FLM films - My Webpage

2003-05-04 11:04:12+01:00 - So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (Dave White <no_spamdrw@durnovaria.net>)


Long time fan, first time post. I can't believe that Angel is 'still on the bubble'. Okay some rumours have begun that it's 'probably' going to be renewed. Surely WB must realise with the demise of Buffy that thousands and thousands of fans world wide are likely to flock to Angel as that's the last of the 'Buffy-Verse'.....and with the prospect of James Marsters becoming a regular and the writers from Buffy coming over - this is a recipe for massive success. I've been downloading all eps from the net, so I'm up to ep21, and the premise for 22 looks awesome. Spoiler space for the UK fans...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Angel at W&H? Awesome. Whedon has described this one as a pilot for a new series and this is all good stuff. That's what I love about Angel - they always keep it moving forward. Hopefully WB should do too.. Dave --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003

2003-05-04 11:31:01-07:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com>)


"Dave White" <no_spamdrw@durnovaria.net> wrote: >Long time fan, first time post. > >I can't believe that Angel is 'still on the bubble'. Okay some >rumours have begun that it's 'probably' going to be renewed. >Surely WB must realise with the demise of Buffy that thousands >and thousands of fans world wide are likely to flock to Angel >as that's the last of the 'Buffy-Verse'.....and with the prospect >of James Marsters becoming a regular and the writers from Buffy >coming over - this is a recipe for massive success. The WB doesn't care about 'fans world wide'. The only people putting money in the WB's pockets are the U.S. viewers (actually the people puttiing money in the WB's pockets are the advertisers, and how much money is dependent on how many viewers). Mutant Enemy makes Angel for Fox Television (the television production house (or 'studio') for 20th Century Fox/Newscorp). Fox licenses Angel to the WB network for exclusive first broadcast (worldwide), just as they license it to Space in Canada, Sky in the UK, Fox 7 in Australia, and so forth for national/regional telecasts. None of the international licensees can show Angel before the WB, because the WB has, and pays for, exclusive first run rights (that is, it's paying Fox more than any of those international licensees, for the right to be the first to show it). There's actaully a slight window for the international licensees, and for a while some Canadian outlets were actually showing Angel the day before the WB, but Fox stopped that by changing its satellite upload schedule. The license the WB has with Fox expires this year. All of the WB programs which have, thus far, been announced as renewed for next year are still under existing licenses for next year. Its renewal for next year is contingent on renewal of the license agreement, which is contingent on the WB feeling the renewal deal will make it money, and make it more money than something else. Angel gets marginal ratings on the WB. This year it has averaged about 3.9 million viewers per new episode. For comparison, Seventh Heaven averages 8.3 million, Smallville averages 7.9 million, Gilmore Girls averages 6.0 million, Everwood averages 6.0 million, Charmed averages 5.1 million, and Dawson's Creek averages 4.0 million. among the half-hour comedies, Reba averages 4.7 million (all the other regular series still on the air average below Angel). If all 13 primetime hours that the WB broadcasts had new episodes, Angel would be either 7th or 8th (depending on which show was partnered with Reba in the Friday 9pm slot, Reba and Greetings from Tucson come out just below Angel, Reba and Grounded for Life come out just above Angel). While Angel is the lowest rated of the WB's surviving hour shows, this has been a tremendously successful year for the WB's hour shows, and Angel's ratings are not considered bad. They just aren't break-out-hit great. The WB's pattern this year has been to schedule hour shows on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Sunday, with half-hour shows on Thursday and Friday. They set aside one hour (Sunday 7pm) for repeats of Gilmore Girls this year, but might use that hour for new programming next season. Dawson's Creek is definitely ending, it has a big 2-hour series finale coming up in two weeks. The WB has already announced the return of 7th, Smallville, Gilmore Girls, Everwood, and Charmed. That leaves either 3 or 4 hour-drama slots, depending on whether they continue doing repeats at Sunday 7pm, to fill. If they elect to go with new programming at 7pm on Sunday, Angel's chances increase (because that's one more programming slot). My own somewhat educated, but definitely not insider, guess is that they will do a new show on Sunday 7pm and Angel is going to be renewed and put back on Sunday 9pm (it got slightly better ratings on Sunday, and partnered better with Charmed than anything else they've run there since moving Angel to Wednesday). Rather than do all new programming on Wednesday, they'll move Smallville to 8pm Wednesday, partner Gilmore Girls with its spin-off on Tuesday (hoping for the same synergy the WB got with Buffy/Angel) and put a new show on after Smallville. -- I have a theory It could be bunnies

