Slashdot Mirror


WB Cancels Angel

Ray Radlein writes "Despite a 36% increase over last year's comparable ratings, the WB Network announced today that they are cancelling Angel as of the end of this season." Unfortunate since this season was stronger than the last. " The link also makes taunting mentions of movie plans.

447 comments

  1. Say it Ain't so! by titaniam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Angel will be sorely missed. Hopefully another network can pick it up, for at least a few years. Beyond that, Angel will age too much for his immortality to be believable when comparing the first Buffy episodes with the final Angel season. Or, can anyone say spinoff? The Buffy universe is way too special to end.

    1. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Jim+Starx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, can anyone say spinoff? The REALLY REALLY need to do a series about Willow...

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    2. Re:Say it Ain't so! by The+Desert+Palooka · · Score: 1

      Hadn't really thought about that angle...

      then again with Data on Star Trek TNG they just kept on piling makeup onto him.

      nice.

    3. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't. They REALLY REALLY need to do a series about Faith...

    4. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe she can get into porn now!!

    5. Re:Say it Ain't so! by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      Angel spinoff:

      Willow acquires immortality to carry on the line. She'll continue looking young enough for QUITE some time!

    6. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, Willow with Xander as a side kick.

      Willow the Chicklayer and Xander the Bricklayer.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    7. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny

      REALLY need to do a series about Willow..

      Yeah! They could call it Charmed! It would rock!

      ; )

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    8. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Gothic_Walrus · · Score: 3, Funny
      *sighs*

      Only on Slashdot would a comment about Alyson Hannigan be modded as "Insightful." We're all such geeks...

      Seriously, there are other women out there. We have no chance with her. Give up already.

      --
      Goo goo g'joob.
    9. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spinoff? I want a late night "Sarah Michelle Gellar's Sexual Adventures With Vampires"-spinoff, man, that would rock...

    10. Re:Say it Ain't so! by bach_m · · Score: 3, Funny

      what about Ripper???
      but "Faith" would be so much cooler
      or "willow", if u insist. or "dawn", "andrew" "anya" (so, shes dead, has that stopped anyone?) or "xander". why not just spin off a whole network giving everyone theyre own show?

    11. Re:Say it Ain't so! by uptownguy · · Score: 2, Funny

      They REALLY REALLY need to do a series about Faith...

      Tru dat!

      --


      I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
    12. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      They REALLY REALLY need to do a series about Faith... How about she gets a job at a city morgue and can go back 24 hours to save peoples lives? ..... oh wait...

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    13. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhhh... you didn't even catch my pun???

    14. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Funny

      Any show with an episode about Nazis and Vampires, in my mind, has jumped the shark.

      Oh yeah, Angel was a fine show until they added vampires on there...

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    15. Re:Say it Ain't so! by tlahoda · · Score: 1

      They really need to do a show about Willow introducing Faith to lesbianism and put it on the playboy channel.

    16. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      The REALLY REALLY need to do a series about Willow...

      They did !

      "Say my name, bitch !" - the greatest movie quote ever ever ever ! :)

      Thomas Miconi

    17. Re:Say it Ain't so! by tloh · · Score: 0

      Couldn't have been worse than Buffy & Co. going all broadwayish in "once more with feelings". You kill evil deamons, you dance & sing, you turn into a puppet.....it be joss whedon. He's crazy, and that's the way we like it.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    18. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, there are other women out there.

      Fine, you can have CowboyNeil in drag. I'll continue fantasizing about Ms. Hannigan, thanks.

    19. Re:Say it Ain't so! by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't seen the teaser for the next episode.

      Angel walks into a TV studio and magically turns into a puppet, which looks a lot like Bert from Sesame Street.

      My soda came out my nose when I saw the clip of puppet-Angel trying to kick Spike's ass while Spike is laughing maniacally.

      Yes, Angel has jumped the shark.

    20. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was fine until it pitted spike and angel against eachother as hitler vs America. I like to think it Godwinned itself.

    21. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Hott+of+the+World · · Score: 1

      That was when I stopped being interested in Buffy.

      I wish they would get it through their heads. Its a vampire show. Not a musical. It may have been amusing for the fans of the show, but most of the watchers couldnt stand it.

      Why do you think Voyager sucked so much but Next Generation didnt? Because TNG didnt resort to crap. Thats why.

      --
      | - | - |
    22. Re:Say it Ain't so! by reallocate · · Score: 1

      I'll miss it. The show has never fully realized its potential. But, Angel "Will age too much for his immortality to be believable"? What, we all die at 30 these days?

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    23. Re:Say it Ain't so! by unitron · · Score: 1
      "Any show with an episode about Nazis and Vampires, in my mind, has jumped the shark."

      No, that's any show with an episode about Nazis and Cylons.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    24. Re:Say it Ain't so! by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Only on Slashdot would a comment about Alyson Hannigan be modded as "Insightful." We're all such geeks...

      On Fark, Alyson's wedding was marked with a 'sad' tag.

      We still have a way to go in our devolution.

    25. Re:Say it Ain't so! by msobkow · · Score: 0, Interesting

      "Sorely missed?"

      I thought they'd axed it a year or two ago. It's one of the most childishly mismanaged excuses for a series I've ever seen. Angel doesn't require that you just accept a world of weird rules, it requires that you completely stop thinking or remembering anything about previous episodes, or face the inevitable fact that there is no coherency to the storyline or characters.

      It's the perfect show for UPN to pick up -- it fits right in with their usual selection of over-managed garbage. Remember, these are the people who've even managed to alienate the Star Trek fans!

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    26. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Rysc · · Score: 1

      I'vbe said it many times--most shows suffer from a lack of enough good characters. They muddle along with two or maybe three compelling characters, and somehow manage to fill up their time slot. Joss Whedon shows never have this problem, they have it in reverse: Too many good characters, and not enough screen time. You could spin off an entertaining and compelling show with almost any character which has appeared in more than one episode of Buffy or Angel. The good guys, the bad guys... who cares? They're all fantastic chatacters, with few exceptions, and could carry their own shows.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    27. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " Any show with an episode about Nazis and Vampires, in my mind, has jumped the shark."

      But what you don't explain is if "jumping the shark" is a good thing or a bad thing? Does that phrase mean something like "taken the lead"? I could certainly imagine a press release from Apple that they "jumped the shark" if they pass MSFT in market share, so I'm assuming you liked this episode.

      Personaly I thought it was pretty cool. It's the mixing of demons/vampires that I thought was overkill - too many supernatural thingies make it harder to suspend disbelief - so I like it when they have more human elements.

    28. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      it pitted spike and angel against eachother as hitler vs America.

      It did no such thing.
      In the ads they quote Angel saying "Spike! You're a Nazi!", in the show that line is followed by Spike awnswering "No, I just ate one though!".

      Later on one of the american sailors says that Spike is Nazi, Angel replies "No, he just likes the jacket".

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    29. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Antarius · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ever since they killed off his character, I always wanted to see them bring back Doyle, played by Glenn Quinn.

      Maybe now is the time?

      Then again, I'm sure there is only so much of a character dancing with a vaccuum cleaner that we can take...

    30. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Tralfamadorian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The holideck was MADE for resorting to crap.

      Once more with feeling (the Buffy musical episode) was creative and well done, and certainly if an episode is made for 'fans' of the show, then it can hardly be said that it was resorting to music.

      It may have been amusing for the fans of the show, but most of the watchers couldnt stand it.

      And if you're not a fan, why are you watching? By season 6 you either like the show of you don't, and if you just started watching, then downloading or buying the earlier seasons on DVD is the best way to get into the show. It's like watching only LOTR: ROTK and complaining about not liking or understanding it.

      As far as I know, Giles was the only watcher made to sing and he stood up to it pretty well :)

    31. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Phantasiere · · Score: 1

      Considering Glenn Quinn died a couple of years ago, bring back the 'real' Doyle for a TV show would take a necromancer. Which, considering what evil, heartless bastards they are, WB would have a few of them in their employ.

    32. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Surlyboi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Glenn Quinn's kinda dead, so that could be a problem...

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    33. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2, Funny

      OH my gravy runneth over. Thanks for the link, dude. And a big BITE ME for the dry cleaning bill...

      --grendel drago

      --
      Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    34. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then again, I'm sure there is only so much of a character dancing with a vaccuum cleaner that we can take...
      You didn't get the obvious Fred Astaire 'dancing with vaccuum(sic) cleaner' joke? And you call yourself a geek?

      Perhaps you need to brush up on your tech-related crappy adverts
    35. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I never heard of this wench, and the opening shot makes her look cute and vulnerable, but then the other shots...

      She's a ho!

      And she's just a girl! Who can care that much?

      Stop ogling your TV screens, and start making time with the women around you in that other THREE dimensional world!

    36. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but so was Fred Astaire when he started dancing with vacuum cleaners. Read the parent again, it was actually funny!

    37. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Tassach · · Score: 1

      Alyson Hannigan is hotter than the 3 Charmed chicks combined.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    38. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Alyson Hannigan is hotter than the 3 Charmed chicks combined.

      Well, maybe 2 of 'em, but not if you include Alyssa Milano.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    39. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Tassach · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hmmm, I thought that was one of the more creative episodes. Given the set-up, it worked in the context of the Buffy universe. A demon that makes everyone sing is no wierder or less believable than any of a dozen other hokey plot devices they used. Was it fan service? Yep, you bet. But it was well done fan service.

      I can't say that Buffy ever "jumped the shark". Ending the show when they did was probably a good thing. There's something to be said about going out on top. Buffy and Angel both had a good long run; there's nothing to be sad about. If you want to mourn the passing of a TV show, mourn shows like Firefly and Farscape, which died in their infancy and never had the chance to live up to their full potential.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    40. Re:Say it Ain't so! by bigdavex · · Score: 1
      Any show with an episode about Nazis and Vampires, in my mind, has jumped the shark.

      Like Godwin's law for TV?

      --
      -Dave
    41. Re:Say it Ain't so! by tloh · · Score: 1

      A demon that makes everyone sing is no wierder or less believable than any of a dozen other hokey plot devices they used.

      yes. That is the charm I'm discovering in the works of Joss Whedon. I remember reading somewhere that he said he liked suprises - keep-'em-on-their-toes sort of things. The great thing about Sci-Fi/Fantasy like BtVS and firefly is that you can creat unusual circumstances and run with it without worrying about how bogus it is. I've only started watching recently so I wouldn't say I'm a fan yet, but what bits I have already seen is unpredictable and wacky enough to keep my attention.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    42. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Surlyboi · · Score: 1

      Heh, completely missed the Astaire reference... I must be slipping. Thanks for the heads up! =D

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    43. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous+Villain · · Score: 1

      This was probably a good move to cancel Angel. The Vampire TV show has been worn out. A vampire TV show is difficult to do correctly. Angel is a dropoff from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Two Vampire shows is tooo much.


      This is a prime example of a producer losing touch with the audience (Josh Whedon). Josh Whedon does really bizarre things like the Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical with non broadway actors. Some of the vampire mythology is also strange and atypical. The vampires in Buffy and Angel are deamons without a soul. The vampires are also so vulnerable and almost to easy kill (they follow the Blade paradigm that when a Vampire dies it puffs in smoke). If a Vampire is this easy to kill it makes a very weak monster. A weak monster makes a weak villain and story.


      Another fatal flaw is that almost all (90%) of the monsters in Angel and Buffy are Deamons. They could be more imaginative about the monsters. The show has a preoccupation with deamons. Even Vampires are deamons. In Buffy the Mayor was a deamon and Glory was a hell god from a deamon dimension. On buffy they even had a Cyborg deamon. They also violate the official cannon of a vampire established by dracula.


      The Buffy the Vampire slayer was at its best when Clare Kramer played Glory as the villain.
      The really stupid thing they did is they killed Glory off. But they also killed Glory off in a very weak implausible way. The story made it absolutely essential that Glory had to die or the deamon dimmensions would destroy the world.


      They should have let Glory escape to the deamon dimmension and not killed Buffy. To kill Buffy or Glory is to kill the show. They never had another villain equal to Glory and the fatal flaw of any story is to kill the Chief villain. Almost all good stories have a recurring villain (such as Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes) and when you have a good villain you utilize them and don't kill them. Starwars would not be Starwars if Kenobi had killed Vader in Star Wars a New hope. They could have reused Glory in future episodes.


      Sarah Michelle Ghellar also quit Buffy because it was declining or basically dead. It would be really stupid for her to do Buffy or Angel again. It would be counter productive to her career.
      Basically she is now to good for either or was always to good for the role.



      Here is a link for Clare Kramer: She is the height of the show and its demsise.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy/intervie ws/kramer_ clips/index.shtml


      The last episode of Buffy the Vampire slayer was also dumb. They could have gotten a true Villain but instead the used Sarah Michelle Ghellar twice as Buffy and the Evil Buffy. They could have had a second actor as the villain but they were to cheap so they used Ghellar twice.


      Sarah Michelle Ghellar made Buffy the Vamp a success. As a vampire killing vixen the lead role requires a hot actress and it took a lot to carry a show about the dead and deamons.

    44. Re:Say it Ain't so! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      Actually they snuck a lot of critical but boring plot points in that Buffy ep...for starters we learn that Buffy went to Heaven not hell!!! there was a lot of character shake out in that ep that cleared the air so to speak...and you thought they were just being stupid. Silly rabbit...

      I'm looking forward to the "muppet" Angel episode. I'm curious if he'll go "PuppetMaster" with it.

      Of course given the news of canceling Angel, I guess directing live action muppets would look good on his resume!!

    45. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, Giles was the only watcher made to sing and he stood up to it pretty well

      That's because he sings other than when under the control of demons. He has an album.

      He sang in the post Adam episode, too.

    46. Re:Say it Ain't so! by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Now it is "trolling" to think a show is a piece of crap that should have been axed ages ago. Ah well, what can you expect in the US but censorship to go with their arcane security laws.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    47. Re:Say it Ain't so! by rowdent · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's not a nice thing to say about Anya...

      --
      "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
    48. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      No. The poster was talking about Willow not Alyson. It's Willow who's the hot-bod Unix Guru/wizard, not Alyson..


      Alyson's just a hot-bod.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    49. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already did that. It was season six of Buffy.

    50. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cancelling angel is one of the worst things they could do.... With the death of each good series' The networks bring more and more...*shivers* Reality...T.V. Shows....

      Now on to thwe dissertation.

      Wow.... Have enough bais with you opinion? First I'd like to just adress your EXTREME bias toward actors from "across the pond." Not to mention comparing, even minutely, Buffy to Harry potter and SHERLOCK HOLMES. Buffy is a modern day hour drama, Sherlock and harry potter are literary genius(less so for harry potter but still fantastic) in there given fields. Y'know, Monty Pyton and Arense(Sp?) Lupin.....Now doesn't that sound asinine? I'm REALLY sorry if i sounded mean here but c'mon....

      Now..the first paragraph is your opinion and are entitled to such.

      This is a prime example of a producer losing touch with the audience (Josh Whedon). Josh Whedon does really bizarre things like the Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical with non broadway actors. Some of the vampire mythology is also strange and atypical. The vampires in Buffy and Angel are deamons without a soul. The vampires are also so vulnerable and almost to easy kill (they follow the Blade paradigm that when a Vampire dies it puffs in smoke). If a Vampire is this easy to kill it makes a very weak monster. A weak monster makes a weak villain and story

      First, the Musical was fantastically preformed and well written, Broadway actors or no. This is Prime Joss(no, not josh)Whedon, Take a potentially foolish move and make it golden. ansd as far as a vamp being a weak enemy, you rarely see anything but "new borns" in the series. Anytime one has been around a while he can usually stack up with the Slayer.

      Another fatal flaw is that almost all (90%) of the monsters in Angel and Buffy are Deamons. They could be more imaginative about the monsters. The show has a preoccupation with deamons. Even Vampires are deamons. In Buffy the Mayor was a deamon and Glory was a hell god from a deamon dimension. On buffy they even had a Cyborg deamon. They also violate the official cannon of a vampire established by dracula. .....Ok... why do you guys insist on putting letters where they aren't needed?(waits for the obligatory "why do you all insist on taking them out?!") I Agree they DO have a thing about demons but its not like "Demons" means Generic red guy. Thwe mayor ewasd axctually a human that sdoul hisd dsoul for immortality, invulnerability, and eternal youth. His assention weasd him trying to become a demon. Glory was a God as stated and the other one was Adam he was half human....I didn't get it either. Now, the Dracula thing.... That was a Joke right? lets NOT deviate from the roots of vampire mythos...Ok, SDo aftwer wewe stake a vamp, Buffy cuts off its head, stuffs garlic in its mouth, and burns its body...everytime. Wait...didn't dracula deviate from this mythos?

      Concerning your glory statement, I liked her too. Honestly they should have kept her. Just have Buffy hop in the portal like before, Glorys missed her window, can't go home. Happy perma-Spot! One question. what was implausable about her death? She can't keep her form when shes exausted and being attacked by the weapon of a god is gonna hurt.

      I've already responded to this part, and looking back I Believe I over reacted. My apologises, But I left it as is so someone may have a laugh...

      Sarah Michelle Ghellar also quit Buffy because it was declining or basically dead. It would be really stupid for her to do Buffy or Angel again. It would be counter productive to her career.
      Basically she is now to good for either or was always to good for the role.


      She quit cause she didn't wanna be thought of as "buffy" for all her career. She had wanted out til season 5 but, God bless her, sdhe had enough honor to finish it off.

      I'm feeling long winded here, so lemme wrap this up.
      Clare Kramer= good
      The First[Evil Incarnate]=/="Evil" Buffy
      I feel you were WAY too harsh in your judgement, but opinions are as such..

      And...please...ignore the name....

