FLM films - My Webpage

2003-02-26 21:32:40-05:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (maystone1@yahoo.com)


In article <0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com>, LyndaNP@nospam.com wrote: > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. I'm hoping for a Firefly mini-series or movie. Evidently something is cooking on that burner. Yay! maystone

2003-02-26 21:32:40-05:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (maystone1@yahoo.com)


In article <0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com>, LyndaNP@nospam.com wrote: > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. I'm hoping for a Firefly mini-series or movie. Evidently something is cooking on that burner. Yay! maystone

2003-02-27 02:48:43-06:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Penguin <penguin@explorecom.net>)


he was working on an iron man script for marvel before firefly and i think he's back at it again --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002

2003-02-27 02:48:43-06:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Penguin <penguin@explorecom.net>)


he was working on an iron man script for marvel before firefly and i think he's back at it again --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002

2003-02-27 15:55:10+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Jerry Davis <jjdavis2@flash.net>)


LyndaNP wrote: >This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > Firefly, New Beginnings .... starring Don Rickles, Tim Conway, and Jerry Van Dyke.

2003-02-27 15:55:10+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Jerry Davis <jjdavis2@flash.net>)


LyndaNP wrote: >This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > Firefly, New Beginnings .... starring Don Rickles, Tim Conway, and Jerry Van Dyke.

2003-02-28 07:12:01+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <3E5E34ED.30008@flash.net>, Jerry Davis <jjdavis2@flash.net> wrote: > LyndaNP wrote: > > >This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > > > > > Firefly, New Beginnings .... starring Don Rickles, Tim Conway, and Jerry > Van Dyke. Talk about high concepts. "The Apple Dumpling Gang ... in Space!" -- rob m at rob myers dot net

2003-02-28 07:12:01+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <3E5E34ED.30008@flash.net>, Jerry Davis <jjdavis2@flash.net> wrote: > LyndaNP wrote: > > >This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > > > > > Firefly, New Beginnings .... starring Don Rickles, Tim Conway, and Jerry > Van Dyke. Talk about high concepts. "The Apple Dumpling Gang ... in Space!" -- rob m at rob myers dot net

2003-02-28 17:42:44-05:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (-Andy- <a.stoffel@spamworm.adelphia.net>)


In article <58R7a.5106$Uy4.401827@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Bill Reid" <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote: > LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com... > > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > Yes. A lot of whining and blame-shifting about how all three of > his shows got cancelled in the same year. So... "Angel" has been cancelled ? Hadn't heard.

2003-02-28 17:42:44-05:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (-Andy- <a.stoffel@spamworm.adelphia.net>)


In article <58R7a.5106$Uy4.401827@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Bill Reid" <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote: > LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com... > > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > Yes. A lot of whining and blame-shifting about how all three of > his shows got cancelled in the same year. So... "Angel" has been cancelled ? Hadn't heard.

2003-02-28 18:05:38-08:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (realitycheck2525@yahoo.com)


Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote in message news:<280220031858543365%robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>... > In article <58R7a.5106$Uy4.401827@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote: > > > LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com... > > > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > > > Yes. A lot of whining and blame-shifting about how all three of > > his shows got cancelled in the same year. He's a big crybaby > > who hasn't yet figured out the audience is always right. > > > > He also apparently only has about one plot idea every ten years, which > > means that he'll try desparately to pitch "Firefly" in some other medium > > like movies, where he can try to fix his mistakes without > > admitting them like he did with "Buffy" over the years. But it's > > a lot easier to get funding for a failed movie script on an upstart > > TV network than it will be to get funding for a movie based on > > a miserable failure of a TV show. So don't hold your breath. > > > > So, it looks like "the script doctor is in". > > Way more bitter than I would have phrased it, but there's a thread of > truth in here. I've thought for a while he should change his name to > Joss Hubris. Agreed. Joss made a mistake praising his Firefly cast over all others and I think he burned some bridges with Fox and with SMG. Also, his emphasis on keeping Firefly on the air and to hell with everything else prolly alienated the staff of his other 2 shows. Everyone has a failure. David E Kelley's "Girls Club" was cancelled after 3 episodes. He's no concentrating on his other two shows: Boston Public and The Practice. If Joss is tired of the Buffyverse, he should just let it continue with Angel and start a new series. Right now the WB has not made a decision about Angel. It's not certain if it will be renewed or not. Levin has said he's happy with the show creatively but not that it would be back next season. So there is no guarantee at this time that it will be back. Another worrisome issue with Angel is how the WB pulled episoes from sweeps. In seasons 1 and 2, Angel aired new episodes during all days of sweeps. In season 3, Angel aired 3 new episodes each in Nov, Feb and May. This season, Angel aired 3 eps in Nov, 2 eps in Feb and will air only 1 ep in May. Why is the WB pulling Angel episodes from sweeps if they are happy with the ratings? Season 4 (from epguides.com) 67. 4- 1 4ADH01 6 Oct 02 Deep Down 68. 4- 2 4ADH02 13 Oct 02 Ground State 69. 4- 3 4ADH03 20 Oct 02 The House Always Wins 70. 4- 4 4ADH04 27 Oct 02 Slouching Toward Bethlehem 71. 4- 5 4ADH05 3 Nov 02 Supersymmetry 72. 4- 6 4ADH06 10 Nov 02 Spin The Bottle 73. 4- 7 4ADH07 17 Nov 02 Apocalypse, Nowish 74. 4- 8 4ADH08 15 Jan 03 Habeas Corpses 75. 4- 9 4ADH09 22 Jan 03 Long Day's Journey 76. 4-10 4ADH10 29 Jan 03 Awakening 77. 4-11 4ADH11 5 Feb 03 Soulless 78. 4-12 4ADH12 12 Feb 03 Calvary 79. 4-13 4ADH13 5 Mar 03 Salvage 80. 4-14 4ADH14 12 Mar 03 Release 81. 4-15 4ADH15 19 Mar 03 Orpheus 82. 4-16 4ADH16 26 Mar 03 Players 83. 4-17 4ADH17 2 Apr 03 Inside Out 84. 4-18 4ADH18 9 Apr 03 Shiny Happy People 85. 4-19 4ADH19 16 Apr 03 Outcast 86. 4-20 4ADH20 23 Apr 03 Hallowed Be Thy Name 87. 4-21 4ADH21 30 Apr 03 Together Again 88. 4-22 4ADH22 7 May 03 Road Trip

2003-02-28 18:05:38-08:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (realitycheck2525@yahoo.com)


Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote in message news:<280220031858543365%robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>... > In article <58R7a.5106$Uy4.401827@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote: > > > LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com... > > > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > > > Yes. A lot of whining and blame-shifting about how all three of > > his shows got cancelled in the same year. He's a big crybaby > > who hasn't yet figured out the audience is always right. > > > > He also apparently only has about one plot idea every ten years, which > > means that he'll try desparately to pitch "Firefly" in some other medium > > like movies, where he can try to fix his mistakes without > > admitting them like he did with "Buffy" over the years. But it's > > a lot easier to get funding for a failed movie script on an upstart > > TV network than it will be to get funding for a movie based on > > a miserable failure of a TV show. So don't hold your breath. > > > > So, it looks like "the script doctor is in". > > Way more bitter than I would have phrased it, but there's a thread of > truth in here. I've thought for a while he should change his name to > Joss Hubris. Agreed. Joss made a mistake praising his Firefly cast over all others and I think he burned some bridges with Fox and with SMG. Also, his emphasis on keeping Firefly on the air and to hell with everything else prolly alienated the staff of his other 2 shows. Everyone has a failure. David E Kelley's "Girls Club" was cancelled after 3 episodes. He's no concentrating on his other two shows: Boston Public and The Practice. If Joss is tired of the Buffyverse, he should just let it continue with Angel and start a new series. Right now the WB has not made a decision about Angel. It's not certain if it will be renewed or not. Levin has said he's happy with the show creatively but not that it would be back next season. So there is no guarantee at this time that it will be back. Another worrisome issue with Angel is how the WB pulled episoes from sweeps. In seasons 1 and 2, Angel aired new episodes during all days of sweeps. In season 3, Angel aired 3 new episodes each in Nov, Feb and May. This season, Angel aired 3 eps in Nov, 2 eps in Feb and will air only 1 ep in May. Why is the WB pulling Angel episodes from sweeps if they are happy with the ratings? Season 4 (from epguides.com) 67. 4- 1 4ADH01 6 Oct 02 Deep Down 68. 4- 2 4ADH02 13 Oct 02 Ground State 69. 4- 3 4ADH03 20 Oct 02 The House Always Wins 70. 4- 4 4ADH04 27 Oct 02 Slouching Toward Bethlehem 71. 4- 5 4ADH05 3 Nov 02 Supersymmetry 72. 4- 6 4ADH06 10 Nov 02 Spin The Bottle 73. 4- 7 4ADH07 17 Nov 02 Apocalypse, Nowish 74. 4- 8 4ADH08 15 Jan 03 Habeas Corpses 75. 4- 9 4ADH09 22 Jan 03 Long Day's Journey 76. 4-10 4ADH10 29 Jan 03 Awakening 77. 4-11 4ADH11 5 Feb 03 Soulless 78. 4-12 4ADH12 12 Feb 03 Calvary 79. 4-13 4ADH13 5 Mar 03 Salvage 80. 4-14 4ADH14 12 Mar 03 Release 81. 4-15 4ADH15 19 Mar 03 Orpheus 82. 4-16 4ADH16 26 Mar 03 Players 83. 4-17 4ADH17 2 Apr 03 Inside Out 84. 4-18 4ADH18 9 Apr 03 Shiny Happy People 85. 4-19 4ADH19 16 Apr 03 Outcast 86. 4-20 4ADH20 23 Apr 03 Hallowed Be Thy Name 87. 4-21 4ADH21 30 Apr 03 Together Again 88. 4-22 4ADH22 7 May 03 Road Trip

