Author Topic: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane (Read 18719 times)

Mashiro · « **on:** November 14, 2007, 06:56:19 AM »

Quote
Fox is producing fresh episodes of its animated comedy "Family Guy" without the participation of its striking creator Seth MacFarlane, who does many of the main voices, sources said.

The last episode completed before the Writers Guild of America strike began November 5 aired Sunday. Fox and sibling studio 20th Century Fox TV had the choice of going into reruns or continuing the show without MacFarlane, whose outspoken defiance of his employers has made him a cause celebre for striking writers.

After a large writers rally outside the Fox lot on Friday, where he was one of the speakers, MacFarlane said the studio could proceed without him, though he hoped it would not.

. . . . so wait . . . how the hell are they making family guy without him? Considering he is the voices for half the family (and many other characters).

Warning! Crappiest episodes ever approaching!

Ian Sane · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2007, 07:09:41 AM »

I imagine they'll impersonate the voices. Sounds like a dumb idea, the typical type of corporations like this.

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2007, 07:30:10 AM »

At first this sounds insane, but they've been making them without humor since shortly after the show came back after the cancellation and that hasn't seemed to hurt its popularity.

vudu · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2007, 07:35:53 AM »

BA-DUM-BUM!

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #4 on:** November 14, 2007, 07:40:55 AM »

While I think it will suck, I'm glad they are doing it. For one the producers shouldn't be striking, and two at least the viewers will get SOMETHING this season.

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #5 on:** November 14, 2007, 09:22:31 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
While I think it will suck, I'm glad they are doing it. For one the producers shouldn't be striking, and two at least the viewers will get SOMETHING this season.

As Rube Baker said, It's better to eat s*** than to not eat at all.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #6 on:** November 14, 2007, 09:31:02 AM »

"As Rube Baker said, It's better to eat s*** than to not eat at all."

Yeah but we don't need Family Guy to live. As entertainment Family Guy is more like a snack and I'd rather have no snack at all than to eat s***.

In curious as to why this is needed. Animated shows are made way ahead of time. I would assume that this entire season is already done so for now there are shows to, uh, show. Without writers they can only shoot episodes already written and Seth would have recorded voices for that way before the animation was started.

One advantage is since it is animation they could always dub Seth's voice over later on.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #7 on:** November 14, 2007, 09:48:17 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"As Rube Baker said, It's better to eat s*** than to not eat at all."

Yeah but we don't need Family Guy to live. As entertainment Family Guy is more like a snack and I'd rather have no snack at all than to eat s***.

In curious as to why this is needed. Animated shows are made way ahead of time. I would assume that this entire season is already done so for now there are shows to, uh, show. Without writers they can only shoot episodes already written and Seth would have recorded voices for that way before the animation was started.

One advantage is since it is animation they could always dub Seth's voice over later on.

Well don't watch it. Tuh duh, problem solved!

Ian Sane · « **Reply #8 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:00:10 AM »

"Well don't watch it. Tuh duh, problem solved!"

And I won't be and it won't bother me not to.

I just don't like it when people have an attitude about entertainment where they'll support it even if it sucks (or is s*** in this case) out of some strange loyalty. Entertainment is optional and is supposed to be enjoyable. If your favourite show or videogame series or band or movie series or whatever starts sucking you don't have to stay loyal to it.

Shift Key · « **Reply #9 on:** November 14, 2007, 11:46:07 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
at least the viewers will get SOMETHING this season.

get OUTSIDE?

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #10 on:** November 14, 2007, 01:52:35 PM »

My comment there was meant to be taken sarcastically (curse this text-based internet). GP's post made me think of the movie line that was semi-relevant so I stuck it in there. I really hope the fans of the show make as big a deal out of this as it should be. I'm surprised the executives are this bold, they have to know that when people know the reasons why the writers are striking they will take the writers' side and something like this is only going to push them further and faster in that direction.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #11 on:** November 14, 2007, 04:43:27 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
My comment there was meant to be taken sarcastically (curse this text-based internet). GP's post made me think of the movie line that was semi-relevant so I stuck it in there. I really hope the fans of the show make as big a deal out of this as it should be. I'm surprised the executives are this bold, they have to know that when people know the reasons why the writers are striking they will take the writers' side and something like this is only going to push them further and faster in that direction.

