FLM films - My Webpage

2003-11-28 21:42:36-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (AthlonRob <junkmail@axpr.net>)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:02:17 -0500 (EST), exME fan <Gubira@webtv.net> wrote: > What else has the WB have to put in it's place? Tarzan? The Lone Ranger? Four letters... BtVS hehehehe -- Rob | If not safe, Email and Jabber: | one can never be free. athlonrob at axpr dot net | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/yDLjhm6KEoOOAe0RAodMAKDi65zRasL67GyYjt6sf2Qywt0ajACfYK0p otUSEyQ6LgHjhlnRBOtcEkE= =cTjd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2003-11-28 23:02:17-05:00 - Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Gubira@webtv.net)


Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better then last season's "mere 3.7mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' That's when it was on the verge of cancellation. Apparently Marsters signing on prevented that.A terrible idea in a long list of ones. It wasn't had much of an impact ratings wise. The series is in trouble(in more ways then one). They won't pull the plug anytime soon . What else has the WB have to put in it's place? Tarzan? The Lone Ranger? Maybe they could bring back BOP . Which had better ratings then Angel? It might be nail biting time again at the end of the season. When the WB decides to ok a 6th season.

2003-11-29 10:28:44-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (galt_57@hotmail.com)


Gubira@webtv.net (exME fan) wrote in message news:<23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net>... > Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 million > audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network loses > almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If they continue this > seasons numbers are only slightly better then last season's "mere > 3.7 mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' [...] Smallville. Yuck. Watching Lana's eyes bug out gets real old. Listening to Clark's parents is like slow torture. 7th Heaven. Extra lame. Charmed? Perhaps a new cleavage revealing costume?

2003-11-29 11:44:03-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:26:56 GMT, "Jane" <jarsenalnospam@earthlink.net> wrote: > >"exME fan" <Gubira@webtv.net> wrote in message >news:23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net... >> Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 >> million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network >> loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If >> they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better then last >> season's "mere 3.7mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' >> That's when it was on the verge of cancellation. Apparently Marsters >> signing on prevented that.A terrible idea in a long list of ones. It >> wasn't had much of an impact ratings wise. >> The series is in trouble(in more ways then one). They won't pull the >> plug anytime soon . >> What else has the WB have to put in it's place? Tarzan? The Lone Ranger? >> Maybe they could bring back BOP . Which had better ratings then Angel? >> It might be nail biting time again at the end of the season. When the WB >> decides to ok a 6th season. >> > >Actually if you look at the season's 2 - present, AtS is doing about the >same as the rest of the years. I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. Who knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase Marsters would bring in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that would leave by cutting Charisma Carpenter? My own view is that most people who watched BTVS already watched Angel so any ups or down in ratings will be for particular episodes and then fall right back to where they've always been. Let's face it. Many fans want to believe BTVS and now Angel are or were huge hits similar to shows on large networks and that's never been the case. They've always been niche shows. The only show in recent memory I can think of that has the type of rabid fan base that developed for BTVS was The X-Files and Buffy/Angel aren't even in that league ratings wise. A show like ER loses a couple million viewers and it's still a huge hit for NBC. If Angel lost that many, there's hardly be anyone left. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-29 12:56:14-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:04:33 GMT, Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in >> I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar >> ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last >> year. Who knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase >> Marsters would bring in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that >> would leave by cutting Charisma Carpenter? > >Or, maybe the problem is that the show is just boring this year. Well, there's that possibility. :) >To me, there was something that was comforting about the hotel, the BtVS >library, Giles apartment, the Summers house.....all the little places >where the cabal would gather, flopped all over the sofas and carpets, >deciding how they would next save the world against impossible odds with >creativity and valor. I agree with you. It's why the HS years of Buffy are my favorites by far. I always have to point out though that some of the best episodes of both series have been in later years. Those were usually stand alone episodes for me. This year has had a couple episodes i liked quite a bit but I find my expectations are much less. In general the earlier seasons had stories that were smaller in scope and the threats were more personal even though the world was still threatened. Plus there weren't demons of all stripes coming out of the woodwork and magic was something still relatively rare and powerful and hard to come by. Once magic became so commonplace that anyone with a "magic bone" was able to do things, something got lost for me. Angel followed a similar path. >Now, there's no comforting environment. It's an office. Nothing is >impossible now. If you have a big threat looming on the horizon, put some >extra staff on it. Valor -- just send out the W&H SEAL team to handle it. >Impossible odds -- the odds are definitely in your favor, every time. I've complained about one aspect of this for a long time. So much I know some people wish I'd shut the hell up over it. :) That is the devaluation of "magic" in the Buffyverse as the shows have gone along. I've called this the James Bond Syndrome. Everything gets too big and too powerful and then when they try to return to a more personal story it's hard to see why it's such a big deal anymore. >Kind of dull, actually. The PRACTICE with four fangs and an occult >division. Kinda like Buffy joins the Initiative. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-29 13:41:31-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (eeeevol76vamp@yahoo.com)


Gubira@webtv.net (exME fan) wrote in message news:<23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net>... > Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 > million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network > loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If > they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better then last > season's "mere 3.7mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' > That's when it was on the verge of cancellation. Apparently Marsters > signing on prevented that.A terrible idea in a long list of ones. It > wasn't had much of an impact ratings wise. The return of Spike brought back a lot of viewers. Uneven writing of Wesley and Spike, dull Wes/Fred/Knox triangle, that godawful Eve, lower production values, and the eversteady presence of the more demographically attractive The OC gradually drove them all away. > The series is in trouble(in more ways then one). They won't pull the > plug anytime soon . > What else has the WB have to put in it's place? Tarzan? The Lone Ranger? > Maybe they could bring back BOP . Which had better ratings then Angel? > It might be nail biting time again at the end of the season. When the WB > decides to ok a 6th season. If they are renewed the producers will probably shed some cast members. Who? I have no idea.

2003-11-29 15:26:56+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Jane <jarsenalnospam@earthlink.net>)