2003-02-28 22:11:13+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>)


LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com... > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > Yes. A lot of whining and blame-shifting about how all three of his shows got cancelled in the same year. He's a big crybaby who hasn't yet figured out the audience is always right. He also apparently only has about one plot idea every ten years, which means that he'll try desparately to pitch "Firefly" in some other medium like movies, where he can try to fix his mistakes without admitting them like he did with "Buffy" over the years. But it's a lot easier to get funding for a failed movie script on an upstart TV network than it will be to get funding for a movie based on a miserable failure of a TV show. So don't hold your breath. So, it looks like "the script doctor is in". --- William Ernest Reid

2003-02-28 22:11:13+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>)


LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com... > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > Yes. A lot of whining and blame-shifting about how all three of his shows got cancelled in the same year. He's a big crybaby who hasn't yet figured out the audience is always right. He also apparently only has about one plot idea every ten years, which means that he'll try desparately to pitch "Firefly" in some other medium like movies, where he can try to fix his mistakes without admitting them like he did with "Buffy" over the years. But it's a lot easier to get funding for a failed movie script on an upstart TV network than it will be to get funding for a movie based on a miserable failure of a TV show. So don't hold your breath. So, it looks like "the script doctor is in". --- William Ernest Reid

2003-02-28 23:56:10+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <58R7a.5106$Uy4.401827@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote: > LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com... > > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > Yes. A lot of whining and blame-shifting about how all three of > his shows got cancelled in the same year. He's a big crybaby > who hasn't yet figured out the audience is always right. > > He also apparently only has about one plot idea every ten years, which > means that he'll try desparately to pitch "Firefly" in some other medium > like movies, where he can try to fix his mistakes without > admitting them like he did with "Buffy" over the years. But it's > a lot easier to get funding for a failed movie script on an upstart > TV network than it will be to get funding for a movie based on > a miserable failure of a TV show. So don't hold your breath. > > So, it looks like "the script doctor is in". Way more bitter than I would have phrased it, but there's a thread of truth in here. I've thought for a while he should change his name to Joss Hubris. -- rob m at rob myers dot net

2003-02-28 23:56:10+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <58R7a.5106$Uy4.401827@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote: > LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com... > > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > Yes. A lot of whining and blame-shifting about how all three of > his shows got cancelled in the same year. He's a big crybaby > who hasn't yet figured out the audience is always right. > > He also apparently only has about one plot idea every ten years, which > means that he'll try desparately to pitch "Firefly" in some other medium > like movies, where he can try to fix his mistakes without > admitting them like he did with "Buffy" over the years. But it's > a lot easier to get funding for a failed movie script on an upstart > TV network than it will be to get funding for a movie based on > a miserable failure of a TV show. So don't hold your breath. > > So, it looks like "the script doctor is in". Way more bitter than I would have phrased it, but there's a thread of truth in here. I've thought for a while he should change his name to Joss Hubris. -- rob m at rob myers dot net

2003-03-01 04:52:08+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <58R7a.5106$Uy4.401827@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote: > LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com... > > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > Yes. A lot of whining and blame-shifting about how all three of > his shows got cancelled in the same year. and who did you sleep with at the WB to find out before anyone else that Angel has been cancelled.

