I got into a discussion with my roommate tonight about artistic integrity, wondering if there are ANY movie/tv show makers out there who haven't "sold out" (for lack of a better term).
Seth McFarlane was the spark that started our conversation. He's the man behind "Family Guy." For those of you who don't know the show, FG was an animated show on Fox. It was very contraversial- and Fox ended up canceling it after 3 seasons. When FG was released to DVD recently it cleaned up in sales. Now Fox has asked for more seasons of FG- and Seth happily crawled back to them.
Fox is going to massacre the show, censoring it beyond belief. They've already heavily censored the reruns, rendering them unwatchable. This wouldn't have happened (or would've happened to a much lesser extent) if Seth would've sold new episodes to Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim." But I have a feeling that, because Fox could pay more, Seth went where the big money was.
Seth also just recently announced that there's going to be a FG movie- straight to video. The movie will come in two different versions: a PG version and an R version. Why is he trying to suck up to the PG audience? Probably to win over fans of the NEW, tame episodes. And to pretend he isn't a sell out, and to appease his old fans, he's releasing an R version for the rest of us. How wonderful (*sarcasm*).
I do understand that sometimes artists have to give in A LITTLE, for the greater good of getting their work released, but some "artists" take that giving a little too far. Seth's more than willing to hack up his art for cash. He's lost my respect, that's for sure. A lot of famous people have lost my respect recently as well. I'd go into them in detail, too, but this post is already extremely long.
MY QUESTION: Is there anyone out there in celebrity land who hasn't given up their integrity for some reason or another? I'm looking for some new art to enjoy.
Did you consider the possibility that he went back to FOX because they owned the rights to air his show. And if they did own the rights, would you prefer that he "keep it real" and not make any more money off of his creation? Did you consider that making the racy stuff in video rental format is a great compromise between people who like adult material and people who are concerned about what's aired on public air waves?
Artists have the same aspirations as anyone else and are as interested in a buck as you or I. Sometimes -- just like the rest of us -- they make compromises to that end. This guy tamed down his show to make a buck. The rest of us spend 40-50 hours a week away from our families to make (almost certainly) less. Are we selling out too? At least this guy can go the viedo route and have it both ways, and since he's doing so, I don't see your problem.
Disclaimer: I've never seen Family Guy and I have no knowledge of how racy it was, how tame it's become, or who owns its airing rights.
Eirik hit on what I was thinking. I believe we, as 'consumers' of the art, have a tendency to put the artists up on pedestals and think they are solely in it for the 'art.'
The situation that immediately comes to mind is Metallica and the Napster deal. So many people seemed to think Metallica was guys really into anti-establishment, etc, etc. It turned out they were businessmen trying to make a living, and when they felt like someone was stealing from them, the pushed back. I think it was this disillusionment with their 'persona' that ticked so many people off, moreso than their position on music sharing specifically.
At the end of the day, we don't really know McFarlane's motivations in creating FG or his goals to achieve in his career. Maybe he does not really care if it is PG or R or how much he had to tone it down to get Fox to retake it (as I recall, and this is just memory, it was not racy in a sexual sort of way, it was just VERY iconoclastic and non-politically correct). If the original edge is what made it popular, the watered down version(s) will flop, and the market will have spoken.
I remember laughing my BUTT off at some of the earlier episodes, then finding it got old. By far, the funniest character was Stewie, and his stuff was not really 'racy' was it? Just the wierd juxtaposition of a baby saying the things he said (when babies are supposed to be sweet, full of love and innocent).
Truthfully, while I was disappointed it got canned, I really don't care if it comes back. Resurrections like this generally don't live up to the expectation. I'm quickly losing my faith in Fox for being at the top of my network list, so long as they keep The Simple Life on the air (which I refuse to watch) and continue to call Arrested Development the funniest show on TV (it ain't).
Post Edited (03-31-05 07:43)
I use a lot of my free time to write. I don't make a living off of those writings. I've never attempted to sell anything I've written. If I tried to sell my work, however, I'd be open to listening to proposed edits- but at the end of the day, if I wasn't satisfied that my work was being presented the way I wanted it, I'd walk away. I wouldn't sell my work to butchers just to make some extra cash- even if it was a LOT of extra cash. You might not believe me, and there's really nothing I can do to prove it, but that's the truth.