"exME fan" <Gubira@webtv.net> wrote in message news:23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net... > Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 > million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network > loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If > they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better then last > season's "mere 3.7mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' > That's when it was on the verge of cancellation. Apparently Marsters > signing on prevented that.A terrible idea in a long list of ones. It > wasn't had much of an impact ratings wise. > The series is in trouble(in more ways then one). They won't pull the > plug anytime soon . > What else has the WB have to put in it's place? Tarzan? The Lone Ranger? > Maybe they could bring back BOP . Which had better ratings then Angel? > It might be nail biting time again at the end of the season. When the WB > decides to ok a 6th season. > Actually if you look at the season's 2 - present, AtS is doing about the same as the rest of the years. tracker for angel week: date viewers (in millions) rank rating/share (national) rating/share (overnight) lead-in (build/loss) graph of viewers (in millions) starting time slot: tuesdays at 9:00 on wb 2000-2001 season week 1: 10/3/00 5.0 72 3.1/4 4.5/6 6.2 (-19.35%) 5.0 week 2: 10/10/00 5.1 84 3.2/5 4.3/6 5.3 (-3.77%) 5.1 week 3: 10/17/00 4.9 84 3.4/5 4.6/6 5.1 (-3.92%) 4.9 week 4: 10/24/00 5.4 92 3.6/5 4.5/6 6.4 (-15.62%) 5.4 week 5: 10/31/00 2.8 113 1.9/3 3.1/5 3.4 (-17.65%) 2.8 ("buffy_the_vampire_slayer") week 6: 11/7/00 6.0 92 3.6/5 4.4/6 6.2 (-3.23%) 6.0 week 7: 11/14/00 5.5 91 3.5/5 4.8/7 5.7 (-3.51%) 5.5 week 8: 11/21/00 4.7 83 3.0/5 3.9/6 4.8 (-2.08%) 4.7 week 9: 11/28/00 4.7 96 3.2/5 4.1/6 5.5 (-14.55%) 4.7 week 10: 12/5/00 3.1 92 2.5/4 2.9/4 3.4 (-8.82%) 3.1 week 11: 12/12/00 3.2 106 2.1/3 3.0/4 3.8 (-15.79%) 3.2 week 12: 12/19/00 4.7 82 3.0/5 4.4/7 4.9 (-4.08%) 4.7 week 13: 12/26/00 3.3 100 1.7/3 2.3/4 3.2 (+3.12%) 3.3 week 14: 1/2/01 2.6 95 1.9/3 3.1/4 3.6 (-27.78%) 2.6 week 15: 1/9/01 3.0 102 2.0/3 2.8/4 4.8 (-37.50%) 3.0 week 16: 1/16/01 4.1 95 2.7/4 3.9/6 3.3 (+24.24%) 4.1 week 17: 1/23/01 4.7 88 3.0/5 4.5/7 5.0 (-6.00%) 4.7 week 18: 1/30/01 3.2 101 2.3/3 2.7/4 3.2 (0.00%) 3.2 week 19: 2/6/01 4.3 93 2.9/4 4.2/6 4.9 (-12.24%) 4.3 week 20: 2/13/01 4.5 91 3.0/5 4.3/7 4.9 (-8.16%) 4.5 week 21: 2/20/01 4.4 88 3.1/5 4.3/6 5.1 (-13.73%) 4.4 week 22: 2/27/01 5.2 83 3.4/5 5.2/8 6.0 (-13.33%) 5.2 week 23: 3/6/01 3.1 98 2.1/3 2.8/4 3.4 (-8.82%) 3.1 week 24: 3/13/01 2.5 102 1.7/3 2.8/4 3.1 (-19.35%) 2.5 week 25: 3/20/01 2.3 98 1.7/3 2.7/4 2.2 (+4.55%) 2.3 week 26: 3/27/01 2.7 97 1.9/3 2.5/4 2.9 (-6.90%) 2.7 week 27: 4/3/01 2.3 94 1.8/3 2.8/4 2.2 (+4.55%) 2.3 week 28: 4/10/01 2.0 105 1.5/2 2.6/4 2.2 (-9.09%) 2.0 week 29: 4/17/01 3.6 90 2.5/4 4.4/6 4.3 (-16.28%) 3.6 week 30: 4/24/01 4.4 89 2.8/4 4.0/6 4.7 (-6.38%) 4.4 week 31: 5/1/01 4.6 87 3.0/5 4.4/7 4.6 (0.00%) 4.6 week 32: 5/8/01 5.0 84 3.2/5 4.7/7 5.1 (-1.96%) 5.0 week 33: 5/15/01 5.2 83 3.3/5 4.6/7 4.8 (+8.33%) 5.2 week 34: 5/22/01 4.8 78 3.2/5 4.8/7 5.2 (-7.69%) 4.8 season average 4.06 N/A 2.69/4.12 3.81/5.58 -7.91% 4.06 tracker for angel week: date viewers (in millions) rank rating/share (national) rating/share (overnight) lead-in (build/loss) graph of viewers (in millions) starting time slot: mondays at 9:00 on wb 2001-2002 season week 1: 9/24/01 5.0 83 3.2/5 4.2/6 8.3 (-39.76%) 5.0 week 2: 10/1/01 4.8 97 3.0/4 4.5/6 8.5 (-43.53%) 4.8 week 3: 10/8/01 4.5 90 2.9/4 4.3/6 8.7 (-48.28%) 4.5 week 4: 10/15/01 5.0 97 3.2/5 4.0/5 9.3 (-46.24%) 5.0 week 5: 10/22/01 4.5 94 3.0/4 4.2/6 8.3 (-45.78%) 4.5 week 6: 10/29/01 4.2 95 2.6/4 4.1/6 5.4 (-22.22%) 4.2 week 7: 11/5/01 4.4 94 3.0/4 4.3/6 7.8 (-43.59%) 4.4 week 8: 11/12/01 5.2 95 3.2/5 4.5/6 8.6 (-39.53%) 5.2 week 9: 11/19/01 4.9 85 3.1/5 4.6/7 8.3 (-40.96%) 4.9 week 10: 11/26/01 2.4 111 1.7/2 2.7/3 7.9 (-69.62%) 2.4 ("teen people's what's next") week 11: 12/3/01 3.4 95 2.2/3 3.0/4 5.9 (-42.37%) 3.4 week 12: 12/10/01 3.8 100 2.5/4 3.8/5 7.2 (-47.22%) 3.8 week 13: 12/17/01 3.0 109 1.9/3 2.7/4 5.6 (-46.43%) 3.0 week 14: 12/24/01 2.5 109 1.3/3 1.3/3 3.1 (-19.35%) 2.5 ("gilmore_girls") week 15: 12/31/01 1.8 114 1.0/2 1.7/3 3.6 (-50.00%) 1.8 ("raising_dad") week 16: 1/7/02 2.6 107 1.7/2 2.5/3 5.3 (-50.94%) 2.6 week 17: 1/14/02 4.3 95 2.5/4 3.6/5 7.0 (-38.57%) 4.3 week 18: 1/21/02 4.4 98 2.5/4 3.5/5 8.0 (-45.00%) 4.4 week 19: 1/28/02 2.7 112 1.7/3 2.4/3 5.5 (-50.91%) 2.7 ("smallville") week 20: 2/4/02 4.6 91 2.8/4 4.0/5 8.4 (-45.24%) 4.6 week 21: 2/11/02 4.3 80 2.8/4 4.4/6 7.3 (-41.10%) 4.3 ("seventh_heaven") week 22: 2/18/02 4.1 81 2.6/4 3.4/5 5.0 (-18.00%) 4.1 week 23: 2/25/02 4.4 93 2.5/4 3.7/5 7.8 (-43.59%) 4.4 week 24: 3/4/02 4.5 101 2.7/4 4.0/6 8.2 (-45.12%) 4.5 week 25: 3/11/02 2.4 109 1.7/3 2.3/3 5.3 (-54.72%) 2.4 ("glory_days") week 26: 3/18/02 2.7 99 2.0/3 2.2/3 5.2 (-48.08%) 2.7 ("glory_days") week 27: 3/25/02 2.4 109 1.6/2 2.3/3 4.3 (-44.19%) 2.4 ("glory_days") week 28: 4/1/02 3.3 99 2.4/4 3.6/5 4.5 (-26.67%) 3.3 ("seventh_heaven") week 29: 4/8/02 4.4 85 3.2/5 4.2/6 4.4 (0.00%) 4.4 ("seventh_heaven") week 30: 4/15/02 4.3 96 2.6/4 3.4/5 6.7 (-35.82%) 4.3 week 31: 4/22/02 4.4 93 2.7/4 3.6/5 6.9 (-36.23%) 4.4 week 32: 4/29/02 4.3 91 2.7/4 3.7/5 6.9 (-37.68%) 4.3 week 33: 5/6/02 5.2 88 3.1/5 3.8/5 7.7 (-32.47%) 5.2 week 34: 5/13/02 4.7 78 2.9/4 3.6/5 7.4 (-36.49%) 4.7 week 35: 5/20/02 4.6 82 2.7/4 3.7/5 8.4 (-45.24%) 4.6 season average 4.36 N/A 2.71/4.04 3.79/5.24 -40.65% 4.36 tracker for angel week: date viewers (in millions) rank rating/share (national) rating/share (overnight) lead-in (build/loss) graph of viewers (in millions) starting time slot: sundays at 9:00 on wb 2002-2003 season week 1: 9/29/02 2.2 105 1.5/2 2.0/3 5.1 (-56.86%) 2.2 week 2: 10/6/02 4.6 93 2.8/4 3.7/5 5.3 (-13.21%) 4.6 week 3: 10/13/02 4.2 92 2.5/4 3.7/5 5.0 (-16.00%) 4.2 week 4: 10/20/02 5.1 89 2.8/4 4.0/6 5.2 (-1.92%) 5.1 week 5: 10/27/02 4.1 98 2.6/4 3.3/4 4.0 (+2.50%) 4.1 week 6: 11/3/02 3.6 105 2.2/3 3.2/4 4.8 (-25.00%) 3.6 week 7: 11/10/02 3.6 100 2.4/4 3.2/4 5.5 (-34.55%) 3.6 week 8: 11/17/02 4.3 106 2.6/4 3.5/5 5.1 (-15.69%) 4.3 week 9: 11/24/02 7.4 76 4.0/6 5.6/8 7.4 (0.00%) 7.4 ("movie: the wizard of oz") week 10: 12/1/02 2.3 100 1.5/2 2.0/3 3.8 (-39.47%) 2.3 week 11: 12/8/02 2.6 111 1.8/3 2.5/4 3.7 (-29.73%) 2.6 week 12: 12/15/02 2.5 111 1.6/2 2.2/3 3.5 (-28.57%) 2.5 week 13: 12/22/02 3.8 95 2.1/4 3.0/5 3.8 (0.00%) 3.8 ("movie: jack frost") week 14: 12/29/02 3.1 79 1.9/3 2.3/4 4.0 (-22.50%) 3.1 ("return to middle earth") week 15: 1/5/03 5.2 80 3.1/5 4.4/6 5.5 (-5.45%) 5.2 ("high_school_reunion") week 16: 1/12/03 4.4 92 2.7/4 4.1/6 5.4 (-18.52%) 4.4 ("high_school_reunion") new time slot: wednesdays at 9:00 on wb week 17: 1/15/03 4.0 90 2.6/4 3.2/5 3.6 (+11.11%) 4.0 week 18: 1/22/03 3.5 98 2.3/3 2.7/4 3.6 (-2.78%) 3.5 week 19: 1/29/03 3.2 97 2.2/3 3.2/4 3.1 (+3.23%) 3.2 week 20: 2/5/03 3.5 102 2.4/3 3.3/5 3.4 (+2.94%) 3.5 week 21: 2/12/03 3.7 103 2.3/3 2.7/4 4.2 (-11.90%) 3.7 week 22: 2/19/03 2.9 93 1.9/3 3.2/5 2.9 (0.00%) 2.9 ("birds_of_prey") week 23: 2/26/03 5.3 95 3.4/5 4.8/7 5.3 (0.00%) 5.3 ("movie: the lone ranger") week 24: 3/5/03 3.7 91 2.3/4 3.7/5 2.0 (+85.00%) 3.7 week 25: 3/12/03 3.9 93 2.4/4 3.4/5 2.0 (+95.00%) 3.9 week 26: 3/19/03 3.6 68 2.4/3 3.5/5 2.2 (+63.64%) 3.6 week 27: 3/26/03 3.5 101 2.2/3 3.3/5 3.1 (+12.90%) 3.5 week 28: 4/2/03 3.5 97 2.3/3 3.4/5 3.3 (+6.06%) 3.5 week 29: 4/9/03 3.9 94 2.6/4 3.4/5 3.4 (+14.71%) 3.9 week 30: 4/16/03 4.1 88 2.6/4 3.4/5 3.1 (+32.26%) 4.1 week 31: 4/23/03 3.7 99 2.5/4 3.4/5 3.5 (+5.71%) 3.7 week 32: 4/30/03 4.0 92 2.6/4 3.6/5 3.8 (+5.26%) 4.0 week 33: 5/7/03 3.9 92 2.6/4 3.8/5 4.9 (-20.41%) 3.9 week 34: 5/14/03 7.3 62 4.8/7 6.7/9 7.3 (0.00%) 7.3 ("dawsons_creek") week 35: 5/21/03 2.0 92 1.3/2 1.8/3 2.0 (0.00%) 2.0 ("movie: i know what you did last summer") season average 3.65 N/A 2.33/3.42 3.20/4.54 +1.70% 3.65 tracker for angel week: date viewers (in millions) rank rating/share (national) rating/share (overnight) lead-in (build/loss) graph of viewers (in millions) starting time slot: wednesdays at 9:00 on wb 2003-2004 season week 1: 9/24/03 2.0 102 1.5/2 1.9/3 2.3 (-13.04%) 2.0 ("one_tree_hill") week 2: 10/1/03 5.2 86 3.4/5 4.4/7 6.8 (-23.53%) 5.2 week 3: 10/8/03 5.2 88 3.6/5 4.7/7 6.7 (-22.39%) 5.2 week 4: 10/15/03 5.0 86 3.1/5 4.2/6 6.5 (-23.08%) 5.0 week 5: 10/22/03 4.7 95 3.1/5 4.4/6 6.9 (-31.88%) 4.7 week 6: 10/29/03 4.7 96 3.0/5 4.1/6 6.7 (-29.85%) 4.7 week 7: 11/5/03 4.0 96 2.8/4 4.1/6 6.7 (-40.30%) 4.0 week 8: 11/12/03 4.8 98 3.1/5 4.0/6 6.9 (-30.43%) 4.8 season average 4.80 N/A 3.16/4.86 4.27/6.29 -28.78% 4.80 begin 666 spacer.gif K1TE&.#EA`0`!`(#_`,# P ```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P`` ` end begin 666 orange.gif K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/]F`````"'Y! ``````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P`` ` end begin 666 blue.gif K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``#-FF0```"'Y! ``````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P`` ` end begin 666 green.gif K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``)G,,P```"'Y! ``````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P`` ` end