2003-03-01 04:52:08+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <58R7a.5106$Uy4.401827@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote: > LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:0001HW.BA828BD9009E2AD107AE3B20@news-server.nc.rr.com... > > This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > > > Yes. A lot of whining and blame-shifting about how all three of > his shows got cancelled in the same year. and who did you sleep with at the WB to find out before anyone else that Angel has been cancelled.

2003-03-01 04:54:48+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <b8f32591.0302281805.6e46d639@posting.google.com>, realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > Why is the WB pulling Angel episodes from > sweeps if they are happy with the ratings? funny thing about sweeps, sometimes they don't show what's important. Sweeps eps are highly hawked and generally use various tricks to pull in viewers (ex the C Reeve appearance on Smallville). While this can show how high the show can get in the ratings, it doesn't reflect the stability of a shows ratings. And stability is just as important as the actual numbers.

2003-03-01 04:54:48+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <b8f32591.0302281805.6e46d639@posting.google.com>, realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > Why is the WB pulling Angel episodes from > sweeps if they are happy with the ratings? funny thing about sweeps, sometimes they don't show what's important. Sweeps eps are highly hawked and generally use various tricks to pull in viewers (ex the C Reeve appearance on Smallville). While this can show how high the show can get in the ratings, it doesn't reflect the stability of a shows ratings. And stability is just as important as the actual numbers.

2003-03-01 10:07:23+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <b8f32591.0302281805.6e46d639@posting.google.com>, realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > Another worrisome issue with Angel is how the WB pulled episoes from > sweeps. In seasons 1 and 2, Angel aired new episodes during all days > of sweeps. In season 3, Angel aired 3 new episodes each in Nov, Feb > and May. This season, Angel aired 3 eps in Nov, 2 eps in Feb and will > air only 1 ep in May. Why is the WB pulling Angel episodes from > sweeps if they are happy with the ratings?

2003-03-01 10:07:23+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <b8f32591.0302281805.6e46d639@posting.google.com>, realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > Another worrisome issue with Angel is how the WB pulled episoes from > sweeps. In seasons 1 and 2, Angel aired new episodes during all days > of sweeps. In season 3, Angel aired 3 new episodes each in Nov, Feb > and May. This season, Angel aired 3 eps in Nov, 2 eps in Feb and will > air only 1 ep in May. Why is the WB pulling Angel episodes from > sweeps if they are happy with the ratings?

2003-03-01 17:29:29+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <010320030511425072%robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>, Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote: > From what I heard, the WB is doing "Angel" a favor by NOT putting up > its strongest episodes directly in competition with the season finales > of a bunch of reality dreck. That's why they put the WB's worst crap on > in its place, things they don't value. Whatever was on then was gonna > get buried anyway, much better that it be the cancelled BoP, or "Lone > Ranger" instead of "Angel." yep. that's it.

2003-03-01 17:29:29+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <010320030511425072%robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>, Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote: > From what I heard, the WB is doing "Angel" a favor by NOT putting up > its strongest episodes directly in competition with the season finales > of a bunch of reality dreck. That's why they put the WB's worst crap on > in its place, things they don't value. Whatever was on then was gonna > get buried anyway, much better that it be the cancelled BoP, or "Lone > Ranger" instead of "Angel." yep. that's it.

2003-03-03 14:50:49-08:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (realitycheck2525@yahoo.com)


Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote in message news:<010320030511425072%robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>... > In article <b8f32591.0302281805.6e46d639@posting.google.com>, > realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Another worrisome issue with Angel is how the WB pulled episoes from > > sweeps. In seasons 1 and 2, Angel aired new episodes during all days > > of sweeps. In season 3, Angel aired 3 new episodes each in Nov, Feb > > and May. This season, Angel aired 3 eps in Nov, 2 eps in Feb and will > > air only 1 ep in May. Why is the WB pulling Angel episodes from > > sweeps if they are happy with the ratings? > > From what I heard, the WB is doing "Angel" a favor by NOT putting up > its strongest episodes directly in competition with the season finales > of a bunch of reality dreck. That's why they put the WB's worst crap on > in its place, things they don't value. Whatever was on then was gonna > get buried anyway, much better that it be the cancelled BoP, or "Lone > Ranger" instead of "Angel." Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year?