    51. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous+Villain · · Score: 1

      Last week Angel gets turned into a puppet or muppet in the 5th season episode of Smile Time. This equivalent to turning Kermit the Frog into a Vampire. Instead they turn Angel into Count Dracula the muppet or puppet and the enemies are demon posessed puppets. Smile Time is the story of the Muppets Goes To Hell. Oh wait that was already done in the movie Puppetmaster!!!


      This episode didn't get released it escaped as a monster all its own. This is one reason why Henson won't let Clive Barket get close to the Muppets as well an example of briliant script writing.


      This is the second coming of the infamous LA Law vantriliquist episode.



    52. Re:Say it Ain't so! by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      First off, it's Gellar, not Ghellar.

      Second off, Glory was not killed because the demon dimensions were destroying the world(That's why Buffy was killed off) Glory was killed because Giles saw an opportunity, and he, unlike most TV show charactors, is smart. Each year the show got a new villian to keep things fresh, as opposed to facing the same thing again and again and have to come up with new stupid reasons why the hero didn't kill the villian and vice versa. They've done the Master of Vampires, Angel, and, after Glory, human nerds (to show that sometimes, the biggest danger is us, and not some fantasy monster).

      Yes, Buffy has a preoccupation with demons. So? It's called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" not "Buffy the Farmer" or "Buffy the Anorexic Lawyer".

      Yes, Buffy's vampire rules are different from Dracula's. That's why the show is named after her, not him.

      Ok, I'm done now.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    53. Re:Say it Ain't so! by Anonymous+Villain · · Score: 1
      Yes, Buffy has a preoccupation with demons. So? It's called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" not "Buffy the Farmer" or "Buffy the Anorexic Lawyer".

      What your really saying is that Vampires are deamons. It should be Buffy the deamon slayer. It's really Buffy the deamon slayer not Buffy the Vampire slayer. Thats exactly the point. There is no creativity in there selection of monsters. They could create other types of monsters but the creators themselves must be possessed. There are different monsters ghosts, balrogs, liches, Witches, Warlocks, Pixies, Centaurs, Orcs, Trolls, Chimeras, Wraiths, and Nazguls, Dragons, Unicorns, Wizards, but Buffy has one predominant monster a deamon. Even JRR Tolkien has different monsters, but Buffy was never the Lord of the Rings and the producers aren't Stephen Jackson and the FX shop isn't Wicka.



      Yes, Buffy's vampire rules are different from Dracula's. That's why the show is named after her, not him.

      Yes, and Dracula is considered a literary classic whereas Buffy is not. Defying conventions will get you only so far. In Angel's case cancelled. There is also the convention of logic which is lacking.

      Ok, I'm done now.

      Yeah, and Angel is done too. Officially, Angel is spiked.



      Glory was not killed because the demon dimensions were destroying the world...

      That's exactly the point. If the last Glory episode was so good then why did Buffy switch networks afterword. The WB frog network let Buffy escape to the UPN. The only real thing you can do with a monster is keep it caged or let it escape.



      If they'd really wanted a cliffhangar for the Glory episode they would have turned Buffy (the vampire slayer) into a vampire. But knowing the producers they would have turned buffy into a daemon instead (err deamon).

    54. Re:Say it Ain't so! by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      What your really saying is that Vampires are deamons. ... There are different monsters...but Buffy has one predominant monster a deamon

      On the show, vampires are a type of demon, and demons are so varied, that saying Buffy has one predominant monster, a demon, is really kinda ludacris. Some are vampires, some are giant snake monsters, one was a girl who granted wishes to scorned women, another was a green karaoke demon, and there are many many more creative ones to name. As for Buffy only focusing on demons, they've had witches, warlocks, trolls, ghosts, robots, sorcerors, werewolves, aliens, hyena possesion, zombies, mummies, etc, and if you'ld watch the show you'ld know that.

      Defying conventions will get you only so far. In Angel's case cancelled.

      I doubt Angel was cancelled because it defied conventions. Buffy lasted 7 years and spawned a spin-off that lasted 5. Most shows don't that far. As for the transfer, the reason Buffy switched networks was because UPN offered more money than the WB, though the WB would have happily kept Buffy for the last two years. I'ld say that says something good about the show. Most shows aren't worth buying after 5 years.

      If they'd really wanted a cliffhangar for the Glory episode they would have turned Buffy (the vampire slayer) into a vampire.

      They turned her into a vampire before, also, considering she was fighting a God, I'm not sure how a vampire would have figured into it, especially a vampire that could beat her.

      Here's a suggestion: Watch the show. It's really very good. Just give it a chance.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
  2. Replacement. by saintlupus · · Score: 4, Funny

    the WB Network announced today that they are cancelling Angel as of the end of this season.

    "They will be using the timeslot for another unfunny pile of shit from the Wayans brothers."

    --saint

    1. Re:Replacement. by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's strange. The Wayans family helped make Fox with In Living Color. Now they're dragging down the WB. That's a pretty influential family.

      -B

    2. Re:Replacement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dave Chapelle - "...Wayans? There are MORE of them?!"

    3. Re:Replacement. by RoceKiller · · Score: 5, Informative

      Damn sad to see another great show go away. In case you don't know about it Angel Season 6 Petition

    4. Re:Replacement. by patternjuggler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      hey will be using the timeslot for another unfunny pile of shit from the Wayans brothers.

      The thing is, Angel probably costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per episode, while a pile of shit from the Wayans brothers costs, well, whatever the going rate for piles of such stuff goes for (a lot less). So the piles can get much worse ratings and less advertising dollars but be more profitable.

    5. Re:Replacement. by first.last · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link. I signed it and hope others will too.

      --
      Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
    6. Re:Replacement. by fastgood · · Score: 0

      The first syndication milestone is at the end of the third season, so 65 shows can air weekdays for three months without repeat.

      Now at 104 episodes, smaller markets will be able to show a pair of them every weekend for a year ... again without reruns.

  3. critical news by airConditionedGypsy · · Score: 0, Troll

    And entertainment news of this sort is critical to nerds how? Or maybe I'm just someone who hasn't seen the show. Oh well, what can you do?

    --
    I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
    1. Re:critical news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... I didn't realize that this was News For Losers!

    2. Re:critical news by airConditionedGypsy · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Troll? Now I'm confused...

      Up at the top of the page, the second phrase is "Stuff that matters." Granted, Angel may matter to a few people, but I didn't imagine that the average Slashdot reader would care too much. I'm not fishing for angry responses here, but just trying to hint to the editors that 'entertainment buzz' probably isn't up there with all the interesting stories about SCO, the Mars Rovers, etc, etc.

      Yes, I suppose I'm also free to ignore any article I feel doesn't interest me. Noted.

      --
      I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
    3. Re:critical news by TCQuad · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know a single soul that watches that show.

      That's because we sold them to get the Farscape mini-series.

    4. Re:critical news by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Troll? Now I'm confused...Up at the top of the page, the second phrase is "Stuff that matters."

      What does the first read? Something for nerds...

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:critical news by thegrommit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't seem to fit squarely with the site at all. I don't know a single soul that watches that show.

      And your point is? I know at least three other geeks that do watch the show.

      Mutant Enemy produced three well written cult series that played with their respective genre conventions, and I for one will be sad to see them gone.

    6. Re:critical news by desideria · · Score: 1

      There are some "nerds," who don't actually care about SCO or Mars Rovers. You might want to take note of the fact that the second phrase isn't "Stuff that matters to airConditionedGypsy."

    7. Re:critical news by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      I think a reasonable person would conclude that appropriate topics for slashdot tend towards subjects concerning science and technology. Thus legislative measures affecting technology, new frontiers of technology, new developments of existing technology, all would be appropriate subject material "for nerds."

      Anything outside of that would be expected to have representative interest which substantially exceeds that of any other typical group. For example anime. For whatever reason anime is more popular among "nerds" than other typical groups. (I organize events for my campus chapter of the ACM, this fact is well known to me even though I myself don't follow anime except for the very few that make it to wide release) Thus I can understand Anime making it onto slashdot.

      However in all the questionaires I've sent out to our ACM members, not ONCE has Buffy or Angel come up.

      I think it would be fair to conclude that Angel enjoys much more popularity in another typical group (probably female teens and to a lesser degree male teens) and thus falls outside of the scope of "news for nerds."

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    8. Re:critical news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However in all the questionaires I've sent out to our ACM members, not ONCE has Buffy or Angel come up.

      But LEGO did?

      This story: 250 comments. The one titled "Eiffel Programming Contest Results": 13.

      Get a clue, grasshopper.

    9. Re:critical news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story: On the front page
      Eiffel Contest story: Never on the front page
      Comparison: Apples to Oranges
      You: ignorant

    10. Re:critical news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a reasonable person would conclude that the people concerned with stories "for nerds" would read the developer section.

      Your turn.

    11. Re:critical news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mean number of posts to articles not on the front page is an order of magnitude less than those which are.

      Either an order of magnitude is not statistically significant or a reasonable person would not conclude that the average /. poster reads anything but the front page.

      You're not the shining example of a data analyst in your family, are you?

  4. Wha? by JoeLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, I don't even watch Angel, most on account a' I don't have a TV, but what is up with the networks cancelling TV shows? Are they only looking for "The NExt Big Thing"tm? I wonder if they figure that a possible smash hit will earn them more money in the short term, rather than a steady show that will earn them money at a regular rate...

    1. Re: Wha? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful


      > Ok, I don't even watch Angel, most on account a' I don't have a TV, but what is up with the networks cancelling TV shows? Are they only looking for "The NExt Big Thing"tm? I wonder if they figure that a possible smash hit will earn them more money in the short term, rather than a steady show that will earn them money at a regular rate...

      That's the way every other business in the USA operates these days. Regular incomes don't impress the shareholders anymore.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Wha? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In the WB's case, I think it's not so much "the next big thing" they want as "the next big teenage thing." We went through the same thing with Buffy -- I remember a bunch of people saying on various forums something along the lines of, "They're crazy! I'm a 42-year-old soccer mom with lots of money and I watch Buffy religiously! I'm going to write them and tell them they're getting rid of their best demographic!" And then someone would point out that the WB doesn't give a shit about 42-year-old soccer moms; they care, with a kind of exclusiveness that borders on monomania, only about those soccer moms' kids.

      In other words: Buffy, despite its considerable appeal to teenagers, quickly became a grown-up show, and the WB doesn't want grown-up shows. Now Angel's done the same. So clearly, it has to go.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Wha? by diverman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps we should just restrict our kids from watching TV until they're out of the house! That will get the attention of the big TV execs. Hell, the kids might actually get out of the house, or learn how to read a book again.

      Don't get me wrong, when I was a kid, I was a TV junky, but it seems that it's getting worse today. Gotta wonder what long term effect this will have on society and/or culture. Someone already mentioned how business is even reflecting short-term gains, and ignoring longer term stability. What's influencing what? Hmmmm.

      -Alex

    4. Re:Wha? by mpe · · Score: 1

      In other words: Buffy, despite its considerable appeal to teenagers, quickly became a grown-up show,

      Strangely enough teenagers grow up.

      and the WB doesn't want grown-up shows.

      The issue appears to be more that no-one, at least amongst the US networks, wants such shows. The concept of adult oriented fantasy/sci-fi/etc appears to be a quite hard sell to many TV executives.

      Now Angel's done the same. So clearly, it has to go.

      Angel never had more than one teenage character at once in the first place. Yet, paradoxically, had a lower average character age than Buffy...

    5. Re:Wha? by Malcontent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Strangely enough teenagers grow up."

      And when they do their spending levels go down. Faced with real responsiblities and lack of funding from daddy they spend less on clothes, CDs, and other doo dads. Most of their money goes to food, beer and school.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    6. Re:Wha? by reallocate · · Score: 1
      TV shows are cancelled when the network thinks thay can make more money running something else. Just making money isn't good enough. You need to convince people that you will make more money than a potential replacement.

      Besides, TV is an advertising medium. Get over it.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    7. Re: Wha? by Raul654 · · Score: 1

      That's the way every other business in the USA operates these days. Regular incomes don't impress the shareholders anymore.

      Which is why many resorted to cooking the books. IMHO, there should be a cooperate death penalty just for that reason.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    8. Re:Wha? by Kupek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, I thought Buffy ended because Joss Whedon wanted it to end, not because the networks cancelled it. Second, those 42-year-old soccer moms have a hell of a lot more money than their teeny-bopper kids, and are much better advertising targets, so that doesn't sound like the reason.

    9. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ok, I don't even watch Angel, most on account a' I don't have a TV, but what is up with the networks cancelling TV shows?

      Out of curiosity, why don't you have a TV and why do you feel we care that you don't? Whether or not you have a TV doesn't play into the fact that you don't understand why networks cancel low-rated shows.

    10. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... either that, or - seriously - it's just a weather balloon, a PR stunt, to garner even more interest. How many TV programs have gone onto fame and fortune after being 'almost' canceled? There are many.

      And no - I disagree: no TV station prefers a next big teenage thing to a next big thing period. As long as they get the viewers, which in turn gets them the ad bucks, they don't give a flying fuck who watches.

      Duh.

    11. Re:Wha? by Khakionion · · Score: 1

      Seems to me the teeny-bopper kids are the ones who'll shell out (their parents') cash for various Buffy-verse shitpiles like novelisations, seasons on DVD, etcetera.

      42-year-old soccer moms won't invest the same amount of time/money in a property as teens will. Thus, series must be cycled through regularly, because teens are interested in the "new hotness," not "tried and true."

      --
      OMG! Wau!
    12. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do any of the WB execs even watch the show? Angel isn't like Friends or Fraiser where each episode is entirely its own. Each Angle episode is a chapter in a book, and if they cancel at the end of this season, the book won't ever be finished.

      I understand that the WB is a business, and they've really made that fact clear, here. Without Angel, I won't have a reason to watch the WB anymore. I expect Angel will get picked up for one last season on another network (deja vu), though. A show like this lives for itself, not for the network to make money off of.

  5. UPN by Ironsides · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I seem to recall that UPN said they would pick up Angel if they could. The took Buffy and Rozwell. Hopefully they will take Angel.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    1. Re:UPN by LuxFX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      yeah, and that's when Buffy went from being great to being horrible. the last two seasons of Buffy were just painful to watch (which I did anyway because my wife is a big Spike fan, and I got dragged into it)

      --
      Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
    2. Re:UPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're going to need something for Wednesday nights since Enterprise is about to be cancelled.

      AND GOOD RIDDANCE! As a Star Trek fan, I am awaiting in baited breath for the a retroactive cancellation of Star Trek back to the premiere of Star Trek Voyager, including a huge bonfire for the following:

      Star Trek V: The B-Movie Frontier
      Star Trek VII: The Film Malcolm MacDowell Couldn't Help
      Star Trek IX: Indigestion
      Star Trek X: I'm Going to Be Sick

    3. Re:UPN by johnpaul191 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      UPN said they would pick up Angel if WB had dropped it when Buffy first jumped to UPN..... but i think that statement was specific to the time Buffy was on UPN (to save Angel from being cut as some form of revenge).

    4. Re:UPN by cquark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      UPN lost millions of dollars on Buffy. While the Nielsen ratings for the first couple of Buffy season 6 episodes were well over 4, the show hovered around the low 3's for over a year before dropping into the low 2's for second half of season 7. (Each Nielsen rating point in that time period represented a little less than a million viewers.) After that disappointment, I don't think UPN is likely to buy a spinoff whose ratings on the WB have generally been lower than those of its parent show.

    5. Re:UPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Since the WB is talking about doing Angel movies next year, the are obviously not giving up the rights to Angel. This means that UPN cannot pick it up until the rights are surrendered. Also for those who care, there has been talk about the WB ending Charmed, 7th Heaven, and the Gilmore Girls next year. This would get rid of all of the WB big shows. Some feel that this would make the station go downhill, possibly out of business.

    6. Re:UPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear it's too late.

      The ho what starred in the program's already signed a two-year deal w/ Dockside Dolls.

    7. Re:UPN by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      NO WAY IN HELL.... as it is they are thinking about tossing Enterprise for a show about AMISH PEOPLE... UPN at the time was looking at Sci Fi as its thing... they had VOY, they knew they where getting a new trek show from the b's, with buffy and the rest of the shows they would have been on a different (and probably better footing) than the WB whos focus was teen dramas. Then buffy tanked compaired to its WB raitings (in the most part cause of wierd seasons and a heavy kick in the ass by the WB proclaiming that Buffy season 5 was it's last with her death even though they knew it wasnt just to spite UPN for buying it) And Ent's ratings nosedived thanks to poor VOY ratings before it and a poorly exectuted first and second season that was too 24th cent trek like... now the show is dooing MUCH better but will never get the audience back. Angel was always the redheaded child of the two so the ratings wherent as good as it was, and Roswell is well dead... ITs not UPN direction ("urban" comedies and reality TV are apparently even the redneck soap opera that is the WWE is doing poor on UPN cause they refuse to air ads for it and Enterprise unlike their other shows) Jake 2.0 a show that was TOLD it was going th whole year was pulled right out of the lineup after half a season 3 weeks after being told they where going to get that year... the UPN is dying.... LET THEM DIE

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    8. Re:UPN by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "the UPN is dying.... LET THEM DIE"

      That means UPN uses BSD, right? :)

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    9. Re:UPN by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
      hey now.... lol

      actually it was a very bad Star Trek VI reference...

      Spock : The Klingons are dying Jim

      Kirk : LET THEM DIE

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  6. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've really gotten into this show. Damned corporate America...

  7. It was crap. by MacFury · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't watch much TV, so my opinon is skewed...but it was crap. However, it doesn't make much sense to cancel a show whose ratings are on the rise.

  8. I thought I would do this... by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, while we're on the subject, anyone remember this show called Farscape? /Gets a flaming arrow through the window, see a screaming horde descending on the house

    1. Re:I thought I would do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about futurama?

    2. Re:I thought I would do this... by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't have cable or reception and I like it that way. I watch good shows on DVD when they come out - I like it that way. What I can't understand is why great shows get cancled. Now, I don't know if Angel is a great show or not - someday I'll rent it and see. But the list of really good shows that get cancled is insane.