I understand that I work 40+ hours a week every week, doing things I don't exactly want to do at a job I don't particularly enjoy. But I have to eat, right? The difference is, I don't have enough money in the bank to avoid this necessity. Seth has enough of a financial cushion to keep from doing what I need to do for a living. And Seth, at this point in his career, with FG on his resume, has enough room to work with other smaller and less constricting outlets. There are plenty of companies who would be happy to work with him, I'm sure. The only problem is, they can't hand out big paychecks like Fox can.
I honestly don't know what Seth's exact feelings are on his edited/censored work... but it seems to me that he gave in much to easily for the promise of more money. Like I said before, Fox is killing his old FG episodes, cutting out some of the funniest jokes, in order to appease "everyone." If I was Seth, that would drive me insane.
Yes, he should've given up on FG if Fox held all the copyrights and wouldn't sell them back to him. I would've respected that a lot. And he could've sold "American Dad", his new show, to "Adult Swim" or some other mature media outlet. Maybe then AD would've been funny. We'll never know, now.
Did you ever consider that talking about Seth McFarlane and 'artistic integrity' to begin with is funny considering how much FG is a painfully, laboriously, unfunny knock-off of "The Simpsons" in the frist place. I keep a few videos on tap to wacth between Teen Titans, Futurama, and Inuyasha and much of that is just tp keep from leaving the tv running through FG.
Check out "Arrested Development" -- making no concessions to anyone/sink or swim, they're doing their own show, by gawd! . . .
Myself? I would "compromise" just about anything to get out of this pit of bank-work to get a chance to make a living doing showbiz full-time.
I did meet with David Ossman of The Firesign Theatre this weekend, and know that he and his cohorts have turned down any number of offers that would've watered their art down --
And as a result, I bet not many of you reading this -- beyond Vermin -- even know who they are . . . which would be the flip-side of "selling out" . . .
I would say, try not to judge individuals too intensely. For every George Carlin or Jonathan Winters who refused to do "drunken Indian" or "pop the balloon" bits, there are hundreds of Buddy Erdos's (who? -- exactly!), who chose "Artistic Integrity" & ended up in poverty. Showbiz is a quagmire that sucks its lovers & victims down alike.
Walk 2 miles in the jungle, then tell me you sneer at the jaguar . . .
peter johnson/denny crane
What about people who had no integrity to start off with?
Besides, what constitutes artistic integrity? Because Sam Raimi did Spiderman 2, a big budget mega-movie sequal, does that mean he has compromised his artistic integrity by being involved in a sequal which may not have any artistic integrity [though still an excellent film] rather than stay with more cult geared movies?
On the Family Guy issue, Seth could have had any number of thoughts about resurrecting the series. If you had a project that you really enjoyed doing, which got cancelled and then taken back again, would you turn them down? Personally if I felt that a show I loved to do had the chance to be out there again, I'd take it.
Television, especially broadcasting, is a mass medium. It's purpose is to hit the widest target possible, not to have "Artistic Integrity". What were FG's original ratings? (I don't know, I could never get into that show.) If it was "too edgy" as it was, well then back to the drawing board. If you want more AI then look at cable, or just straight to video. But life is full of compromises.
That's one (of many) reasons why I have virtually no interest in anything coming out of the major studios. hollywood loves to b***h about censorship, yet of course they're the biggest censors since the fall of the Soviet Union. Oh boy, they got fined for Janet Jackson's frankentit episode, how terrible. Yet to include any political point of view not strictly in line with their political ideology is utterly verboten. By the studios themselves. Like any obnoxious teenager, hollywood thinks censorship is all about the really important things like boobs and swear words, and as far as diversity of opinion or philosophy, well, who cares about that?
I don't understand why the few people in hollywood who are actually non-PC put up with it. The guy you're talking about obviously has enough money to live like a millionairre for six or eight lifetimes, he's no starving artist. It's like those pro football players who leave one team and go to another, because they were offered 17.5 million a year from team A, and 18 million a year from team B. What's the difference?
Oh well, I don't watch that crap anyway. Gimme a straight to video R-rated movie anyday over some overblown hollywood movie star doing a drama about [insert politically correct topic of the day here], and then sucking a bag of coke up their nose and agreeing with each other about what superior people they are.
I'm completely on the other side of the fence as you Nobody. I'm a die hard Family Guy fan and have grown sick of seeing the same episodes over and over and over and over.
I'm quite glad that Seth is making new episodes for Fox. I don't agree with Fox's politics and such but Family Guy is a show I'd kill to have back on the air. I'm sure it'll be just as good as it ever was, and I seriously doubt that Seth will tone it down too much. The guy isn't all about money, he's also about the fans.