2003-03-03 14:50:49-08:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (realitycheck2525@yahoo.com)


Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote in message news:<010320030511425072%robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>... > In article <b8f32591.0302281805.6e46d639@posting.google.com>, > realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Another worrisome issue with Angel is how the WB pulled episoes from > > sweeps. In seasons 1 and 2, Angel aired new episodes during all days > > of sweeps. In season 3, Angel aired 3 new episodes each in Nov, Feb > > and May. This season, Angel aired 3 eps in Nov, 2 eps in Feb and will > > air only 1 ep in May. Why is the WB pulling Angel episodes from > > sweeps if they are happy with the ratings? > > From what I heard, the WB is doing "Angel" a favor by NOT putting up > its strongest episodes directly in competition with the season finales > of a bunch of reality dreck. That's why they put the WB's worst crap on > in its place, things they don't value. Whatever was on then was gonna > get buried anyway, much better that it be the cancelled BoP, or "Lone > Ranger" instead of "Angel." Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year?

2003-03-03 23:56:18+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <b8f32591.0303031450.3a38cccc@posting.google.com>, realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin > is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year? riddle me this: What other shows have already been announced for next year? Last time I checked, it was zero. It's the exception not the rule for shows to be announced this early. It's possible that they are going to announce everything together once they have the prelim schedule set. If so, then they have to get all the new pilots in the can and viewed for pickup consideration.

2003-03-03 23:56:18+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <b8f32591.0303031450.3a38cccc@posting.google.com>, realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin > is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year? riddle me this: What other shows have already been announced for next year? Last time I checked, it was zero. It's the exception not the rule for shows to be announced this early. It's possible that they are going to announce everything together once they have the prelim schedule set. If so, then they have to get all the new pilots in the can and viewed for pickup consideration.

2003-03-04 01:28:39+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>)


PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:030320031556572155%antarian@pacbell.net... > In article <b8f32591.0303031450.3a38cccc@posting.google.com>, > realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin > > is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year? > > riddle me this: What other shows have already been announced for next > year? > Uh, "Friends". And, uh, "The Simpsons". And, uh,...oh wait, what's the use? Do you even think before you post? In like the space of a mere few days, you've incorrectly stated that it takes three weeks to play the lead in a feature motion picture, repeatedly ignored the fact the the ultimate decision-maker for the renewal of "Angel" publically stated he hasn't made up his mind, and falsely stated that product placements never occur on TV (big article in TV Guide this week about product placements on "Alias"). Just about every "fact" you post with such great certainty and contempt for the those of us who aren't as well-informed as you is wrong. What's the matter with you? Oh, wait, this is Usenet, please don't kill me, forget I said anything... I live in Luxembourg, in case you're wondering... --- William Ernest Reid

2003-03-04 01:28:39+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>)


PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:030320031556572155%antarian@pacbell.net... > In article <b8f32591.0303031450.3a38cccc@posting.google.com>, > realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin > > is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year? > > riddle me this: What other shows have already been announced for next > year? > Uh, "Friends". And, uh, "The Simpsons". And, uh,...oh wait, what's the use? Do you even think before you post? In like the space of a mere few days, you've incorrectly stated that it takes three weeks to play the lead in a feature motion picture, repeatedly ignored the fact the the ultimate decision-maker for the renewal of "Angel" publically stated he hasn't made up his mind, and falsely stated that product placements never occur on TV (big article in TV Guide this week about product placements on "Alias"). Just about every "fact" you post with such great certainty and contempt for the those of us who aren't as well-informed as you is wrong. What's the matter with you? Oh, wait, this is Usenet, please don't kill me, forget I said anything... I live in Luxembourg, in case you're wondering... --- William Ernest Reid

2003-03-04 01:43:07+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <bjT8a.80514$zF6.5724644@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote: > PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:030320031556572155%antarian@pacbell.net... > > In article <b8f32591.0303031450.3a38cccc@posting.google.com>, > > realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin > > > is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year? > > > > riddle me this: What other shows have already been announced for next > > year? > > > Uh, "Friends". And, uh, "The Simpsons". And, uh,...oh wait, > what's the use? And you know perfectly well that I was talking about shows on the WB. > repeatedly ignored the > fact the the ultimate decision-maker for the renewal of "Angel" > publically stated he hasn't made up his mind, And when did I do that. I merely pointed out that no one involved in the show or the network has expressed displeasure in the show, despite what folks want to imply. If anything, I have pointed out again and again that the decision hasn't been made yet and isn't likely to be made or announced for several more weeks. > What's the matter with you? I could ask you the same question. If you have a problem with me, you don't have to read what I say. If you have a definite source that negates what I said without any doubts or questions then feel free to post it. Let the rest of the group decide for themselves if I am an asshole, a moron, or whatever other name you want to toss out.

