, 'No Hispanics' " - Jeff Green of EA

Offline Mashiro

  • Silent Protagonist
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2007, 11:21:01 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Brandogg
The Family Guy is terrible. I've never seen an actual joke on the show, it's just random flash-backs to stuff that is funny, but makes no sense and has no place in the show. It sucks.


A comedy show that you admit is funny is terrible . . .

just think about that for a second.  

Offline BlackNMild2k1

  • Animal Crossing Hustler
  • Score: 410
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2007, 11:24:57 AM »
Stop it, you'll make him laugh, and then he'll be confused again...

Offline BranDonk Kong

  • Eat your f'ing cat!
  • Score: 10131
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2007, 01:38:25 PM »
No it makes sense to me. The show is funny - but all it does is rip off other shows and books, and then fill in the other time with some random flash back. I don't even need to point out the Homer-Peter comparisons, but here's exactly what Stewie was ripped off of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy#Jimmy_Corrigan
Family Guy is the Dane Cook of animated sitcoms.
I think it says on the box, 'No Hispanics' " - Jeff Green of EA

Offline Mashiro

  • Silent Protagonist
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2007, 02:53:39 PM »
And the Simpsons is a rip off of The Flintstones.

It's funny and that's all that matters to me.

Robot Chicken is hilarious for example and all it does is reference pop culture or do random jokes.

Many ideas are influenced or "ripped off" from other sources. It's just how the world works.

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2007, 04:27:37 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Brandogg
No it makes sense to me. The show is funny - but all it does is rip off other shows and books, and then fill in the other time with some random flash back. I don't even need to point out the Homer-Peter comparisons, but here's exactly what Stewie was ripped off of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Family_Guy#Jimmy_Corrigan
Family Guy is the Dane Cook of animated sitcoms.


"Ripping off" other shows and books is called parody, there is nothing wrong with that.
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline BlackNMild2k1

  • Animal Crossing Hustler
  • Score: 410
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2007, 04:29:37 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Brandogg

Family Guy is the Dane Cook of animated sitcoms.


But Family Guy is funny...

Offline BranDonk Kong

  • Eat your f'ing cat!
  • Score: 10131
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2007, 04:51:51 PM »
All I have to say is "meh".
I think it says on the box, 'No Hispanics' " - Jeff Green of EA

Offline ThePerm

  • predicted it first.
  • Score: 64
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2007, 09:56:05 AM »
hey guys remember that time me and bill were hanging out with Abraham Lincoln?

abe: Fore Score and 7 years ago
me: lets play golf
bill: do you know where Bridgette is?



NWR has permission to use any tentative mockup/artwork I post

Offline capamerica

  • ^______^
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2007, 07:58:51 AM »
I uses to like Family Guy but it seems that ever since they came back the show has been on a steady decline with only one or two good episodes per season.
After the last couple episodes I finally decided to just stop watching it all together. They blame the fact that the episodes weren't that great because Fox finished them, But seriously even if the writers were back I can't see how much help that would have been. I would not have any problem what so ever if Family Guy was canned again, Let them do a few Direct to Video movies, like in the theme of the StarWars special, but no more of these totaly random, wrong and pointless episodes. Fox should take the money going into Family Guy and move it over to Futurama.

American Dad is still pretty good, but I'm getting the feeling they are trying to make it more like Family Guy, which is ruining the show for me.
At least I still find Robot Chicken fun. =/
"Alright, you know what? I'm just giving in and looking at the breasts."
Crow ~ MST3K
<BR>-- I like my food like I like my women Chinese, Japaneses, Korean, Filipino, Vietnamese and Hot! --

Offline 18 Days

  • ~*LiL AnGeL*~
  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #37 on: December 09, 2007, 02:06:58 AM »
Clearly they should put the idea balls back in the manatee's tank. That'll end this writer's strike. When the Family Guy manatees cross, everyone will.

Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I would like to know who this mysterious entity NBC is that takes the $1, is that a person? Oh wait, no they aren't, they are made up of thousands of people including shareholders. Guess what, if the writers want more of that profit maybe they should invest in stock especially for a medium that still is untested when it comes to profitability.

OH NOES NOT THE SHAREHOLDERS! And why should the writer's be asking for money for their work when really they should be gambling their fortune on the stock market.

Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Though my hostility towards the subject is affected by public sector unions here in Canada.  They'll go on strike even though they're already overpaid and then ask me, the taxpayer, to support them.  Their pay comes out of my pocket.  I'm their employer.  Why should I side with them?
Oh yeah totally. I mean those policman, nurses and teachers. Who do they even think they are? Saving our lives, protecting us and educating us, when was the last time any of those did us any good? You're right in believing that these thieves, collecting less than the median wage deserve any more, especially when we're already giving them our contempt for free.
 
pietriots.com
Calenture

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #38 on: December 09, 2007, 08:54:36 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: 18 Days
Clearly they should put the idea balls back in the manatee's tank. That'll end this writer's strike. When the Family Guy manatees cross, everyone will.

Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I would like to know who this mysterious entity NBC is that takes the $1, is that a person? Oh wait, no they aren't, they are made up of thousands of people including shareholders. Guess what, if the writers want more of that profit maybe they should invest in stock especially for a medium that still is untested when it comes to profitability.

OH NOES NOT THE SHAREHOLDERS! And why should the writer's be asking for money for their work when really they should be gambling their fortune on the stock market.

Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Though my hostility towards the subject is affected by public sector unions here in Canada.  They'll go on strike even though they're already overpaid and then ask me, the taxpayer, to support them.  Their pay comes out of my pocket.  I'm their employer.  Why should I side with them?
Oh yeah totally. I mean those teachers, nurses and teachers. Who do they even think they are? Saving our lives, protecting us and educating us, when was the last time any of those did us any good? You're right in believing that these thieves, collecting less than the median wage deserve any more, especially when we're already giving them our contempt for free.


::rolls eyes::  Let me just say this. If you aren't willing to take a risk, then you don't deserve to reap the rewards. The writers are not risking anything, I'm sorry they aren't. They already get paid decently and if they wish to expand that, maybe they should actually take on some risk and invest in things they see as potential money makers in the future. It is easy to demand things, when you have no risk attached to it.

In regards to teachers, I wish I could work 180days a year and get paid 40-70k with a job that is virtually bullet proof when it comes to firing, even if you are one of the most inept teachers around.
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline odifiend

  • "Who's the tough guy now Vinnie?"
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #39 on: December 09, 2007, 10:01:01 AM »
Golden, are you f'ing serious?  It is not a risk to quit your job for indefinite amount of time now?  I'll give you logical risk because the deal is the country (really countries) will not go without new programming for an extended period of time.  But it makes a lot more sense to redistribute this 'extra' money that writers generate (in the same way they generated profits before).  Networks couldn't really expect the loophole that the internet wasn't in their contract to run long term.
I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching.  But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.
Kiss the Cynic!

Offline BlackNMild2k1

  • Animal Crossing Hustler
  • Score: 410
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #40 on: December 09, 2007, 10:18:05 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: odifiend

I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching.  But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.

Yes there are. I've seen it with my own two eyes.

Offline odifiend

  • "Who's the tough guy now Vinnie?"
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #41 on: December 09, 2007, 11:05:05 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
Quote

Originally posted by: odifiend

I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching.  But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.

Yes there are. I've seen it with my own two eyes.


Bah - I was definitely wrong on that.  I just looked through NY and CA pay charts.  I would like to point out that those states have notoriously high costs of living.  I remember when I was a boy in Canada, teachers went on strike for more pay.  I was about 9 so it didn't effect my schedule, but I do realize it could hurt students.  Now that I live in NC, I see the alternative where a teacher's starting salary is around 30k (because teachers union's are illegal).  And yes a teacher who doesn't do summer school works 180 days (+teacher work days - more like 200 days) but the average person works 52 wks *5 days = 260 days - vacation alotted.  The time difference is about a month - month and a half, but often the pay difference for someone with the same amount of education is more than a month salary.
Kiss the Cynic!

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #42 on: December 09, 2007, 11:28:24 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: odifiend
Quote

Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
Quote

Originally posted by: odifiend

I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching.  But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.

Yes there are. I've seen it with my own two eyes.


Bah - I was definitely wrong on that.  I just looked through NY and CA pay charts.  I would like to point out that those states have notoriously high costs of living.  I remember when I was a boy in Canada, teachers went on strike for more pay.  I was about 9 so it didn't effect my schedule, but I do realize it could hurt students.  Now that I live in NC, I see the alternative where a teacher's starting salary is around 30k (because teachers union's are illegal).  And yes a teacher who doesn't do summer school works 180 days (+teacher work days - more like 200 days) but the average person works 52 wks *5 days = 260 days - vacation alotted.  The time difference is about a month - month and a half, but often the pay difference for someone with the same amount of education is more than a month salary.