2003-11-29 15:45:11-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 29 Nov 2003 20:33:55 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar >>ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. Who >>knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase Marsters would bring >>in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that would leave by cutting >>Charisma Carpenter? > >The relatively high ratings of the first couple of episodes belie that. >Marsters apparently DID bring in the viewers. However, it takes more than >Marsters' physical presence to get the viewers to stay. It's just as easy to surmise that Angel got a ratings boost from being shown after Smallville and the extra viewers weren't impressed. Didn't the same thing occur last season when Angel was shown after Charmed? I'm not sure but seems I remember that. It started out with a boost then soon tailed off again. >They were right that bringing Marsters on would boost ratings. I would submit >that making him an incorporeal, impotent, smart-mouthed loser with nothing to >do was not, however, inclined to keep the ratings up. Maybe you're right. That was my point above when I said "who knows?". I only gave an example of what could be happening, not what i believe did. The only reason I don't buy the idea that James Marsters boosted ratings is because I believe most of the people who watched Buffy already watched Angel. The ratings were never that much different. I don't think we're talking about a difference of millions of people. BTVS wasn't burning up the Neilsens in it's last two years either. My whole theory is that both Buffy and Angel were always niche shows that shared pretty much the same audence. If people aren't already watching, I don't believe there's much that's going to draw in new viewers now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-29 16:37:47-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <20031129153355.08047.00000833@mb-m03.aol.com>, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >Subject: Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? > >From: EGK me@privacy.net > >Date: 11/29/2003 8:44 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <jiihsv857o9p16labq8h69uosgnb55ed04@4ax.com> > > > >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:26:56 GMT, "Jane" <jarsenalnospam@earthlink.net> > >wrote: > > > >> > >>"exME fan" <Gubira@webtv.net> wrote in message > >>news:23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net... > >>> Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 > >>> million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network > >>> loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If > >>> they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better then last > >>> season's "mere 3.7mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' > >>> That's when it was on the verge of cancellation. Apparently Marsters > >>> signing on prevented that.A terrible idea in a long list of ones. It > >>> wasn't had much of an impact ratings wise. > >>> The series is in trouble(in more ways then one). They won't pull the > >>> plug anytime soon . > >>> What else has the WB have to put in it's place? Tarzan? The Lone Ranger? > >>> Maybe they could bring back BOP . Which had better ratings then Angel? > >>> It might be nail biting time again at the end of the season. When the WB > >>> decides to ok a 6th season. > >>> > >> > >>Actually if you look at the season's 2 - present, AtS is doing about the > >>same as the rest of the years. > > > >I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar > >ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. Who > >knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase Marsters would bring > >in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that would leave by cutting > >Charisma Carpenter? > > The relatively high ratings of the first couple of episodes belie that. > Marsters apparently DID bring in the viewers. However, it takes more than > Marsters' physical presence to get the viewers to stay. It seems more logical to me that the ratings boost had more to do with Angel now following the WB hit Smallville then with the introduction of Marsters to the cast. New viewers decided to stick around after watching their favorite show, stayed for a few episodes and then decided Angel wasn't their cup of tea and moved on to something else. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-11-29 17:04:33+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:jiihsv857o9p16labq8h69uosgnb55ed04@4ax.com: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:26:56 GMT, "Jane" > <jarsenalnospam@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >>"exME fan" <Gubira@webtv.net> wrote in message >>news:23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net... >>> Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 >>> million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The >>> network loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. >>> If they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better >>> then last season's "mere 3.7mill." "making it a marginal player for >>> the WB.' That's when it was on the verge of cancellation. Apparently >>> Marsters signing on prevented that.A terrible idea in a long list >>> of ones. It wasn't had much of an impact ratings wise. >>> The series is in trouble(in more ways then one). They won't pull the >>> plug anytime soon . >>> What else has the WB have to put in it's place? Tarzan? The Lone >>> Ranger? Maybe they could bring back BOP . Which had better ratings >>> then Angel? It might be nail biting time again at the end of the >>> season. When the WB decides to ok a 6th season. >>> >> >>Actually if you look at the season's 2 - present, AtS is doing about >>the same as the rest of the years. > > I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar > ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last > year. Who knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase > Marsters would bring in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that > would leave by cutting Charisma Carpenter? Or, maybe the problem is that the show is just boring this year. To me, there was something that was comforting about the hotel, the BtVS library, Giles apartment, the Summers house.....all the little places where the cabal would gather, flopped all over the sofas and carpets, deciding how they would next save the world against impossible odds with creativity and valor. Now, there's no comforting environment. It's an office. Nothing is impossible now. If you have a big threat looming on the horizon, put some extra staff on it. Valor -- just send out the W&H SEAL team to handle it. Impossible odds -- the odds are definitely in your favor, every time. Kind of dull, actually. The PRACTICE with four fangs and an occult division. Mike

2003-11-29 17:14:57-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:37:47 -0500, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: >In article <20031129153355.08047.00000833@mb-m03.aol.com>, > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >> >Subject: Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? >> >From: EGK me@privacy.net >> >I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar >> >ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. Who >> >knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase Marsters would bring >> >in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that would leave by cutting >> >Charisma Carpenter? >> >> The relatively high ratings of the first couple of episodes belie that. >> Marsters apparently DID bring in the viewers. However, it takes more than >> Marsters' physical presence to get the viewers to stay. > >It seems more logical to me that the ratings boost had more to do with >Angel now following the WB hit Smallville then with the introduction of >Marsters to the cast. New viewers decided to stick around after watching >their favorite show, stayed for a few episodes and then decided Angel >wasn't their cup of tea and moved on to something else. I posted the same thing. I seem to remember this happening last season when Angel followed Charmed. Do you or anyone else remember the ratings from last season? Seems it got an initial boost from following Charmed but then slowly started going down again. That's when The WB did it's best to kill the show by moving it's time slow all over place and pre-empting it completely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-29 19:00:48+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:shlhsvctd3bdd4erbvogr06n39f4dg4nfj@4ax.com: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:04:33 GMT, Mike Craney > <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in > >>> I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are >>> similar ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation >>> last year. Who knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the >>> fanbase Marsters would bring in as Spike and underestimated the >>> fanbase that would leave by cutting Charisma Carpenter? >> >>Or, maybe the problem is that the show is just boring this year. > > Well, there's that possibility. :) > >>To me, there was something that was comforting about the hotel, the >>BtVS library, Giles apartment, the Summers house.....all the little >>places where the cabal would gather, flopped all over the sofas and >>carpets, deciding how they would next save the world against >>impossible odds with creativity and valor. > > I agree with you. It's why the HS years of Buffy are my favorites by > far. I always have to point out though that some of the best episodes > of both series have been in later years. Those were usually stand > alone episodes for me. This year has had a couple episodes i liked > quite a bit but I find my expectations are much less. In general the > earlier seasons had stories that were smaller in scope and the threats > were more personal even though the world was still threatened. Plus > there weren't demons of all stripes coming out of the woodwork and > magic was something still relatively rare and powerful and hard to > come by. Once magic became so commonplace that anyone with a "magic > bone" was able to do things, something got lost for me. Angel followed > a similar path. Well, I generally like big scope with worldwide implications (which is why I liked the later BtVS more than the earlier, the newer Matrix movies more than the first) but there is an issue concerning the magical "trump card." In the Matrix, the Beefy Brawl is "kind of" denigrated by Neo flying away at the end. It begs the question, why not just fly away in the beginning. Although the script and story was so written as to (1) show that Neo needs a few seconds to prepare to fly, and (2) Smith's hands were already on him when the Brawl started, one wonders why his objective wasn't just to find two seconds of untouched flight prep time, rather than to beat the hell out of Smith. At the risk of fanwanking, if Willow had enough mojo to destroy the world, it stands to reason that she had enough mojo to fry the ubervamps from a distance. They, like in RELOADED, tried to write around this little problem with the fear-of-mojo line, but reality is that faced with the certain death that seemed to be coming all during S7, she would have been writing spells from the first day they knew about the First Evil. There was nothing to lose. >>Now, there's no comforting environment. It's an office. Nothing is >>impossible now. If you have a big threat looming on the horizon, put >>some extra staff on it. Valor -- just send out the W&H SEAL team to >>handle it. Impossible odds -- the odds are definitely in your favor, >>every time. > > I've complained about one aspect of this for a long time. So much I > know some people wish I'd shut the hell up over it. :) That is the > devaluation of "magic" in the Buffyverse as the shows have gone along. > I've called this the James Bond Syndrome. Everything gets too big > and too powerful and then when they try to return to a more personal > story it's hard to see why it's such a big deal anymore. Right. Analogy to Matrix REVOLUTIONS included below after spoiler space, just in case: s p o i l e r s p a c e The brothers, of course, got around this little problem by blinding Neo, and then removing his soulmate and spiritual right-hand. The moral to the story is that you CAN backtrack off these themes, but they generally will require that you cripple or kill your primary hero. That's fine in the Matrix, which will likely continue in other forms by backtracking in time, telling stories PRIOR to the events of RELOADED, or continue on with minor characters taking a stronger role. However, television doesn't work that way. You lose a main character, you lose fan base and ongoing revenue. Mike

2003-11-29 19:03:03+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in news:5591d176.0311291028.293850fd@posting.google.com: > Gubira@webtv.net (exME fan) wrote in message > news:<23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net>... >> Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 million >> audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network loses >> almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If they continue this >> seasons numbers are only slightly better then last season's "mere >> 3.7 mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' [...] > > Smallville. Yuck. Watching Lana's eyes bug out gets real old. > Listening to Clark's parents is like slow torture. 7th Heaven. Extra > lame. Charmed? Perhaps a new cleavage revealing costume? Well, there are some decent options out there, but the genre is different. Angel aside, there are simply no decent sci-fi/fantasy shows out there this year, after having nearly a dozen to choose from just three or four years ago. Mike

2003-11-29 20:10:12-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:46:37 GMT, Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote: >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:44:03 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > > >> I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar >> ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. >> Who >> knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase Marsters would >> bring >> in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that would leave by cutting >> Charisma Carpenter? >> > >I think Marsters did bring in a large fanbase; but many Spike fans have >become unhappy with how the character is being written; and they don't >care enough about the show to keep watching Angel otherwise. > >I doubt that Carpenter really made much difference; she didn't affect >ratings when she was MIA last season (in fact, they were somewhat better >without her) so why now? > >I don't think many actors can make a difference in the ratings; Dushku >didn't, Hannigan didn't, Landau didn't- so why should anyone else? Didn't your last two sentences contradict the first? If none of those others made any difference, why should Marsters? Just more proof for my own theory that even most of the Spike fans already watched Angel so why should he make any difference in the ratings? As I and Darwin already mentioned, it's much more likely the ratings just went up because of the Smallville lead-in. Just like they did last year when Angel followed Charmed. It didnt hold the ratings for Charmed last year either. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-29 20:33:55+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 11/29/2003 8:44 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <jiihsv857o9p16labq8h69uosgnb55ed04@4ax.com> > >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:26:56 GMT, "Jane" <jarsenalnospam@earthlink.net> >wrote: > >> >>"exME fan" <Gubira@webtv.net> wrote in message >>news:23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net... >>> Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 >>> million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network >>> loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If >>> they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better then last >>> season's "mere 3.7mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' >>> That's when it was on the verge of cancellation. Apparently Marsters >>> signing on prevented that.A terrible idea in a long list of ones. It >>> wasn't had much of an impact ratings wise. >>> The series is in trouble(in more ways then one). They won't pull the >>> plug anytime soon . >>> What else has the WB have to put in it's place? Tarzan? The Lone Ranger? >>> Maybe they could bring back BOP . Which had better ratings then Angel? >>> It might be nail biting time again at the end of the season. When the WB >>> decides to ok a 6th season. >>> >> >>Actually if you look at the season's 2 - present, AtS is doing about the >>same as the rest of the years. > >I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar >ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. Who >knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase Marsters would bring >in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that would leave by cutting >Charisma Carpenter? The relatively high ratings of the first couple of episodes belie that. Marsters apparently DID bring in the viewers. However, it takes more than Marsters' physical presence to get the viewers to stay. They were right that bringing Marsters on would boost ratings. I would submit that making him an incorporeal, impotent, smart-mouthed loser with nothing to do was not, however, inclined to keep the ratings up. Rose "The more I know, the less I sleep." -- Eames

2003-11-29 21:14:11+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - ("R. Watson" <shanovia@earthlink.net>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns94428541070BCmcraneynospansbcglob@151.164.30.42... > galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in > news:5591d176.0311291028.293850fd@posting.google.com: > Well, there are some decent options out there, but the genre is different. > Angel aside, there are simply no decent sci-fi/fantasy shows out there this > year, after having nearly a dozen to choose from just three or four years > ago. > > Mike True. Angel is a cult show. A generally those are only gonna do so well. Plus Wed nights is the most competitve. Pit Smallville against West Wing and the OC and I bet the ratings will dropped. If people wanna see the OC and more BH90219 ripoff than keep ignoring Angel. Because right now it one of a few that actually different on tv right now.

