CN's senior VP in charge of AS Mike Lazzo gives us the answers

Jul 15, 2003, 12:46 AM ET4 posts by 4 posters
4 posts
Corey M. Barnes

thanks to an interview from IGN Filmforce, we have some answers now concerning if Family Guy has a future or not. Unfortunately, it's not answers many will like, but we're not as in the dark about it as we were before.....

IGNFF: Even Family Guy – when you look at the success it's getting during Adult Swim – what are the odds of something like that going back into production? Or is there no real budget for that?

LAZZO: Well, it's a very, very complicated thing, and we actually are having conversations along those lines. It gets pretty complicated unless you can get a network partner, because they are just very expensive shows. For a cable network to pay production for a property that they do not own is crazy. It's less so for a network, because they get so much money from ads – but with cable we're just not there yet. So we're trying to figure out how that could actually happen.

IGNFF: What if there were a reduction to the time model we see in Sealab or Harvey Birdman – that sort of 11-minute episode?

LAZZO: First of all, because you are dealing with unions in L.A., it's very difficult to make this model work there. And it's not even the same show – if you're looking at a Futurama or a Family Guy, you're talking about writing staffs that are very often 10 or more people... much less just the animation itself... so very quickly you will, just in simple production, get to half-a-million dollars a half-hour. Compared to a Sealab or a Space Ghost, which is under $100,000 a half-hour. So just the economics of it are vastly different, and we can't theoretically charge more for these shows until they have a track records – so you've just got to figure out new ways to do it. But the best way to do that is find some partner. Unfortunately, most of the networks are a little gun-shy on animation right now. However, we may be able to make something happen, and we're trying real hard to do that because we know we need that.

IGNFF: How did the model work with producing more episodes of Home Movies? Was it just the way the production was done on it?

LAZZO: Yes. That's an inexpensive show. I mean, you can look at it and tell.

IGNFF: But to move away from squigglevision must have cost at least something...

LAZZO: Not really. By that time, they had figured out how to do Flash [animation] inexpensively, and Flash had grown up, so to speak, by that time. Secondly, we're not going to put money into the show unless we can actually own the show in the U.S. – instead of renting the show, so to speak. So the episodes that we've made, we can air forever. At that point, it becomes a part of our library, and you can actually start seeing money back. However, if we'd have paid full production and only had it for five years or so before we had to go back and pay more money, it wouldn't have been worth it. So in the case of Home Movies, we were able to make a deal because they were interested in continuing the show, and we were too. Fox doesn't have reason, at this point, to continue the production of the shows [Futurama & Family Guy]. They still have The Simpsons, they have King of the Hill... -----------------------------

So it sounds like the big reason they can't do it is because both shows are FOX property (btw, not even FOX themselves make shows owned by other companies anymore). And mr. Lazzo apparently doesn't want to force a show into a low budget status like their original programming. So the other option is to wrestle the rights from FOX, or find a "network partner" so to speak.

Strange how he mentions FOX has no interest in continuing Family Guy. And after all that fuss about a movie too.

  • CMiB
Itty-Bitties - http://www.itty-bitties.com (for twisted Flash toons)
CAndersen (Kimba)Corey M. Barnes

[email] (Corey M. Barnes) wrote:

The answer is implied in Lazzo's statement: "Unfortunately, most of the networks are a little gun-shy on animation right now."

This shows that the networks have absolutely no idea of what makes a good show. (As if their current schedules didn't show that plainly enough.)

The success of Family Guy on cable and DVD shows that the fact that it's animated is not a deterrent to viewers. Family Guy and Futurama were not ratings successes for Fox because people were not allowed to watch them on Fox, due to Fox's brain-dead scheduling. Even Seth McFarlane said there were times he didn't know when Family Guy was on. And how many Futurama fans even bother checking Fox at 7 (ET & PT) on Sundays anymore? Odds are definitely against Futurama being shown. CN gives Family Guy a stable time slot, and the show takes off. The networks are operated in such a state of panic that they can't see they're driving away their viewers.

As for not wanting to cheapen the show, I think he's right. The big writing staff was surely a very important reason for the high quality of the show. Better to go out with 50 great episodes than to run the show into the ground.

bulldogCAndersen (Kimba)

CAndersen (Kimba) ([email]) previously said the following crap:

I will agree with you there, I mean look at "The X-Files." They should of ended it at least at the end of the seventh season.

The Demolition Man A reminder to the world.... "Well, in my case, I get VCRs from the Goodwill thrift store that allows a return in 7 days, that way I can ascertain the similar
Chuckie GriffinCAndersen (Kimba)

"CAndersen (Kimba)" wrote in message news:[email]...

Indeed...FG kicked some ratings ass in its orig. first-season Sun at 8:30 (EST) slot, then they moved it to Thu at 9 (I think) sometime that summer, which was suicide. Then it was scheduled Wed. at 8:30 (I think)...opposite the 2nd half of Millionaire, at a time when the show was at its ratings peak, which got the show shelved until summer.

Cardinal rule #1 of broadcasting: "Don't tamper w/a hit".

Chuck