      Farscape and Firefly - I can't fathom why these shows got cancled, except for the fact that they were intelligent, interesting, and compelling. About two weeks ago, I watched the last Firefly DVD and the next day I watched the first Babylon 5 DVD. I know lots of you think B5 is great, but honestly, the acting, the plots, the characters, the effects, litterally everything about B5 was "B" quality - right down to the hulking slow walking "creature from the black lagoon" type monster in the 4th episode. Firefly went 13 episodes - B5 goes on for years. Makes absolutely no sense.

      While I was watching the Farscap discs, I tried to watch Andromeda. I got through 3 or 4 based solely on the fact that Andromeda was cute. Otherwise, everything but the special effects sucked. For real - one character's costume was purple makeup and a tail attached to a belt as if it was some Halloween party. The stories and most the characters were just lame. And even if there were two interesting characters (the tech kid and andromeda), the lousy acting of everyone else and the boring unoriginal stories just can't compennsate.

      I don't know what it is with the networks. They have no understanding of what is good. And I can't understand what it is with viewers - are we so deprived of sci-fi that we will accept anything at all? I'm bitter. Sorry for the rant.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:I thought I would do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how many episodes of Babylon 5 you've seen, but once you get into the third season, everything will be absolutely awesome. You'll be glad and receive a special kind of gratification for watching the first two seasons.

    4. Re:I thought I would do this... by CrazyJoel · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe they cancel shows because you're only watching them on DVD. Maybe if you'd watch some commercials now and then...

      --

      Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
    5. Re:I thought I would do this... by anagama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just bought the Firefly set - $40, 13 shows, a bit over $3 per episode. Let's imagine it takes $3m to make an episode. You only need to sell 2m discs to double your money. And this is 2m discs worldwide - not just to Americans who prefer tripe. Truthfully, if I could "subscribe" to a show like firefly for even $5 an episode, I would (I would want to have a DVD to keep). 20 minutes of my time (commercial breaks) is worth a hell of a lot more than $5 so even at $5/ep. it would be a steal, and probably make the studio money.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    6. Re:I thought I would do this... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      For the time B5 was awesome...remember it started over 10 years ago...sure the effects are a bit dated, but if you like the story, it was pretty cool...look how cheap and crappy "Dr Who" is ....but it gained a following from having good stories..often.

      The main reason stuff like B5 and andromeda succeedes is that they ARE B-rated shows for C-Rated network syndication! Look at hercules and Xena...both very B-rated too! They're good enough to keep a steady base of .5-1 points comming so they get lots of late-nite/saturday afternoon airtime that nobody wants anyway...

      The problem with the WB is that they were a C-rated network for a long time! B-rated shows were how they made a name...they had at least one show that each Demo liked A LOT...enough to turn away from the big networks to watch it! The key being that many people liked only 2-3 WB shows [say 7th heaven & nuns]...then changed the channel...while a vastly different group liked the next show [like when Angel came on! EVIL!]. Now they're trying to play the "overall" game...by dumbing everything down so your not supposed to "want" to change the channel. for comparison, look what happened to Dark Angel...great show on a big network...but it was too expensive to justify even after cutbacks...and too lucrative to let go into syndication where it would still be alive. Corps can't handle "good" shows anymore the only shows networks keep are Dramas and Comedies...that's the only stuff they have the skin for anymore.

      In away shows like B5 and Andromeda would be some of the first to benifit from the "TiVo" World...it's too bad there's not a way to track that usage! Also, remember that Star Trek:TNG was also purely in syndication!!!! The biggest problems I had were "Network" events constantly interrupting the broadcast schedule. Meaning you'd loose your show for 2-3 weeks and wonder where it went....not good!!! But with the VOD and TiVo world shows like this should do better.

      Perhaps Apple could start and iTV network! They could put up old reruns [or new eps] for $2-5 a pop and use the iTunes music store! The shows and movies that are hard to watch due to time restraints...or cool shows people discover that they want to see more of! That's a prime target for Apple's model!

    7. Re:I thought I would do this... by kalidasa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know what it is with the networks. They have no understanding of what is good.

      Firefly was too complicated. Network execs are PHBs, they don't like complicated. They want shows that their children (who usually are homozygous recessive for the PHB gene) can understand, shows about clothes, and having sex with the wrong people, and cars, and football. A show about a bunch of space-smuggling horse-riding misfits who were on the losing side of a failed revolution and eke out their living by breaking the laws of the oppressive winning side while trying not to bend morality too far, and trying (and often failing) to remain loyal to their ideals and one another - that's all about tone and nuance. The only tone network execs understand is shrill, and "nuance?" What's that, a new brand of shampoo and conditioner? Compare Firefly's "Objects in Space" to an episode of Friends some time. Everyone on earth would say "Objects in Space" was a far superior work - except the ad executives who run the media. It's synergy, bay-bee.

      And I can't understand what it is with viewers - are we so deprived of sci-fi that we will accept anything at all?

      I see you saw this story. Maybe I'm not being fair; Battlestar Galactica : The Sex Files was a half-decent remake, slightly better in some ways than the original (less B-movieish), but stiff and cold and rather superficial, really (adding in the whole Last Samurai old-tech beats new-tech angle,* and that hoary old pod-people/Manchurian candidate storyline, I mean, really). How SciFi could greenlight an expensive retread like Battlestar Galactica and kill Farscape is beyond me.

      (*By the way, read up on Saigo Takamori some time, the guy Last Samurai was vaguely based on; his troops used guns. There was a kamikaze group in the earlier Boshin war who fought with katana against rifles and cannons, but they were mopped up pretty damned guickly.)

    8. Re:I thought I would do this... by jonom · · Score: 1

      I just finished watching Firefly on DVD and I thought it was fantastic. The Objects in Space episode really blew me away. I even got my mum hooked on it!

    9. Re:I thought I would do this... by CrazyJoel · · Score: 1

      yeah, but buying and watching the dvds won't prevent them from being cancelled.

      They're not going to continue to make a show just because some guy will buy the dvd 10 years later.

      --

      Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
    10. Re:I thought I would do this... by anagama · · Score: 2, Interesting



      Under the current advertiser driven model that is true. But why does the current advertising driven model have to prevail? Why couldn't a production company make a show that is not even intended for broadcast at all. Instead, it could sell directly to the viewer. This works for movies and plays. Theater and Movie companies make money by directly selling the performance/content to the viewers. Just cut out the advertisers altogether and make things people will pay to watch. It's worked for Hollywood and Broadway for A LOT longer than TV has been around. I'd sign up for Firefly in a heartbeat.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    11. Re:I thought I would do this... by calags · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're doing yourself a disservice if you do not watch the second season of Babylon 5 before deciding if the series is any good.

      When I watched the first season of B5 I thought it was nothing special especially with Deep Space 9 as an alternative. However, the story arc really tightens in the second and the wait between episodes suddenly becomes unbearable. This continous on towards the fourth season. Because of uncertainty as to whether there would've been a fifth season JMS had to wrap up a lot of story lines by the end of the fourth and so the fifth season ended up being a bit of dissapointment in comparison.

      --
      Never attribute to stupidity what can be construed as a monopoly preservation tactic.
    12. Re:I thought I would do this... by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      I'm quite sure they make more per-person for DVD sales than they ever would through advertising alone.

    13. Re:I thought I would do this... by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just bought the Firefly set - $40, 13 shows, a bit over $3 per episode. Let's imagine it takes $3m to make an episode. You only need to sell 2m discs to double your money. And this is 2m discs worldwide - not just to Americans who prefer tripe.

      Or at least that's the view of the TV executives.

      Truthfully, if I could "subscribe" to a show like firefly for even $5 an episode, I would (I would want to have a DVD to keep). 20 minutes of my time (commercial breaks) is worth a hell of a lot more than $5 so even at $5/ep.

      Or you might even get nearly an hour of actual content. One thing to remember is that without the commercial breaks the structure of the programme would have no reason to follow the US broadcast norm.

      it would be a steal, and probably make the studio money.

      But it would do nothing for the broadcaster...

    14. Re:I thought I would do this... by mpe · · Score: 1

      For the time B5 was awesome...remember it started over 10 years ago...sure the effects are a bit dated, but if you like the story, it was pretty cool...look how cheap and crappy "Dr Who" is ....but it gained a following from having good stories..often.

      The same issue of dated special effects applies to Dr Who. For the time these were "cutting edge", in some cases Dr Who was the very first time certain effects were used...

    15. Re:I thought I would do this... by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firefly was too complicated. Network execs are PHBs, they don't like complicated. They want shows that their children (who usually are homozygous recessive for the PHB gene) can understand, shows about clothes, and having sex with the wrong people, and cars, and football. A show about a bunch of space-smuggling horse-riding misfits who were on the losing side of a failed revolution and eke out their living by breaking the laws of the oppressive winning side while trying not to bend morality too far, and trying (and often failing) to remain loyal to their ideals and one another - that's all about tone and nuance.

      Not helped by real world events. When most of characters qualify as "terrorists". Or that the only "legit" member of the crew is a postitute.

    16. Re:I thought I would do this... by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But it would do nothing for the broadcaster...

      A very good point here. If shows like Firefly had never made it onto TV (and then gotten cancelled) in the first place, how many people would have heard of it? It wouldn't have sold nearly as many unless there was a way for people to see some of it for free. hm.... Now where are those official bittorrent links?

      As a side note, that $40 you paid for the Firefly set (worth every penny for me too), did NOT all go to the studio that put it out. They get maybe half that, which changes the economics of it obviously.

      Simple fact is, we're probably moving towards paying to watch good stuff created like HBO. Maybe we need a subscription channel for geeks?

      --

      "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
    17. Re:I thought I would do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      adding in the whole Last Samurai old-tech beats new-tech angle,

      Did you leave halfway through the movie? The Old Tech gets completely decimated by the Uber-Nu-Tech machine guns.
    18. Re:I thought I would do this... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Maybe they cancel shows because you're only watching them on DVD. Maybe if you'd watch some commercials now and then...

      How does watching commercials help? Unless you're a Nielsen family or have a Tivo, I can't really see it making a difference.

      The Firefly fans even had a letter-writing campaign to the advertisers who booked time during the series, and it wasn't enough.

      I think Fox's problem was probably laying out so much money per episode when they weren't *sure* it was going to do well. They have enough, though, they could have at least given it a full season and a decent time slot to see what happened. Most people I know never even heard of it because it wasn't on long enough.

      It's really too bad, because it was an *excellent* series. I watched the entire DVD set in a few days, because every episode is great. The DVD set is pretty cheap too (see sig), I'm thinking of buying a few more to help boost sales =).

      Hopefully the film thing will pan out.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    19. Re:I thought I would do this... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Firefly went 13 episodes - B5 goes on for years. Makes absolutely no sense.

      My understanding is that a B5 episode was a *lot* cheaper to make than a Firefly episode. It was also hanging by a thread at the end, too. Only TNT saved it from having four seasons instead of five.

      Fox seems to like setting up production for expensive sci-fi series (Firefly, Space: Above and Beyond), then freaking out when they don't immediately capture the attention of a billion viewers and cancelling them.

      As others have said before, I'm sure if The X-Files was premiering now, it would be cancelled after six months too.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    20. Re:I thought I would do this... by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      (*By the way, read up on Saigo Takamori some time, the guy Last Samurai was vaguely based on; his troops used guns. There was a kamikaze group in the earlier Boshin war who fought with katana against rifles and cannons, but they were mopped up pretty damned guickly.)

      That's hardly surprising, as guns were in use in Japan since the 16th century. Musketry played a role in ending the warring states period and establishing the Shogunate. Nothing anti-Samurai about firearms, it was far more the organizational nature of modern armies and the attendant changes in society to support one that the Samurai were against.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    21. Re:I thought I would do this... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Not helped by real world events. When most of characters qualify as "terrorists".

      I know we're right in the middle of the neo-McCarthy era, where everything that's bad is linked to terrorism, but this is just not true.

      Burglary, robbery, smuggling, and stealing your sister back from a government experiment are illegal, but they are *not* acts of terrorism.

      If the Firefly characters were terrorists, than anyone whose ancestors lived in the old West is descended from them too.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    22. Re:I thought I would do this... by Piquan · · Score: 1

      are we so deprived of sci-fi

      Yeah, I'm going over my DVDs:

      • Action: Matrix, Angel, Terminator
      • Comedy: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
      • Cop: Blade Runner
      • Disaster: Planet of the Apes, Space:1999, Soylent Green
      • Documentary: Fantastic Voyage, 1984
      • Romance: Solaris, The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Fifth Element, Freaks
      • Sports: Rollerball, Logan's Run, THX 1138
      • Spy: The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension, Men In Black
      • Travelogue: Star Trek, Stargate
      • Teen angst: Buffy the Vampire Slayer
      • War: Star Wars, Starship Troopers, Battlestar: Galactica
      • Western: Firefly

      Man, I don't have *any* sci-fi!

    23. Re:I thought I would do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What? No 2001? No Ice Pirates? No Krull? No Alien? No Spaceballs? No Bicentenial Man? NO FORBIN PROJECT!? NO TRON?! NO TRON!? NO TRON!?!?

      Your sci-fi collection barely ranks above the Nerd-poser level.

      Oh, and you forgot the movie "hackers" under the "documentary" section. Oh wait, my bad. That wouldn't be sci-fi, that was hella accurate...

    24. Re:I thought I would do this... by lambadomy · · Score: 1

      Here, it's really simple. Shows cost money to make, and they make money by selling advertising during the shows. The amount of money they can charge for advertising depends on the ratings in various demographics and the time slots. The goal is to make money. The "quality" of a show is not particularly important, unless enough people are willing to actually watch it when it is on.

      The entire formula is make "cost of show" "amount that can be charged for advertising". There may be other things in here of course, such as a shows ratings bleeding into the next timeslot, but this is what they go for.

      If you make the greatest show ever, and it is too expensive and no one watches it, why in the world would the network keep it? Shows that last longer tend to consistenly increase in cost. Unknown actors become more famous and demand higher salaries, production values may improve, etc.

      As much as I like science fiction and fantasy, I do not assume that a very large percentage of the television watching public does. If they don't get ratings, it doesn't happen. If the show gets too expensive (or starts that way), it doesn't happen. I think I read that farscape was costing a million dollars an episode. Even if it's only 100k that is a pretty big chunk of change for some television shows, I doubt "The Parkers" costs that much, and it can't get much worse ratings than Farscape or Angel, terrible as it is.

    25. Re:I thought I would do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I just bought the Firefly set - $40, 13 shows, a bit over $3 per episode.

      You actually bought a boxed set of a series that only lasted 13 episodes? I guess that's a sign of economic recovery when people can waste their money like that.

    26. Re:I thought I would do this... by Kwil · · Score: 1

      There's this neat thing.. it's called HBO.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    27. Re:I thought I would do this... by Eris13 · · Score: 0

      Hangon.
      You are comparing the pilot/first series of a show that started in 1994/5 with one that started 8 or 9 years later. Of course the special effects and acting have moved on.

      Go rent or buy the mid arc episodes of B5. Season 3 onwards and make the comparison again. By season 4, B5 was every bit as good as Farscape given the respective budgets and that it's plot was tied to a fixed 5 year arc.

    28. Re:I thought I would do this... by Piquan · · Score: 1

      Okay, I guess now comes the Collecter's Commentary.

      Yeah, there's some stuff missing in that list (and that's not my actual movie collection either; for instance, of course I have Princess Bride). I meant to put Spaceballs and Alien in. Ice Pirates, Krull, and Bicentennial Man were oversights; the last is the one I feel particularly bad about, but I'm glad I got some Asimov in the list. (Bicentennial Man would probably also go into Documentary, since it's more of a "Life and Times of..." than anything else.)

      Regarding TRON: I sat there staring at my TRON DVD for quite a while, trying to think if there was a category I could list it in. I considered "Travelogue", but I was trying to show some restraint for that category. In the end, with a heavy heart, I left it out. Similar for Forbidden Planet, 2001, and a couple of others; just no category I could think of to put them in.

      I left out Free Enterprise, which I think should be in any sci-fi enthusiast's collection, but added a reference or two.

      Oh, and you forgot the movie "hackers" under the "documentary" section.

      I briefly considered putting it into Comedy, but left it out on the grounds that I don't consider it sci-fi at all.

    29. Re:I thought I would do this... by anagama · · Score: 1

      Fair enough - the same is true w/ Season 1 of Farscape. I'll try a few season 3 disks.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    30. Re:I thought I would do this... by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 1

      Very true. Although I suppose the question is why Bab 5 got to continue on after it's first season, and really find it's groove, whereas firefly gets canned. For some reason the network just seems to hate certain shows, and try to get them canceled. Preempting them, moving the time slot around, not showing the pilot which sets everything up. Then when the show doesn't do great, they have an excuse to cancel it.

    31. Re:I thought I would do this... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I wish somebody had mentioned this to me a few weeks ago.

      I had the first two seasons of B5 on DVD. Then I fell ill, and finally had time to watch them, since I wasn't going anywhere.

      I watched the first episode.

      I watched the second episode.

      I watched the first 20 minutes of the third episode.

      Then I shut it off and stared at the ceiling instead.

    32. Re:I thought I would do this... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      *cough* *cough* Family Guy resurrected because of DVD sales *cough*

    33. Re:I thought I would do this... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      Damn, I'm glad I got HBO and my TiVo-like thingy from my cable company to see the series when I want to. Oh yeah: NETWORK TELEVISION SUCKS!!! The only good channels are the ones past ch50.