2003-11-29 23:48:44-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (MiJM@webtv.net)


I think season premieres and season finales always have higher ratings then most of the rest of the season. Following a more popular series like Smallville helped also. I thought most fans watched both programs to begin with. There ratings have not been that dissimilar the last couple of seasons. However back when Angel and Buffy were both on the WB I recall Angel's ratings were actually a little better then Buffy's for a time. Ah those where the days!

2003-11-30 00:46:37+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net>)


On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:44:03 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar > ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. > Who > knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase Marsters would > bring > in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that would leave by cutting > Charisma Carpenter? > I think Marsters did bring in a large fanbase; but many Spike fans have become unhappy with how the character is being written; and they don't care enough about the show to keep watching Angel otherwise. I doubt that Carpenter really made much difference; she didn't affect ratings when she was MIA last season (in fact, they were somewhat better without her) so why now? I don't think many actors can make a difference in the ratings; Dushku didn't, Hannigan didn't, Landau didn't- so why should anyone else? Sandra

2003-11-30 02:41:02-06:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:shlhsvctd3bdd4erbvogr06n39f4dg4nfj@4ax.com... > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:04:33 GMT, Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > > >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in > > Kinda like Buffy joins the Initiative. Which is what should have happened instead of DoubleMeat palace. The initiative could have been paying her to police the hellmouth, and call on her for the occasional emergency elsewhere. In the land of Gov't budgets she is a lot cheaper than agent Finns team.

2003-11-30 04:39:38+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (JustMe <justme@here.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:tmgisv0qsmpmbjnhk64iq2hrubkn94ldmr@4ax.com... > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:46:37 GMT, Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote: > > >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:44:03 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar > >> ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. > >> Who > >> knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase Marsters would > >> bring > >> in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that would leave by cutting > >> Charisma Carpenter? > >> > > > >I think Marsters did bring in a large fanbase; but many Spike fans have > >become unhappy with how the character is being written; and they don't > >care enough about the show to keep watching Angel otherwise. > > > >I doubt that Carpenter really made much difference; she didn't affect > >ratings when she was MIA last season (in fact, they were somewhat better > >without her) so why now? > > > >I don't think many actors can make a difference in the ratings; Dushku > >didn't, Hannigan didn't, Landau didn't- so why should anyone else? > > Didn't your last two sentences contradict the first? If none of those > others made any difference, why should Marsters? Just more proof for my > own theory that even most of the Spike fans already watched Angel so why > should he make any difference in the ratings? > > As I and Darwin already mentioned, it's much more likely the ratings just > went up because of the Smallville lead-in. Just like they did last year > when Angel followed Charmed. It didnt hold the ratings for Charmed last > year either. > Guest-stars and new(know) characters might attract some viewers to one episode, but good writing and storylines will keep keep them.

2003-11-30 10:03:48-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (eeeevol76vamp@yahoo.com)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<np0isv8qcfh608pv369h2o334bnlkifrsp@4ax.com>... > On 29 Nov 2003 20:33:55 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >>Subject: Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? > >>From: EGK me@privacy.net > > >>I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar > >>ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. Who > >>knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase Marsters would bring > >>in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that would leave by cutting > >>Charisma Carpenter? > > > >The relatively high ratings of the first couple of episodes belie that. > >Marsters apparently DID bring in the viewers. However, it takes more than > >Marsters' physical presence to get the viewers to stay. > > It's just as easy to surmise that Angel got a ratings boost from being shown > after Smallville and the extra viewers weren't impressed. Didn't the same > thing occur last season when Angel was shown after Charmed? I'm not sure > but seems I remember that. It started out with a boost then soon tailed off > again. If that was true the season premiere would have had the best ratings and the decline would have started with the second episode which was the one that actually introduced Spike. Instead the second episode was the best Neilson rated episode this season. James Marsters did bring in the new viewers but various factors drove them away. And the national ratings for the first couple of episodes of season 4 were not that hot, 2.8 in fact.

2003-11-30 13:22:15-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 30 Nov 2003 10:03:48 -0800, eeeevol76vamp@yahoo.com (eeeevol76vamp) wrote: >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<np0isv8qcfh608pv369h2o334bnlkifrsp@4ax.com>... >> It's just as easy to surmise that Angel got a ratings boost from being shown >> after Smallville and the extra viewers weren't impressed. Didn't the same >> thing occur last season when Angel was shown after Charmed? I'm not sure >> but seems I remember that. It started out with a boost then soon tailed off >> again. > >If that was true the season premiere would have had the best ratings >and the decline would have started with the second episode which was >the one that actually introduced Spike. Instead the second episode was >the best Neilson rated episode this season. James Marsters did bring >in the new viewers but various factors drove them away. And the >national ratings for the first couple of episodes of season 4 were not >that hot, 2.8 in fact. I don't follow your logic. Smallville is still garnering better ratings. Why is it so hard to think that lots of people who watched it stuck around to watch a few episodes of Angel then decided it wasn't for them and turned it off or turned to something else? I don't think Angel suffered a sudden drop off but a gradual decline back to it's usual ratings. There was also a lot of advertising for Angel on many of The WB shows for the return of Spike. Advertising often turns in to a ratings boost. That's why they do it. People watched expecting something special. I'm sure there are a lot of various reasons for it but i'd stand by my theory that most who watched BTVS (which includes the Spike fans), already watched Angel so where exactly are all the extra Marsters fans going to be coming from? BTVS and Angel share the same universe, the same writing and production company and many of the same characters. There's just no way anyone could convince me that the relative audiences had millions of people who watched one show and not the other and suddenly those people were coming over in droves. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-30 17:33:10+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (tsd@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu)


In article <eweyb.741$IF6.52436@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, JustMe <justme@here.com> wrote: : :"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message :news:tmgisv0qsmpmbjnhk64iq2hrubkn94ldmr@4ax.com... :> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:46:37 GMT, Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote: :> :> >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:44:03 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: :> > :> > :> > :> >> I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar :> >> ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. :> >> Who :> >> knows? Maybe The WB and ME overestimated the fanbase Marsters would :> >> bring :> >> in as Spike and underestimated the fanbase that would leave by cutting :> >> Charisma Carpenter? :> >> :> > :> >I think Marsters did bring in a large fanbase; but many Spike fans have :> >become unhappy with how the character is being written; and they don't :> >care enough about the show to keep watching Angel otherwise. :> > :> >I doubt that Carpenter really made much difference; she didn't affect :> >ratings when she was MIA last season (in fact, they were somewhat better :> >without her) so why now? :> > :> >I don't think many actors can make a difference in the ratings; Dushku :> >didn't, Hannigan didn't, Landau didn't- so why should anyone else? :> :> Didn't your last two sentences contradict the first? If none of those :> others made any difference, why should Marsters? Just more proof for my :> own theory that even most of the Spike fans already watched Angel so why :> should he make any difference in the ratings? :> :> As I and Darwin already mentioned, it's much more likely the ratings just :> went up because of the Smallville lead-in. Just like they did last year :> when Angel followed Charmed. It didnt hold the ratings for Charmed last :> year either. :> : : :Guest-stars and new(know) characters might attract some viewers to one :episode, but good writing and storylines will keep keep them. Not necessarily. There have been a ton of well-written shows over the years that have had low viewership and been subsequently cancelled. Good writing does not always attrach or keep viewers. And determining what is "good writing" is often very subjective as debates on this newsgroup have demonstrated time and time again. --

2003-11-30 17:39:16-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:08:53 GMT, Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote: >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:10:12 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:46:37 GMT, Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:44:03 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> >>> >> >> >> >> Didn't your last two sentences contradict the first? If none of those >> others made any difference, why should Marsters? Just more proof for my >> own theory that even most of the Spike fans already watched Angel so why >> should he make any difference in the ratings? >> >> > > >But I don't agree that most Spike fans already watched Angel, since I know >quite a few who didn't. >And I only watched it occasionally myself. > >The reason I feel Marsters did make a difference is because he has a large >and somewhat >fanatically devoted fanbase. >I don't think this is the case with most of the other characters, at least >not the ones >who have guested on Angel to date. > >Sandra I'd say that SMG and Alyson have larger fan bases then James. Both have done highly successful movies and Alyson got signed by NBC to a development deal. I don't see James getting many offers outside of the ME universe. Not to say he doesn't deserve some. If he had wide spread appeal, he would be. I'd also say Eliza Dushku has a fanbase larger then James. She got a new show of her own to star in outside of the ME universe and has also had a movie career. My point is still the same. You and a few of your friends aren't evidence of much. I know there are people on here now who watched Buffy but didn't watch Angel. I just don't believe it's a very high percentage. Both Buffy and Angel were and are niche programming that catered to the same audience. I mean Angel was a spin-off of BTVS to begin with and for a long time followed it in the schedule. There just aren't millions of extra Buffy or Spike viewers out there. The only potential for higher ratings are most likely from people who have never watched either show. After 7 seasons of Buffy and 4 of Angel, It's kind of late to expect a big ratings jump from those people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-30 22:08:53+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net>)


On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:10:12 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:46:37 GMT, Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:44:03 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >> > > > > Didn't your last two sentences contradict the first? If none of those > others made any difference, why should Marsters? Just more proof for my > own theory that even most of the Spike fans already watched Angel so why > should he make any difference in the ratings? > > But I don't agree that most Spike fans already watched Angel, since I know quite a few who didn't. And I only watched it occasionally myself. The reason I feel Marsters did make a difference is because he has a large and somewhat fanatically devoted fanbase. I don't think this is the case with most of the other characters, at least not the ones who have guested on Angel to date. Sandra