2003-05-04 14:40:50+01:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (Andrew Poulter <AJP_Junkmail@btinternet.com>)


Sometime in the past in a post known only as %D5ta.15165$9C6.730971@wards.force9.net Dave White <no_spamdrw@durnovaria.net> wrote: > Long time fan, first time post. Hi Dave. See it wasn't that hard, was it? :-) I'm not going to read any further - since I'm not upto episode 21 yet (kudos for remembering the spoiler space, by the way - it's easy to forget if you're not used to doing it), but it's always good to see new people here; and lets all hope that the WB do see sense (I'm sure they will) and that we get at least one more season of Angel out of them. As the saying goes - "have fun, and post lots" . AJP

2003-05-04 15:11:51-07:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (himiko@animail.net)


"Dave White" <no_spamdrw@durnovaria.net> wrote in message news:<%D5ta.15165$9C6.730971@wards.force9.net>... > Long time fan, first time post. > > I can't believe that Angel is 'still on the bubble'. Okay some rumours have > begun that it's 'probably' going to be renewed. Surely WB must realise with > the demise of Buffy that thousands and thousands of fans world wide are > likely to flock to Angel as that's the last of the 'Buffy-Verse'.....and > with the prospect of James Marsters becoming a regular and the writers from > Buffy coming over - this is a recipe for massive success. > > I've been downloading all eps from the net, so I'm up to ep21, and the > premise for 22 looks awesome. > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > Angel at W&H? Awesome. Whedon has described this one as a pilot for a new > series and this is all good stuff. Actually, it's rather puzzling stuff. Does this mean that the new domicile/style of AtS is designed to create a new spinoff of some sort? Or that the new look of AtS will be so different that it will effectively be a new show? I hope it's the former. I like the old show. As to renewal. It's a toss-up. TV execs consider three things in deciding whether or not a show is a success: First and most important by far is the ratings. AtS is not a ratings buster by any means. OTOH, it does pull marginally acceptable ratings and is a surer thing than a totally new show. On the whole, though, ratings are not AtS's strongest argument for renewal and that's a big minus. Second by quite a margin is the demographic and loyalty of the fans. This is the lesson they learned from ST:TOS which pulled low ratings overall, but high numbers of the highly desirable (for dubious reasons, but still desirable) males aged 14-34 group. Ratings aren't quite everything any more, and the Buffyverse, like ST, pulls a loyal, predictable demographic; a recent SF con devoted a day to each major media universe: Star Wars got one, Star Trek another, and the Buffyverse claimed the third day. Trouble is, they may be mostly female; I'm not sure that's as important as it used to be though, and I'm not sure what AtS's demographic is. Third, by yet another major drop down the ladder of importance, is critical acclaim. Entertainment companies care most about the cheers of their peers (media awards) which BTVS and AtS have never gotten. But somewhere in the back of their accounting book hearts, some of them are affected by what other people think. They are not unaware that SF groups (including snooty literary groups that seldom bother to notice media stuff) have given both shows many awards, or that prestigious film critics have broken their own rules about not covering TV to praise ME productions, or that there have been whole academic conferences and two academic books focused on the Buffyverse. Publicly they'll sneer and note that this, plus $1.75, will get them a cup of coffee, but privately some of these greedy suits are actually flattered by the idea that they might be involved in making art or history...it's certainly as close as they're likely to get. Personally, I think AtS will be renewed, but it's by no means a shoe-in. himiko