I know why the writers are striking and I think they are greedy, power hungry fools (Well let me correct that by saying I think the guild as a whole is being like this, not necessarily the individuals) after reading some of their demands (They like focusing on the percentage of DVD sale profits, but forget to mention other things like more control over shows writers have little to nothing to do with such as Reality TV). Also I want to know, if they are so "poor" how can they afford to sustain themselves during a strike? I feel terrible though for the stage hands and other low level employees who are going to suffer from this, many of which could lose their job. Anyway that is what I think. Either way I think people are going to get frustrated with both sides because neither side is even trying to compromise.

that Baby guy · « **Reply #12 on:** November 14, 2007, 07:02:57 PM »

I have to say, I agree with GP on this one.

Additionally, I think anyone who breaks the terms of a contract isn't a very good person. I think most of us realize that the individual writers themselves can't help this, but the actors and other people can. Lot's of actors have been breaking contracts to picket, and that's not right, IMO.

oohhboy · « **Reply #13 on:** November 15, 2007, 12:00:55 AM »

Yes and no. While the higher end writers are very well off with what they have now, there are legions of lower end writers that write for shows that don't quite make the big bucks on TV and considering that a lot of the money these days are made from DVD sales and other non-TV sources it is fair the same creative rights translate accordingly seeing that the writers did get ripped off almost 20 years ago regarding DVD/VHS sales.

As with reality shows, do you really honest to god think that stuff is unscripted? Sure most of the dialogue outside of narrators are indeed unscripted, but the scenarios, entire premise of the show had to be written by someone. Someone had to conceive the stupid challenges, events, the overall progression. Otherwise you end up with 24 people starving to death on an island or whatever hell hole they can find.

If I also understand it right, I don't think they are breaking their contracts. Their deal with the studios dates back to the 80's and it is only now that it has expired. Do you really think that they are collectively that stupid to open themselves up like that to lawsuits? As with the actors going on the picket lines, most likely they have no work to go to anyway, contract or no contract. It also doesn't hurt them since one, they are already effectively out of the job, two, by applying additional pressure they can resolve the situation sooner, not later, three, they can expect quid pro quo in the future.

Family guy with out Seth Macfarlane. Dude, he is Family Guy. That is going to create one whole season of pure suck. Oh well, no matter, my plate is full enough as it is with study and general ethanol consumption.

UncleBob · « **Reply #14 on:** November 15, 2007, 12:56:00 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Well don't watch it. Tuh duh, problem solved!"

And I won't be and it won't bother me not to. I just don't like it when people have an attitude about entertainment where they'll support it even if it sucks (or is s*** in this case) out of some strange loyalty. Entertainment is optional and is supposed to be enjoyable. If your favourite show or videogame series or band or movie series or whatever starts sucking you don't have to stay loyal to it.

It's nice to know that you have the same outlook toward everything - ready to condemn it based on your preconceived notions of how it's going to be, rather than give it a chance once it has been released.

Face it, we're talking about Family Guy here, not Shakespeare.

Stogi · « **Reply #15 on:** November 15, 2007, 01:59:26 AM »

Family Guy has gone down hill in the last couple seasons. Really ever since I watched the episode where south park pointed out the formula they use to make shows, I can't find Family Guy funny most of the time.

wandering · « **Reply #16 on:** November 15, 2007, 02:16:21 AM »

Guys. Fox is going to air some episodes that are mostly finished but didn't get Seth Macfarlane's final approval. That's all. They almost certainly aren't going to make new episodes with different writers/voice actors. (link)

Quote
I know why the writers are striking and I think they are greedy, power hungry fools (Well let me correct that by saying I think the guild as a whole is being like this, not necessarily the individuals) after reading some of their demands (They like focusing on the percentage of DVD sale profits, but forget to mention other things like more control over shows writers have little to nothing to do with such as Reality TV).