2003-12-01 01:36:31-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <OGAyb.32711$Wy4.15959@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Chris Zabel" <alephnull@earthlink.net> wrote: > "Sandra S" <sandora@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:oprzhe6ajtjtszlz@news.verizon.net... > > That may be; I have no stats but I thought market research determined > that > > a significant number of the BtVS viewers never watched Angel, and that's > > why the WB > > wanted BtVS guest stars. > > You're correct. It was leaked that WB had done extensive polling and had > found something like 40% of regular Buffy watchers weren't watching Angel > last year. And WB also knew what it was doing when demanding Spike. He > consistently polled higher than any other Buffyverse character as #1 > favorite character, edging out Willow and beating out Buffy herself. I hope the WB isn't trying to make Angel more like Buffy. Maybe they didn't realize it but there was a good reason they let that series go, its last to seasons sucked the big one. I stopped watching it in the middle of season 6 and never looked back. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snuggles, not Shuggie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-12-01 02:12:00-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:52:46 GMT, "Chris Zabel" <alephnull@earthlink.net> wrote: >"Sandra S" <sandora@verizon.net> wrote in message >news:oprzhe6ajtjtszlz@news.verizon.net... >> That may be; I have no stats but I thought market research determined >that >> a significant number of the BtVS viewers never watched Angel, and that's >> why the WB >> wanted BtVS guest stars. > >You're correct. It was leaked that WB had done extensive polling and had >found something like 40% of regular Buffy watchers weren't watching Angel >last year. And WB also knew what it was doing when demanding Spike. He >consistently polled higher than any other Buffyverse character as #1 >favorite character, edging out Willow and beating out Buffy herself. 40%? Where was that figure leaked? The only way i'd believe that is if BTVS's ratings were nearly 40% higher then Angel's. Just looking at the ratings for the year to date you can see that Smallville is pulling in a much higher rating compared to Angel. Relatively speaking, of course. Smallville ranks 88 and Angel 101 as of 11/16/03 You can see the ratings list here: http://www.allyourtv.com/ratingsseason.html It just stands to reason that with the higher rated lead-in, Angel was picking up viewers who watched Smallville at first. Especially a show in the same fantasy genre. They now seem to be turning the channel. If it's all just Spike fans coming then going, they obviously aren't nearly as loyal or rabid a fanbase as has been painted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-12-01 03:12:06+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net>)


On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:39:16 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > I'd say that SMG and Alyson have larger fan bases then James. Both have > done highly successful movies and Alyson got signed by NBC to a > development > deal. I don't see James getting many offers outside of the ME universe. > Not to say he doesn't deserve some. If he had wide spread appeal, he > would > be. I'd also say Eliza Dushku has a fanbase larger then James. She got > a > new show of her own to star in outside of the ME universe and has also > had a > movie career. I don't agree, at least where Dushku is concerned. I don't believe she's as popular as many people think. Tru Calling is not doing well in the ratings; I think if she had such a large fanbase it would do better. (I know FOX ordered some more eps., but I think they haven't got much else to put in its place). And almost all her movies have tanked, which is why she is now doing television. > > My point is still the same. You and a few of your friends aren't > evidence > of much. I know there are people on here now who watched Buffy but > didn't > watch Angel. I just don't believe it's a very high percentage. That may be; I have no stats but I thought market research determined that a significant number of the BtVS viewers never watched Angel, and that's why the WB wanted BtVS guest stars. Sandra

2003-12-01 03:56:15-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<jiihsv857o9p16labq8h69uosgnb55ed04@4ax.com>... > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:26:56 GMT, "Jane" <jarsenalnospam@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > > > >"exME fan" <Gubira@webtv.net> wrote in message > >news:23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net... > >> Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 > >> million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network > >> loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If > >> they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better then last > >> season's "mere 3.7mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' > >> That's when it was on the verge of cancellation. Apparently Marsters > >> signing on prevented that.A terrible idea in a long list of ones. It > >> wasn't had much of an impact ratings wise. > >> The series is in trouble(in more ways then one). They won't pull the > >> plug anytime soon . > >> What else has the WB have to put in it's place? Tarzan? The Lone Ranger? > >> Maybe they could bring back BOP . Which had better ratings then Angel? > >> It might be nail biting time again at the end of the season. When the WB > >> decides to ok a 6th season. > >> > > > >Actually if you look at the season's 2 - present, AtS is doing about the > >same as the rest of the years. > > I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar > ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. The difference is that now the show is much cheaper to make.

2003-12-01 04:22:39+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote in news:oprzhe6ajtjtszlz@news.verizon.net: > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:39:16 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > >> >> I'd say that SMG and Alyson have larger fan bases then James. Both >> have done highly successful movies and Alyson got signed by NBC to a >> development >> deal. I don't see James getting many offers outside of the ME >> universe. Not to say he doesn't deserve some. If he had wide spread >> appeal, he would >> be. I'd also say Eliza Dushku has a fanbase larger then James. She >> got a >> new show of her own to star in outside of the ME universe and has >> also had a >> movie career. > > > I don't agree, at least where Dushku is concerned. I don't believe > she's as popular as many people think. Tru Calling is not doing well > in the ratings; > I think if she had such a large fanbase it would do better. (I know > FOX > ordered some more eps., but I think they haven't got much else to put > in its place). > And almost all her movies have tanked, which is why she is now doing > television. I'd have to say that the jury is still out. No show would do well against the last season of Friends and Survivor, and networks always have a slew of options to replace something with. Since the available options wouldn't do worse than Tru is doing, the fact that they ordered episodes indicates that they feel the show has promise. I do, too. Mike

2003-12-01 05:51:24+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net>, exME fan <Gubira@webtv.net> wrote: > Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 > million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network > loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If > they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better then last > season's "mere 3.7mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' > That's when it was on the verge of cancellation. Apparently Marsters > signing on prevented that.A terrible idea in a long list of ones. It > wasn't had much of an impact ratings wise. what's funny is that the hiatus for Tarzan was blamed on sliding ratings and lack of keeping the lead in. hmmm. At least the WB can blame the Tarzan drop on the fans not taking to the idea of a new show. what will they say about Angel (which is supposed to have a cult following). After 4 years of low but steady ratings, they wanted, even needed, an increase. It doesn't look good for a season 6.

2003-12-01 05:52:46+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


"Sandra S" <sandora@verizon.net> wrote in message news:oprzhe6ajtjtszlz@news.verizon.net... > That may be; I have no stats but I thought market research determined that > a significant number of the BtVS viewers never watched Angel, and that's > why the WB > wanted BtVS guest stars. You're correct. It was leaked that WB had done extensive polling and had found something like 40% of regular Buffy watchers weren't watching Angel last year. And WB also knew what it was doing when demanding Spike. He consistently polled higher than any other Buffyverse character as #1 favorite character, edging out Willow and beating out Buffy herself.

2003-12-01 05:53:26+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <4V2yb.21414$sb4.9213@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Jane <jarsenalnospam@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Actually if you look at the season's 2 - present, AtS is doing about the > same as the rest of the years. which is part of the problem. Angel is now an established show and as such, it should be seeing an increase in ratings (even just a small one) as the old fans stick around and new ones come in. With the ratings slipping it looks like either the new fans are staying or the old fans don't like the new game.

2003-12-01 05:56:27+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <Xns94427129DF44Dmcraneynospansbcglob@151.164.30.94>, Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Now, there's no comforting environment. It's an office. Nothing is > impossible now. If you have a big threat looming on the horizon, put some > extra staff on it. Valor -- just send out the W&H SEAL team to handle it. > Impossible odds -- the odds are definitely in your favor, every time. > > Kind of dull, actually. The PRACTICE with four fangs and an occult > division. I have to agree. I get that they had to limit the sets and all cause of the budget (which last season was an easy $1mil for the lowest priced eps and likely closer to $2mil for most of them, if not higher). but can we please get a little more variety. go outside and play or something.

2003-12-01 05:57:17+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <20031129153355.08047.00000833@mb-m03.aol.com>, Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > The relatively high ratings of the first couple of episodes belie that. > Marsters apparently DID bring in the viewers. However, it takes more than > Marsters' physical presence to get the viewers to stay. exactly. Adding Spike to the mix likely did bring over some of his old Buffy-days fans. but it doesn't look like they stayed for round 2

2003-12-01 08:26:39+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com>)


Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:03:03 GMT, Mike Craney ><mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in >>news:5591d176.0311291028.293850fd@posting.google.com: >> >>> Gubira@webtv.net (exME fan) wrote in message >>> news:<23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net>... >>>> Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 million >>>> audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network loses >>>> almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If they continue this >>>> seasons numbers are only slightly better then last season's "mere >>>> 3.7 mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' [...] >>> >>> Smallville. Yuck. Watching Lana's eyes bug out gets real old. >>> Listening to Clark's parents is like slow torture. 7th Heaven. Extra >>> lame. Charmed? Perhaps a new cleavage revealing costume? >> >>Well, there are some decent options out there, but the genre is different. >>Angel aside, there are simply no decent sci-fi/fantasy shows out there this >>year, after having nearly a dozen to choose from just three or four years >>ago. >> >>Mike > > >Well, not on the "regular" channels, but I beg to differ. Although its >almost over and therefore no longer a good option for viewing this >year, Carnivale (over this weekend) has been superb, and I think it >fits into the sci fi/fantasy category. > >adios, >alicat > > >Mica, mica, parva stella, >Miror quae nam sis, tam bella! Carnivale = smoke + mirrors + nudity + misdirection + going nowhere fast. Ken

2003-12-01 10:05:20-07:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com>)


On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:53:26 GMT, <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: >In article <4V2yb.21414$sb4.9213@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >Jane <jarsenalnospam@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >> >> Actually if you look at the season's 2 - present, AtS is doing about the >> same as the rest of the years. > >which is part of the problem. Angel is now an established show and as >such, it should be seeing an increase in ratings (even just a small >one) as the old fans stick around and new ones come in. With the >ratings slipping it looks like either the new fans are staying or the >old fans don't like the new game. The highest rating Angel got last year (for the season premiere) was a 2.8 National. The lowest rating so far this year was last ep's 2.7 National. Here's the comparison year to year through the first 8 new episodes (as always, I don't have the Viewers for the 1st season). Note that I'm not factoring repeats or pre-emptions in these ratings. I'll note where they occurred. Natl= National ratings (percent of total tv households in US) OvNt= Overnight (percent of total tv households in 55 largest markets) Shr = Share (percent of households that were watching tv at the time) Vwrs= Viewers (in millions) Natl Shr OvNt Shr Vwrs 1999-00 3.81 5.88 5.45 8.13 ---- 2000-01 3.33 4.88 4.39 6.13 5.16[1] 2001-02 3.01 4.38 4.26 5.88 4.80 2002-03 2.56 3.88 3.48 4.75 4.19[2] 2003-04 3.10 4.75 4.26 6.25 4.70 Angel's ratings have rebounded to roughly the same level as season 3, and considerably above season 4. It's over-all performance this year is fairly close to season 2. [1] Break between ep 4 and 5 for Buffy repeat (Halloween) [2] 1st 7 aired in Oct-Nov on Sunday, 8th started Wed airing in Jan -- You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1 For Bentley, Press 2 Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3

2003-12-01 10:29:53-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


EGK wrote: > I believe Angel has lost over a million viewers since the premiere. > Smallville seems to be holding it's own viewers pretty well. I don't know > how but that's another subject. I could never get in to that show.. I'm still watching Smallville. I have my complaints with it (mostly the same complaints I've had since it started). But--and here's the important but--it still entertains me enough that I'm willing to overlook the complaints most of the time. BtVS failed that test, beginning with S5 and the introduction of Dawn (for which I never forgave them), and by end of S6, I lived for the day that series would fold, which didn't come nearly soon enough to suit me. Angel looks to be failing, though I'm still watching...most of the time.