    34. Re:I thought I would do this... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      Hanging by a thread is a vast understatement, and it wasn't just at the end. Bruce Boxleitner (Captain Sheridan) said in a interview that the job was so stressful to him because he would never know if he would wake up the next morning and still have a job, since the series was constantly in a battle over cancellation.

    35. Re:I thought I would do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not just to Americans who prefer tripe

      Look, I'm not saying that Americans *don't* prefer tripe, but I think you are misinformed if you think the rest of the world doesn't *also* prefer tripe. You just don't tend to see their tripe outside of their country - only the good stuff gets out.

    36. Re:I thought I would do this... by HeX314 · · Score: 1

      And I can't understand what it is with viewers - are we so deprived of sci-fi that we will accept anything at all?

      Apparantly, you haven't seen an episode of "Cleopatra 2525." Three relatively hot chicks in "futuristic" lingere prancing around a budget set is not true sci-fi.

      Write me up as troll all you want. You know I'm right.

    37. Re:I thought I would do this... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Only after the government troops take very heavy losses through the application of a Thermopylae-style stand by the samurai. And remember that in the first encounter between the samurai and the gun-toting troops was a rout. Not very realistic if you read the histories.

    38. Re:I thought I would do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cleopatra 2525 was cancelled after what, 13 episodes? I don't think anyone accepted that (at least, not without turning the sound off).

    39. Re:I thought I would do this... by xylafon · · Score: 1

      Andromeda is actually quite a good show. As usual, when people talk about how a show sucks, they have only watched the early episodes where things are inevitably rough. Trance Gemini hasn't been purple or had a tail for a long time now. Yes that's right, same character, COMPLETELY different look. How did this happen? Well no one knows how she physically changed exactly but a version of her from the future traded places with her purple self in the present (permanently) in one episode. Yep, sure sounds like boring unoriginal stories doesn't it?

    40. Re:I thought I would do this... by bamberg · · Score: 1

      Just an FYI -- you mention watching season 1, but not season 2. Babylon 5 has an ongoing storyline that suffers if you watch the episodes out of order. I would recommend watching season 2 before season 3.

  9. Joss Whedon comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn." - Joss Whedon (on Angel's cancelation)

    1. Re:Joss Whedon comments by mocm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is a link to the full comment by Joss. It's the one in red.

      --
      ***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
  10. OH MY by nomadic · · Score: 0, Funny

    I think I speak for the majority of people on slashdot when I say, in response to this momentous news, who cares?

    1. Re:OH MY by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My thoughts exactly. Very little appears on the WB that doesn't make me wish I hadn't bought my nice TV.

      Not trolling, but I'm awfully disappointed in television as a whole lately. Sometimes I work from home, during the day and at night, and the TV is almost always on in the background. Rarely does it have anything worthwhile. The Simpsons, most of Food Network, ER and Scrubs. That's it. Even 24 is hard to watch now. Occasionally, I'll catch a Family Guy or Futurama re-run on whatever random channels they're on from week to week, but they're usually late at night anyway.

      And I don't even watch that much TV; an hour or two a day, I suppose.

    2. Re:OH MY by shfted! · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought he was just a ball player.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    3. Re:OH MY by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You see, there's this little trick I've found for browsing Slashdot: Don't click on stories you're not interested in.

      The pitfall is, you lose out on the opportunity to make fun of people for caring about things you find boring and trivial. But you save hours upon hours of time, which you can put towards important things like blogging, or trying out yet another test release of Fedora Core, or any of those other things that you personally enjoy but 99% of the world finds pointless and trivial.

      Give it a try.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    4. Re:OH MY by nehril · · Score: 4, Funny

      Very little appears on the WB that doesn't make me wish I hadn't bought my nice TV.

      I always didn't think that enough negatives wouldn't not work. weren't you not flaming, or just unsupporting the decision??

      (j/k, I do totally agree with you. I think).

    5. Re:OH MY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      important things like blogging

      I am utterly speechless.

      Then again, I am wasting valuable masturbation time in making fun of you. DAMN! You were right!

    6. Re:OH MY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think The Simpsons is worthwhile? Tell us the truth. You haven't watched TV in 5 years, have you? :P

      Also, The Food Network?!?

    7. Re:OH MY by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      But you save hours upon hours of time, which you can put towards important things like blogging, or trying out yet another test release of Fedora Core,
      Or, in the more unrealistic range, trying to get laid.
    8. Re:OH MY by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Good idea... I must have been nuts to click on this anyway (poster clicks on back button to main page).

    9. Re:OH MY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aaaand, moderated into oblivion.

      I was wondering why I was reading a post marked +5, Troll.

      Thanks for stopping by.

    10. Re:OH MY by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The pitfall is, you lose out on the opportunity to make fun of people for caring about things you find boring and trivial.

      Yes, that's the pitfall. That's why I DO click on these stories. Ha ha.

  11. Watched more than the West Wing by Psykechan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the site: "ANGEL outpaced "The West Wing" on NBC...".

    I don't watch much West Wing (as I'm watching Angel) but isn't that a pretty high rated show? Why cancel a successful show that has really good ratings?

    1. Re:Watched more than the West Wing by tommck · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is NO WAY that Angel had higher ratings than West Wing...

      They must be talking about increase in viewership, which would be hard to beat if you went up 36% from one season to the next.

      On this weekly list, West Wing was 51st and Angel was 87th....

      On this season so far list, West Wing was 29th and Angel was 129th... Gee... I wonder why it was cancelled... hmmm... Let's look at the shows above it...

      Tru Calling (huh?)
      Skin (cancelled)
      Miss Match (yikes)
      Brotherhood of Poland, NH
      Tracy Morgan Show
      The Handler (cancelled)
      Celebrity Mole Yucatan

      Pretty pathetic...

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    2. Re:Watched more than the West Wing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tru Calling (huh?)

      It's good.

    3. Re:Watched more than the West Wing by tommck · · Score: 1

      If it's so good, why did you post AC? :)

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    4. Re:Watched more than the West Wing by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Be a bit more precise.

      Categorize the shows that were cancelled by ABC, NBC, CBS, WB, etc..

      Then compare their ratings.

      You might get a pattern.

      WB might have a slightly distorted view of its market strength against the big 3.

      Let's hope Angel gets picked up by another network. Ironically, maybe one of the big 3 needs to pick it up and play it on Saturday?

    5. Re:Watched more than the West Wing by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Tru Calling (huh?)

      Hey, Tru Calling is pretty good. Don't knock it if you haven't seen it. :-) The chick is hot, but I don't get why she can't tell her boyfriend of her power. Pretty lame.

  12. Must be a misspelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I can't think why this would be news for a geek unless you were actually refereeing to the canceling of Angle: PBS's acclaimed geometry program.

  13. Re:In other news... by shfted! · · Score: 1

    Corny show begets corny jokes. Sigh.

    --
    He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
  14. Oh, you had to do it.... by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 5, Funny


    You mentioned a cancelled show on Slashdot!

    Quiet! You'll wake up the Farscape fans!

    Quick, delete the thread!

    1. Re:Oh, you had to do it.... by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Mmph? farscape is cancelled?

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    2. Re:Oh, you had to do it.... by Maserati · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a Joss Whedon project, you'll wake up the goram Firefly fans !

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    3. Re:Oh, you had to do it.... by antis0c · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pfft, we already won.

      Albeit the show remains cancelled, all the Farscape fans really wanted was a proper ending.

      And we got it, a 4 - 5 episode Mini Series coming Fall 2004 to finish out the show.

      --

      ..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
    4. Re:Oh, you had to do it.... by Beardydog · · Score: 0, Troll

      Firefly was brilliant, and Angel really did suck anything presented to it in even the most casual manner...

    5. Re:Oh, you had to do it.... by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      News to me...

      I didn't actually like Farscape much, but I'm glad it'll get a proper ending. I may not have been a fan, but the final episode was the most painful thing I've ever seen on television.

      "Will you marry me?"
      "Totally. I'm all kinds of in love with you."
      *die*

      Hrm...by ending it badly, and then throwing a bone of decency, they're going to get me to watch more, and I'm not even a fan...

    6. Re:Oh, you had to do it.... by MrScience · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Forget Farscape, what about Firefly?!??
      (another show by the Angel director, with fan base that took out a full-page ad to try to get it back, canceled after 11 shows.)

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

    7. Re:Oh, you had to do it.... by Seek_1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should check it out. Both the mini-series and the actual series (it's still playing on a few sci-fi stations, eg. Space here in Canada).

      Farscape was one of the most inventive, colourful and well-produced shows in recent memory.

      Speaking as a long-time fan, its main draw-back was that the storyline was often too complex for most people to simply watch a random episode and understand everything (which is why it had troubles finding new fans in the second season). However, if you took the time to actually watched three or four episodes in a row, the story was immensly involving (ie, it drew you in and glued your eyes to the screen week after week).

      If you'd like more information about Farscape, be sure to check out the SaveFarscape website. (Yes, believe it or not, hundreds of thousands of fans can actually make a difference to tv-executives...)

    8. Re:Oh, you had to do it.... by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speaking as a long-time fan, its main draw-back was that the storyline was often too complex for most people to simply watch a random episode and understand everything (which is why it had troubles finding new fans in the second season). However, if you took the time to actually watched three or four episodes in a row, the story was immensly involving (ie, it drew you in and glued your eyes to the screen week after week).

      Assuming it was actually broadcast in such a way. There's a good argument that anything with any kind of "arc" should not have it's first showing on any of the American networks. Because their scheduling methodology tends to be mutually exclusive with simply showing the episodes in order.

    9. Re:Oh, you had to do it.... by blincoln · · Score: 3, Informative

      canceled after 11 shows.

      If you buy the DVD set (see sig), you get three that weren't even aired. The saddest part is that they're just as excellent as the rest of the series.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    10. Re:Oh, you had to do it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, I'm watching Farscape from the middle, I have no idea what season, as I didn't get the channel at the time of the first season. I'm trying to get the first season episodes via P2P, so far unsuccessfully.

      My impression based on seeing a few episodes - reminds me of Lexx (right down to the living ship), but toned down, cleaned up...far more mainstream or maybe Americanized.

      Sadly, the characters seem pretty stereotypical and predictable (down to the names).

  15. Go Out with a Bang by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Despite saying that the show is a "cornerstone" of their network, not to mention the glowing ratings for the show in the last season...I have to wonder if they're doing for artistic reasons or ignorant marketing. I tend to lean towards the latter. Here's a link from a friend of mine who is also a big Angle/Buffy fan that might shed some light on the subject: Breaking News: Angel to End After 5 Seasons. Needless to say, Joss Whedon is not amused.

    --
    "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    1. Re:Go Out with a Bang by Golias · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Meh. The show was on the bubble to even get made this season. WB never treated the show very well after Buffy changed networks. The time slot was changed many times, and it was paired up with some of the dumbest choices imaginable (i.e. immediately after "Seventh Heaven.")

      Frankly, I'm surprised it's getting an entire 5th season. If this was FOX, a reality show would have replaced it by now.

      Maybe now Joss Whedon will get busy on that "Ripper" idea he wanted to do for the BBC. (That, and the "Firefly" movie.)

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Go Out with a Bang by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe now Joss Whedon will get busy on that "Ripper" idea he wanted to do for the BBC. (That, and the "Firefly" movie.)

      Whatever Joss really needs to get out of Hollywood. Since his talent is not apreciated there.

    3. Re:Go Out with a Bang by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      Maybe now Joss Whedon will get busy on that "Ripper" idea he wanted to do for the BBC.

      You realize the first episode of that aired two years ago, right?

  16. Spike! by soundofthemoon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now maybe they'll give Spike his own show. He da man!

    1. Re:Spike! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They did: its called "Angel"

    2. Re:Spike! by T-Kir · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine that, Spikes own show on SpikeTV, maybe Spike Lee would have a heart attack if that happened?

      --
      Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
    3. Re:Spike! by MarsCtrl · · Score: 1
      Now maybe they'll give Spike his own show. He da man!

      Or even his own network!
      --

      I was going to put a sig here, but I had already submitted the message.
    4. Re:Spike! by mhifoe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Spike is a good character. It's just a shame he talks like Dick Van Dyke.

    5. Re:Spike! by EchidnaMan · · Score: 1

      Spike's a tosser. Sam is Da Man. (sorry. just pimping Sluggy because it's been really good lately.)

      --

      Ian Fay (echidnaguy@cs.com), Geek, Gamer, Evil Overlord, DNRC Member
      "Oh, what a goofy work is man."
    6. Re:Spike! by Golias · · Score: 1
      They did: its called "Angel"

      Had I mod points, AC, they would be yours. Instead, enjoy your words repeated at "2" until I am modded down as "Redundant" and you get the 5 "Funny" mods you so richly deserve. :)

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    7. Re:Spike! by tkittel · · Score: 1

      > Now maybe they'll give Spike his own show. He da man!

      Is that a sluggy referance? :-)

      [Sam's da man!]

    8. Re:Spike! by eegad · · Score: 1

      Isn't this tribute enough?

    9. Re:Spike! by Stormie · · Score: 1

      My ex watched a series of Buffy on DVD once. I gave up after a couple of episodes, but could hear it from the next room. And every time Spike graced the scene, the question would prey on my mind: "Is that a German actor doing a bad Texan accent, or a Texan actor doing a bad German accent?"

      Then someone told me the character was supposed to be English. wtf?

  17. A Sad Day by kannibal_klown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is really quite sad. I always thought the show was great. It had the correct blend of humor and action, and I liked the characters more than in Buffy.

    Unfortunately, they did a major format change (they went from the underdogs to in charge of a mega-million evil corporation), and most of the original characters are gone.

    But it was still one of the better shows on TV.

    Hopefully they will have a chance to end the series with some sort of of finality, unlike Farscape.

    1. Re:A Sad Day by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      What original characters? There were 3. Doyle, and the actor who played him is dead. And Charisma Carpenter left, i'm assuming, because of her baby, they wrote the pregnancy in well, but she probably doesn't want to deal with the show now. Besides Lorne, Fred and Gunn (who IMHO are all great characters) the rest of the cast and recent guests (Willow, Andrew) are all from Buffy.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    2. Re:A Sad Day by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno ... I liked the new D&D (Dilbert-and-Demons) format. At first the show seemed like a poor clone of Forever Knight and I had given up on it a couple of years ago but was lured back this year by the strange and frightening parallels to my company (it's nice to think that not all executives are evil ... they're just bloodsucking vampires trapped in a corrupt system ... but they do have souls).

    3. Re:A Sad Day by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      By original, I meant "there from the beginning".

      Angel, Doyle, Cordellia, and (to a degree) Lyndsey were the original characters. All but Angel are gone.

      However, Wesley and Gunn (early characters, though not original) have changed A LOT since the beginning.

      Wes was a wimp, then went macho, then went dark, and now is sort of beige (confident, but not dark). Gunn was a bad-ass street fighter, and is now a lawyer (though the recent ep suggests his talents have been taken away). And we rarely see Lorne anymore, other than him hob-nobbing with some Hollywood superstar on a cell phone.

      The show and its characters have changed a lot recently. I'm not saying it's a bad thing; I think they're all great. But the original vision just aint there so much.

      That being said, it's still on my "Top 5" list of all-time favorite tv shows.

    4. Re:A Sad Day by Piquan · · Score: 1

      I've always hypothesized that this season was a kind of "what if". The whole season, everything has been pointing to them leaving W&H. Personally, I think that this is the worst time for the story to end; I think they should get back to the hotel first and re-establish themselves, and that'll take another season.

    5. Re:A Sad Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, they did a major format change (they went from the underdogs to in charge of a mega-million evil corporation), and most of the original characters are gone.

      Actually, the show was retooled because the WB asked for it. The concern was that the show, with its multi-episode story arcs, was hard for people to start watching because they had missed so much backstory. So, Joss retooled it, and they cancelled it anyway.

      Network execs suck.

    6. Re:A Sad Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the original vision just aint there so much.

      Yes it is (forward reference 1).

      Gunn was a bad-ass street fighter, and is now a lawyer (though the recent ep suggests his talents have been taken away). And we rarely see Lorne anymore, other than him hob-nobbing with some Hollywood superstar on a cell phone.

      That's what running Wolfram and Hart has done to the crew. They were once a closely knit group, but their duties have pulled them apart. You rarely see Lorne because Angel rarely sees Lorne.

    7. Re:A Sad Day by HalliS · · Score: 1

      That's american showbiz for you. really fucked up

      --


      My other UID is 1337
  18. Interesting press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I watched Angel for a time - didn't care much for the first season, but did like some of the following ones, up through the arc with Connor. Since then, I haven't followed it, but that's more about my little kid than the show. So, I've been away for a while, but will miss it as well.

    I found it interesting that The WB did a press release like this. Even though it's fairly content free (well, other than the big bad news), I found it somewhat refreshing that the network would recognize the creators and stars in such a personal way.

  19. Okay.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and who cares???

  20. Good planning by SamSim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I say good job on cancelling a show at its peak of popularity instead of allowing it to degenerate over many tired additionals seasons, like The Simpsons has. It takes a lot of guts to make that decision, but Angel will always be remembered fondly because of it. Very few shows fail to jump the shark these days.

    1. Re:Good planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do agree with you on the Simpsons. That show has grown tired in its last 3-4 seasons and I haven't watched a new episode since. Ever since they moved their format to "Homer Simpson meets (insert popular movie or rock star)" or "Homer Simpson joins the (insert popular group)"

      The Simpsons really is a show that should have been axed a long time ago.

    2. Re:Good planning by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      But it's a cash cow from all the co-marketing it gernerates. It makes so much money simply by being on the air from things like toys, lunchboxes, endorsements [yep! & hun?]! It doesn't even have to be top rated, just ON. Hell, they could show reruns in the time slot and still make their ratings.

      Once they end the show, the collectors will snarf up the cool collectable stuff, but the general pop will simply move on to something else and all the marketing/product revenue will vanish overnite.

