FLM films - My Webpage

2004-03-02 00:16:42+00:00 - How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (unboundi@aol.com)


My apologies if this has been discussed already, but I've seen a bunch of possible scenarios for saving "Angel," but one that I keep mulling over is having Fox put the show on FX. Fox already produces shows for FX ("The Shield") and could "Angel's" ratings be any worse than what they've aired on there previously? Again, I apologize if this has been discussed and why it may have been ruled out, but it seems to be a much more natural fit in my opinion. Fox already owns the show, it gets a chance to add another drama to its FX lineup and the show continues for another season. Is there any reason why this wouldn't work? Unbound I Check out my book about The X-Files at http://www.trafford.com/robots/02-0625.html

2004-03-02 00:17:15-07:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (el_magoo <nomagoo@magoo.net>)


Unbound I wrote: > My apologies if this has been discussed already, but I've seen a bunch of > possible scenarios for saving "Angel," but one that I keep mulling over is > having Fox put the show on FX. I've been asking myself the same question. Certainly, the show fits into FX's ratings skew, and they'd find a built in audience. I wouldn't mind, actually, if they did a run like they do with their other shows; where there are 12-15 episodes a season, but they are all high quality productions. Doing it that way, "Angel" could have a very good run. It would be a great home for "Angel" Fox already produces shows for FX ("The Shield") > and could "Angel's" ratings be any worse than what they've aired on there > previously? Again, I apologize if this has been discussed and why it may have > been ruled out, but it seems to be a much more natural fit in my opinion. Fox > already owns the show, it gets a chance to add another drama to its FX lineup > and the show continues for another season. Is there any reason why this > wouldn't work? > > Unbound I > Check out my book about The X-Files at > http://www.trafford.com/robots/02-0625.html

2004-03-02 04:08:06+00:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - ("Brian (aka Zod)" <zod666@NOSPAMtelus.net>)


yah i don't get why networks can't afford to air a show like angel.. but sci-fi which is a cable channel.. and one would thing has less viewers available then a show on a network can afford to produce a show like Stargate. someones gotta have the bux to make another season of Angel. - Brian "Unbound I" <unboundi@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040301191642.12145.00000757@mb-m02.aol.com... > My apologies if this has been discussed already, but I've seen a bunch of > possible scenarios for saving "Angel," but one that I keep mulling over is > having Fox put the show on FX. Fox already produces shows for FX ("The Shield") > and could "Angel's" ratings be any worse than what they've aired on there > previously? Again, I apologize if this has been discussed and why it may have > been ruled out, but it seems to be a much more natural fit in my opinion. Fox > already owns the show, it gets a chance to add another drama to its FX lineup > and the show continues for another season. Is there any reason why this > wouldn't work? > > Unbound I > Check out my book about The X-Files at > http://www.trafford.com/robots/02-0625.html

2004-03-02 12:12:34+00:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - ("R. Watson" <shanovia@earthlink.net>)


"el_magoo" <nomagoo@magoo.net> wrote in message news:UxW0c.103$e25.69997@news.uswest.net... > > > Unbound I wrote: > > My apologies if this has been discussed already, but I've seen a bunch of > > possible scenarios for saving "Angel," but one that I keep mulling over is > > having Fox put the show on FX. > > I've been asking myself the same question. Certainly, the show fits into > FX's ratings skew, and they'd find a built in audience. I wouldn't mind, > actually, if they did a run like they do with their other shows; where > there are 12-15 episodes a season, but they are all high quality > productions. Doing it that way, "Angel" could have a very good run. > > It would be a great home for "Angel" > Yes and yes. I've stated this before and gave the same reasons as well. Not only would money be saved, also 13 eps a year could work better for Angel.

2004-03-02 16:26:52+00:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <UxW0c.103$e25.69997@news.uswest.net>, el_magoo <nomagoo@magoo.net> wrote: > Unbound I wrote: > > My apologies if this has been discussed already, but I've seen a > > bunch of possible scenarios for saving "Angel," but one that I keep mulling over > > is having Fox put the show on FX. > > I've been asking myself the same question. Certainly, the show fits into > FX's ratings skew, and they'd find a built in audience. I wouldn't mind, > actually, if they did a run like they do with their other shows; where > there are 12-15 episodes a season, but they are all high quality > productions. Doing it that way, "Angel" could have a very good run. > > It would be a great home for "Angel" Nah, each episode would be cut down to a half hour in order to make room for the 10-minute commercial breaks and when the show actually is on, we'd have animated commercials with sound effects playing down in the corner of the screen drowning out the dialogue.

