'Arrested' developments

TelevisionWeek (from which I also stole the headline) is reporting that both ABC and Showtime have offered the producers of "Arrested Development" deals to continue the series on their networks. And it's all above board because when Fox reduced this season's order from 22 to 13 episodes, "the reduction triggered a clause in the show's contract enabling producers to shop the series elsewhere," sayeth TVWeek. The producers are said to be "mulling both offers," a one-year deal from ABC and a two-year deal from Showtime, part of the CBS family.

A few weeks ago, news broke that Showtime and ABC were vying for the presumably canceled Fox comedy "Arrested Development." Turns out ABC offered producers Imagine Entertainment and 20th Century Fox Television a 13-episode commitment to the series, which a network spokesperson has now confirmed. Showtime, meanwhile, has offered a two-year commitment, which would likely translate to 26 episodes. Sources said producers are still mulling both offers. Meanwhile, the series continues to struggle on Fox, with its most recent episode drawing a mere 4.2 million viewers. Sources said an ABC deal, especially in the wake of the show's most recent performance, is unlikely. Last year Fox reduced the third-season order of "Arrested" from 22 to 13 episodes. Though the show has not been officially canceled, the reduction triggered a clause in the show's contract enabling producers to shop the series elsewhere.

FOX's session at the TCA Winter Press Tour today has generated quite a bit of noise.

Whether it be the identity of the killer in "Reunion," the fate of "Arrested Development" or the possible revival of "Futurama," there were plenty of interesting nuggets doled out by Entertainment president Peter Ligouri.

Here's a breakdown of the related quotes:

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT EXCHANGE #1

QUESTION: Could you reflect, because you've got a couple major sitcoms ending in the spring, and also should I ask you, is "Arrested Development" for sure going to end on February 10th? Is that going to be the last day for it?

PETER LIGUORI: Let's deal with them in two parts. As far as "Arrested" goes, we ordered 13 for this season. We are going to run four episodes in a row on that February date. I have to be frank with you, it is highly unlikely the show is coming back but no definitive final answer has been made on that.

QUESTION: Okay. So what I'd like to ask you to do is just reflect over all, because it's kind of a pivotal point for you. If "Arrested" goes, those are three major sitcoms ending a run. A lot of people are having trouble with sitcoms. You were going very heavily four-camera stuff and the two new ones you've shown us are very strongly camera-ones. Tell us what you think the state of the sitcom is at this point.

PETER LIGUORI: It's daunting, but I think the state of the sitcom runs cyclically just like every other genre. Right now the sitcom isn't in its most healthy state, but we're always one great show away from that turning around.

I just look back to the '70s when Norman Lear came on the scene. People were really talking about the demise of the sitcom back then. So from our standpoint, we're out there every day, trying to find show runners and show creators with a vision. It is daunting when you realize that there are aging comedies on the air on Fox, but we're looking at it from a long-term perspective. We're out there aggressively developing and hoping to replace those shows.

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT EXCHANGE #2

QUESTION: Peter, your left here. You stopped short a little earlier of giving a definitive answer on "Arrested Development" and I'm just curious about that for one thing. I'm wondering what calculations are left to be made. And second of all, there's a lot of talk about a couple of other networks perhaps, you know, being interested in getting that show on their air. So is it fair to the producers to kind of leave them hanging if you're almost certain you're going to kill the show here?

PETER LIGUORI: My goal is to be fair with the producers and fair with everyone here. It is highly unlikely "Arrested" is coming back. What new calculations are available? I mean basically we'll wind up looking at where our development is. We'll wind up seeing what those four episodes do. We anticipate those four episodes will be populated by the loyal audience and we're in dialogue with Mitch all the time.

QUESTION: Peter, in the back, continuing that line of -- yeah, in the middle.

PETER LIGUORI: Okay.

QUESTION: Specifically, two networks were allowed to negotiate with the producers, and report says it's because there was a -- something triggered in the contract when you reduced the season order from 22 episodes to 13 episodes. I was wondering why you let them do that and if that's just a one-time think that you granted to "Arrested Development." Also, what do you anticipate for the thinly disguised jabs at FOX in the last four episodes?

PETER LIGUORI: First and foremost, let's talk about where the show is going. You should ask the studio. You should ask Mitch what's going on with that. At this point, I don't know. But look, it is regrettable that we could not find the audience that that show deserved. It is in fact a studio property. If there's interest at other networks, it's the studio's right and Mitch's right to move that on and put that up to bid.

Now, in terms of the jabs, it would be really duplicitous of us as a network to put a dampening effect on the great art of the spoof. We have a good relationship with the show runners. I think it is great humor to turn it back on FOX a bit. And I think we've made fun of ourselves consistently. I think you've seen it on "The Simpsons." We have a sense of humor about the business. We have a sense of humor about ourselves. And we're glad it's Mitch that's doing it because he does it with great dexterity.

QUESTION: Are you holding out your decision, your final decision on "Arrested Development" in part because these other networks are talking to them?

PETER LIGUORI: No. Two separate issues.

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT EXCHANGE #3

QUESTION: Peter, earlier you said that there -- you didn't see a major difference between the philosophies between FOX and FX. And I was thinking back to comments you made a couple years ago about, when you were still at FX, that you would like to have a certain show if FOX canceled it. What's your relationship with FX like now? Has it changed from when Gail was in this position? And did you have any discussions about "Arrested Development" with FX?

PETER LIGUORI: Needless to say I'm way more intimate with FX than Gail was and have a great relationship with John and sit back and admire everything that's going on with that network. You know, I just look back at the -- last week, the creative of "The Shield" and the phenomenal ratings that FX did, the tremendous finale of "Nip/Tuck." And John and I, I would say, talk almost on a daily basis. So we've discussed many, if not every show. I enjoy that relationship. Whatever is good for FX is good for News Corp., and we've lobbed many ideas back and forth over the net.

QUESTION: How about "Arrested"?

PETER LIGUORI: You know, we have thought about how to work that out. The biggest difficulty for a network like FX is, "Arrested Development" is an expensive show. And it's way more difficult to make the economics of that show work on FX versus another network broadcaster.

QUESTION: Would it surprise you that Showtime was interested in it given the --

PETER LIGUORI: Again, I know nothing about those negotiations. But if you just look at it as an outside observer, from a numbers standpoint, if Showtime were able to migrate the absolute numbers that "Arrested" gets on FOX to Showtime, that would be by far and away its Number 1 show. So as far as hearing those rumors and saying, "Does that make sense for a Showtime?," strategically, numerically, quantitatively, probably.