2003-03-04 01:43:07+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <bjT8a.80514$zF6.5724644@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Bill Reid <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net> wrote: > PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:030320031556572155%antarian@pacbell.net... > > In article <b8f32591.0303031450.3a38cccc@posting.google.com>, > > realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin > > > is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year? > > > > riddle me this: What other shows have already been announced for next > > year? > > > Uh, "Friends". And, uh, "The Simpsons". And, uh,...oh wait, > what's the use? And you know perfectly well that I was talking about shows on the WB. > repeatedly ignored the > fact the the ultimate decision-maker for the renewal of "Angel" > publically stated he hasn't made up his mind, And when did I do that. I merely pointed out that no one involved in the show or the network has expressed displeasure in the show, despite what folks want to imply. If anything, I have pointed out again and again that the decision hasn't been made yet and isn't likely to be made or announced for several more weeks. > What's the matter with you? I could ask you the same question. If you have a problem with me, you don't have to read what I say. If you have a definite source that negates what I said without any doubts or questions then feel free to post it. Let the rest of the group decide for themselves if I am an asshole, a moron, or whatever other name you want to toss out.

2003-03-04 03:04:51+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <b8f32591.0303031450.3a38cccc@posting.google.com>, realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin > is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year? Contract time! Management (WB) and workers (actors, writers, ME itself) are about to go into negotiations, and both sides have to play hardball to get the best deal. Playing hardball in TV means making noise in the media about "I don't know about renewing it at these prices ..." It's rhetoric. I'm not saying Angel's renewal is guaranteed, I'm just darn sure the two weeks of dreck put on across those reality finales has nothing to do with the show's renewal. -- rob m at rob myers dot net

2003-03-04 03:04:51+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <b8f32591.0303031450.3a38cccc@posting.google.com>, realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin > is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year? Contract time! Management (WB) and workers (actors, writers, ME itself) are about to go into negotiations, and both sides have to play hardball to get the best deal. Playing hardball in TV means making noise in the media about "I don't know about renewing it at these prices ..." It's rhetoric. I'm not saying Angel's renewal is guaranteed, I'm just darn sure the two weeks of dreck put on across those reality finales has nothing to do with the show's renewal. -- rob m at rob myers dot net

2003-03-04 16:01:18+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (dsueme@core.com)


On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:20:57 GMT, LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote: >This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > He's going to teach typing at the local junior college. Dave When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October 2, 2002 http://my.core.com/~dsueme/power%20lines%20mail.JPG

2003-03-04 16:01:18+00:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (dsueme@core.com)


On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:20:57 GMT, LyndaNP <LyndaNP@nospam.com> wrote: >This talenetd and creative writer must have something planned. > He's going to teach typing at the local junior college. Dave When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October 2, 2002 http://my.core.com/~dsueme/power%20lines%20mail.JPG

2003-03-04 18:02:52-08:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (realitycheck2525@yahoo.com)


Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote in message news:<030320032207362868%robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>... > In article <b8f32591.0303031450.3a38cccc@posting.google.com>, > realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin > > is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year? > > I'm not saying Angel's renewal is guaranteed Agreed. At this time Angel's renewal is not guaranteed.

2003-03-04 18:02:52-08:00 - Re: What's next for JW? - (realitycheck2525@yahoo.com)


Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote in message news:<030320032207362868%robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>... > In article <b8f32591.0303031450.3a38cccc@posting.google.com>, > realitycheck <realitycheck2525@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Perhaps but then why is Ange's renewal still up in the air? If Levin > > is protecting the show then why not renew it already for next year? > > I'm not saying Angel's renewal is guaranteed Agreed. At this time Angel's renewal is not guaranteed.