2004-03-02 16:51:03-08:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (lorincantrell@yahoo.com)


unboundi@aol.com (Unbound I) wrote in message news:<20040301191642.12145.00000757@mb-m02.aol.com>... > My apologies if this has been discussed already, but I've seen a bunch of > possible scenarios for saving "Angel," but one that I keep mulling over is > having Fox put the show on FX. Fox already produces shows for FX ("The Shield") > and could "Angel's" ratings be any worse than what they've aired on there > previously? Again, I apologize if this has been discussed and why it may have > been ruled out, but it seems to be a much more natural fit in my opinion. Fox > already owns the show, it gets a chance to add another drama to its FX lineup > and the show continues for another season. Is there any reason why this > wouldn't work? > > Unbound I > Check out my book about The X-Files at > http://www.trafford.com/robots/02-0625.html The Shield is an excellent show, and it proves that excellence can thrive on a basic cable channel. I also think that the 13 episode season should become THE paradigm for all tv (at least the dramas). The year neatly breaks down into 4 thirteen week periods, and I also like having the show run completely through with no reruns. Imagine what Angel would be like if they could sit down, and write/produce most of a short season before it even aired. The short season allows for tighter arcs, no just structurally and time wise, but from a viewer's perspective (the afore mentioned no reruns). If HBO's success has proven anything, it's that people will wait, and will come back after said waits for good tv. -beaumon

2004-03-02 17:58:24+00:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (tsd@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu)


In article <BTR1702-3B93C8.11270502032004@news.west.earthlink.net>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: :In article <UxW0c.103$e25.69997@news.uswest.net>, el_magoo :<nomagoo@magoo.net> wrote: : :> Unbound I wrote: : :> > My apologies if this has been discussed already, but I've seen a :> > bunch of possible scenarios for saving "Angel," but one that I keep mulling over :> > is having Fox put the show on FX. :> :> I've been asking myself the same question. Certainly, the show fits into :> FX's ratings skew, and they'd find a built in audience. I wouldn't mind, :> actually, if they did a run like they do with their other shows; where :> there are 12-15 episodes a season, but they are all high quality :> productions. Doing it that way, "Angel" could have a very good run. :> :> It would be a great home for "Angel" : :Nah, each episode would be cut down to a half hour in order to make room :for the 10-minute commercial breaks and when the show actually is on, :we'd have animated commercials with sound effects playing down in the :corner of the screen drowning out the dialogue. Really. I'm still pissed off as to how FX cuts short or removes altogether key moments from Buffy such as Angel's reaction to Buffy reassures to Willow in Doppelganger that the evil Willow isn't anything like Willow. Or the brief exchange between Giles and Olivia at the end of Hush when Olivia expresses doubt about Giles' lifestyle. And those are the ones that immediately come to mind - there many more besides. FX is the last place I want to see Angel. --

2004-03-02 21:31:20-07:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (el_magoo <nomagoo@magoo.net>)


Tammy Stephanie Davis wrote: > In article <BTR1702-3B93C8.11270502032004@news.west.earthlink.net>, > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > :In article <UxW0c.103$e25.69997@news.uswest.net>, el_magoo > :<nomagoo@magoo.net> wrote: > : > :> Unbound I wrote: > : > :> > My apologies if this has been discussed already, but I've seen a > :> > bunch of possible scenarios for saving "Angel," but one that I keep mulling over > :> > is having Fox put the show on FX. > :> > :> I've been asking myself the same question. Certainly, the show fits into > :> FX's ratings skew, and they'd find a built in audience. I wouldn't mind, > :> actually, if they did a run like they do with their other shows; where > :> there are 12-15 episodes a season, but they are all high quality > :> productions. Doing it that way, "Angel" could have a very good run. > :> > :> It would be a great home for "Angel" > : > :Nah, each episode would be cut down to a half hour in order to make room > :for the 10-minute commercial breaks and when the show actually is on, > :we'd have animated commercials with sound effects playing down in the > :corner of the screen drowning out the dialogue. > > Really. I'm still pissed off as to how FX cuts short or removes altogether > key moments from Buffy such as Angel's reaction to Buffy reassures to Willow > in Doppelganger that the evil Willow isn't anything like Willow. Or the brief > exchange between Giles and Olivia at the end of Hush when Olivia expresses > doubt about Giles' lifestyle. And those are the ones that immediately come > to mind - there many more besides. > > FX is the last place I want to see Angel. You can't think of it in terms of what FX does to the sydicated product that they run. The way that they treat their own, in-house, first run shows is a completely different animal. A good example would be "The Shield," which is superbly produced, and runs a full 44 min. Virtually every syndicated show is snipped in a serious way. What happens to "Buffy" is NOTHING like what they do to "M*A*S*H" and some of the shows produced before restrictions were lifted on advertising. On most M*A*S*H reruns, a full five minutes is lost, regardless of which station is running the show.