2003-05-04 16:53:30-05:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (the q is silent <j-wagner2@northwestern.edu>)


Dave White wrote: > > I can't believe that Angel is 'still on the bubble'. Okay some rumours have > begun that it's 'probably' going to be renewed. Surely WB must realise with > the demise of Buffy that thousands and thousands of fans world wide are > likely to flock to Angel as that's the last of the 'Buffy-Verse'.....and > with the prospect of James Marsters becoming a regular and the writers from > Buffy coming over - this is a recipe for massive success. Welcome, Dave. Don't worry so much about Angel "still" not being renewed. Angel is at the end of its current licensing agreement, so there's some renegotiations and things that needed to happen before the show was officially renewed. That's likely the only reason the show wasn't renewed in the early round. The reason it "still" hasn't been renewed is that after that first round of renewals, the WB said that it would announce Angel's fate when it announces its fall schedule in a few weeks. They won't do it any earlier than that. -- Jyqm "And so I've learned to retreat at the first sign of danger I mean why wait around, if it's just to surrender And ambition, I've found, can lead only to failure I do not read the reviews No, I am not singing for you"

2003-05-04 18:03:11-07:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (himiko@animail.net)


PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<040520031521492722%antarian@pacbell.net>... > In article <c7902983.0305041411.54d3ce3a@posting.google.com>, himiko > <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > > > > > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > Angel at W&H? Awesome. Whedon has described this one as a pilot for a new > > > series and this is all good stuff. > > > > Actually, it's rather puzzling stuff. Does this mean that the new > > domicile/style of AtS is designed to create a new spinoff of some > > sort? Or that the new look of AtS will be so different that it will > > effectively be a new show? I hope it's the former. I like the old > > show. > > from what I've heard, it's more a major change in direction for the > show. less of the soap opera, more of the 'mission'. I was afraid of that. This isn't new. This is terribly old. It's called standalone action drama. I suppose I'll still check in on the off chance that it's not that, but it sure sounds like it. > Angel and Co > would be fighting the 'never having all the info, resources' sitch > because they would have all of WR&H's stuff at their disposal. I'm more neutral on that. I hope they're not going all James Bondy. The difficulties Angel and co. faced due to monetary, legal, and other disadvantages were part of their charm. But it may be that the assets are more rather than less trouble. If they can dimension hop, for example, that could be fun, and they may find more info on the PTB. They should be looking for it after Jasmine's little announcement. And if the rumors about how Angel decides to handle the Connor problem are true, I can only hope that this W&H advanced metaphysical tech backfires. In fact, I hope a large number of these new "assets" do. > but I haven't heard anything that suggests that they are going to scrap > all the back story to create something totally new. They wouldn't need to. They could simply push Wes into the lead, recreate him as a slightly scruffy Bond character with vampire and demon connections, and it would still be a totally new show. Possibly even a good show, although I doubt it. himiko (beginning to wonder if cancellation is the worst thing that could happen)

2003-05-04 19:10:39+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <45jabvcohdnn7l9aa8gapoiv8mihnnp0ic@4ax.com>, William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote: > My own somewhat educated, but definitely not insider, guess is that > they will do a new show on Sunday 7pm and Angel is going to be renewed > and put back on Sunday 9pm (it got slightly better ratings on Sunday, > and partnered better with Charmed than anything else they've run there > since moving Angel to Wednesday). Rather than do all new programming > on Wednesday, they'll move Smallville to 8pm Wednesday, partner > Gilmore Girls with its spin-off on Tuesday (hoping for the same > synergy the WB got with Buffy/Angel) and put a new show on after > Smallville. A highly likely set up. Provided that the GG spinoff gets the pickup. But I do think that you are thinking the right way on the possible issue of something (either Everwood or Smallville) being moved to Wednesdays. the night needs an anchor. The loss of Sorkin and what's his name for West Wing is going to play an issue on whether the WB is going to keep Angel in that slot. The ratings for WW have been sliding and loosing Sorkin (who did the majority of the writing for all eps of the show thus far) could be a sign of doom, leaving folks less cautious about that slot. Part of it will depend on the whole Reality show thing. I believe that the WB announces its Fall after the big 4, so they could make adjustments as needed.

