"Fox Reuniting Itself with 'Family Guy'" - Page 2

Julian Lalor · 04-25-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

There's a myth that they ignored FG last time; the opposite is true -- the Fox executives fell in love with Family Guy, because it was the sort of undemanding, content-free frat-boy humor that suited their corporate sensibilities, and so they gave it more promotion and better time slots than Futurama, effectively preventing Futurama from getting the success it deserved.

If they loved it so much, then why did they cancel it? And speaking someone who is as far from a frat-boy as you could possibly imagine, I thoroughly enjoy the show. Sure, it's not as good as King of the Hill or Futurama, but at least it isn't another reality show.

DonMac · 04-25-2005, 06:34 PM

Sean Moon

Quote:

I think it was the best selling TV on DVD set that came out that year. But didnt Chappelle Show outsell all TV sets?

Yes, the Chappelle Show Season 1 boxed set is now the #1 selling TV-show DVD boxed set, while Family Guy Seasons 1 & 2 boxed set is #2.

(But #2 in sales out of every TV boxed set released is still pretty good

)

Jaime_Weinman · 04-25-2005, 06:38 PM

Quote:

If they loved it so much, then why did they cancel it?

Crummy ratings. The first time they cancelled it, it was because its ratings on Thursday nights were actually worse than the flop shows Fox had put there before it (it wasn't that they couldn't beat Friends, it's that they couldn't even beat previous Fox flops). Gail Berman, then president of Fox, loved FG so much that she gave it a surprise renewal, it was brought back, and flopped again. Even MacFarlane has said that they were right to cancel it at that point.

As to whether it will flop again now, no, I don't think it will. The DVD sales and cable run have given it a new buzz that it didn't have before. It still doesn't have much appeal to older viewers, but Fox can't get older viewers at 9 on Sunday because they're all watching Desperate Housewives. What FG will get are the young male viewers who think Desperate Housewives isn't their cup of tea, and it'll get enough of those viewers to post respectable ratings in the 18-to-49 demographic.

BTW, I find it too bad that Ken Tucker is no longer TV critic at Entertainment Weekly; he really hated FG and had some great comments on it ("The awful show they just keep putting on the air"). FG even wrote in a gag where Peter says "Up yours, Ken Tucker," but they cut it. I'll miss Tucker's bashing of FG.

MarkHastings · 04-25-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

I think every thread should contain contributions from at least one person who hates the show

As long as that person understands the meaning of "Constructive Criticism", if not, it's just threadcrapping.

Jason Adams · 04-25-2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Anyway, I think the show is likely to do fine. It's more popular than it used to be, and Fox is once again promoting the hell out of it. There's a myth that they ignored FG last time; the opposite is true -- the Fox executives fell in love with Family Guy, because it was the sort of undemanding, content-free frat-boy humor that suited their corporate sensibilities, and so they gave it more promotion and better time slots than Futurama, effectively preventing Futurama from getting the success it deserved. The execs love Family Guy, always have, and they will keep plugging the hell out of it to make sure its core audience doesn't lose interest.

Uh...you call thursdays up against Friends a better timeslot then what Futurama got? Lets face facts...both Family Guy and Futurama were fucked over by Fox scheduling, and their audience suffered because of it. Fox did bring it back twice, but then did the same thing to it...buried it in the schedule. We both know that Fox is an extremely impatient network when it comes to letting good shows build an audience.

And one more thing...how do you say that a show that has under its belt, being the second best selling TV on DVD box set of all time, has to be kept plugging the "hell out of it to make sure its core audience doesn't lose interest."? If anything, its core audience has gotten more interested over the time the show was off the air, cause you know...the show wouldn't have been "uncancelled."

And of course, Futurama has just an "undemanding, content-free frat-boy humor" sense just as much as FG. Personally, if I had to guess, the underlying theme in your posts regarding FG is that your just really mad that Futurama got cancelled. Just my two cents.

Jaime_Weinman · 04-25-2005, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Uh...you call thursdays up against Friends a better timeslot then what Futurama got?

You misunderstand me. Futurama and Family Guy started at around the same time, and it was Family Guy that got the 8:30 Sunday slot after The Simpsons, a slot that the producers of Futurama (understandably) wanted. Futurama wound up spending most of its first season in a brutal Tuesday timeslot up against shows that competed directly against it for young viewers, while FG got launched in a post-Simpsons run before Fox tried it in its own time slot (a slot where there were low expectations, because all they had to do was get better ratings than the other flops Fox had shown on Thursday nights). That's what I mean about FG getting better treatment than Futurama; Fox had to choose between the two of them as to which one they'd "push," and they pushed FG.