Calm down.
Take a breath. Wait until the show premiers and then if it sucks, then you can say you told us so. Until that point, don't worry too much about it. Have faith in Seth.
I'll raise the point again: maybe FOX has airing rights to the show. In that case, he'd have to fulfill his contract to them before ever using the concept anywhere else. So maybe he's fulfilling the end of his contract in a format they'll use so he can do the videos and take it somewhere else later? Like I said, I don't know, but that is very possibly the case.
And of course, maybe he as an artist is satisfied with the show as FOX wants it. You said yourself, you'd consider edits to your writing to get it published so long as you were still satisfied with the work. Maybe this guy is satisfied with it -- only he can know.
Not trying to be argumentative - it's just that lots of fans complain about artists selling out without knowing the details. Lots of times artists are condemned for selling out when really all that happened is that they ran out of ideas. Personally, I think that's what happened with George Lucas - I think he had two good movies in him and that was it.
I'm with Skadoi on this one, I'd kill to have the show back on [though I'm still not sick of the old episodes.]
Just wait and see, nothing is worse than a knee jerk reaction to something that we don't actually know how it will turn out.
First, express your concern that it will be crap, then watch if it will be crap. Don't condemn completely before you have seen the finished product.
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of Family Guy as a great example of art.
AndyC wrote:
> I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of Family Guy
> as a great example of art.
>
He says on a bbs where we consistently refer to such motion pictures as "Sorority Babes in the Slime Ball Bowl-O-Rama" (another favorite of mine) as FILMS.
The new Family Guy better not end up like that new Ren & Stimpy.
I don't think there's much artistic intergrity anymore in mainstream entertainment, stuff won't even be made if market research shows there's no potential audience. I personally am not so forgiving about artists selling out. Sure, everyone whores themselves out to a job, so we should take it easy on them right? But an artists job should be to make honest/uncontrived art, that's why I support them to begin with. If I start failing at my job, I'd get fired. And with entertainers too, if they start selling out, I'll stop giving into them, most likely cause the art would suck, not just because of the selling out in itself.
It's easy to criticise someone's aritistic integrity when you don't have to make a living off your art. TV and movies are a cutthroat business, a hard place to make it and sometimes those who do make it are forced to compromise to do so.
Sure it's art, but it has to be commercial.
Post Edited (04-01-05 16:59)
I never tried to compare FG to Van Gogh or anything. Obviously it's low brow entertainment, but it took some intelligence and creativity to write the show, nonetheless.
It doesn't matter if a tv program is art or schlock, it's still delivered in 10-15 minute portions sandwiched between ads for mcdonald's, erection pills, and watery beer. Integrity is already compromised. 99% of the time, if it's on tv, in a major paper or magazine, or on the analog radio, it's already been edited, focused grouped, and geared for selling as much ad space as possible. The last time I went to a museum, good restaurant, or music venue in some gritty neighborhood, I wasn't bashed over the head with an advertisement. My point I guess is that you can find art (loosely defined) on tv way more easily than art combined with integrity. As far as integrity goes, I'll take the crayon drawing by my buddy's three-year-old over Family Guy or the Simpsons or whatever. But I'll still catch the Simpsons now and again.
That said, I get your point. I always had a beef with the edited versions of movies on tv. Not only is the story interrupted by ads, which is worse than a spastic teenager sitting behind you in a theater (because you can turn around and stop that nastiness), but the dialogue changes used to be completely ridiculous. "Casino" on USA comes to mind. I used to think that Scorcese was probably p**sed about the distribution and the hacking of his film. However...
I was unfortunate enough to see "Aviator" for three bucks and now I'm pretty sure that he doesn't care about anything except probably money. "Aviator" makes me doubt that a film called "Taxi Driver" even exists. It must be some sort of far reaching false-memory hallucination like grey alien abductions.
Releasing something in two versions, PG and R, is frustrating for an audience but done all the time. The PG will be able to be shown earlier in the evening on the networks while the R can eventually show up on Comedy Central or something. It's no different than releasing an R and Unrated dvd. I was pretty frustrated when I wanted to see the R-rated version of Requiem for a Dream that appeared in theaters, only to find that most places (especially blockbuster and hollywood video) carried a weakened version known as edited-R.