Getting a bigger cut of DVD profits has actually been taken off the table. The main thing the writer's guild is asking for is a percentage of internet, cell phone, and other "new media" sale profits. Right now, when you buy an episode of the Office on iTunes, NBC takes the $1 and gives the people who wrote the episode nothing. The studios are the ones being greedy, not the writers.

Ceric · « **Reply #17 on:** November 15, 2007, 03:12:40 AM »

I don't mind them wanting to get more from new media. I don't think the media should matter and the writers should just get a general cut from all sales.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #18 on:** November 15, 2007, 04:22:21 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Guys. Fox is going to air some episodes that are mostly finished but didn't get Seth Macfarlane's final approval. That's all. They almost certainly aren't going to make new episodes with different writers/voice actors. (link)

Quote
I know why the writers are striking and I think they are greedy, power hungry fools (Well let me correct that by saying I think the guild as a whole is being like this, not necessarily the individuals) after reading some of their demands (They like focusing on the percentage of DVD sale profits, but forget to mention other things like more control over shows writers have little to nothing to do with such as Reality TV).

Getting a bigger cut of DVD profits has actually been taken off the table. The main thing the writer's guild is asking for is a percentage of internet, cell phone, and other "new media" sale profits. Right now, when you buy an episode of the Office on iTunes, NBC takes the $1 and gives the people who wrote the episode nothing. The studios are the ones being greedy, not the writers.

Actually there is more to the demands then that, here is the OFFICIAL list of proposals they have. Here. 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.

What bothers me most about this whole situation is two things. One I think the guilds are being selfish and yes, greedy. Why do I say that? Well because there are MANY people who could lose their jobs over this that will not benefit one iota no matter how this turns out. Some of these people are truly living day by day off their wages. Not only that but the viewers are getting screwed, especially those that are paying for cable or sattelite, and no matter what anyone says, they are the most important piece to this puzzle.

The second area that bothers me, and this is directed at BOTH sides, is that I have no idea what is true and what isn't. I don't know for sure what was pulled from the table, and what wasn't, all I have is the word of the negotiators on both sides (Mainly the writers side because the companies themselves are being painted as the villain), some of which conflict, such as who walked out of the negotiations. What I do have is the demands of the WGA as posted on their site, that is perhaps the only source I can honestly reference.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #19 on:** November 15, 2007, 07:09:50 AM »

I think writers should get royalities if their work is bringing in any income. On that point I side with the writers.

But my general vibe is that I can't stand anything to do with unions and collective bargaining. Typically I side with neither of them as the whole thing is generally corrupt. I tend to have a little more respect for the employers since that side is usually honest about being dishonest. They don't hide behind some "worker's rights" BS and pretend they're doing some great deed like union heads do. A union head is just a second boss and typically the little guy isn't the one benefiting. Like so much in life when power over others is involved it's about grabbing what you can.

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?

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #20 on:** November 15, 2007, 07:15:39 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think writers should get royalities if their work is bringing in any income. On that point I side with the writers.

But my general vibe is that I can't stand anything to do with unions and collective bargaining. Typically I side with neither of them as the whole thing is generally corrupt. I tend to have a little more respect for the employers since that side is usually honest about being dishonest. They don't hide behind some "worker's rights" BS and pretend they're doing some great deed like union heads do. A union head is just a second boss and typically the little guy isn't the one benefiting. Like so much in life when power over others is involved it's about grabbing what you can.

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?

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.

Crimm · « **Reply #21 on:** November 15, 2007, 08:05:37 AM »

COME ON CANCELATION!

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #22 on:** November 15, 2007, 09:34:11 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Crimm
COME ON CANCELATION!

Quiet you wormhead!

Crimm · « **Reply #23 on:** November 15, 2007, 10:22:25 AM »

Family Guy
American Dad
Robot Chicken
Caveman

Sadly, the last one is the most original.

NWR_pap64 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 15, 2007, 11:36:23 AM »

Family Guy was having trouble with the main staff behind it. I can't imagine how it will turn out without any of them on board...

News:

Author Topic: Fox makes Family Guy without Seth MacFarlane (Read 18719 times)