2003-12-01 10:33:31-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


SWeick wrote: > Well, most of us in the male audience would be lucky as hell to date > someone as attractive as Amy Acker. That said, the cutsie babble > talk works well with a young teen, like early Willow. With a late > 20's early 30's women, it's both annoying and a turnoff. Fred is > such a turnoff, and that's ignoring her ball breaking abilities and > evil dark side. Tastes differ. Seeing Fred's "evil dark side" in her determination to wreak vengeance on the Professor who banished her to Pylea was the turning point at which I started to _like_ Fred as a character. Seeing her ambush Connor with a taser and show a taste for continuing to taser him when he was tied up (now _those_ are Connor scenes I could wear out my VCR playing over and over again) only reinforced it. Seeing that cutesy, babbly Fred had an unexpected steel core and a taste for vengeance is what made her interesting to me (at long last).

2003-12-01 11:03:48-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (cardwelj@yahoo.com)


<nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<301120032151255299%nospam@nospam.com>... > In article <23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net>, > exME fan <Gubira@webtv.net> wrote: > > > Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 > > million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network > > loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If > > they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better then last > > season's "mere 3.7mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' > > That's when it was on the verge of cancellation. Apparently Marsters > > signing on prevented that.A terrible idea in a long list of ones. It > > wasn't had much of an impact ratings wise. > > what's funny is that the hiatus for Tarzan was blamed on sliding > ratings and lack of keeping the lead in. hmmm. At least the WB can > blame the Tarzan drop on the fans not taking to the idea of a new show. > what will they say about Angel (which is supposed to have a cult > following). After 4 years of low but steady ratings, they wanted, even > needed, an increase. It doesn't look good for a season 6. Well if they ask me it was the *addition* of Spike to the show that drove this fan away.

2003-12-01 11:49:07-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 01 Dec 2003 15:24:28 GMT, sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote: >EGK me@privacy.net wrote: >>40%? Where was that figure leaked? > >Oh, months ago as an explaination for Spike being added. Ah, the things i miss from being bored with all of this. :) >The only way i'd believe that is if >>BTVS's ratings were nearly 40% higher then Angel's. > > >BtVS were higher than AtS, but I think people forget that >they are two different shows. Joss said that Buffy was more >a soap opera with fangs, and Ats was more action show with >fangs. I'm not surprised that 40% who watched BtVS would >not watch AtS because they are two different genre shows. There is no way to prove it either way without asking them all. I just have a hard time believing a 40% difference. I don't think there are that many viewers out there for shows of this type where one is a spin-off of the other. Certainly some difference but 40% just seems way too high for me unless Buffy garnered a 40% higher share of the audience to begin with. >>Just looking at the ratings for the year to date you can see that Smallville >>is pulling in a much higher rating compared to Angel. Relatively speaking, >>of course. Smallville ranks 88 and Angel 101 as of 11/16/03 > > >Well, adding Spike bought in some viewers, but not that many. >Being behind Smallville brought in some viewers but not many that >stayed, as you said. I believe Angel has lost over a million viewers since the premiere. Smallville seems to be holding it's own viewers pretty well. I don't know how but that's another subject. I could never get in to that show.. >Whatever, AtS is doing about the same as before. And that almost >got it canned, got its price cut to the bone, and will probably cause >its final demise. > >>If it's all just Spike fans coming then going, they obviously aren't nearly >>as loyal or rabid a fanbase as has been painted. > > >Or large. I doubt that 40% of BtVS fans watched the show for >Spike. I doubt that 10% did. No, I can't believe that either but back to my original statement of "who knows?" I'm sure some people have also left Angel because of CC's absence. I can't buy that the male audience is lusting after Fred, that's for sure. >Either way AtSS isn't keeping viewers, so Spike being added >has been a failure. And no Roaz, it's not because of the writing, >seeing how poorly written things had been with Spike on BtVS, >in your opinion, yet viewers stayed. Actually that's another reason I don't buy the theory that Spike added many viewers to Angel. Buffy's ratings were going down during the two years on UPN when the show heavily shifted towards Buffy/Spike. If Spike had been such a viewer draw, It's curious why UPN wasn't throwing money at Whedon to get him to spin-off The Spike show for them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-12-01 12:12:42-06:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


KenM47 wrote: > Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:26:39 GMT, KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:03:03 GMT, Mike Craney >>>> <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in >>>>> news:5591d176.0311291028.293850fd@posting.google.com: >>>>> >>>>>> Gubira@webtv.net (exME fan) wrote in message >>>>>> news:<23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net>... >>>>>>> Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 >>>>>>> million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The >>>>>>> network loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If >>>>>>> they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better >>>>>>> then last season's "mere >>>>>>> 3.7 mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> Smallville. Yuck. Watching Lana's eyes bug out gets real old. >>>>>> Listening to Clark's parents is like slow torture. 7th Heaven. >>>>>> Extra lame. Charmed? Perhaps a new cleavage revealing costume? >>>>> >>>>> Well, there are some decent options out there, but the genre is >>>>> different. Angel aside, there are simply no decent sci-fi/fantasy >>>>> shows out there this year, after having nearly a dozen to choose >>>>> from just three or four years ago. >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, not on the "regular" channels, but I beg to differ. Although >>>> its almost over and therefore no longer a good option for viewing >>>> this year, Carnivale (over this weekend) has been superb, and I >>>> think it fits into the sci fi/fantasy category. >>>> >>>> adios, >>>> alicat >>>> >>>> >>>> Mica, mica, parva stella, >>>> Miror quae nam sis, tam bella! >>> >>> Carnivale = smoke + mirrors + nudity + misdirection + going nowhere >>> fast. >>> >>> Ken >> >> As my dear friend Lee says: there is no accounting for it....what we >> like and what we don't like, when it comes to entertainment. >> I think Carnivale is fabulous and it is so going somewhere - its a >> *three season* arc, so you have to enjoy the pace of thing, or watch >> something else. >> >> adios, >> alicat >> >> Hucky duck! > > This is the first I've heard of a "three season" arc. Anyway, the > first season should have supplied some cathartic satisfaction in > itself. Has no one learned anything from Joss? > > Other than being atmospheric, what did the first season give us other > than some lame cliffhanging (IMO, of course)? > > Ken Thank you Ken, I thought it was just me. There are things I like about the show, but as far as I could tell just not enough payoff. And by the way Sophie's a first class bitch and Jonesy should have told her where she could go. I guess being on BtVS taught her how. Jul -- Sig Wanted No Experience Necessary

2003-12-01 13:38:44-06:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


KenM47 wrote: > > OK. What have you done with the real Juleen? You so rarely agree with > me, and I see you've agreed with this and my Andrew posts. I tied her up and locked her in the closet. Just don't bring up Spike 'cause she'll just break loose again. Jul

2003-12-01 15:15:57+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) wrote: > >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >news:<jiihsv857o9p16labq8h69uosgnb55ed04@4ax.com>... > >> I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar >> ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. > >The difference is that now the show is much cheaper to make. But cheaper for how long? Fox isn't going to deficit finance anything. They have enough episodes for syndication. The WB won't pay a dime more. You have natural increases in pay with JM, AD, AA, AH, and JAR, and I'm sure DB's contract is up and will want a bunch more money. Add in general inflation and you've got yourselves money problems.

2003-12-01 15:24:28+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


EGK me@privacy.net wrote: >On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:52:46 GMT, "Chris Zabel" <alephnull@earthlink.net> >wrote: > >>"Sandra S" <sandora@verizon.net> wrote in message >>news:oprzhe6ajtjtszlz@news.verizon.net... >>> That may be; I have no stats but I thought market research determined >>that >>> a significant number of the BtVS viewers never watched Angel, and that's >>> why the WB >>> wanted BtVS guest stars. >> >>You're correct. It was leaked that WB had done extensive polling and had >>found something like 40% of regular Buffy watchers weren't watching Angel >>last year. And WB also knew what it was doing when demanding Spike. He >>consistently polled higher than any other Buffyverse character as #1 >>favorite character, edging out Willow and beating out Buffy herself. > > >40%? Where was that figure leaked? Oh, months ago as an explaination for Spike being added. The only way i'd believe that is if >BTVS's ratings were nearly 40% higher then Angel's. BtVS were higher than AtS, but I think people forget that they are two different shows. Joss said that Buffy was more a soap opera with fangs, and Ats was more action show with fangs. I'm not surprised that 40% who watched BtVS would not watch AtS because they are two different genre shows. >Just looking at the ratings for the year to date you can see that Smallville >is pulling in a much higher rating compared to Angel. Relatively speaking, >of course. Smallville ranks 88 and Angel 101 as of 11/16/03 Well, adding Spike bought in some viewers, but not that many. Being behind Smallville brought in some viewers but not many that stayed, as you said. Whatever, AtS is doing about the same as before. And that almost got it canned, got its price cut to the bone, and will probably cause its final demise. >If it's all just Spike fans coming then going, they obviously aren't nearly >as loyal or rabid a fanbase as has been painted. Or large. I doubt that 40% of BtVS fans watched the show for Spike. I doubt that 10% did. Either way AtSS isn't keeping viewers, so Spike being added has been a failure. And no Roaz, it's not because of the writing, seeing how poorly written things had been with Spike on BtVS, in your opinion, yet viewers stayed. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-12-01 15:34:35-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Don Sample wrote: > In article <vsn2btl0nm15a9@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Jones > <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > > >>SWeick wrote: >> >> >>>Well, most of us in the male audience would be lucky as hell to date >>>someone as attractive as Amy Acker. That said, the cutsie babble >>>talk works well with a young teen, like early Willow. With a late >>>20's early 30's women, it's both annoying and a turnoff. Fred is >>>such a turnoff, and that's ignoring her ball breaking abilities and >>>evil dark side. >> >>Tastes differ. Seeing Fred's "evil dark side" in her determination to >>wreak vengeance on the Professor who banished her to Pylea was the >>turning point at which I started to _like_ Fred as a character. Seeing >>her ambush Connor with a taser and show a taste for continuing to taser >>him when he was tied up (now _those_ are Connor scenes I could wear out >>my VCR playing over and over again) only reinforced it. >> >>Seeing that cutesy, babbly Fred had an unexpected steel core and a taste >>for vengeance is what made her interesting to me (at long last). > > > Fred always had that steel core, even when she was at her nuttiest. > She survived for five years in Pylea. Sure she was nutty as a > fruitcake at the end, but she still had a nice little ravine that she > disposed of the bodies in. True, but you didn't see much of it for a long while, what with hiding in the hotel, scribbling on walls, and so forth. It was when she finally went back out into the world, discovered that her Professor had banished her to Pylea and she turned into an avenging angel of destruction that I was reminded "hey, she did mention the ravine she used for hiding bodies in Pylea...." I was very happy to watch her plot his destruction, refuse to be swayed, and scheme to outwit well-intentioned but interfering Gunn in the process. THAT Fred, I liked.