  21. Who decides this stuff anyway? by andih8u · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They take a decent show with a devoted following off the air and replace it with something to catch an audience that will last for maybe half-a-season; such as a reality show or another lame comedy

    Its basically what Fox did with Futurama; even though it had high ratings and a good viewer following, they kept manipulating its timeslot and pre-empting it over and over. Then they finally cancelled it because its 7:00pm Sunday timeslot (that was pre-empted by baseball or football four out of five times) didn't garner enough ratings for it.

    At least we can look forward to WB presenting us with "Showgirls: The Series" or "Lawn Care Crisis: The Reality Show"

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
    1. Re:Who decides this stuff anyway? by Chester+K · · Score: 1

      They take a decent show with a devoted following off the air

      This is why everyone who cares about what they watch should own a TiVo -- because of the anonymous aggregate viewing data they collect. You may not be able to be counted by the Neilsen rating system unless you happen to get one of their viewing journals; but with a TiVo, your "vote" is always counted.

      --

      NO CARRIER
    2. Re:Who decides this stuff anyway? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      You may not be able to be counted by the Neilsen rating system unless you happen to get one of their viewing journals; but with a TiVo, your "vote" is always counted.

      In a creepy Big Brother-esqe sort of way. Feh, I'll stick with mythtv, thanks. :-)

    3. Re:Who decides this stuff anyway? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "This is why everyone who cares about what they watch should own a TiVo -- because of the anonymous aggregate viewing data they collect. You may not be able to be counted by the Neilsen rating system unless you happen to get one of their viewing journals; but with a TiVo, your "vote" is always counted."

      Unfortunately, TiVo aggregate data is still not as widely respected as Nielsen data. Sure, TiVo has 1 million homes subscribing to the service and Nielsen only has 6,000, but somehow, the Nielsen's represent America better. Yep, its fishier than a Florida election.

      And I say this as a TiVo owner who watches and records Angel every week. I even replay it the next morning when I'm getting ready to work for some added stats for the show.

      Personally, if Angel returns next season on another network, there should be an episode when a deranged fanboy goes around killing off Nielsen families and Team Angel has to stop him after much soul searching. I think this would be right up Ben Edlund's alley.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  22. I never watched angel... by seriv · · Score: 1

    But what are they passing this up for? Have you seen the horrid crap they have on WB otherwise. They have to show their sunday shows early just to compete with FOX!!! I am truely sickened when even someone says they watch everwood or whatever else they have on. Angel is just a bit of what shows that were good they had left.

    1. Re:I never watched angel... by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

      Surely they're planning on replacing it with a reality TV show, that's what EVERY network is doing. I guess reality TV must be really cheap to produce or something, because it's rapidly taking over ALL programming out there.

  23. TV Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ehh TV sucks anyway. Who cares, cancel your cable/satellite service and read a book.

    1. Re:TV Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read a book? But I want to DECREASE my boredom.

  24. Current Season by Fredrik+Leijon · · Score: 1

    "Unfortunate since this season was stronger than the last." uhm.. compared to the last seasons this one suck, mostly due to that they seemd to have dropped the bigger story and turned it into a semi boring series with no need to watch every episode :/

    1. Re:Current Season by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, that's the way its been since the first season of Buffy. The overall season always has a general plot. But there are always at least a handful of stand-alone episodes that don't fundamentally push that plot forward, or only give it a minute or two to remind you that there are still unresolved issues hanging over everyone's heads.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    2. Re:Current Season by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but even the first season of Buffy had the Master running all through it. This season didn't have much of the larger plot; it looked like it was building up to something good with Lindsey, but they got rid of him entirely too quickly.

    3. Re:Current Season by Fredrik+Leijon · · Score: 1

      true, but this season has no overall plot.. and thats sad.. that was the fun part of angel/buffy the evil plan that lead up to a cool season finale

    4. Re:Current Season by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

      I have a rather sneaking suspicion that there IS a bigger story going on here, it's just much more subtle than in any previous season of Buffy or Angel.

      For example, everyone seems to have missed the hint/foreshadowing dropped in the last episode ("Why We Fight") that Lindsey may very well not be dead, not to mention little bit with Gunn. I refuse to read spoilers so I really don't know if any of these will have any importance for the rest of the season. I just get the feeling that by the end of the season we'll look back and see lots of little bits leading up to the finale that we ignored the first time aorund.

    5. Re:Current Season by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yeah, This season is going to go out with a huge BANG!

  25. Goshum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I'm gonna cry.

  26. one good show on WB now... by CausticPuppy · · Score: 1

    Smallville is about all they have going for them. I think it's the best show that nobody is watching.

    --
    -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
    1. Re:one good show on WB now... by Maserati · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with that. And forget the Clark Kent soap opera, there's a lovely dark and brooding drama with the Luthor family going on. John Glover is *perfect* as Lionel Luthor - even better than he was in Brimstone.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    2. Re:one good show on WB now... by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      Smallville should be cancelled and replaced with Luthor. I would watch that. Religiously.

    3. Re:one good show on WB now... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Noooo, the only watchable show on the WB is The Gilmore Girls.

    4. Re:one good show on WB now... by schon · · Score: 1

      John Glover is *perfect* as Lionel Luthor - even better than he was in Brimstone.

      John Glover is one of the best "sinister" actors I've ever seen. Try watching him in "52 Pickup" - it takes a special talent to take a two-dimensional character, who's only reason for existing is to give the 'hero' something to fight against, and make him as believable as Glover is able to do.

      Amazingly, it seems like the worse the character is written, the more believable he makes it seem (which would explain Luthor being better than Satan.)

    5. Re:one good show on WB now... by The12thRonin · · Score: 1

      Er, what? Have you watched the show lately? I've never been a big Superman fan to begin with but my wife (who doesn't like comics) likes it. The storylines this season have been horrid. The blonde love interest becomes Lois? Seeing the binary code in an email causes you to become homicidal (new unforseen Outlook bug)? Jonathan making a deal with Jor'el to gain super powers to save Clark? This deserves the axe far more than Angel did.

    6. Re:one good show on WB now... by CausticPuppy · · Score: 1

      No, the blonde love interest's cousin is Louis... but then again that's the first time her name was mentioned on the show.

      As for seeing binary code in an email causing you to become homocidal, seems like that basic idea was lifted right out of Snow Crash.

      But I mainly want to see Lex Luthor turn evil.

      --
      -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
  27. Honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does anyone care? How is this news for nerds? My bad, I've been to busy building a beowolf cluster of toasters running linux in soviet russia to care.

  28. Typical by elmos_dog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember TV isnt about putting out quality shows. Its all about money. Its alot like outsourcing. Doesnt matter the quality just the cost and return. And they wonder why HBO and the cable networks are starting to gain in ratings. Lets slap on another crap reality. It was one of the best shows on TV and will be greatly missed.

    1. Re:Typical by vidarh · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It isn't all about ratings. I could put together a channel with top ratings if I had unlimited deep pockets and no need to care about profits - I'd just buy the best of everything, and buy exclusives. Hollywood blockbusters that are still in theaters, all the big sports and music shows etc.

      The point is, there is NO reason to focus on the ratings. The ONLY thing that matters is whether they make money. If they don't make money for their shareholders they are not doing the job they were hired to do, regardless of how many people are watching.

      That means that popular shows will often be killed because they aren't attracting the right kind of viewers or because they are too expensive to produce, regardless of the total number of viewers they bring.

    2. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were true, then wouldn't we be drowning in cheap crap like viewers' videos, home improvements and makeovers, reality shows... oh... I get your point.

  29. Ah man,,, by Predathar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First Buffy....now Angel. Those were honestly the only 2 shows I have been watching the past 3-4 years. My TV only gets turned on Wednesday night to watch Angel or to pop in a DVD.

    Guess this means I can finally cancel my cable cause there is nothing else on TV that seemed as well written and so well held together with past plots than these 2 shows.

    Angel will be missed. Please pick it up UPN!

    1. Re:Ah man,,, by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Buffy had a good seven year run. According to the commentaries, Joss had originally planned to end it at the end of the fifth, although I didn't get to the part on why he wanted it to end there.

      Now, I'm only half way through Angel Season 1.

      I've never bothered with the broadcast because of reception and ad issues.

    2. Re:Ah man,,, by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Well, the end of the 5th season is where Buffy DIED! It wa a good place to leave off. Buffy was dead, and died in an honorable way, in fact a pretty darn decent way for a TV character to die.

      Anya and Xander engaged, Spike sort of a good guy, and I guess Giles would take care of Dawn.

      Then UPN picked up the show, and had the "Scoobies" bring her back to life.

    3. Re:Ah man,,, by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that it was entirely a case of Joss WANTING it to end after season 5, just that WB canceled the show! Since the show was being canceled, they tried to make it a good series finale.

      Of course, partway through the season UPN announced that they would pick it up the following year, so they had to backtrack slightly on their plans and modify others. A lot of the original story line of season 5 ended up being folded into season 6 and season 7 (eg Willow going bad, that was supposed to happen is season 5, but instead they threw in the character of "Doc").

      I agree though, Buffy had a good run, if they had tried to continue it on it probably would have gone downhill a lot. Everything seemed to be moving towards a finale and the season ended well.

      I don't think that the same is true for Angel though. After season 4 they REALLY changed the story. They got rid of the annoying bitch and the whiny brat... err, I mean Cordilia and Connor, and the other characters are starting to grow into their new roles. Now they're just going to kill it as they get off the ground? It seems to me like the series could have had at least one more really good year in it. Ending it now just seems a bit premature.

  30. Re:Never seen it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whack, dammit. Whack!

  31. Oh well... by Orne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given the flurry of fan activity over Joss Weldon's last show, Firefly, and the subsequent snubbing by the other networks when they wanted someone to pick up the show... the cynic in me wouldn't be surprised if this show also fades into oblivion.

  32. Viewers not as active in support of Angel by hillct · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's interesting to see how cult shows like this survive, or as the case may be, do not. It seems to me that cult shows targeted toward men 18-34 seem to generally do better than cukt shows targeted toward women 18-34. I believe this is because certain demographics tend to be more vocal advocates than others. This is not to day women are less vocal but to say that they place less importance on television than on other elements of life. This possibly more a cliche than anything else but all cliches become cliches for a reason.
    Cult shows (such as Farscape) with leading male demographics, but with lesser performance and market shares than Angel seem to have survived longer.

    --CTH

    --

    --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
    1. Re:Viewers not as active in support of Angel by jmauro · · Score: 1

      The male/female thing has more to do with the fact that advertisers covet the 18-35 male demographic much more than the 18-35 female demographic. And as a result are willing to pay more for a show that more young men watch. Why they covet this, who really knows.

    2. Re:Viewers not as active in support of Angel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Networks aren't good at drawing in male viewers. They watched Seinfeld, they watch sports, but not a whole lot else. Most TV can't even come close to competing with a PS2/XBox for men under 30.

      Shows like Friends, Will and Grace, Dr Phill, and others draw in large female audiences. The ratings systems networks use aren't sophisticated enough to tell them if they are the same women who were watching Buffy/Angel.

      From the networks view they can replace a relativley expensive show like Angel or Firefly with something much cheaper about relationships and get similar numbers. Plus no one higher level can argue with that choice, because it would require them to admit that the're entire pricing system for TV ads need to go.

      And don't forget, someone at the WB probably wants to get Joss back for leaving with Buffy.

    3. Re:Viewers not as active in support of Angel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most straight men will stare at any hot girl with tits.

  33. Hugely disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I watch very few shows regularly but I would be livid if I missed an episode of Angel. I never do.

    It's odd that it's been cancelled what with the higher ratings, lower budget the show is operating on and big DVD sales in the UK and elsewhere.

    Hopefully there will be some other Buffy spin-off to console us. If Tru Calling gets cancelled, maybe Eliza Dushku will say yes (finally) to "Faith the Vampire Slayer".

    Angel, Fred, Cordy, Gunn, Lorne and Spike - you will be missed.

  34. missing URL... by tommck · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oops... didn't get the url right for the Season So Far ratings...

    --
    ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    1. Re:missing URL... by BlueBat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmmm, I went to the site and found out that I don't watch any of the top 38 shows. Number 39, Joan of Arcadia, was the very first show on the list that I regularly watch. I don't watch any of the first 38 at all. Makes me wonder about America, with many of the top shows be crap like Survivor and American Idol. Oh well, if they keep canceling the good shows then I can stop watching TV and spend my time reading and working on the computer as well as my many other hobbies.

  35. obligatory link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
  36. Highest rated does not mean it stays by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As the name implies, being the highest rated doesn't always mean that a show is going to stay. Two things can affect a show at that point to make it be cancelled.

    Costs. This is what actually happened with Buffy that forced the move to UPN. Although it was a very highly-rated show for WB, the per episode cost had gotten to be in the (IIRC) $2.2 million range. If we assume that, say, Everwood generates $1.2 million on a budget of $300,000, and (in this peculiar example), Buffy generates $2.9 million, then we realize that ratings aren't what it's all about.

    Who is watching? This feeds into the above, because certain fan-bases aren't as profitable as others. Way back in the day, CBS cancelled "The Beverly Hillbillies" because (despite high ratings) the only people actually providing the high ratings were older, rural people (Surprise!), and advertisers don't like them as much. Now, I would assume Angel's target and bulk of viewership is a younger, teen and twentysomething crowd, but I might be entirely wrong.

    Or it could just be "creative differences". Maybe Joss is a bastard to work with. Maybe some new exec came on board who has a different, not so sci-fi direction for the network. Maybe Boreanaz had made some secretive noise about being sick of playing the same characters for 7 some-odd years. But more likely, I'd peg it to one of the above theories.

    1. Re:Highest rated does not mean it stays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      UPN willingly bought the show for that much, especially since I believe the agreement kept Sarah on the show with a payraise (all the flash of her wanting to stay on was just to make her look good since there was a lot of uproar at the time. She showed her love in season seven, when she said she's done, alledgedly without telling everyone else). I think the total came to $105 million for the two year contract.

      Buffy was pretty much done by that time. You could tell how tired that were.

      I think they should do a show on the new Watcher's Council. After the episode on Angel with Andrew coming back, I'm curious as to how they're handling all the new slayers.

    2. Re:Highest rated does not mean it stays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget that the actors and actresses have probably gotten tired of doing the same show for years and years. I can't picture David Duchovny as anyone but Mulder. Dean Cain is still Superman.

    3. Re:Highest rated does not mean it stays by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      OTOH, there's going to be a lot more money made from syndication and DVD sales of Buffy than, what did you say, "Everwood"--never heard of it. Where's the 'afterlife' money going?

    4. Re:Highest rated does not mean it stays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I'd much rather like to see girls kicking evil asses than David B's doing the same (although he is a handsome man ;).

  37. Yeah by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    UPN needs something, with buffy gone and enterprise sucking big time they need something to draw viewers. Off the top of my head I cant think of another show besides enterprise and syndicated simpsons thats on UPN...

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smackdown (wrestling) on Thursday nights (when it hasn't been preempted by basketball by the shitbird UPN station here).

      I love you anyway, UPN. This reminds me of the time that the Buffy episode Hush aired. You spent the first five minutes of that hour with no video, then when you got video back, you lost sound (really lost sound. No jar of juice breaking, no music during the overhead projector show.)

  38. My idea for how Angel can be saved by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 5, Funny

    Start the new season with the same cast and about 20 demons. Then, week to week, a demon is voted off the show and killed.

    1. Re:My idea for how Angel can be saved by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Start the new season with the same cast and about 20 demons. Then, week to week, a demon is voted off the show and killed.

      Or a regular is voted off and eaten by a demon!

      I'd watch that! ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:My idea for how Angel can be saved by mpe · · Score: 1

      Start the new season with the same cast and about 20 demons. Then, week to week, a demon is voted off the show and killed.

      More fun if you also have the option to vote for the humans to turn bad, get killed, turned into vampires etc.
      But for best effect you need a global 8x3 or 6x4 channel.

  39. WTF by i_am_syco · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is this really /. worthy?

  40. Cancel All Programs! by handy_vandal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's only one way to save ourselves: cancel all programs. Everything!

    Display nothing but a "Technical Difficulties" announcement on all stations!

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Cancel All Programs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're asking too much of the Hollywood writers.

    2. Re:Cancel All Programs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The coolest "Technical Difficulties" display is the one from the Simpsons showing a drunken camera operator - if someone could post a link to that, I think it would be cool... I've always wanted that screen grab.

  41. [as] by Beardydog · · Score: 2, Informative

    Futurama and Family Guy are both on Cartoon Network now, warm and snuggly in their Adult Swim womb. They play every weekday, starting at 11 pm, then again at 2 am.

    I find most everything on TV unwatchable these days, but Adult Swim is my safe harbor of not-crap.

    Except Inuyasha, which sucks, and should die.

    1. Re:[as] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inuyasha is good. It just has trouble deciding whether it's a grownup show that children might get into, or a children's show that grownups can watch.

      Everytime you think you've decided one way or the other for it, it'll suprise you.

  42. ABC Did The Same Thing by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

    ABC has just done the same thing.

    They cancelled the fledgling series "Threat Matrix", and are replacing it with YET ANOTHER JESSICA SIMPSON "REALITY" SHOW.

    So, they cancel a show that (at the very least) had potential to be a decent action/drama for a network with very little under its belt, with a lame-ass reality series.

  43. To late... by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Funny, i woke up a few minutes ago. NOW BRING BACK FARSCAPE, FIREFLY, FUTURAMA, FAMILY GUY AND OTHER GOOD SHOWS STARTING WITH 'F' GODDAMNIT!!! *proceeds with random threatening rant about studio execs, conspiracy about shows starting with f, my big fat obnoxious fiance, mad mad house, scare tactics american idol crap...*

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:To late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freaks and Geeks is on my F list too.