2003-05-04 22:20:50+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <c7902983.0305041411.54d3ce3a@posting.google.com>, himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > "Dave White" <no_spamdrw@durnovaria.net> wrote in message > news:<%D5ta.15165$9C6.730971@wards.force9.net>... > > Long time fan, first time post. > > > > I can't believe that Angel is 'still on the bubble'. Okay some rumours have > > begun that it's 'probably' going to be renewed. Surely WB must realise with > > the demise of Buffy that thousands and thousands of fans world wide are > > likely to flock to Angel as that's the last of the 'Buffy-Verse'.....and > > with the prospect of James Marsters becoming a regular and the writers from > > Buffy coming over - this is a recipe for massive success. > > > > I've been downloading all eps from the net, so I'm up to ep21, and the > > premise for 22 looks awesome. > > > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > Angel at W&H? Awesome. Whedon has described this one as a pilot for a new > > series and this is all good stuff. > > Actually, it's rather puzzling stuff. Does this mean that the new > domicile/style of AtS is designed to create a new spinoff of some > sort? Or that the new look of AtS will be so different that it will > effectively be a new show? I hope it's the former. I like the old > show. from what I've heard, it's more a major change in direction for the show. less of the soap opera, more of the 'mission'. Angel and Co would be fighting the 'never having all the info, resources' sitch because they would have all of WR&H's stuff at their disposal. but I haven't heard anything that suggests that they are going to scrap all the back story to create something totally new.

2003-05-04 22:21:56-07:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (himiko@animail.net)


PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<040520031827099944%antarian@pacbell.net>... > In article <c7902983.0305041703.63fae406@posting.google.com>, himiko > <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > > > PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message > > news:<040520031521492722%antarian@pacbell.net>... > > > In article <c7902983.0305041411.54d3ce3a@posting.google.com>, himiko > > > <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > from what I've heard, it's more a major change in direction for the > > > show. less of the soap opera, more of the 'mission'. > > > > I was afraid of that. This isn't new. This is terribly old. It's > > called standalone action drama. I suppose I'll still check in on the > > off chance that it's not that, but it sure sounds like it. > > are you aware that the original design of the show was more standalone > action-y than what we got. David G did an interview about two years ago > where he mentioned it. so this could be simply finally getting to where > they wanted to be all along. Yeah. I almost didn't watch it because of that. And it was a lot more like that when it started, but it improved. And there were at least mini-arcs from the start. > > and have faith in ME. don't bash the show until you see where they take > it. As I said, I'll check it out, but frankly, this is the worst possible news. It sounds like Earth Final Conflict and Andromeda all over again. himiko

2003-05-05 01:23:10+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <c7902983.0305041703.63fae406@posting.google.com>, himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:<040520031521492722%antarian@pacbell.net>... > > In article <c7902983.0305041411.54d3ce3a@posting.google.com>, himiko > > <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > from what I've heard, it's more a major change in direction for the > > show. less of the soap opera, more of the 'mission'. > > I was afraid of that. This isn't new. This is terribly old. It's > called standalone action drama. 1. I didn't say it would be all mission. just more. more mission means less focusing on the group and opening back up to the whole world. more like seasons one and two. > And if the rumors about how Angel decides to handle the Connor problem > are true, I can only hope that this W&H advanced metaphysical tech > backfires. In fact, I hope a large number of these new "assets" do. I wouldn't count Connor out. Remember why he turned on Jasmine. He couldn't believe in the lie after all. He wanted to, why not since his whole life has been lies. One way that his arc can go is that it's an extended version of "Birthday". He comes to LA to go to school and discovers that demons and vamps etc are real. This leds him to ANgel and co (none of whom know who he is, or he them). something rings familiar for him, then something else and something else. eventually he suspects that all isn't as it seems and he discovers some magical device that he thinks might be the cause of what's going on (there is mention of an amulet). he is about to destroy it when someone asks if he's sure he's really to face the truth (an homage to "the Wish"). He breaks the whatever and ends the spell. which could, in the process of returning their memories, also break the contract with Wolfram and Hart, thus ending their 'assets'. who knows. > > > but I haven't heard anything that suggests that they are going to scrap > > all the back story to create something totally new. > > They wouldn't need to. They could simply push Wes into the lead, > recreate him as a slightly scruffy Bond character with vampire and > demon connections, and it would still be a totally new show. they won't push Wesley to the lead. the show is centered around Angel. if they change that, then it's not the same show. they won't go that far.