Quote:

We both know that Fox is an extremely impatient network when it comes to letting good shows build an audience.

I don't actually agree with that. They've been very, very patient with Arrested Development for one. They're much more patient with bad ratings than most networks tend to be. Not that that's saying much, but the reason Fox has a reputation for cancelling shows is simply that they've introduced so many cult flops. And cult flops, by definition, get cancelled.

Quote:

And one more thing...how do you say that a show that has under its belt, being the second best selling TV on DVD box set of all time, has to be kept plugging the "hell out of it to make sure its core audience doesn't lose interest."?

My point is that cult bubbles can burst really quickly. The Simpsons was the hottest thing in the world in 1990, but by 1992 (as the show itself satirized) the Bart craze was over and it was a solid middle-of-the-road success rather than a cult phenomenon. The Simpsons got back its cult status, but some shows don't; King of the Hill was the hottest thing in the world in 1997, as talked-about and over-promoted as FG now is, and then that bubble burst and it never got back to full-fledged mega-hit status. FG won't be a cult favorite forever; no show is. And then it'll have to rely on other things besides hype to keep people watching, which is (IMO) iffy. But yeah, Fox does need to make sure that the cult status doesn't suddenly evaporate.

Quote:

Personally, if I had to guess, the underlying theme in your posts regarding FG is that your just really mad that Futurama got cancelled.

Actually, I'm not that big a Futurama fan, though I liked it. I'm more pissed at the way Fox is ignoring and possibly cancelling King of the Hill to hype Family Guy, which will never be as good. But on the whole I'm just a little disappointed in the success of FG because it's a bad show succeeding undeservedly, just as I'm disappointed when a good show fails undeservedly. Them's the breaks.

Matt Stone · 04-25-2005, 08:50 PM

Quote:

But on the whole I'm just a little disappointed in the success of FG because it's a bad show succeeding undeservedly, just as I'm disappointed when a good show fails undeservedly. Them's the breaks.

Wow, thanks for the certainty. I thought I liked Family Guy, but with your absolutely no proof argument, you've swayed me. It's a bad show

Jaime_Weinman · 04-25-2005, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Wow, thanks for the certainty. I thought I liked Family Guy, but with your absolutely no proof argument, you've swayed me. It's a bad show

Well, I don't have any proof that the shows I think are good are good, either. That's a personal opinion, and based on that personal opinion is my reaction: it's sad when a good show fails, and it's sad when a bad show succeeds. I'm sure there are some shows you think succeeded undeservedly, just not this one...

Matt Stone · 04-25-2005, 09:57 PM

Honestly, I post in threads about shows that I watch regularly. If I go negative, it's in regards to the quality of the show I watched. I don't go into threads about shows that I don't like simply to repeatedly post "This is a bad show." I consider that thread-crapping. You've made some good points in your recent posts, but you've closed them with some all encompassing opinion statements. Not a problem with you having an opinion, but a problem with the futile nature of "Well your show sucks" type of posts.

Joe_H · 04-25-2005, 11:53 PM

I saw the new episode as well, and to be honest with you, I was disappointed. Admittedly thats probably because I hyped it up so much in my head, but still.

There were some funny parts, but just not as good as I was hoping.

And so people don't think I'm just making a meaningless post, I actually love the show.

Actually now that I think about it. I hated the original pilot and only started liking it when i saw the dvds.

Bill GrandPre · 04-26-2005, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Uh...you call thursdays up against Friends a better timeslot then what Futurama got?

What percentage of the "Family Guy" fanbase would you say routinely preferred "Friends" on Thursday nights? If anything, it was a blessing. Everyone else was afraid to put anything up against "Friends" for a long time if "Family Guy" was as popular as it's supporters claim, it should have regularly earned a respectable and healthy 2nd place on Thursdays. Between the Super Bowl premiere and a rather generous timeslot, Fox couldn't have treated "Family Guy" better, yet it still failed several times. Like I said before, I believe the popularity of "Family Guy" can sustain a run on Cartoon Network, but I don't see it lasting very long on Fox.