2003-12-01 15:57:26-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (jblum@zip.com.au)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<jiihsv857o9p16labq8h69uosgnb55ed04@4ax.com>... > I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar > ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. Are you looking at the right numbers? They're consistently higher than season 4's figures, across the board, and generally a little bit higher than season 3's. Was there a cancellation scare after season 3? Regards, Jon Blum

2003-12-01 16:29:22-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (jblum@zip.com.au)


<nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<301120032153272599%nospam@nospam.com>... > In article <4V2yb.21414$sb4.9213@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Jane <jarsenalnospam@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Actually if you look at the season's 2 - present, AtS is doing about the > > same as the rest of the years. > which is part of the problem. Angel is now an established show and as > such, it should be seeing an increase in ratings (even just a small > one) as the old fans stick around and new ones come in. Established shows generally don't perform like that; it's rare for a show in its later seasons to show a significant ratings increase. By season 5, even a slow-building success like "The X-Files" had passed its peak and was tailing off. Even "Friends" found its audience level early on and stayed there, with a bit of slippage. Can anyone think of another example of a show being radically revamped to boost its ratings which has actually worked? The fact that Angel's ratings went up, and have *stayed* up over the previous year, is fairly exceptional. At the moment, the only one that comes to mind is "Doctor Who"... and even it took over a decade to build back up to the level of mid-sixties Dalekmania. Regards, Jon Blum

2003-12-01 17:18:47+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


In article <hfrmsvsggpi2hpde6skkdd50oie0g41vqh@4ax.com>, EGK <me@privacy.net> writes: >On 01 Dec 2003 15:24:28 GMT, sweick@aol.commmmmmmm (SWeick) wrote: > >>EGK me@privacy.net wrote: > >>The only way i'd believe that is if >>>BTVS's ratings were nearly 40% higher then Angel's. >> >> >>BtVS were higher than AtS, but I think people forget that >>they are two different shows. Joss said that Buffy was more >>a soap opera with fangs, and Ats was more action show with >>fangs. I'm not surprised that 40% who watched BtVS would >>not watch AtS because they are two different genre shows. > >There is no way to prove it either way without asking them all. Not much of a believer in scientific polling? The estimates are probably good. What they actually mean is in question. I don't think there are that many >viewers out there for shows of this type where one is a spin-off of the >other. Spinoffs don't automatically have the same viewership either. Certainly some difference but 40% just seems way too high for me >unless Buffy garnered a 40% higher share of the audience to begin with. I don't. Because remember that there might be some 20-40% of the AtS audience that wasn't watching BtVS. There might even be some who never watched BtVS but got into AtS. Others who never watched an episode of AtS, never will, but have every episode of BtVS. The only question is the percentage of each and how they can be effected by casting moves. Seems closing in on 0% to me. >Smallville seems to be holding it's own viewers pretty well. I don't know >how but that's another subject. I could never get in to that show.. The only interesting part is Lex. And the last two epssodes tell us the key to his fall, that part might be coming to a close. But pretty people seem to be the key to keeping viewers. Guess Lorne just isn't pretty enough. :-) >I'm sure some people have also left Angel because of CC's absence. Preaching to the Choir. >I can't buy that the male audience is lusting after Fred, that's for sure. Well, most of us in the male audience would be lucky as hell to date someone as attractive as Amy Acker. That said, the cutsie babble talk works well with a young teen, like early Willow. With a late 20's early 30's women, it's both annoying and a turnoff. Fred is such a turnoff, and that's ignoring her ball breaking abilities and evil dark side. >>Either way AtSS isn't keeping viewers, so Spike being added >>has been a failure. And no Roaz, it's not because of the writing, >>seeing how poorly written things had been with Spike on BtVS, >>in your opinion, yet viewers stayed. > >Actually that's another reason I don't buy the theory that Spike added many >viewers to Angel. Buffy's ratings were going down during the two years on >UPN when the show heavily shifted towards Buffy/Spike. If Spike had been >such a viewer draw, It's curious why UPN wasn't throwing money at Whedon to >get him to spin-off The Spike show for them. The initial UPN ratings were good. Too bad it was to see Bargaining. :-) I don't think Spike is nearly as popular as ME thought. Proving things one way or another with the ratings is hard, because the fluctuation could be caused by other factors. Still, it's not a good sign for the long term of AtS. But as I said, ME has been very successful with its cult shows. But they still were cult shows. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-12-01 17:27:01-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <vsn2btl0nm15a9@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > SWeick wrote: > > > Well, most of us in the male audience would be lucky as hell to date > > someone as attractive as Amy Acker. That said, the cutsie babble > > talk works well with a young teen, like early Willow. With a late > > 20's early 30's women, it's both annoying and a turnoff. Fred is > > such a turnoff, and that's ignoring her ball breaking abilities and > > evil dark side. > > Tastes differ. Seeing Fred's "evil dark side" in her determination to > wreak vengeance on the Professor who banished her to Pylea was the > turning point at which I started to _like_ Fred as a character. Seeing > her ambush Connor with a taser and show a taste for continuing to taser > him when he was tied up (now _those_ are Connor scenes I could wear out > my VCR playing over and over again) only reinforced it. > > Seeing that cutesy, babbly Fred had an unexpected steel core and a taste > for vengeance is what made her interesting to me (at long last). Fred always had that steel core, even when she was at her nuttiest. She survived for five years in Pylea. Sure she was nutty as a fruitcake at the end, but she still had a nice little ravine that she disposed of the bodies in. Then shortly after her return to L.A. we have that scene in Caritas where babbling nutty Fred turns to steel, brings her crossbow up to the throat of one of the bad guys, and gives him a precise anatomical description of what will happen to him, if she pulls the trigger. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-12-01 18:04:12+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com>)


Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:26:39 GMT, KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:03:03 GMT, Mike Craney >>><mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>>galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in >>>>news:5591d176.0311291028.293850fd@posting.google.com: >>>> >>>>> Gubira@webtv.net (exME fan) wrote in message >>>>> news:<23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net>... >>>>>> Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 million >>>>>> audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The network loses >>>>>> almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If they continue this >>>>>> seasons numbers are only slightly better then last season's "mere >>>>>> 3.7 mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' [...] >>>>> >>>>> Smallville. Yuck. Watching Lana's eyes bug out gets real old. >>>>> Listening to Clark's parents is like slow torture. 7th Heaven. Extra >>>>> lame. Charmed? Perhaps a new cleavage revealing costume? >>>> >>>>Well, there are some decent options out there, but the genre is different. >>>>Angel aside, there are simply no decent sci-fi/fantasy shows out there this >>>>year, after having nearly a dozen to choose from just three or four years >>>>ago. >>>> >>>>Mike >>> >>> >>>Well, not on the "regular" channels, but I beg to differ. Although its >>>almost over and therefore no longer a good option for viewing this >>>year, Carnivale (over this weekend) has been superb, and I think it >>>fits into the sci fi/fantasy category. >>> >>>adios, >>>alicat >>> >>> >>>Mica, mica, parva stella, >>>Miror quae nam sis, tam bella! >> >>Carnivale = smoke + mirrors + nudity + misdirection + going nowhere >>fast. >> >>Ken > >As my dear friend Lee says: there is no accounting for it....what we >like and what we don't like, when it comes to entertainment. >I think Carnivale is fabulous and it is so going somewhere - its a >*three season* arc, so you have to enjoy the pace of thing, or watch >something else. > >adios, >alicat > >Hucky duck! This is the first I've heard of a "three season" arc. Anyway, the first season should have supplied some cathartic satisfaction in itself. Has no one learned anything from Joss? Other than being atmospheric, what did the first season give us other than some lame cliffhanging (IMO, of course)? Ken

2003-12-01 18:41:02+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com>)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote: > > >KenM47 wrote: >> Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:26:39 GMT, KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:03:03 GMT, Mike Craney >>>>> <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in >>>>>> news:5591d176.0311291028.293850fd@posting.google.com: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Gubira@webtv.net (exME fan) wrote in message >>>>>>> >news:<23972-3FC81A49-80@storefull-2291.public.lawson.webtv.net>... >>>>>>>> Slip sliding away? At the start of the season Angel had a 5.2 >>>>>>>> million audience #86 . Now it's drooped to 4.0 mill/ # 107. The >>>>>>>> network loses almost 2.5 million viewers after Smallville. If >>>>>>>> they continue this seasons numbers are only slightly better >>>>>>>> then last season's "mere >>>>>>>> 3.7 mill." "making it a marginal player for the WB.' [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Smallville. Yuck. Watching Lana's eyes bug out gets real old. >>>>>>> Listening to Clark's parents is like slow torture. 7th Heaven. >>>>>>> Extra lame. Charmed? Perhaps a new cleavage revealing costume? >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, there are some decent options out there, but the genre is >>>>>> different. Angel aside, there are simply no decent sci-fi/fantasy >>>>>> shows out there this year, after having nearly a dozen to choose >>>>>> from just three or four years ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, not on the "regular" channels, but I beg to differ. Although >>>>> its almost over and therefore no longer a good option for viewing >>>>> this year, Carnivale (over this weekend) has been superb, and I >>>>> think it fits into the sci fi/fantasy category. >>>>> >>>>> adios, >>>>> alicat >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mica, mica, parva stella, >>>>> Miror quae nam sis, tam bella! >>>> >>>> Carnivale = smoke + mirrors + nudity + misdirection + going nowhere >>>> fast. >>>> >>>> Ken >>> >>> As my dear friend Lee says: there is no accounting for it....what we >>> like and what we don't like, when it comes to entertainment. >>> I think Carnivale is fabulous and it is so going somewhere - its a >>> *three season* arc, so you have to enjoy the pace of thing, or watch >>> something else. >>> >>> adios, >>> alicat >>> >>> Hucky duck! >> >> This is the first I've heard of a "three season" arc. Anyway, the >> first season should have supplied some cathartic satisfaction in >> itself. Has no one learned anything from Joss? >> >> Other than being atmospheric, what did the first season give us other >> than some lame cliffhanging (IMO, of course)? >> >> Ken > >Thank you Ken, I thought it was just me. There are things I like about >the show, but as far as I could tell just not enough payoff. > >And by the way Sophie's a first class bitch and Jonesy should have told >her where she could go. I guess being on BtVS taught her how. >Jul OK. What have you done with the real Juleen? You so rarely agree with me, and I see you've agreed with this and my Andrew posts. Anyhow, thanks. I knew there was something familiar about her, and now I know. Marcie Ross herself!! She looks so different visible. :-) Ken

2003-12-02 16:38:12-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (himiko@animail.net)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bqg5c6$2346kf$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > KenM47 wrote: > > > > OK. What have you done with the real Juleen? You so rarely agree with > > me, and I see you've agreed with this and my Andrew posts. > > I tied her up and locked her in the closet. Just don't bring up Spike > 'cause she'll just break loose again. Threaten to take away her bucket. That usually calms her down. himiko

2003-12-04 02:43:45+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net>)