2003-05-05 01:26:14+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <c7902983.0305041703.63fae406@posting.google.com>, himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:<040520031521492722%antarian@pacbell.net>... > > In article <c7902983.0305041411.54d3ce3a@posting.google.com>, himiko > > <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > Angel at W&H? Awesome. Whedon has described this one as a pilot for a > > > > new > > > > series and this is all good stuff. > > > > > > Actually, it's rather puzzling stuff. Does this mean that the new > > > domicile/style of AtS is designed to create a new spinoff of some > > > sort? Or that the new look of AtS will be so different that it will > > > effectively be a new show? I hope it's the former. I like the old > > > show. > > > > from what I've heard, it's more a major change in direction for the > > show. less of the soap opera, more of the 'mission'. > > I was afraid of that. This isn't new. This is terribly old. It's > called standalone action drama. I suppose I'll still check in on the > off chance that it's not that, but it sure sounds like it. are you aware that the original design of the show was more standalone action-y than what we got. David G did an interview about two years ago where he mentioned it. so this could be simply finally getting to where they wanted to be all along. and have faith in ME. don't bash the show until you see where they take it.

2003-05-05 05:58:48+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (Ziggyman <no@way.com>)


Because WB didn't know what it had with Buffy.. why should they care if the Buffy fans they lost come back? "Dave White" <no_spamdrw@durnovaria.net> wrote in message news:%D5ta.15165$9C6.730971@wards.force9.net... > Long time fan, first time post. > > I can't believe that Angel is 'still on the bubble'. Okay some rumours have > begun that it's 'probably' going to be renewed. Surely WB must realise with > the demise of Buffy that thousands and thousands of fans world wide are > likely to flock to Angel as that's the last of the 'Buffy-Verse'.....and > with the prospect of James Marsters becoming a regular and the writers from > Buffy coming over - this is a recipe for massive success. > > I've been downloading all eps from the net, so I'm up to ep21, and the > premise for 22 looks awesome. > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > Angel at W&H? Awesome. Whedon has described this one as a pilot for a new > series and this is all good stuff. That's what I love about Angel - they > always keep it moving forward. Hopefully WB should do too.. > > > Dave > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003 > >

2003-05-05 06:44:08+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? >From: himiko@animail.net (himiko) >Date: 5/4/2003 6:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <c7902983.0305041703.63fae406@posting.google.com> > >PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message >news:<040520031521492722%antarian@pacbell.net>... >> In article <c7902983.0305041411.54d3ce3a@posting.google.com>, himiko >> <himiko@animail.net> wrote: >> > > >> > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > . >> > > Angel at W&H? Awesome. Whedon has described this one as a pilot for a >new >> > > series and this is all good stuff. >> > >> > Actually, it's rather puzzling stuff. Does this mean that the new >> > domicile/style of AtS is designed to create a new spinoff of some >> > sort? Or that the new look of AtS will be so different that it will >> > effectively be a new show? I hope it's the former. I like the old >> > show. >> >> from what I've heard, it's more a major change in direction for the >> show. less of the soap opera, more of the 'mission'. > >I was afraid of that. I'm not. The Jasmine plot aside, Angel was at its best when it was a standalone show with continuing threads about the characters, rather than an insular show about Angel and his buds. IMHO. Rose Buffy, Spike and Angel: Existentialist heroes. Now I get it. Shutting up now. Save me Jasmine!