Now lets talk about job security, you have perhaps some of the most inept teachers around that cannot be fired because of the guild. I think teachers should be payed on merit, and how well they perform not seniority like the guild pushes for. Not everyone is equal in talent or drive. There are some teachers that I think deserve MUCH more than they are paid, but on the flip side there are those that are getting paid way too much and maybe shouldn't even have a job.  
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #43 on: December 09, 2007, 11:32:12 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: odifiend
Golden, are you f'ing serious?  It is not a risk to quit your job for indefinite amount of time now?  I'll give you logical risk because the deal is the country (really countries) will not go without new programming for an extended period of time.  But it makes a lot more sense to redistribute this 'extra' money that writers generate (in the same way they generated profits before).  Networks couldn't really expect the loophole that the internet wasn't in their contract to run long term.
I don't know what country you're talking about when it comes to teaching.  But unless you are talking about a college professor doing research, there is no teacher making 70k period.


Yes I am fing serious, the writers suck for the most part and frankly I would fire the vast majority of them. I'm to the point where I hope the studios say "We offered you a fair deal accept or don't" and then give them an ultimatum, they either accept or the studios cut ties with the WGA and hire young talent that is chomping at the bit to have these poor writer's jobs. If they want part of the profits beyond their job, they can invest in the company. What about the greedy heads of the guild now wanting the Networks to not deal with reality tv companies until they sign on with the WGA? They want ultimate power to cripple networks and it is sick. So they get no sympathy for me. The networks offered them a deal and they rejected it, and instead want more power. If you truly believe this is all about internet residuals you are extremely naive, it is about power and money which you would know if you actually read their demands. Interesting you mention them "risking" so much for a strike, shows me that they must be doing quite well if they can sustain a strike like this. Let's not even get into the fact that many of these people are more than likely FORCED to strike, or face dire consequences from their guild.

I realize it is convenient to make the studios the bad guy, it simplifies things for people but greed is coming from the writers side as much if not more than the studios who have more people to worry about. All the writers guild cares about is the writers guild, they don't care who gets the pink slip or who loses a job that isn't part of their guild. Instead they want ultimate power to cripple a company if they feel they aren't getting paid enough by digging their tentacles in all aspects of the company. So if thise drags out much longer, I say cut ties with the WGA and start anew, besides the WGA is saying how important they are to studios, maybe they can take that supposed greatness and start a new company.
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline odifiend

  • "Who's the tough guy now Vinnie?"
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #44 on: December 09, 2007, 01:08:39 PM »
Your alternative: invest instead of strike sparked the fing serious.  If the same job they were doing is generating new profits, they are entitled to those new profits.  They shouldn't have to play the stock market to gain the true value on their work.  Then there is the fact that not everyone is going to have the disposible income to invest at the end of the day.
Internet residuals was the straw.  I didn't follow the WGA before but I'm sure they work like every other union composed of humans - they had endless complaints and actions to institute and now that they have a stage of course they will push for more.  Of course the writer's guild only cares about the writer's guild and who pays it dues.  It is a union.  An organization of humans facing up against an organization of humans will always be gray.  One - humans.  Two- a group of them means it is a lot harder to back down.  There is nothing naive about me - I just thought your alternative was ridiculous.
Kiss the Cynic!

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2007, 01:28:22 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: odifiend
Your alternative: invest instead of strike sparked the fing serious.  If the same job they were doing is generating new profits, they are entitled to those new profits.  They shouldn't have to play the stock market to gain the true value on their work.  Then there is the fact that not everyone is going to have the disposible income to invest at the end of the day.
Internet residuals was the straw.  I didn't follow the WGA before but I'm sure they work like every other union composed of humans - they had endless complaints and actions to institute and now that they have a stage of course they will push for more.  Of course the writer's guild only cares about the writer's guild and who pays it dues.  It is a union.  An organization of humans facing up against an organization of humans will always be gray.  One - humans.  Two- a group of them means it is a lot harder to back down.  There is nothing naive about me - I just thought your alternative was ridiculous.


Once again, if you aren't willing to take a risk why should you reap the benefits? On a side note I found out a staff writer makes 60k per year. That is not a poor person even in a place with a high cost of living, not to mention that is for a BEGINNING writer. They can make upwards to 200k with residuals, so excuse me for not feeling sorry for them. Writers are only one piece of the puzzle, you have other staff as well, everything from the lighting people, to the stage hands, to the actors, to the producers, to the stakeholders, to the viewers themselves who are paying money into cable networks. What makes the writers so freaking special? They area already well paid, and really have no financial risk attached to their job.