2004-03-03 00:02:00-06:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether tsd@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Tammy Stephanie Davis) rose up and issued forth: >Really. I'm still pissed off as to how FX cuts short or removes altogether >key moments from Buffy such as Angel's reaction to Buffy reassures to Willow >in Doppelganger that the evil Willow isn't anything like Willow. Or the brief >exchange between Giles and Olivia at the end of Hush when Olivia expresses >doubt about Giles' lifestyle. And those are the ones that immediately come >to mind - there many more besides. > >FX is the last place I want to see Angel. Except (yet again, didn't people go over this and over this when Buffy first hit FX?) FX isn't the one doing the edits, those are the way they are edited when they are sent out in the syndication package. I see the same cuts in the Buffy weekend reruns here in Chicago. You want to talk annoying? TNT reruns don't even go to commercial in the right place. They will hit the commercial cliffhanger moment and continue showing the following scene for 30 seconds to a minute before then, in the middle of a continuous scene, cut to commercial completely throwing off the flow of the shows. -- Cyo (Remove '.invalid' to reply) cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org Prince Humperdinck: "Surrender!" Wesley: "You mean you wish to surrender to me? Very well, I accept." - "The Princess Bride"

2004-03-03 09:28:35-08:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > I know they aren't sent out with all those animated ads with sound FX > that they play at the bottom of the screen. I hate those goddamned things. > What's scary is that this shit is starting to creep into the network > shows, too. So far all we have are animated ads with no sound. I predict > within a year, those ads will have sound just like the ones on FX. Spike TV does it too--so I've stopped watching Highlander reruns on that network. Fuck 'em. I don't watch FX anymore either. > The local ABC affiliate here runs CNN-style news crawls at the bottom of > the screen over prime time shows to advertise the "top stories" coming > up on the 11 o'clock news-- because running several hundred ads per day > during the commercial breakss for the local news isn't enough. > > I was livid one night watching some show and the dialogue was in Russian > with English subtitles and the crawling news ads were covering up the > subtitles so I had no idea what the hell was going on. Yeah, not to mention those goddamn animated network/channel logos. Or the big honking logos that sometimes cover up credits or subtitles. A small, inconspicuous logo in the lower right corner is one thing. The rest of this shit has to stop. But it's not going to unless the audience revolts. And I don't know if it will. *I* won't watch shows that do this shit anymore, but I'm not a Nielsen family. I also get aggravated enough by the noisy animated in-show commercials that seeing a rerun of a show I like doesn't make up for it. I'll turn the tv off and do something else instead. But I suspect I'm an outlier.

2004-03-03 10:29:37-08:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > Why bother running the credits at all if you're going to make them so > small they can't be read and flash them by so fast that unless you have > a VCR with a pause button, there's no way you can see them? > > The only thing I can figure is that they are contractually obligated to > run the credits by the various unions, SAG/AFTRA, etc, but there's > nothing in those contracts that say the audience has to be able to > actually *read* the credits so this is the result. I think you're right. It's like the preposterousness of those car commercials that show you a SCREENFUL of unreadably tiny type so the disclaimers will all fit on the screen. Nobody can read it, but they're required to put the disclaimers up there. So they do. Technically. As for the credit-shrinking...that probably will continue until and unless the unions involved demand that they stop in a future negotiation.

2004-03-03 14:56:54+00:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <a0ta40dku8q5opsv97vsd4ds6tjhdmnlth@4ax.com>, Rev. Cyohtee - O'k?home Ehohatse <cyohtee@barbarian.org> wrote: > Out of the ether tsd@millipede.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Tammy Stephanie > Davis) rose up and issued forth: > > >Really. I'm still pissed off as to how FX cuts short or removes > >altogether key moments from Buffy such as Angel's reaction to Buffy reassures to > >Willow in Doppelganger that the evil Willow isn't anything like Willow. Or the > >brief exchange between Giles and Olivia at the end of Hush when Olivia > >expresses doubt about Giles' lifestyle. And those are the ones that immediately > >come to mind - there many more besides. > > > >FX is the last place I want to see Angel. > > Except (yet again, didn't people go over this and over this when Buffy > first hit FX?) FX isn't the one doing the edits, those are the way > they are edited when they are sent out in the syndication package. I know they aren't sent out with all those animated ads with sound FX that they play at the bottom of the screen. What's scary is that this shit is starting to creep into the network shows, too. So far all we have are animated ads with no sound. I predict within a year, those ads will have sound just like the ones on FX. The local ABC affiliate here runs CNN-style news crawls at the bottom of the screen over prime time shows to advertise the "top stories" coming up on the 11 o'clock news-- because running several hundred ads per day during the commercial breakss for the local news isn't enough. I was livid one night watching some show and the dialogue was in Russian with English subtitles and the crawling news ads were covering up the subtitles so I had no idea what the hell was going on.