2003-05-05 08:58:20-05:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (Electric Frog <bouncedvae2702@hotmail.com>)


"Ziggyman" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:s4nta.93367$w7k.32831@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... > Because WB didn't know what it had with Buffy.. why should they care if the > Buffy fans they lost come back? > I don't think Buffy has been that great a hit for UPN and they were probably right to not pay Fox's ramped up fees

2003-05-05 15:07:43+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <20030505024408.08268.00000913@mb-m03.aol.com>, Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > >Subject: Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? > >From: himiko@animail.net (himiko) > >Date: 5/4/2003 6:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <c7902983.0305041703.63fae406@posting.google.com> > > > >PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message > >news:<040520031521492722%antarian@pacbell.net>... > >> In article <c7902983.0305041411.54d3ce3a@posting.google.com>, himiko > >> <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > > I'm not. The Jasmine plot aside, Angel was at its best when it was a > standalone show with continuing threads about the characters, rather than an > insular show about Angel and his buds. IMHO. while I think that this season was needed and was good, I have to agree (and I think a lot of others do as well) that this season should NOT be the blueprint for the show at large. back to something more like season's one and two with mini arcs and MOTW stuff would be better. the only major arc that could work for next season would be one involving Connor and his return to the gang. And that will hopefully be handled in a way that isn't all mopey and brooding (I'd like to see something that is like an extended version of Cordy's birthday ep, where he gets mixed up with the group without anyone knowing who he is for real. and then that puzzle slowly comes together until he figures out that something isn't right and he finds some magical talisman that controls the spell and he destroys it, aka Anya's amulet in the Wish)

2003-05-07 20:10:27+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (samjames1NOSPAM@yahoo.com)


On Mon, 05 May 2003 05:58:48 GMT, "Ziggyman" <no@way.com> wrote: >Because WB didn't know what it had with Buffy.. why should they care if the >Buffy fans they lost come back? > Sure they did. The WB was willing to keep Buffy on the air. They were willing to pay more to keep Buffy during contract negotiations. They weren't willing to *lose* money by paying more per episode than they got back from advertisers. UPN was. And subsequent ratings showed that WB was right.

2003-05-07 20:16:18-07:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (bethany_weber@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030505024408.08268.00000913@mb-m03.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? > >From: himiko@animail.net (himiko) > >Date: 5/4/2003 6:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <c7902983.0305041703.63fae406@posting.google.com> > > > >PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message > >news:<040520031521492722%antarian@pacbell.net>... > >> In article <c7902983.0305041411.54d3ce3a@posting.google.com>, himiko > >> <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > . > >> > > Angel at W&H? Awesome. Whedon has described this one as a pilot for a > new > >> > > series and this is all good stuff. > >> > > >> > Actually, it's rather puzzling stuff. Does this mean that the new > >> > domicile/style of AtS is designed to create a new spinoff of some > >> > sort? Or that the new look of AtS will be so different that it will > >> > effectively be a new show? I hope it's the former. I like the old > >> > show. > >> > >> from what I've heard, it's more a major change in direction for the > >> show. less of the soap opera, more of the 'mission'. > > > >I was afraid of that. > > I'm not. The Jasmine plot aside, Angel was at its best when it was a > standalone show with continuing threads about the characters, rather than an > insular show about Angel and his buds. IMHO. Preach it, sister. :-) Frankly, anything that makes the show less soap-opera-y, the gang no longer perpetually pissed at each other, and gets rid of the all-angst-all-the-time thing they have going is good with me. I mean, overall I actually liked this season (and the latter part of last season, from "Waiting in the Wings" on), particularly the Jasmine arc... but I've been re-watching my Season 1 DVDs and the show was just so much more *fun* back then... I think they'll have problems with the whole "we can make anything and do anything" thing, though, if they keep W&H. I mean, we don't want to watch these people being administrators. On the third hand, that might let Lilah come back occasionally. Anything that lets Lilah come back sometimes is good with me as well. :-) Of course, me and my housemate were both hoping that this meant the end of Connor, but from some discussion here it sounds like that might not be the case. Pity, that. Ever since the evil-Cordy arc began in earnest we're been remarking that the boy needs to die at least several times per episode. Bethany