In closing (ahem - I know knowbody read this far), don't despair. There are small or interesting details in the mainstream fray. I just saw that Robert Rodrigeuz had to officially resign his director's guild membership to share directoral billing with Frank Miller on Sin City since Miller isn't a properly ordained director. Even though this was small gesture involving nothing more than some light paperwork, it is something that not all directors would do. Sin City is supposed to be pretty kick ass, so it's just icing on the cake.
renegadefury wrote:
> If I start failing at my job, I'd get fired. And with
> entertainers too, if they start selling out, I'll stop giving
> into them, most likely cause the art would suck, not just
> because of the selling out in itself.
But I think you are confusing what 'their job' really is. To FOX, it is Seth's job to make them money. To put fannies on the couch in front of the tube so folks see the commercials paid for by their advertisers. Nothing more.
The execs at FOX probably care very little (if at all) about how artistic a show is. The Simple Life is ART? Come on. Temptation Island art? Nah, I don't think they care one whit about art.
Your job is to perform a specific task, and if you stop doing that task you may get fired. Likewise for Seth, but the task is not to produce art. He could at this point produce the most overrated drek imaginable, and the show would still be very, very popular (for a while at least) due to the past popularity of FG and it's cult status. It would take a while for the cult following to admit "hey, this ain't so good."
So, the 'art' sucking is, in my view, irrelevant to the bottom line. There have been some very, very good shows that did not make it, and some totally horrible ones that seem to go on forever. As long as FOX can show advertisers a certain demographic is tuning in in certain numbers, the advertisers will buy the time.
>"To FOX, it is Seth's job to make them money. "
whoops, I didn't mean Family Guy in particular, just movies/music in general, where you got bands like Metallica and movies like The Grudge, instead of another Dead Alive which did not compormise anything. Family Guy's comedy is heavily based on pop culture trivia so it's bound to be commercial.
Since tv shows are just billboards, 99% of it will appeal to the lowest common denominator cause most of the stuff trying to be sold are products nobody needs (mostly stuff, like McDonalds, Beer, Movies, etc). And when was the last time you'd be able to persuade a genius to buy something he doesn't even need in the 1st place.
I saw Robert Rodriguez on AMC's Sunday Morning Shootout and he acted like the directors guild was no big thing. He respects the rule they have about one director credit because they don't want it to become meaningless like some of the producer credits that are given. He is doing what he wants, he has a studio in Austin (actually some hangars that were abandoned when they moved the airport). I'm looking forward to Sin City.
I hate the way TNT and TBS can turn a two hour movie into 3.5 hour event. Hell most of the commercial breaks are longer than the movie segments. But that is the nature of TV.
trek_geezer wrote:
>
> I hate the way TNT and TBS can turn a two hour movie into 3.5
> hour event. Hell most of the commercial breaks are longer than
> the movie segments. But that is the nature of TV.
>
Not like anyone needs evidence of this, but I was taping "Little House on the Prairie" last Saturday for my wife (off ABC) and editing the commercials as I went. We ended up with just over an hour of tape. Though I knew it was commercial heavy, I was a little surprised it was THAT lopsided.
Hmmmm.....Geaorge Lucas won't hire unionized directors..
Sounds like Robert Rodriguez is not in the union...
"El Jedi"
"Once Upon A Time In A Galaxy Far Far Away"
"From Dusk Til Clones"
..it could work...just get Antonio Banderas in there as a renegade Jedi out for revenge and find *some* place for Salma Hayak.
Post Edited (04-02-05 08:40)
George Lucas quit the directors guild and the screenwriters guild after he was fined for not showing any credits at the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back. Seems they had to get special permission on Ep. IV, but he didn't bother to ask the next time, so the DGA fined him $500,000.
People might not like what he does to his old movies, but he is one of the few people not beholding to a studio.
Just to add on the amount of commercials, have you ever watched an old rerun and it seemed different, like something was missing? It is because commercial breaks are longer, so more of the original show has to be removed. And on a related note, I heard that there is some sort of controversy over a dvd release of WKRP in Cincinatti. That was a really funny show with real music from the radio at the time. It gave it a really authentic feel. At that time, it was pretty new to actually hear current songs in the context of a show.
Anyway, some WKRP episodes on a dvd release will not have certain songs in them. I'd be inclined to say all or nothing and keep the integrity of the show intact. But then again, a new generation may miss out on Less Nessman and turkeys being thrown from helicopters.
ulthar wrote:
> Not like anyone needs evidence of this, but I was taping
> "Little House on the Prairie" last Saturday for my wife (off
> ABC) and editing the commercials as I went.