2004-03-03 17:49:41+00:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <104c5e4j9rfar0b@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > I know they aren't sent out with all those animated ads with sound FX > > that they play at the bottom of the screen. > > I hate those goddamned things. > > > What's scary is that this shit is starting to creep into the network > > shows, too. So far all we have are animated ads with no sound. I > > predict within a year, those ads will have sound just like the ones on FX. > > Spike TV does it too--so I've stopped watching Highlander reruns on that > network. Fuck 'em. I don't watch FX anymore either. > > > The local ABC affiliate here runs CNN-style news crawls at the bottom > > of the screen over prime time shows to advertise the "top stories" coming > > up on the 11 o'clock news-- because running several hundred ads per day > > during the commercial breakss for the local news isn't enough. > > > > I was livid one night watching some show and the dialogue was in > > Russian with English subtitles and the crawling news ads were covering up the > > subtitles so I had no idea what the hell was going on. > > Yeah, not to mention those goddamn animated network/channel logos. Or > the big honking logos that sometimes cover up credits or subtitles. What I don't get is why they smash the end credits into an unreadable box in the corner so they can advertise more shit. Why bother running the credits at all if you're going to make them so small they can't be read and flash them by so fast that unless you have a VCR with a pause button, there's no way you can see them? The only thing I can figure is that they are contractually obligated to run the credits by the various unions, SAG/AFTRA, etc, but there's nothing in those contracts that say the audience has to be able to actually *read* the credits so this is the result.

2004-03-03 18:19:33+00:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - ("R. Watson" <shanovia@earthlink.net>)


"Beaumon" <lorincantrell@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:588bc11e.0403021651.393a31d7@posting.google.com... > unboundi@aol.com (Unbound I) wrote in message news:<20040301191642.12145.00000757@mb-m02.aol.com>... > > My apologies if this has been discussed already, but I've seen a bunch of > > possible scenarios for saving "Angel," but one that I keep mulling over is > > having Fox put the show on FX. Fox already produces shows for FX ("The Shield") > > and could "Angel's" ratings be any worse than what they've aired on there > > previously? Again, I apologize if this has been discussed and why it may have > > been ruled out, but it seems to be a much more natural fit in my opinion. Fox > > already owns the show, it gets a chance to add another drama to its FX lineup > > and the show continues for another season. Is there any reason why this > > wouldn't work? > > > > Unbound I > > Check out my book about The X-Files at > > http://www.trafford.com/robots/02-0625.html > > The Shield is an excellent show, and it proves that excellence can > thrive on a basic cable channel. I also think that the 13 episode > season should become THE paradigm for all tv (at least the dramas). > The year neatly breaks down into 4 thirteen week periods, and I also > like having the show run completely through with no reruns. Imagine > what Angel would be like if they could sit down, and write/produce > most of a short season before it even aired. The short season allows > for tighter arcs, no just structurally and time wise, but from a > viewer's perspective (the afore mentioned no reruns). > > If HBO's success has proven anything, it's that people will wait, and > will come back after said waits for good tv. > > -beaumon Excellently put, beaumon! It could and would work, imho!

2004-03-05 19:49:31+00:00 - Re: How About FX Picking Up "Angel?" - (rl27 <rl27@hotmail.com>)


> The Shield is an excellent show, and it proves that excellence can > thrive on a basic cable channel. I also think that the 13 episode > season should become THE paradigm for all tv (at least the dramas). > The year neatly breaks down into 4 thirteen week periods, and I also > like having the show run completely through with no reruns. Imagine > what Angel would be like if they could sit down, and write/produce > most of a short season before it even aired. The short season allows > for tighter arcs, no just structurally and time wise, but from a > viewer's perspective (the afore mentioned no reruns). > > If HBO's success has proven anything, it's that people will wait, and > will come back after said waits for good tv. > > -beaumon Unfortunately this leaves more room for all the cheap to produce reality show crap that the networks and cable channels are creating. The only reality show I would even consider watching would be something like, send all the reality show producers and the network execs who purchase the shows to a remote Pacific island where they have to answer basic elementary school questions for an entire two hour episode to show how stupid they are and then as a finale drop a nuke on the island to permanently cleanse the gene pool. They could call it Darwin Ground Zero: The Ultimate Darwin Award.