2003-03-10 00:13:19+00:00 - Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - (Philip Chien <nobody@nowhere.com>)


Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote in news:030320032207362868%robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net: > Contract time! Management (WB) and workers (actors, writers, ME itself) > are about to go into negotiations, and both sides have to play hardball > to get the best deal. Playing hardball in TV means making noise in the > media about "I don't know about renewing it at these prices ..." > > It's rhetoric. > > I'm not saying Angel's renewal is guaranteed, I'm just darn sure the > two weeks of dreck put on across those reality finales has nothing to > do with the show's renewal. Pure speculation - WB may decide to delay making a decision on renewing "Angel" as long as possible because it's aware that if WB does decide to pass on "Angel" then it may be picked up by UPN. UPN knows that Tuesday next season is going to be in trouble. "Buffy" was the only UPN Tuesday series which got in any viewers against the competition on the other networks. If WB does make the decision not to renew "Angel" then it's almost certain that Fox will offer the series to UPN in the hopes that they'll pick it up. UPN could certainly do a bunch of marketing like "Buffy came to UPN and now Angel's following" (or something like that). Naturally there's no way Fox could expect to get as much money from UPN as for "Buffy", but there's also no reason why they shouldn't accept a fair deal.

2003-03-10 00:13:19+00:00 - Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - (Philip Chien <nobody@nowhere.com>)


Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote in news:030320032207362868%robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net: > Contract time! Management (WB) and workers (actors, writers, ME itself) > are about to go into negotiations, and both sides have to play hardball > to get the best deal. Playing hardball in TV means making noise in the > media about "I don't know about renewing it at these prices ..." > > It's rhetoric. > > I'm not saying Angel's renewal is guaranteed, I'm just darn sure the > two weeks of dreck put on across those reality finales has nothing to > do with the show's renewal. Pure speculation - WB may decide to delay making a decision on renewing "Angel" as long as possible because it's aware that if WB does decide to pass on "Angel" then it may be picked up by UPN. UPN knows that Tuesday next season is going to be in trouble. "Buffy" was the only UPN Tuesday series which got in any viewers against the competition on the other networks. If WB does make the decision not to renew "Angel" then it's almost certain that Fox will offer the series to UPN in the hopes that they'll pick it up. UPN could certainly do a bunch of marketing like "Buffy came to UPN and now Angel's following" (or something like that). Naturally there's no way Fox could expect to get as much money from UPN as for "Buffy", but there's also no reason why they shouldn't accept a fair deal.

2003-03-10 04:51:31-05:00 - Re: Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - (David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com>)


Philip Chien wrote: > > I wouldn't be surprised if UPN is already mulling "Birds of Prey", > "Firefly" and other series for its 2003-2004 season. Too many renwals > of cancelled series from other networks would look bad (what UPN can't > develop its own shows, it can only get cast offs from the other > networks?) but certainly it's less expensive than developing a new > show, and helps that it's a known quantity. The WB has routinely taken castoffs from ABC, NBC and Fox without ill reflection, so UPN shouldn't fear that stigma.

2003-03-10 04:51:31-05:00 - Re: Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - (David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com>)


Philip Chien wrote: > > I wouldn't be surprised if UPN is already mulling "Birds of Prey", > "Firefly" and other series for its 2003-2004 season. Too many renwals > of cancelled series from other networks would look bad (what UPN can't > develop its own shows, it can only get cast offs from the other > networks?) but certainly it's less expensive than developing a new > show, and helps that it's a known quantity. The WB has routinely taken castoffs from ABC, NBC and Fox without ill reflection, so UPN shouldn't fear that stigma.

2003-03-11 16:27:28-06:00 - Re: Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@pleasedeargodnospamhotmail.com>)


On 11 Mar 2003 22:20:27 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >Philip wrote: > >> >>WB may decide to delay making a decision on renewing "Angel" as long as >>possible because it's aware that if WB does decide to pass on "Angel" then >>it may be picked up by UPN. >> >>UPN knows that Tuesday next season is going to be in trouble. "Buffy" was >>the only UPN Tuesday series which got in any viewers against the >>competition on the other networks. >> > >Oh no. That would be...bad. Couldn't Sci-Fi pick it up instead? You do realize that you are talking about the network that cancelled Farscape and gave us Tracker? > > > > >Rose >Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat >anyone else better." >Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady >

2003-03-11 16:27:28-06:00 - Re: Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@pleasedeargodnospamhotmail.com>)


On 11 Mar 2003 22:20:27 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >Philip wrote: > >> >>WB may decide to delay making a decision on renewing "Angel" as long as >>possible because it's aware that if WB does decide to pass on "Angel" then >>it may be picked up by UPN. >> >>UPN knows that Tuesday next season is going to be in trouble. "Buffy" was >>the only UPN Tuesday series which got in any viewers against the >>competition on the other networks. >> > >Oh no. That would be...bad. Couldn't Sci-Fi pick it up instead? You do realize that you are talking about the network that cancelled Farscape and gave us Tracker? > > > > >Rose >Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat >anyone else better." >Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady >

2003-03-11 22:20:27+00:00 - Re: Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Philip wrote: > >WB may decide to delay making a decision on renewing "Angel" as long as >possible because it's aware that if WB does decide to pass on "Angel" then >it may be picked up by UPN. > >UPN knows that Tuesday next season is going to be in trouble. "Buffy" was >the only UPN Tuesday series which got in any viewers against the >competition on the other networks. > Oh no. That would be...bad. Couldn't Sci-Fi pick it up instead? Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-11 22:20:27+00:00 - Re: Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Philip wrote: > >WB may decide to delay making a decision on renewing "Angel" as long as >possible because it's aware that if WB does decide to pass on "Angel" then >it may be picked up by UPN. > >UPN knows that Tuesday next season is going to be in trouble. "Buffy" was >the only UPN Tuesday series which got in any viewers against the >competition on the other networks. > Oh no. That would be...bad. Couldn't Sci-Fi pick it up instead? Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 09:18:07-06:00 - Re: Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@pleasedeargodnospamhotmail.com> rose up and issued forth: >>Oh no. That would be...bad. Couldn't Sci-Fi pick it up instead? > >You do realize that you are talking about the network that cancelled >Farscape and gave us Tracker? Spirits, but what an awful show. I like Adrian Paul and Geraint Wyn Davies, but I cannot sit through that show. I forced myself to watch for the first 4 episodes thinking it would have to get better. It just got worse. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org Ferengi Rules Of Acquisition 1 - Once you have their money ... never give it back.

2003-03-12 09:18:07-06:00 - Re: Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@pleasedeargodnospamhotmail.com> rose up and issued forth: >>Oh no. That would be...bad. Couldn't Sci-Fi pick it up instead? > >You do realize that you are talking about the network that cancelled >Farscape and gave us Tracker? Spirits, but what an awful show. I like Adrian Paul and Geraint Wyn Davies, but I cannot sit through that show. I forced myself to watch for the first 4 episodes thinking it would have to get better. It just got worse. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org Ferengi Rules Of Acquisition 1 - Once you have their money ... never give it back.

2003-03-12 15:08:13-06:00 - Re: Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@pleasedeargodnospamhotmail.com>)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:18:07 -0600, Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse <cyohtee@barbarian.org> wrote: >Out of the ether "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" ><rickramey@pleasedeargodnospamhotmail.com> rose up and issued forth: > >>>Oh no. That would be...bad. Couldn't Sci-Fi pick it up instead? >> >>You do realize that you are talking about the network that cancelled >>Farscape and gave us Tracker? > >Spirits, but what an awful show. I like Adrian Paul and Geraint Wyn >Davies, but I cannot sit through that show. I forced myself to watch >for the first 4 episodes thinking it would have to get better. It just >got worse. My wife is willing to give almost anything a chance, but she watched about twenty minutes of that one before throwing in the towel.

2003-03-12 15:08:13-06:00 - Re: Angel's renewal? - was Re: What's next for JW? - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@pleasedeargodnospamhotmail.com>)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:18:07 -0600, Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse <cyohtee@barbarian.org> wrote: >Out of the ether "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" ><rickramey@pleasedeargodnospamhotmail.com> rose up and issued forth: > >>>Oh no. That would be...bad. Couldn't Sci-Fi pick it up instead? >> >>You do realize that you are talking about the network that cancelled >>Farscape and gave us Tracker? > >Spirits, but what an awful show. I like Adrian Paul and Geraint Wyn >Davies, but I cannot sit through that show. I forced myself to watch >for the first 4 episodes thinking it would have to get better. It just >got worse. My wife is willing to give almost anything a chance, but she watched about twenty minutes of that one before throwing in the towel.