    2. Re:To late... by Neon+Crossing · · Score: 1

      Um, they are bringing back Family Guy. Agreed on the others though.

      --
      -NC
    3. Re:To late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should create a show called Fatass ... I'm sure many people here on Slashdot could identify with that.

  44. This sucks, but go out nova style. by eddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Angel was one of few shows worth dow... watching. I totally dig the combination of humor and darkness.

    I guess the only good thing about this is that they can go out with a bang. C'mon writers, let's fuck us good in the last few episodes. Have Angel yearn for the Angelus years. Kill off Lorne. Kill off Gunn. Push Westley back into the darkness, and have him take Fred with him.

    Boom, sooner or later... boom.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:This sucks, but go out nova style. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Not a bad idea, actually. In my first post to the thread, I was under the assumption that WB had told Joss about the decision in time for him to write the entire season with the cancellation in mind, and the news was just getting to the rest of us.

      But now it looks like they sprung it on him last Friday afternoon. So the creator got caught flat-footed just like everyone else. I don't know how many episodes are still in production, but it seems kind of awkward to shoehorn a fitting conclusion into what little remains.

      The other alternative is to just stay the course, and hope that the show gets picked up somewhere else.

      Or simply blast it into oblivion. It would be worth it just to see what Evil Fred is like.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    2. Re:This sucks, but go out nova style. by strmytgr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are so right...giving us a mind fuck is what they do best...and it would be worth it to have everything go to shit...and then if it gets picked up by UPN or someone else, they have even more of a plot to work with.

    3. Re:This sucks, but go out nova style. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Given the other show they like to produce about lots of horny teens maybe we could get a spin-off with Fred and Willow! They make all the new shows to show off sex anyway...besides it would only last half a season before being canclled anyway!!!

    4. Re:This sucks, but go out nova style. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a recent episode where the new slayers faced off against Angel to rescue a slayer who had been driven mad.

      What would it take to make the new slayers decide to wipe out W&H? It probably wouldn't take much.

      That would be a nice bang.

    5. Re: This sucks, but go out nova style. by Omniscient+Ferret · · Score: 1

      It looks like the slayers were setting up an army.

      I was wondering if they would try to set up an empire, or try to eradicate all the supernatural creatures on Earth, & if W&H would then be the central opposition. I haven't seen why W&H wanted Angel there, having missed many episodes the first time round, but having him there might help avoid direct confrontations with the slayers...

    6. Re:This sucks, but go out nova style. by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

      > Boom, sooner or later... boom.

      And a guest appearence by Claudia Christian :-)

  45. Re:Never seen it... by maddskillz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, you have nothing to say, but insist on saying it anyways

  46. xfiles by jonpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember the Xfiles? If fox had gone on ratings the show would have never made it the first two seasons. Think how much the show made them in the long run. I hope that someone picks up Angel. Whoever does stands to make tons on money on reruns and dvds.

    1. Re:xfiles by /dev/trash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, yeah, but Angel has been on for 5 years. How long does the WB wait?

    2. Re:xfiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also seem to remember xfiles going on for too long, after the Duchovny left and most what had to be told had been told already.

      Xfiles is not a good example of knowing when to quit.

    3. Re:xfiles by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Big difference: X-Files was owned lock, stock and barrel by Fox - production, first-run episodes, DVD sales, etc. Angel's production lies with Fox as well, so The WB doesn't get the big slice of pie with that show that they get with, for example, Smallville. If Angel was a wholly owned Warner Brothers product, they'd probably already have a deal in place with Mutant Enemy for seasons 6 and 7, and an option for 8.

  47. Used to care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to care about what shows got mentioned on Slashdot when they were cancelled. Some showed up, other didn't. Some people praised, some trolled. It all comes down to one question though.

    WTF is a technology oriented site talking about tv shows much less ANGLE?@#$%

  48. !!!spoiler warning!!! by Cyno01 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Cordelia was already gone, she was in a coma all season, and they finally killed her off last week.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:!!!spoiler warning!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had nested comments set.

      I thought you meant spoiler in the parent.

      You stupid cunt.

  49. Er, but why? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sad. Angel is one of only three shows I actually go out of my way to watch. It's always had a good mix of drama and humor. I also enjoy the fact that it has an overarching plotline, which rewards loyal viewers.

    It's nice that they told Joss early so that he could wrap up the series. But it never feels like TV shows are cancelled at the right time. Either a show gets cancelled just as it seems to be hitting a good stride (Futurama), or it gets dragged out until it becomes a tired self-parody (Friends, and to some extent, The Simpsons).

    Maybe after it finally wraps up, fans can look back on a very satisfying conclusion. But I tend to think that it had a couple of solid years left.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  50. Spare me by Froze · · Score: 4, Funny

    All you yung'uns think that a cancelled tv show is sucha tragedy! Why back in my day we were happy to see shows cancelled, like laverne and shirley, leave it to beaver and happy days - bah, good riddance!

    I propose that you all stop wasting your time with all of this moaning about TV watchin' and get busy doing something productive! Like posting to slashdot.

    --
    -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
  51. Petitiononline by cobbaut · · Score: 3, Informative

    Time to sign the petition.

    A show on Spike and Willow would be nice though.

    cheers,
    pol :)

    --
    European Linux user, living in Antwerp
  52. They have the best demographic by failedlogic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you look at a lot of TV shows out there, they are ment for mass consumption - Fraiser, Friends, the Simpsons, sports, etc. Its harder for advertisers to know exactly who their audience is.

    With Buffy, Angel, Dark Angel (funny they're all WB?) the audience is much more focused so they can better target advertising. This IS what advertisers want. With this in mind, I'm baffled that they can't get enough money from the advertisers to cover production costs - or at least enough to make a heathly profit from.

  53. Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't canceled and WB in the same sentence redundant.

    I'm convinced the only reason for the WB's existence is so FOX has some network to look down on.

    1. Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm convinced the only reason for the WB's existence is so FOX has some network to look down on.

      Then what purpose does UPN serve? Aside from providing Unfunny Programming for Negroes, I mean.

  54. Spike in ratings. by Fubar411 · · Score: 2

    I only got into Buffy because of Spike. It was the musical episode, and his lament "Let me Rest in Peace." And I grudgingly followed Angel only after the final episode of Buffy because Spike was guarnteed to be on it, despite turning into a pile of ashes saving the world n all. Slightly OT: Did anyone see last weeks? The only good part was Spike dressed up as a Nazi. Angel sees him with the twisted cross at the bottom of an ocean... "Spike, are you a Nazi?" "No, but I just ate one." Another classic Spike moment in Buffy days when he is actively trying to save the world. He said something to the effect of how it's like having little happy meals running around all the time, why would I want to end that?

    1. Re:Spike in ratings. by madhippy · · Score: 1

      what was the story with Spike coming back ?

      I only got into Buffy around series 5/6 - he's the best character - I was planning on watching Angel when I heard he was in it but having never watched any of the other episodes I thought I'd wait til they repeat from the first Angel series ...

    2. Re:Spike in ratings. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm already embarassingly overinvolved in this thread, but what the hell. Spoilers blah blah blah.

      When we left Spike 'neath the Hellmouth, he was going all pillar-of-fire. As it turns out, his whaddayacallit (I was going to say "essence," but that gives an illusion of concreteness that really isn't there) was trapped in the medallion he was wearing. Somehow, the medallion (owned by evil law firm Wolfram and Hart) was mailed back to Angel. Angel, for his part, has just been given the position of CEO of Wolfram and Hart (read: Hell, Incorporated).

      Angel opens the package, and Spike materializes. Sort of. He's not precisely corporeal, and he's attached to Wolfram and Hart's main offices somehow, so he can't leave.

      He narrowly escapes being sucked into Hell, and then another package arrives. When it's opened, Spike gets his body back. This triggers some sort of clause in the Prophecy (which up until now we've assumed means that Angel will someday become human) because now there are two vampires with souls, and both of them are champions. Somehow, this fact is dragging the world towards some sort of apocalypse.

      It's been kind of fun to watch the show explore the rivalry between Angel and Spike. Tuning in wouldn't be too bad an idea.

      Moderators: There is no -1, Idiot Fanboy. But there should be.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:Spike in ratings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years ago when the Death (because I can't spell Shan-shoo) Prophecy was dreamed up, you know they had no clue that they might bring Spike into it. The writing that goes into Buffy/Angel is the reason I watch them.

  55. Pay Per View by Shannon+Love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think some form of Pay Per View will prevent this from happening in the future. At present, Broadcast TV shows are payed for by advertiser who pay for "eyeballs" i.e. a lot of people within a certain demographic. This creates a powerful incentives to seek the lowest common denominator. Even cable shows suffer from this effect but to a lesser extent. But, if we could deliver shows to individuals at different prices, quirky shows with small but loyal audiences who were willing to pay a relative premium could survive.

    1. Re:Pay Per View by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe we'd just turn off our television sets, go out and do something less boring instead.

  56. What's Joss going to do now? by mbourgon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In a year and a half, he's gone from having 3 shows on television (Firefly, Buffy, Angel) to none. On the plus side it'll give him more time to work on the oft-mentioned Firefly Movie, but it's kind of depressing that there will be no Joss on the boob tube.

    OT: heck, remember when the choice wasn't whether you could watch Science Fiction on TV, but what kind? Friday nights were nerdvana for a while. Farscape, Dark Angel, Invisible Man, G vs E, etc, etc.

    Now? Frickin' remakes of Dark Shadows. Sad.

    --
    "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    1. Re:What's Joss going to do now? by Nice2Cats · · Score: 1
      In a year and a half, he's gone from having 3 shows on television (Firefly, Buffy, Angel) to none.

      I think this is part of the problem: Trying to do too much at once. Season 7 of "Buffy" just had the stink all over it of a show that its creator couldn't be bothered to care about any more, and yes, I'm still upset about that.

      Reminds me of "Star Trek": You get too many things going at once, and none of them turn out to be any good anymore...

  57. Better than lego pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have never cared for any of these stupid lego things that keep getting posted.

    While Angel being cancelled in itself is not news, the dynamics that cause a successful program on a struggling network to be cancelled are worth thinking about, because they do apply to other things.

    Lego stuff is just stupid. I avoid it like you should avoid anything related to cancelled programs.

    1. Re:Better than lego pictures by airConditionedGypsy · · Score: 1
      Point well taken. :)

      I'd mod you up if i hadn't posted. But if i hadn't posted, then I wouldn't have this reason to mod you up.

      Oh, what a tangled web. Sorta.

      --
      I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
  58. What's so great about 'eternal' TV series ? by fingon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once upon a time I was almost addicted to Star Trek, but after liking TOS in historic times, I got quickly bored of TNG (maybe 3 seasons), DS9, Voyager and Enterprise (roughly 1 season each). Babylon5 was only sci-fi recently that seemed mostly worthwhile, thanks to actually having a plot that spanned it's entire runtime.

    Fundamentally I see the problem as basically this: The series go for 'eternal' runtime (just take a look at X-Files), they can't really shake the status quo (like actually having a plot or something that actually affects the environment much).

    Me? I'm just going for anime these days, even the most successful ones have FIXED duration, and probably thanks to that usually great plots as they don't need to worry about the next season..
    (Ok, some do get extra seasons but it's the exception, not the rule)

    --
    -- pending
    1. Re:What's so great about 'eternal' TV series ? by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it's quite a stretch to imply Angel never shook up the status quo. After all, they did just that at the end of Season 4.

    2. Re:What's so great about 'eternal' TV series ? by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      You should give DS9 another chance someday - granted, it doesn't really find itself till season 3, but it still ends up better than it started.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  59. Re: heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Girl: omg! they cancelled angel :( :( :(
    CmdrTaco: wtf?
    Girl: yeh, they gotta know they made a mistake!
    Girl: u gotta get the nerds to help
    CmdrTaco: How?
    Girl: bring back memories of Farscape!
    CmdrTaco: And what do I get?
    Girl: i'll be ur valentines next year!
    CmdrTaco: schweet.

  60. No suprise here by cyranoVR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm an Angel fan, but this was really no suprise. Some thoughts...

    1) The writing for Angel recently hasn't been up to par with the Angel/Buffy tradition. The recent story line where they brought back that EVIL lawyer from the first season...meh. If they're not saving the world, then it ain't a Buffy/Angel story line.

    For me, a recent low point arrived in the Cordelia return episode (two weeks ago). Angel tells her "It's not like I made a deal with the devil here" and then immediately turns to make lunch-date arragnements with a red-skinned, horned demon sporting a goatee. Give me a break.

    2) All the actors in the Angel/Buffy series are talented and it would be great to see them move onto other projects. Actaully, yesterday I was thinking to myself that it would be cool to see James Marsters (Spike) have a role in some drama (not even a blockbuster - even a small, indie film). Now that they're not locked into the rough schedule of filming a TV show, it'll be possible.

    Why isn't Nicholas Brendon (Xander) a star yet? Ditto for Amber Benson (Tara). It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!.

    3) There are still dozens of hours of entertainment left for people who got to the series late:D I missed the first few years of Angel, so now I'll just watch it in syndication (did the same with Buffy on FX channel).

    4) If everyone goes out and buys up all the Angel DVDs, maybe they'll resurrect the series (or a spin off) like they did with Family Guy?

    5) Charisma Charpenter is going to be in Playboy later this year. Coming soon: Cordelia the Animated Series on SpikeTV. 'Nuff said.

    1. Re:No suprise here by metachimp · · Score: 1
      If you can believe it, Amber Benson would probably be considered "too heavy" for Hollywood. Don't get me wrong, she's a great actor and very attractive, but those curves are just too dangerous for Hollywood...

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
    2. Re:No suprise here by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

      > Why isn't Nicholas Brendon (Xander) a star yet?

      Because he is not a good actor.

      > Ditto for Amber Benson (Tara).

      Because even though she is a good actress, she does not has the boring figure of a Hollywood star.

  61. Hmmm... by gertsenl · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The link also makes taunting mentions of movie plans.

    Oh, those TV execs -- they're wily ones alright, but I see their plan. Take a show they don't trust enough to give another season, take it off the air so people start to miss it, then pump millions of dollars into a big motion picture production! Ya, that's really gonna happen!

    Ya, sorry folks, it ain't happenin'.

    --
    --Leo
  62. Charisma Carpenter is doing Playboy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    On a related note, Charisma Carpenter is going to be appearing in Playboy soon. Only snag is: no bush. But hey beggars can't be choosers, am I right guys?

    1. Re:Charisma Carpenter is doing Playboy! by daveaitel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      She's also did a cheesy movie for WE called "See Jane Date" Frankly, she's a bit chubby now.Not sure what genius had her cut her hair off either. -dave

    2. Re:Charisma Carpenter is doing Playboy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What she should be doing first is Atkins.

    3. Re:Charisma Carpenter is doing Playboy! by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Informative

      he's a bit chubby now.

      No, she was "a bit chubby" when she was pregnant, but she was on Angel a couple weeks ago and she looks fit and trim now.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Charisma Carpenter is doing Playboy! by unitron · · Score: 1

      I've been in favor of no bush for about three and a half years now, but to no avail.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    5. Re:Charisma Carpenter is doing Playboy! by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "She's also did a cheesy movie for WE called "See Jane Date" Frankly, she's a bit chubby now.Not sure what genius had her cut her hair off either. -dave"

      Chubby? She was pregnant. She's also been on "Miss Match" on NBC. You should've watched the 100th Episode of Angel. Ms. Carpenter has her fabulous body back.

      www.charismacarpenter.com

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    6. Re:Charisma Carpenter is doing Playboy! by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "What she should be doing first is Atkins."

      You OBVIOUSLY did not see the 100th Episode where she returned. She has her fabulous body back! Its unfair to talk about her body from Season4 since she was pregnant at the time!

      So she will be fabulous in Playboy and hopefully that'll help her win the WONDER WOMAN role!

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  63. Warner Brothers Execs are cleary morons... by lordDallan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    who have never been excited about the show.

    If you have ever been to the Warner Brothers Television site it's always had zip about Angel. But plenty of crap about worthless shows like Celebrity Justice. I know they don't make the show, but they could at least have a link?!?

    And if you go to "The WB's" chat site, you'll see that the Angel forum has more posts than any other forum - including the "The WB General" forum. Are they just blind to the fact that the show generates more invested fans than any other property they own?

    I also know that many people (myself included) only watch that turd-of-a-show Smallville because it's on right before Angel. I hope they're prepared to watch it's viewership decline.

    Finally, I think Joss Whedon put it best in his paraphrasing of Robert Frost:

    "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn."

  64. Wesley and Gun by brokencomputer · · Score: 1

    They rock da house!!!

  65. What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The show sucked and nobody was watching it. It should get the axe.

  66. Good. by xigxag · · Score: 2, Funny

    This'll free up another hour of WB time for fine family programming like, "7th Heaven: The Mary Camden Crack Ho Years."

    I can hardly wait.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  67. Smallville by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That show is doing the same thing, I read somewhere. It started out as a teenage drama and now it has mixed demos. It's a good show if u don't pay attention to blatant directional flaws... :o It has some good spinoffs from the comic world...but, you need to have read them to get the inside joke.

    Then again, they are saying that TV is losing it's precious 14-24 demographics all over. They are just in less numbers than they were two years ago.

    1. Re:Smallville by mpe · · Score: 1

      That show is doing the same thing, I read somewhere. It started out as a teenage drama and now it has mixed demos.

      If you have a "teenage drama" which concentrates on a single group of characters then both the characters and the show will have to "grow up".
      There is actually a formula which will give you a perpetual teen-drama. That is a soap opera set in a school which does not focus too much on too few characters. Nothing appears to be stopping The WB making an American version of "Grange Hill" though...

    2. Re:Smallville by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing appears to be stopping The WB making an American version of "Grange Hill" though...