Here is a fair solution, how about the studios give them what they want in internet residuals, but with a catch, if they end up losing money from the risk, the guild is responsible for covering whatever percentage that agreed to get if it was a success. So if they agree to let's say, 4% return on internet sales, if it ends up losing they need to cover 4% of whatever was lost. That sounds fair, but of course they won't because it is easy to push someone into something where you have no negatives attached to yourself if it ends up flopping, because you can take the money you did get out of it and laugh all the way to the bank.

For the heck of it, here is an article on a staff writer and how they are compensated Here  along with this one also from the WGA's website. See now everyone can be edumacacted .
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline odifiend

  • "Who's the tough guy now Vinnie?"
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #46 on: December 09, 2007, 02:31:51 PM »
My question is:  "If you are willing to take a risk, why shouldn't you reap the benefits?"  There is a huge risk in entering the entertainment industry in the first place.  Not everybody makes it.  Not every pilot is well received.  Not every show lasts forever.  A writer who gets picked up should be compensated for the entertainment they provide.  That is how it works for actors.  The difference is that an audience can physically see an actor and actress - naturally they can garner more support for themselves.  Not true for the writer.  You are right in that writers don't do it alone - but they aren't as replaceable as a best boy  especially once the audience has gotten a taste for them.  Nor is the risk of being a stage hand as great as that of deciding to write.
Kiss the Cynic!

Offline IceCold

  • I love you Vanilla Ice!
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #47 on: December 09, 2007, 05:28:30 PM »
Whoa.. odifiend's back.
"I used to sell furniture for a living. The trouble was, it was my own."
---------------------------------------------
"If your parents never had children, chances are you won't either."
----------------------------
"If it weren't for electricity we'd all be watching television by the candlelig

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2007, 06:13:06 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: odifiend
My question is:  "If you are willing to take a risk, why shouldn't you reap the benefits?"  There is a huge risk in entering the entertainment industry in the first place.  Not everybody makes it.  Not every pilot is well received.  Not every show lasts forever.  A writer who gets picked up should be compensated for the entertainment they provide.  That is how it works for actors.  The difference is that an audience can physically see an actor and actress - naturally they can garner more support for themselves.  Not true for the writer.  You are right in that writers don't do it alone - but they aren't as replaceable as a best boy  especially once the audience has gotten a taste for them.  Nor is the risk of being a stage hand as great as that of deciding to write.


I think you would be surprised how replaceable many of the writers can be, and if this strike drags on long I think we may find out. You are right it is not easy to get in the business, but once you are there, if you are talented you can and do succeed. Though I wouldn't really call trying to get into something a "risk" it is more of a goal, because most people do something else if they cannot achieve that goal. There are  different things that a decent writer can do, and sure it may not be their dream job but they can still utilize their talents. Heck with writing you can write your scripts bits and pieces at time with good time management, that is not a big risk IMO, all they are dedicating is a few hours a day (Or whatever) and when it is ready they can start shopping it around which perhaps requires the biggest dedication but it still can be done and if it gets rejected you move on with life.

On the flip side if you are a corporation with shareholders, your assets are physically invested in a company and you cannot just move on and try again, if you do you may be filing for bankruptcy depending on how much you have invested. Whether people wish to admit it or not, the corporate heads have many people to worry about, the writers just have themselves so they may not care or really see the big picture. With that said, I do support some residuals to the writers but I think it should be dependent on merit, not what the guild dictates. Though on the flip side I have trouble caring about a group of people are doing relatively well, perhaps not rich, but at the very least middle class who get paid thousands of dollars for a 30 minute script. Now if they were coal miners or some dreadful job with poor wages and working conditions, I could be more sympathetic. As it stands, I hold them in slighly less contempt than I do professional athletes who go on a strike. Let's just say, if I could get into the script writing business I would be more than happy with what compensation is now.

But, let me just say you are definitely a fun person to debate odified! I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. One area I think we can agree on though is that it is hard to get the full story from these negotiations, both sides are throwing pot shots at each other and you have no idea who did what because each side is blaming the other! It would be great if they could sit down like civilized adults and politely negotiate without slinging mud at each other in front of the media.  
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline Plugabugz

  • *continues waiting*
  • Score: 10
    • View Profile
RE: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2007, 10:25:38 PM »
A protracted American strike results in a few things, to me at least: The sudden resurgence in British and Canadian productions (Torchwood season 2 starting next month, Sanctuary, Stargate Atlantis becoming interesting when there's nothing to compare it against etc)