On 01 Dec 2003 15:15:57 GMT, SWeick <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote: > wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) wrote: > > >> >> EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >> news:<jiihsv857o9p16labq8h69uosgnb55ed04@4ax.com>... >> > >>> I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar >>> ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. >>> >> >> The difference is that now the show is much cheaper to make. > > > But cheaper for how long? > > Fox isn't going to deficit finance anything. They have enough > episodes for syndication. The WB won't pay a dime more. You > have natural increases in pay with JM, AD, AA, AH, and JAR, and I'm sure > DB's contract is up and will want a bunch more money. Add in general > inflation and you've got yourselves money > problems. > > From the looks of things, ME has cut about every corner > they can. And it's begun to show IMO. > > Stephen Weick > > > They can always eliminate a few more regulars. Not that I want to see anyone go; but the show does have some cast bloat. And instead of constantly bringing back minor and recurring characters, why not introduce some unknowns who'd work for scale? For example, Juliet Landau probably wasn't cheap; and she had about five lines in Destiny. I think with a little imagination they could have shot the scene around her. Sandra

2003-12-04 05:12:25-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<oprzmxu9oljtszlz@news.verizon.net>... > On 01 Dec 2003 15:15:57 GMT, SWeick <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote: > > > wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) wrote: > > > > > >> > >> EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > >> news:<jiihsv857o9p16labq8h69uosgnb55ed04@4ax.com>... > >> > > >>> I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar > >>> ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. > >>> > >> > >> The difference is that now the show is much cheaper to make. > > > > > > But cheaper for how long? > > > > Fox isn't going to deficit finance anything. They have enough > > episodes for syndication. The WB won't pay a dime more. You > > have natural increases in pay with JM, AD, AA, AH, and JAR, and I'm sure > > DB's contract is up and will want a bunch more money. Add in general > > inflation and you've got yourselves money > > problems. > > > > From the looks of things, ME has cut about every corner > > they can. And it's begun to show IMO. > > > > > Stephen Weick > > > > > > > > They can always eliminate a few more regulars. > Not that I want to see anyone go; but the show does have some cast bloat. > And instead of constantly bringing back minor and recurring characters, why > not introduce some unknowns who'd work for scale? > For example, Juliet Landau probably wasn't cheap; and she had about five > lines in Destiny. > I think with a little imagination they could have shot the scene around > her. > > Sandra "I think with a little imagination they could have shot the scene around her." Thanks, but I for one have had enough scenes of soulless vampires having sex with invisible females to last two lifetimes. Ken

2003-12-04 09:39:45-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (coho@charter.net)


I think the biggest problem with the drop-off in ratings is because of the lack of a season-wide story arc (althought with the last episode it looks like something may be starting). One thing previous Angel and Buffy serieses had was a larger story that pulled together the threads of the individual episodes. This season there isn't, and they claim to have done this on purpose to make it easier for newer viewers to start watching. The problem is that a new viewer may watch the first one or two episodes and say "Hey, they weren't too bad", but there wasn't anything that makes you think that you can't miss the next episode. Every episode has its own complete beginning and end and there has been very little cliff-hangers which is making a lot of viewers think "I can miss this weeks episode and watch next week and catch right back up" and pretty soon they're missing all the episodes. Previous seasons each episode felt like it ended in a way where you absolutely could not miss the next episode. I just recently starting watching the Buffy series on DVD because I didn't have a chance to watch it when it was on and most nights when I sit down to watch one or two episodes I end up watching five or six because every episode makes me excited to see what happens next. And as much as I like Angel, I just haven't had that feeling this season.

2003-12-04 18:54:49+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Reginald Bautista <rbautista@kc.rr.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:0erksvkrev51kaietuhngdj8dkp2prtcbo@4ax.com... > I'd say that SMG and Alyson have larger fan bases then James. Both have > done highly successful movies and Alyson got signed by NBC to a development > deal. I don't see James getting many offers outside of the ME universe. > Not to say he doesn't deserve some. If he had wide spread appeal, he would > be. I'd also say Eliza Dushku has a fanbase larger then James. She got a > new show of her own to star in outside of the ME universe and has also had a > movie career. I thought one of the reasons Marsters didn't do as much stuff during the summer breaks from Buffy was because he devoted that time to his band. He could very well have been in as many crappy movies as Eliza Dushku (honestly, I have no idea how crappy they are since I personally didn't see any of them) or been in a movie series like Aly Hannigan had he chosen to pursue that route. Speaking of Buffy-ites in other projects, I wasn't reading this group or alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer around the time that Emma Caulfield's movie _Darkness Falls_ came out due to much craziness at work. What did people around here think of that movie and of Caulfield's performance? Reggie

2003-12-06 21:49:57-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:44:50 +1100, Kristine <krissy_65@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:44:03 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >snipped >> >>Let's face it. Many fans want to believe BTVS and now Angel are or were >>huge hits similar to shows on large networks and that's never been the case. >>They've always been niche shows. The only show in recent memory I can think >>of that has the type of rabid fan base that developed for BTVS was The >>X-Files and Buffy/Angel aren't even in that league ratings wise. > >ummmmmm..... What about Star Gate? I've heard of it but never watched it. I was thinking of a shows that reached the status of icons. Do they have cons for Stargate? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-12-07 00:52:21-08:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


EGK <me@privacy.net>, on or about Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:49:57 -0500, did you or did you not state: >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:44:50 +1100, Kristine <krissy_65@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:44:03 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>snipped >>> >>>Let's face it. Many fans want to believe BTVS and now Angel are or were >>>huge hits similar to shows on large networks and that's never been the case. >>>They've always been niche shows. The only show in recent memory I can think >>>of that has the type of rabid fan base that developed for BTVS was The >>>X-Files and Buffy/Angel aren't even in that league ratings wise. >> >>ummmmmm..... What about Star Gate? > >I've heard of it but never watched it. I was thinking of a shows that >reached the status of icons. Do they have cons for Stargate? Yes. There's Stargate fandom complete with cons (and fanfic). -- [AGB] SINANJU "So what happened then, grandpa?" "Well, I got KILLED, of course!"

2003-12-07 13:44:50+11:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Kristine <krissy_65@yahoo.com>)


On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:44:03 -0500, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: snipped > >Let's face it. Many fans want to believe BTVS and now Angel are or were >huge hits similar to shows on large networks and that's never been the case. >They've always been niche shows. The only show in recent memory I can think >of that has the type of rabid fan base that developed for BTVS was The >X-Files and Buffy/Angel aren't even in that league ratings wise. ummmmmm..... What about Star Gate? K 8^))

2003-12-08 01:53:00+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


In article <oprzmxu9oljtszlz@news.verizon.net>, Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> writes: >On 01 Dec 2003 15:15:57 GMT, SWeick <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote: > >> wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) wrote: >> >> >>> >>> EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>> news:<jiihsv857o9p16labq8h69uosgnb55ed04@4ax.com>... >>> >> >>>> I thought that was kind of the point, no? That is, those are similar >>>> ratings to those that put Angel on the verge of cancellation last year. >>>> >>> >>> The difference is that now the show is much cheaper to make. >> >> >> But cheaper for how long? >> >> Fox isn't going to deficit finance anything. They have enough >> episodes for syndication. The WB won't pay a dime more. You >> have natural increases in pay with JM, AD, AA, AH, and JAR, and I'm sure >> DB's contract is up and will want a bunch more money. Add in general >> inflation and you've got yourselves money >> problems. >> >> From the looks of things, ME has cut about every corner >> they can. And it's begun to show IMO. >> > > >They can always eliminate a few more regulars. Sure, just like last time. Say that was the person second on the credit list and the next to last one. Works for me. :-) >Not that I want to see anyone go; but the show does have some cast bloat. >And instead of constantly bringing back minor and recurring characters, why >not introduce some unknowns who'd work for scale? >For example, Juliet Landau probably wasn't cheap; and she had about five >lines in Destiny. >I think with a little imagination they could have shot the scene around >her. What little sense Destiny made was due to Drucilla being there. Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-12-09 14:58:51-05:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Randy Money <rbmoney@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>)


Sandra S wrote: > On 08 Dec 2003 01:53:00 GMT, SWeick <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote: > > >> What little sense Destiny made was due to Drucilla being there. >> >> >> Stephen Weick > > I disagree; I really think her appearance was largely wasted. > For what she did, a manniquin would have worked as well. > > And it's not just her; ME is conmstantly bringing back relatively minor > characters, and it costs much more than using someone new. > Mercedes McNab, for example; surely she costs more than any anonymous > starlet who could play Angel's ditzy vampire secretary? > So why do it? At this point it's almost obsessive. > > Sandra Because Harmony has history with Spike that can power later stories. Not that I think that's necessarily a good thing, but I can certainly understand the reasoning. Randy M.

2003-12-09 17:02:58-06:00 - Harmony and Airing Dates for next episodes - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"Randy Money" <rbmoney@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message news:3FD6297B.8010609@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu... > Sandra S wrote: > > On 08 Dec 2003 01:53:00 GMT, SWeick <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote: > > > > > >> What little sense Destiny made was due to Drucilla being there. > >> > >> > >> Stephen Weick > > > > I disagree; I really think her appearance was largely wasted. > > For what she did, a manniquin would have worked as well. > > > > And it's not just her; ME is conmstantly bringing back relatively minor > > characters, and it costs much more than using someone new. > > Mercedes McNab, for example; surely she costs more than any anonymous > > starlet who could play Angel's ditzy vampire secretary? > > So why do it? At this point it's almost obsessive. > > > > Sandra > > Because Harmony has history with Spike that can power later stories. > > Not that I think that's necessarily a good thing, but I can certainly > understand the reasoning. > Cool, I never realized IMDB was a spoiler sorce 1.. "Angel" (1999/I) playing "Harmony Kendall" in episode: "Trust" (episode # 5.12) 4 February 2004 2.. "Angel" (1999/I) playing "Harmony Kendall" in episode: "Damage" (episode # 5.11) 28 January 2004 3.. "Angel" (1999/I) playing "Harmony Kendall" in episode: "Soul Purpose" (episode # 5.10) 21 January 2004 4.. "Angel" (1999/I) playing "Harmony Kendall" in episode: "Harm's Way" (episode # 5.9) 14 January 2004 Anyway, not sure how expensive she was since jan 1 2001 she has appeared in 4 tv episodes and one made for TV movie. Also They would have had to invest charachter development time in a new Vamp secretary to put any decent stories around. Reading her credits she looks like an actress in need of 8+ episodes in a recurring role to me. In 2002 she had two episode appearances, in 2003 spring she had 1 appearance in a series and was uncredited. While she probably got more than an unamed starlet to be named later I suspect it was not hugely more expensive. Probably considerably less than Wes, Fred, or Gunn get currently.

2003-12-09 19:39:36+00:00 - Re: Angel's Ratings Descent? - (Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net>)


On 08 Dec 2003 01:53:00 GMT, SWeick <sweick@aol.commmmmmmm> wrote: > What little sense Destiny made was due to Drucilla being there. > > > > > Stephen Weick > > > I disagree; I really think her appearance was largely wasted. For what she did, a manniquin would have worked as well. And it's not just her; ME is conmstantly bringing back relatively minor characters, and it costs much more than using someone new. Mercedes McNab, for example; surely she costs more than any anonymous starlet who could play Angel's ditzy vampire secretary? So why do it? At this point it's almost obsessive. Sandra