      If you believe in a god, pray this doesn't happen; if you don't believe in a god, start believing and pray this doesn't happen: it'll be a live-action version of 'Recess'.
      I've seen what devastation the US TV execs can wreak on a comedy (have you seen both US and UK versions of 'Red Dwarf'?), and the gods alone know what kind of monstrosity 'Grange Hill' would become in their tender embrace. I heard horrible rumours about 'One Foot in the Grave' too.

    3. Re:Smallville by unitron · · Score: 1
      "There is actually a formula which will give you a perpetual teen-drama. That is a soap opera set in a school..."

      cough-Gil Thorp-cough

      "...which does not focus too much on too few characters."

      Never mind.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  68. Not no chance, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just an astronomically improbable one. Like 1 to 10^50 against. We'd have better odds of a copy of Alyson Hannigan materializing out of thin air who would want to go out with us.

  69. On Buffy's death... by Rahga · · Score: 1

    Honestly, the last episode of that show I remember is where they found the "Wolf" "Ram" and "Hart" books, which was pretty cool continuity..... So obviously, I don't actively watch, or really any TV lately. Still, yesterday:

    : Hey, did you know that Buffy's dead?

    : No, but who cares...? Angel's been dead the entire time.

    That's all I wanted to say.

  70. Between the lines by blonde+rser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is one line in the announcement that makes suspicious something else is going on. "David Boreanaz continues to be one of the finest, classiest and friendliest actors we have had the pleasure to work with and we hope that the relationship furthers from here." I wonder if someone that the WB has a "close" relationship with, like say Kevin Williamson, has expressed interest in having Boreanaz in one of his series and the WB decided to "free" him from his contract. So now we're going to get some kind of Dawson's Creek crap with Boreanaz casted as the teacher. All part of the WB vision.

    1. Re:Between the lines by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "There is one line in the announcement that makes suspicious something else is going on. "David Boreanaz continues to be one of the finest, classiest and friendliest actors we have had the pleasure to work with and we hope that the relationship furthers from here." I wonder if someone that the WB has a "close" relationship with, like say Kevin Williamson, has expressed interest in having Boreanaz in one of his series and the WB decided to "free" him from his contract. So now we're going to get some kind of Dawson's Creek crap with Boreanaz casted as the teacher. All part of the WB vision."

      Nah. Warner Bros. Pictures and director Chris Nolan passed up on having Boreanaz portray BRUCE WAYNE/BATMAN in the new film in favor of Christian Bale. There was also that crazy rumor about Boreanaz up for Superman, but considering WB has yet to finalize on a script AND a director, its just a crazy rumor. However, the talk is that Charisma Carpenter is up for WONDER WOMAN! Sweet! And she'll be posing in Playboy later this year!

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  71. ...it WAS great by LuxFX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Angel is another one of those shows that, at one time, WAS a great show. In my opinion, Angel "jumped the shark" after loosing Cordelia's character. NOTE I say loosing Cordelia's character, not loosing Charisma Carpenter from the regular cast. I'm also including all of last year when Cordelia was possessed by her demon baby (even though that satan/rock beast was cool). I hadn't realized how much of the weight of the show Cordelia was carrying until she was gone.

    But I do want to say that I think Angel has done great things technologically and cinematically. They were one of the first shows to be presented in widescreen, and were one of the first -- and are still one of the only -- shows to be presented in High Def. No matter how far downhill the show has gone, nobody can take these kudos away.

    --
    Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
    1. Re:...it WAS great by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      What is it with you people and loosing instead of losing?

    2. Re:...it WAS great by LuxFX · · Score: 1

      oops! And I hate it when people do that.... I should really get more sleep, I've been making typos all day.

      --
      Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
  72. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It won't be missed by me. It was a stupid show. Good riddance.

  73. LOL MOD PARENT UP !! hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  74. New channel by Cyfun · · Score: 1

    There needs to be a whole new channel for all those great shows that got cancelled. There could be Buffy (if they could drag Sarah back into it), Angel, Firefly, Family Guy (I think Fox is bringing it back again, though), Farscape, Enterprise, and Knight Rider (I hear they're making a new movie and TV series, anyway). Heh, you could almost give Joss Whedon his own channel. :)

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
    1. Re:New channel by unitron · · Score: 1
      "There needs to be a whole new channel for all those great shows that got cancelled."

      Okay, but only if we include Coronet Blue.

      I still want to know how it turns out.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  75. WHEDON, not WELDON by Orne · · Score: 1

    doh, don't know what came over me.

  76. Are they TRYING to kill TV? by Felinoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FOX: Cancle anything that dosen't suck.
    UPN: Take anything good and make it suck
    WB: Drop anything that makes money.
    News outlets: Screw doing research let's just report the marketting hype as fact.

    I have a TV here and for entertainment I'm posting on Slashdot...
    Now I know why.... Oh well still have Star Wrek, KeenSpot, OSDN and Anime DVDs.. (Not Henti you pervert...)

    --
    I don't actually exist.
    1. Re:Are they TRYING to kill TV? by Popadopolis · · Score: 1

      TV is dead, has been for four years now. The major networks finished their work back then when the Simpsons started getting bad. Arg.

  77. Re:Spike! in defense of Sam on sluggy by AriT93 · · Score: 1

    Sam's Da MAN Baby

  78. Glad I'm a Neilson family this week by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sort of stupidity makes me glad I am a Nielson family this week.

    Keeping track of what I watch has brought home to me how little I DO watch. Angel is one of the shows I watch.

    The great thing is this datum will be entered into Nielson's computers - that Angel has a person making damn good money watching it, and NOT MUCH ELSE on WB.

    Since most of television today is either
    a) "Reality" shows (HEY KIDS! LET'S STAB EACH OTHER IN THE BACK TO GET AHEAD!)
    b) Sit-coms (HEY KIDS! LET'S HIT THE LAUGH TRACK EVERYTIME SOMEBODY SAYS SOMETHING! THAT WILL MAKE IT FUNNY!)
    c) CSI (HEY KIDS! LETS MAKE A SHOW ABOUT SCIENCE THAT GETS IT WRONG ON EVERY SHOW)
    d) Law and order (HEY KIDS! LET'S PULL SHIT THAT NO REAL JUDGE WOULD TOLERATE!)

    After all, you now have NBC (All "Law and Order", all the time), CBS (All "CSI", all the time), WB (All Pokemon, all the time), and UPN (All crap, all the time.) Yeah, I *really* want to run out and buy a HDTV.

    1. Re:Glad I'm a Neilson family this week by tloh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      c) CSI (HEY KIDS! LETS MAKE A SHOW ABOUT SCIENCE THAT GETS IT WRONG ON EVERY SHOW)

      I think you're reaching there. Since MacGyver went off the air, CSI has been the only prime time show I've watched that has depicted those who do science in a positive light. I agree things are not 100% accurate, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Knowledge is power and if power is used irresponsibly, bad things happen. The folks who did MacGyver knew this and always omitted one key ingredient in whatever MacGyver was concocting to keep kids from blowing up the living room. (anti-violence is reinforced in the series also where Richard Dean Anderson's character hate guns because when MacGyver was young, one of his friends was killed when a bunch of them fooled around with a revolver. Despite the jingoistic nature of the show, his current series, Stargate SG-1, also has an important anti-gunn stance where the main character's son accidentally shot himself with his own father's weapon.) If CSI made an effort to get it right for every show, criminals would be that much wiser. CSI was criticized by a right wing group for being too grusome, but the overall message that science is a tool to fight crime is a positive one.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    2. Re:Glad I'm a Neilson family this week by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      Fudging a few things is one thing, having a 6V battery be able to pull a shoe imprint, a 12V battery throw 5 foot arcs, stating that "the iron in this man's blood conducted the electricity" - that is what I have a real problem with.

      No, CSI doesn't just fudge science to "protect the kids" or to keep the criminals in the dark - they consistently get it wrong because they cannot be bothered to get it right. If you can, go watch old episodes of "Quincy" to see forensic science on TV done (more) correctly.

    3. Re:Glad I'm a Neilson family this week by tloh · · Score: 1

      they consistently get it wrong because they cannot be bothered to get it right

      FYI, there is a real life CSI on the show serving as a technical consultant. In an interview, she readily concedes that some material has been stretched for the sake of dramatic effect. I don't intent to argue that this in itself is good or bad - just that it is only part of something greater. It is a Prime time TV drama, not a TLC documetary. For the same reason people don't watch "The West Wing" for a digest of the weeks current events, you shouldn't watch CSI expecting to learn how to be a real criminologist. No one can judge you for having your own opinions, but if you're going to nit-pick a show not historically based purely on accuracy, maybe you're missing the point?

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    4. Re:Glad I'm a Neilson family this week by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "The folks who did MacGyver knew this and always omitted one key ingredient in whatever MacGyver was concocting to keep kids from blowing up the living room. (anti-violence is reinforced in the series also where Richard Dean Anderson's character hate guns because when MacGyver was young, one of his friends was killed when a bunch of them fooled around with a revolver. Despite the jingoistic nature of the show, his current series, Stargate SG-1, also has an important anti-gunn stance where the main character's son accidentally shot himself with his own father's weapon.)"

      It also had to do with the fact that one of MacGyver's writers was Terry Nation, who created the DALEKS on DOCTOR WHO. The Doctor generally disapproves of guns, and uses his wits to defeat villains everywhere he travelled. He carries his Sonic Screwdriver which helps him get out of jams just as MacGyver wouldn't go anywhere without his Swiss Army Knife. MacGyver had a crazy nemisis named Murdoch who simply would not die, just as the Doctor had his foe in The Master.

      MacGuyver is just an American version of DOCTOR WHO without the British accents, time and space travel, and sporting a semi-mullett haircut. Give it up for the WHO. Yep, MacGyver didn't have a rock band named after it either...although I guess you have to mention that Depeche Mode did steal MacGuyver's theme song for one of theirs.

      Come to think about it, Buffy/Angel sure openly riffed off the good Doctor's 27 years of television exploits. One of the main vampires was named THE MASTER. Season5 of Buffy featured a cosmic key that turned out to be Buffy's sister Dawn (straight out of the 1970s "Key to Time" episodes). And the character of "Fred" (Winifred) on Angel is most likely an homage to The Doctor's favorite TimeLady named Romana who said she wanted to be called "Fred."

      So I guess the moral of the story is, when you gotta steal from someone, steal from the best! :0

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    5. Re:Glad I'm a Neilson family this week by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "No, CSI doesn't just fudge science to "protect the kids" or to keep the criminals in the dark - they consistently get it wrong because they cannot be bothered to get it right. If you can, go watch old episodes of "Quincy" to see forensic science on TV done (more) correctly."

      Not to mention the fact that the entire law enforcement community in Las Vegas thinks the show is a joke... I'll always favor NBC's "Las Vegas" show because if there's one thing I know, James Caan has great taste in hookers...he was like Heidi Fleiss's second best customer after Charlie Sheen! :0

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    6. Re:Glad I'm a Neilson family this week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realise you're watching a television show, right?

    7. Re:Glad I'm a Neilson family this week by mesach · · Score: 1

      How does one become a Neilson family if you can't stand(and I'm assuming don't watch) any of the network television?

      and BTW NBC isn't the All Law and Order all the time station that is TNT's Motto. I got so sick of hearing that DUN DAH sound that they have on L&O that I removed TNT from my channel lineup.

      --
      moo.
    8. Re:Glad I'm a Neilson family this week by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how Nielson gets folks - I think they do it by a random sampling of telephone numbers.

      Watching network television (or indeed any television) is not necessary - it is not as though there are commercials - "Hi, want to control what is on TV? Apply now - 1-800-MAKE-ME-NLSON"

  79. This fucking sucks. by Durandal64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Regardless of past sins (like last season), I think that this season of Angel has really turned out well. I was skeptical about the idea of them taking over W&H, but it looks like Joss actually knew what he was doing with this one (unlike Season 7 of Buffy). The 100th episode was awesome, I thought, especially the ending, which was well done. Right now, the characters are all going through a lot, and they're all changing. I think it makes the show interesting. I want to see more of where these new characters go. 8 episodes doesn't seem like a whole lot of time left to explore that. Hell, there's a veritable conflict brewing between Buffy's Slayer Corp and Angel's W&H. I want to see more interaction between those two camps! Damage was a fucking great episode. But no. The WB needs to make room for yet another shitty comedy or Charmed reruns. Buffy's gone (after a rather sub-par showing in its last season), Angel is gone after this season ... the number of non-Simpsons shows on TV that I'm willing to watch is rapidly dwindling in number. Next thing you know, Fox is going to cancel 24 in favor of "Afghani Idol" or something.

    1. Re:This fucking sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did enjoy the portion of one of the episodes that ends with Spike embracing a cross and smoking. It was actually pretty touching and increased my respect for the actor (don't know his name). But yeah, you're right, the last season sorta sucked. The gnarl monster was stupid. The giant spider episode was retarded.

    2. Re:This fucking sucks. by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "I did enjoy the portion of one of the episodes that ends with Spike embracing a cross and smoking. It was actually pretty touching and increased my respect for the actor (don't know his name). But yeah, you're right, the last season sorta sucked. The gnarl monster was stupid. The giant spider episode was retarded."

      James Marsters is the actor in question. Hometown of Modesto, California, just like George Lucas. Wait a sec, I better watch out for any stray rocks for even stating Sr. Lucas's name here on Slashdot! Ouch! That rock hurt!

      Feel free to check out Marsters on IMDB.com. He also has a rock band named "Ghost of the Robot" and had been semi considered to play Tarkin in Star Wars Episode III (he had the cheekbones!) until Lucasfilm went with another actor and decided to equip him with prostetics to look like a young Peter Cushing.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  80. Magazine distribution model: Is it time yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much does it cost to produce an episode? A Season?

    How much is quality programming worth to you? (How much are you paying for cable now? Do you enjoy your wide selection of "infomercials"? I favor the "bullet-blender" one myself.)

    Do you subscribe to any magazines? How much do you pay annually for them?

    For 5% of what your paying annually for cable, the equivalent of a good magazine or two, we could fund Angel.

    How many good shows are we going to stand by and let these assholes cancel? Farscape, Firefly, Angel, Dark Angel, Family Guy, Crusade, ... The list goes on and on.

    Enough already. The producers want to make it. We want to buy it. Why the hell are we all letting some middleman screw us over? When Microsoft decided we had to use their software, did we roll over and play dead? Hell no. So why do we keep doing it here?

    Isn't it time for a magazine distribution model? DVD production is dirt cheap...

    -Anonymous Ranter.

  81. Obscure reference by Gorimek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do you know what's a good day to cancel a show? Any day besides Valentine's Day! I mean, what, were they running low on dramatic irony?

    1. Re:Obscure reference by D-Cypell · · Score: 1

      Any quote from that episode brings back imagines of Miss Gellar in her coat (only her coat)...

      Hmmmm I owe you one!

    2. Re:Obscure reference by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Do you know what's a good day to cancel a show? Any day besides Valentine's Day! I mean, what, were they running low on dramatic irony?"

      That's Hollywood's way of showing its love. My sense is the WB kept Angel around until they thought they had something better they could replace it with. People on AICN (Ain't it Cool News) have stated that the WB had hoped to replace Angel with "Birds of Prey" but of course that show went down even more spectacularly than Jenna Jameson. Something about revenge being best when served cold. The WB hasn't exactly been happy with Joss Whedon since the bidding war erupted over "Buffy" and the WB lost face to UPN. What a better way to shove it to him than wait for the show to hit the 100 episode mark, receive critical acclaim all over the town, and then fire off a press release right before Valentine's Day, and after they told one of the guest stars the show had been renewed. Yep, that's class.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  82. But Enterprise is still going... by istewart · · Score: 1

    Maybe only until the end of this season, but...

    PLEASE MAKE THE HORROR STOP.

  83. Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this 'News for Nerds/Stuff That Matters'?

    This is like announcing that Jerry Springer is going to have 20 new episodes.. There is no relevance to the geek community here.

  84. err by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a sad day for TV, the last of the SCI FI Action Dramas... Have they finished shooting the last episode yet? Are they actually going to change it to reflect the demise or is that what this movie is about? This stinks.

  85. Red Vs Blue by Popadopolis · · Score: 1

    Even Red vs Blue was affected by the cancelation. Joel, the voice of Caboose, is now looking again for a "permenant" job.

  86. oh NO, they still haven't done my UberDemon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    my wife watched Buffy and now Angel religiously so I feel that I can safely say I was tortured with enough detail to give a sad Negative on my earlier prediction. After witnessing the plots, the demon makeup and indeed the whole idea of the demons in the first place I was fully suspecting some uber demon named Karl the Litigator that was red, had cloven hooves, goat legs, horns, goatee, forked tail, and of course a pitchfork in one hand at all times.

    Karl would speak Babylonian, ancient Egyptian, and French. Other than that, I really didn't develop Karl much further than what is here. Perhaps Angel can travel to Valhalla and rescue Thor's hammer... oh wait, I bet that was done on Starspank SG-1.

    Well, Farscape was rather original... at least that is on DVD now.

  87. Enough about prank calls - how about prank bids? by misspelled · · Score: 1

    Remember what happened when the world picked up on the MikeRoweSoft auction? People prank bid up to $200,000. How high do you think the prank bids will go on this one, now that it's got some publicity?

  88. what do you mean DESPITE? by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Not that I am a fan of Angel, but doesn't WB usually cancel all their good shows? Anglel had a chance of becoming popular so they figured there was a chance it was good and cancelled it. What doesn't make sense here?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  89. Other channels by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of other channels that show Angel ... it's a shame they can't all chip in a bit and keep it going.

    In the UK it's one of Sky Ones more popular shows, getting 0.7 million viewers. (That's a good number for Sky)

  90. GROWNUPS: Stargate SG-1 & Monk on Fridays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lately my Friday nights have involved a lot of Stargate SG-1 at 9PM and Monk at 10PM.