2003-05-08 06:33:32+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (sfryar@aol.comSPAMIN8R)


>On Mon, 05 May 2003 05:58:48 GMT, "Ziggyman" <no@way.com> wrote: > >>Because WB didn't know what it had with Buffy.. why should they care if the >>Buffy fans they lost come back? >> >Sure they did. The WB was willing to keep Buffy on the air. They >were willing to pay more to keep Buffy during contract negotiations. >They weren't willing to *lose* money by paying more per episode than >they got back from advertisers. UPN was. And subsequent ratings >showed that WB was right. Well, I'd like to see Angel stay on the WB, rather than go to UPN. We'll see what happens this coming Monday when WB announces their fall schedule... Stephie

2003-05-08 15:54:19-04:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Sam James <samjames1NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 08 May 2003 06:33:32 GMT, sfryar@aol.comSPAMIN8R (Stephie) wrote: >>Well, I'd like to see Angel stay on the WB, rather than go to UPN. >> >>We'll see what happens this coming Monday when WB announces their fall >>schedule... > I don't think there's any danger of UPN taking Angel. Considering the > loss of ratings that happened with Buffy and the failure of Roswell, > they probably aren't going to take any WB castoff series for a while. Agreed. I think it'd have to be a smaller unit, like SciFi. Of course, then I'd have to await season 5 on DVD 2 years from now! cl

2003-05-08 19:38:24+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (samjames1NOSPAM@yahoo.com)


On 08 May 2003 06:33:32 GMT, sfryar@aol.comSPAMIN8R (Stephie) wrote: >Well, I'd like to see Angel stay on the WB, rather than go to UPN. > >We'll see what happens this coming Monday when WB announces their fall >schedule... I don't think there's any danger of UPN taking Angel. Considering the loss of ratings that happened with Buffy and the failure of Roswell, they probably aren't going to take any WB castoff series for a while.

2003-05-08 21:45:37+00:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <3eba6e70.4520240@news.fu-berlin.de>, Sam James <samjames1NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 08 May 2003 06:33:32 GMT, sfryar@aol.comSPAMIN8R (Stephie) wrote: > >Well, I'd like to see Angel stay on the WB, rather than go to UPN. > > > >We'll see what happens this coming Monday when WB announces their fall > >schedule... > > I don't think there's any danger of UPN taking Angel. Considering the > loss of ratings that happened with Buffy and the failure of Roswell, > they probably aren't going to take any WB castoff series for a while. If UPN gets Angel it won't be because the WB dropped it. it will be because UPN, knowing that the contract was up, decided to make a bid for the show and Fox accepted it.

2003-05-09 10:38:54-05:00 - Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether bethany_weber@hotmail.com (Bethany Weber) rose up and issued forth: >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030505024408.08268.00000913@mb-m03.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: So will WB be stupid enough to pull Angel? >> >From: himiko@animail.net (himiko) >> >Date: 5/4/2003 6:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time >> >Message-id: <c7902983.0305041703.63fae406@posting.google.com> >> > >> >PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >news:<040520031521492722%antarian@pacbell.net>... >> >> In article <c7902983.0305041411.54d3ce3a@posting.google.com>, himiko >> >> <himiko@animail.net> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > Spoiler space for the UK fans...... >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >> >> > > . >Of course, me and my housemate were both hoping that this meant the >end of Connor, but from some discussion here it sounds like that might >not be the case. Pity, that. Ever since the evil-Cordy arc began in >earnest we're been remarking that the boy needs to die at least >several times per episode. > >Bethany I don't think we will see Connor again. The last scene was just to let the viewers know what Angel sacrificed because he loved Connor. End of story for him, he got his normal life and family. Bye Bye kid. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "You say history considers me dead. Who am I to argue with history?" -- Kirk