>
OK, give it up...we're onto you. You were taping Little House for yourself, weren't you?!?! C'mon, out with it. You're not fooling anyone here, mister.
Post Edited (04-02-05 11:28)
"OK, give it up...we're onto you. You were taping Little House for yourself, weren't you?!?! C'mon, out with it. You're not fooling anyone here, mister."
Either that or he REALLY REALLY loves his wife!
I mean, I'd give my wife a kidney, move across the country for her, and you can't imagine some of the chores at odd hours I performed during her pregnancies... but Little House on the Prarie? Uh-uh.
Eirik wrote:
> and you can't imagine some of the chores at odd hours I
> performed during her pregnancies... but Little House on the
> Prarie? Uh-uh.
It's interesting that you mention that...she's working about 80 hrs per week right now AND seven months pregnant. She likes Little House, so I thought I'd do her a favor.
She hasn't watched it yet, so it remains in "theory" that I taped it for her. I stick by my assertion.
;)
I also heard about WKRP, but I thought they were probably not going to release it because there is so much music in it that would make it very hard and cost prohibitive to get the rights to all the songs.
A lot of other series released on DVD have this problem. If they can't get the rights to include a song that originally was in a scene they will substitute another, which make the scene lose it;s original feel.
Speaking of rights for songs, a local show here called John Saffron's Music Jamboree came up with a good way of adjusting to not being able to get the rights to a song for the dvd release.
Over the end credits a band were supposed to be playing one of their songs, but on different instruments from around the world [eg. one week they have a punk band play a song on Indian instruments like sitars and stuff]
But because for some reason they couldn't get the rights to one of these particular groups [I think it was Faithless, or at least a Faithless song being redone, not sure though] for the dvd, although this scene appears intact on the TV show when it screens, John Saffron just started talking about some behind the scenes info over the end credits, which mainly was b***hing about copyright controls and some other stuff I can't remember.
I had heard about this problem with WKRP. Really p**ses me off. It's just a cash grab. I agree that they need to pay to use the song in the first place, but once the episode is made, it should become something new in its own right. That's my opinion. Especially with something like WKRP, that only used bits and pieces of songs, usually in the background. It's not like buying the DVD is going to give anybody an intact copy of the song as a free bonus. It might give it a little exposure though, and that can't hurt.
It's my feeling that once the song is legally used, it should be considered part of a greater whole, and no longer a separate item. To use an artistic analogy, this situation seems like a paint company blocking the exhibition of a famous painting, because they want to be paid more for certain colours.
This is similar to the problem that has prevented so many good episodes of MST3K from making it to home video. They got the rights to use the cheesy old movies cheaply enough, but once they showed they could make something saleable out of it, the price went up.
Naturally, an entire movie is a different proposition from a few seconds of a song. Still, MST3K can be credited for bringing a fair bit of attention to films that might otherwise have been of little value to their owners. It's only because of the show's following that they can even consider charging more for the rights.
It just bugs me that we can be denied a great show because someone wants to be paid again for one of its components.
I'm surprised the short bits of song in WKRP are not covered by "Fair Use."
And btw, AndyC, I agree 100% with your view. Once it's bought and put into another work, it becomes part of THAT work (the shortened version of the song). Maybe it would be a different matter if the makers of the DVD wanted to put complete song 'soundtracks' as bonuses on the disk, but man, iirc, those song clips were quite short.
Hey congrats, ulthar! Not your first though, right? I thought I remembered you talking about having kids before.
80 hours while seven months pregnant?? Your wife's a trooper - what does she do??
Yeah, AndyC that's what bugged me about the dvd I was talking about: after all, if you had gained the rights to use the song already, the original owners of said song shouldn't be allowed to say: ''well hey, lets get paid a second time, so unless you want to continue to use it, you have to pay us again''
It almost amounts to extortion, though through legal loopholes of course.
Once its been used once, legally, on a show/movie/whatever, it should be allowed to be used forever more, in a sense; no take backs. Its just plain annoying... I guess there are probably some legal arguments to dispute all this, and some perfectly good reasons for it, but it just makes little or no sense to me at all why someone who originally paid to use a song in a show cannot continue to use it on dvd/vhs copies.
Thank-you. Yes, this is our second; we have a two 1/2 year old daughter.
She is a pediatric resident at the hospital. When she's 'on-call,' she works 30 hour shifts. It's not uncommon to have two or three calls per week, plus regular (8-10) hour shifts the other days. It's grueling, but she's almost done with her third year.
Taping Little House seemed the least I could do. :)