    Odd that the best stuff on TV is aired the night you're supposed to be at the movies, or otherwise distracted.

  91. This blows! by slasher999 · · Score: 1

    I was just thinking how I just started watching Angel again this year. Having a strong lead-in from Smallville must account for alot of that 36% increase - I know that's the reason I'm watching again. Truth is, Angel is still a decent show. Humor, action, and a decent story in pretty much every episode, although I cringe when I think of this week's Angel-gets-turned-into-a-puppet episode.

  92. Slippery slope by visgoth · · Score: 1

    To be honest, I haven't watched Angel in years, but I am displeased to see it cancelled. It was a good show, from the 1st 2 or 3 seasons I saw. It was much better than this reality tv drek the networks are shoving down our throats. I recall seeing an article here on /. showing that the viewership numbers for males 20-30 were dropping off bigtime. Gee, I wonder why?! I can't even name a tv show I watch consistently anymore (although, I have been dling and watching Enterprise episodes to get caught up, and am planning to watch it more). Suffice to say that if this trend continues, network tv will become somthing of the past.

    --
    My patience is infinite, my time is not.
  93. RTFA by unassimilatible · · Score: 1
    Beat the West Wing in selected demos.

    Either way, this sucks. I knew it had the kiss of death. Anything I start watching is immediately doomed. It's all my fault. Bye bye, Enterprise.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:RTFA by Nachtfalke · · Score: 1

      It can't be all your fault.
      I think I have the same effect on tv shows.
      Now I just have to find a way to use this power for good...

    2. Re:RTFA by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1
      Bye bye, Enterprise.

      Well, at least you found a way to harness your powers for good.
      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    3. Re:RTFA by tommck · · Score: 1

      Anyone can beat someone in "selected demos". That's a statistitian's (sp?) dream!

      Stop watching Enterprise NOW! I don't want it cancelled! ;-)

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    4. Re:RTFA by unitron · · Score: 1
      "Now I just have to find a way to use this power for good..."

      If you're willing to undergo martyrdom for the greater good, please watch as many "reality" shows as possible.

      I will lead the singing of your praises when you're gone.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    5. Re:RTFA by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Stop watching Enterprise NOW! I don't want it cancelled! ;-)

      Enterprise jumped the shark the minute that vulcan chick had to get lubed up by the engineer guy after their first away mission. Berman is a complete waste of flesh if he thinks tits and ass were the only thing that attractged people to Star Trek TNG.

    6. Re:RTFA by severed · · Score: 1
      Berman is a complete waste of flesh if he thinks tits and ass were the only thing that attractged people to Star Trek TNG.

      I know, when anyone knows it's that it was tits and ass that attracted people to Star Trek TOS - not TNG!

      --

      HaXXXor.com - Naked Chicks Teach You How To Ha

  94. You have no chance with her, true, because... by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Informative

    ....she's married already.

    And the guy is Alexis Denisof, one of the cast members from Angel. So I imagine they'll have plenty of time together now :P

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  95. Like beggars can be choosers or something by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see posts here like "She needs to go on Atkins first". And you guys need to get out of your parent's basement where you spend most of your time wanking to net porn.

    Face it, fellas, if a woman like Charisma Carpenter walked near you, you wouldn't know what the hell to do anyway.

    Guys on SLASHDOT criticizing the physical beauty of hollywood actresses? Isn't that like starving men saying "sorry, but the caviar just isn't as good as it used to be"?

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  96. He done f*cked up by satanami69 · · Score: 1

    Excactly who's wife did Joss Whedon fuck to have the entire industry pissed off at him? Did he maybe run over someone's cat and then piss on the corpse?

    I feel bad for the guy. He has a lot of talent and good ideas, but unfortunatly, Hollywood just isn't interested in having good shows on the air.

    --
    I really hate Dan Patrick.
  97. Farscape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Farscape is definately filming new material - I have a friend in Sydney who has had several days work as an extra on set in the last few weeks.

    cheers
    Sara
    a Geek Downunder

  98. Spike and Angel by Fubar411 · · Score: 1

    It is good fun to see them fight it out. The storyline since Buffy is Spike and Angel were old friends who could barely stand each other. Oh, and Spike is Angels grandson through vampire siring. If this is the end of Angel, I wonder if Sarah will appear. She was supposed to be part of Joss' guarntees to keep Angel on the air, but that wasn't supposed to happen until next season.

  99. SPOILERS ABOVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SPOILERS ABOVE! some of us don't live in the US, dickhead.

  100. Faith? by libellule · · Score: 1

    Didn't they offer a spinoff to Eliza Dushku but she'd already signed up for Tru Calling? If that show is axed (let's face it, they put it against Survivor and Friends), is it possible they could do that? Or even a show about some potential slayers now slayers, a band of badass girls? The Buffyverse must go on :)

  101. Same with Buffy by Lispy · · Score: 1

    The one thing that prevented my friends from seeing Buffy in all it's greatness was that whenever they gave it a try the cast from another season was nearly extinct. They didn't even know who was good or bad at the time beeing. They switched casts really often during the 7 seasons.

    But, well, on the other hand I could get a life now that both series are down. I was very close to ending up like me ex secretary who is writing Buffy fanfic in english, although she's german, just like me. I think that's creepy! ;-)

  102. There is more to it. by hummassa · · Score: 1

    TV execs/prods must, to make a living, be constantly searching for the next thing to make more money, so they can cover for the useless people that they are. Simple, huh?

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:There is more to it. by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Cute. You restate what I said and get a juvenile insult into the mix. Feel better?

      It's the job of TV execs to maximize revenue, not make programming that people like you, or me, think is "good". Once you get one, it'll be your job to make more money, too.

      "Good" almost always means "I like it", anyway.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    2. Re:There is more to it. by hummassa · · Score: 1

      Ok, let's change some words to improve your understanding of what I have said:
      1. They do NOT get more money, they search ways to get more money, but like in the Red Queen Run, they would get further if they stayed put.
      2. The thing is, if they stay put, they are out of their jobs.
      3. Every single TV show/slot benefits more financially from good care than from being exchanged for the next sh*t.
      4. They could stay put and not be out of their jobs (item 2 above) if and only if they were competent to care for the shows (item 3 above), but they are not, so they do not.

      Got it?

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    3. Re:There is more to it. by reallocate · · Score: 1

      1. What they hell is "Red Queen Run"? Some damn game for kids? Re: money -- TV execs maximize their personal revenue by selecting programs that provide higher ad revenue in their timeslots than the competition. Winning = promotion and raise; losing = getting fired.

      2. If TV execs fall behind the competition, they'll risk losing their jobs. That's not staying put, that's falling behind. It's a competitive business, so maintaining the status quo is not good enough.

      3. What's "good care"? The networks are after ad revenue, not good programming (however defined). You're asserting that it is always financially preferrable to nurse along a show with low ratings rather than replace it with a show that is believed will build higher ad revenue. That's an undefensible assertion.

      4. See above. You're still imagining that TV is about something other than making money. From a network's point of view, the "best" program is the one with the lowest production costs and the highest ad revunue.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    4. Re:There is more to it. by hummassa · · Score: 1

      1. Alice in Wonderland. More she ran, more she stayed in the same place; less she ran, fastest she got away. I'm 33. Married. One kid. No games, literature.
      1.a. The metaphor in the case is: they are trying to get more ad revenue in the wrong direction.
      2/3/4. Most of the time, the problem is not falling behind the competition, is just that you have to work hard, having a real show on, despite ratings, to sell your ad slots. It's easier to sell vaporware ("Hey, we are going to cancel show X, that's having 2.1/7, and we are going to put show Y, with at least 3/7, much better, Z millions more consumer to your ads!" lie). No one is talking about show quality, only ratings.

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    5. Re:There is more to it. by reallocate · · Score: 1

      You're not making much sense.

      The only way a TV show makes money is by selling commercials. The better the ratings, the more you bill for airtime. Advertisers do not pay for commercials based on what the network says the ratings will be.

      If you are currently running a show with weak ratings, that means you aren't drawing as much revenue as you would with a show with better ratings. Why not replace it with something you believe will accomplish that?

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    6. Re:There is more to it. by hummassa · · Score: 1

      Either I am totally wrong (guess what, I'm not) or in my country things are completely different. Ok. The ad slots are sold *before* they go to the air. ExecX says "ok, we will get 7/100, target audience friendly to CompanyY, in this show I will air thu 9pm, and I will sell 5 slots to CompanyY for XXX". Got it? If it's the same show (say, Friends) and it's good, and it's ratings are good, and it's ratings have all reasons to stay the same (like the show is not Enterprise and won't show T'Pol's butt) so... It's easier for the ExecX to sell a show that nobody knows exactly what is!!! and premieres are more expensive, really.If you are currently running a show with weak ratings, that means you aren't drawing as much revenue as you would with a show with better ratings. Why not replace it with something you believe will accomplish that?
      Because it won't. If you are producing/buying a crappy show, chances are ... you will produce/buy another crappy show. BUT it's easier to sell nonetheless.
      Point being, it's possible for a competent TV exec to get *and* maintain a good show, because (incredibly) good shows usually bring good rates and crappy shows... got it?
      I'm familiar with these negotiations, trust me.

      Now,

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    7. Re:There is more to it. by reallocate · · Score: 1

      My point is that higher rated shows command higher ad rates. High ratings and "good" programming are not necessarily related. Therefore, as in most other businesses, people in the TV business are incentivized to create programs that they and their advertisers believe will have higher ratings than the shows currently running. Whether they turn out to pick the right shows is a different point.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  103. Impatient by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    That's the way every other business in the USA operates these days. Regular incomes don't impress the shareholders anymore.
    You're correct. But for most businesses, this is a recent thing. I can't remember a time when broadcast TV didn't operate this way. No metter how well they're doing, TV networks seem to think that they have to fiddle. So if a show isn't doing too well, they'll pull it because they think another show can make better use of the time slot. Or they'll move the show to another night. Or they'll retool the premise, or replace part of the cast.

    All of which usually guarantees that most shows never get a chance to develop a following. Which doesn't usually if it's the usual "Hey, let's make a sitcom starring Paris Hilton! Or maybe Betty Ford!" crap. But really creative shows have almost no hope of lasting.

    Buffy sort of crept in under the radar. Joss Whedon had more or less abandoned the concept (which was pretty much trashed in the Kristy Swanson movie) because he couldn't make anybody understand that he wasn't aiming for High Camp. But then a new network struggling to find material that people would actually watch bought a dozen episodes. Whedon was so sure that they'd never order any more that he did a show mainly to please himself. Which is actually the only way to make a decent tV show.

    I enjoyed the show immensely, but I'm basically glad the Bufferverse has retreated from view. (Yeah, there will be comic books and novelizations, but who pays attention to those? And I can't see anybody putting up the money for a Buffyverse movie.) It was fun at first, but as time went on, the whole Buffy-Angel thing started taking itself way too seriously. Angel was always that way, and Buffy was that way most of the time in the two last seasons. Maybe serious is the wrong word -- it was always about life or death issues. Perhaps I mean solemn. And cluttered. And disorganized. I still haven't figured out what that axe was supposed to be!

  104. Not "taunting". by eddie+can+read · · Score: 1

    The link also makes taunting mentions of movie plans.

    Taunting means "Abusing vocally; expressing contempt or ridicule." I really don't think that's what you meant. Unless WB's new business model is to drum up business by ridiculing its own audience in press releases.

  105. MOD PARENT UP; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's your answer right ^^^ there.

  106. Peroxide Boy to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, show going along happily, Spike joins, now AtS is dead. Connection anyone?

    Spike was only any good when he was evil, and even then he was out-classed by Drusilla. Since then his contribution has been negligible, with the exception of:
    * a short period of indirect evilness during the whole Adam thing.
    * being the necessary "person in the room" when Buffy told us that she had not been in hell (it's bad form to write someone talking to themselves, ala bad daytime soaps).
    * being Buffy's "hit bottom" during her depression.
    * the last 4 minutes of the Buffy finale.

    And when they finally give us a reason for keeping him around, when he finally give him a purpose and a noble demise, they go and negate it by "resurrecting" him.

    Peroxide Boy should have been dust long ago, within weeks of BtVs Season 4 starting. How many times have we had characters on either BtVS or AtS wondering "why haven't I staked you yet?". My thoughts exactly.

  107. Note correlation: by Kwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't have cable or reception and I like it that way. I watch good shows on DVD when they come out ... I don't know what it is with the networks. They have no understanding of what is good.

    So, let's draw the lines.
    You don't watch the shows when they're on TV. As such, you (or the people like you with the nielsen boxes) do not factor into the networks' decisions as to what makes a TV show good.

    Yet you wonder why the networks don't know what you think is good?

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    1. Re:Note correlation: by anagama · · Score: 1


      Chicken and Egg problem. Why should I bother when there isn't anything but one or two shows I like (which will be cancled anyway). If there was a channel that played Trek/Farscape/Firefly quality shows all the time, I'd subscribe. I don't just mean reruns - I mean reruns plus new quality content. Till then, I'll spend my cash on DVDs of good series, rent the lesser ones, and save myself from wasting vast amounts of time watching garbage.

      I mean really, what has happened that we must subject ourselves to junk in the hopes that a gem or two will appear. It's like going to the same dive restaraunt everyday hoping that by being loyal, the food will get better. The way this ought to work, is that TV companies will get consumer loyalty when they make a good product consistently and frequently - this is the same reason that good restaraunts get my business often, and bad ones get my business a single time.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  108. 1x04 "Infection" by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    To be fair, the episode you mention, 1x04 "Infection", is consistently rated the lowest of any B5 ep, ever, on the Global Episode Opinion Survey.

    And still the ep contains this bit of dialogue:

    REPORTER: After all that you've just gone through, I have to ask you the same question a lot of people back home are asking about space these days. Is it worth it? Should we just pull back, forget the whole thing as a bad idea, and take care of our own problems, at home?
    SINCLAIR: No. We have to stay here, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars.


    Could you at least watch "Signs and Portents", "Babylon Squared" and "Chrysalis" before drawing these conclusions? I'm sure Firefly had its off episodes as well.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  109. Easy. Go to UPN. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let history repeat.

  110. You Are The Product by MourningBlade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps some of you have heard the logic that goes along the lines of:

    In a buyer/seller arrangement, the buyer can make demands upon the seller. After all, the buyer can always just not buy the product. The seller will usually pander to the buyer as long as the seller gets the price that he wants. Note the term price. When you watch network television, you aren't paying a dime to the network. It's free. That means that you're not the buyer.

    Who does pay money? Advertisers. They are the buyer, the network is the seller. You? You're the product.

    This cancellation should be a good demonstration of this proposition: the buyer wants teenage eyes watching the TV, so the seller will arrrange for shows that will get as many teenagers as possible to watch it. So there we are: "your" show gets cancelled, you non-teenager, you. In turn they put on something that is likely to capture the (perceived) average teenager.

    This isn't a cynical post, it's just a working through of logic, and a possible solution: if you want to watch the shows you want to watch, pay for them.

    DVD sales potential has changed some of the thinking of the networks, but still the best way to pay for your shows is directly, through pay channels: HBO, Showtime, etc, etc.

    I like being a customer (or a collaborator, see open source). It's why I'm willing to pay for good work. Try being a customer, you'll get what you want more often.

    1. Re:You Are The Product by cyril3 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You? You're the product

      I think that is a bit simplistic. It's a more complex relationship where TV sells to advertisers, the attention of a percentage of the viewing population and said population agrees to watch in a particular timeslot if the show is any good and at the same time watch the ads.

      For a particular percentage of a specific demographic they will pay $X. When Buffy moves from 14-25 to 25-45 it moves from $X to $X-y. Unfortunately Sarah and her co-stars aren't interested in taking less money for their performances or they don't want to move out of the prime timeslot to a late evening one so the show is cancelled cause $x-y isn't enough to make money out of it.

      if you want to watch the shows you want to watch, pay for them ... the best way to pay for your shows is directly, through pay channels: HBO, Showtime, etc, etc.

      Fine but there is no mechanism for me to tell the studios or stations what I want until after the fact. Then I presumably get the choice of how much am I prepared to pay to keep Buffy on air and the benefits of intermediation rapidly become apparent. I'll just watch whatever comes on and if I don't like it I'll do something else.

    2. Re:You Are The Product by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      Fine but there is no mechanism for me to tell the studios or stations what I want until after the fact. Then I presumably get the choice of how much am I prepared to pay to keep Buffy on air and the benefits of intermediation rapidly become apparent. I'll just watch whatever comes on and if I don't like it I'll do something else.

      I'm with you on the intermediation bit. I view pay channels as a typical "feel." Paying for a channel is like saying "more like this." It's not exact ("keep this specific show going"), but I think in many cases it's exactly what we want: "go find me shows like this."

      I think it's a crude approximation of what we might see in the future: buy specific content, and/or buy packages. It gets us much closer to the agent mentality for media.

      As for "simplistic," yes. It is. I was trying to get across the idea that direct payment tends to get you more of what you want, rather than what the advertisers want. You are right, however, in that advertisers can easily pay to keep a show going, whereas the individual customer would be hard-pressed to do so.

      You do have the right idea when it comes to dealing with broadcast television, though: "I'll just watch whatever comes on and if I don't like it I'll do something else." Good idea.

  111. Information on the fan campaigns by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    The WB's cancellation has really cheesed me off. And obviously its cheesed off a lot of the fanbase as well. Here is a link to groups already working to reverse the WB's idiotic business decision:

    http://renewangel.com

    One of their funnier tactics is to use the WB's own "Angel" themed e-postcards to email the WB about the cancellation.

    Here's the link on the WB's website:

    http://thewb.com/eCards/Index/0,9767,42801,00.ht ml

    Once you select the postcard you want to send to the WB, here is the address:

    faces@thewb.com

    And don't forget to sign the petition at Petition Online too. Sure, it might be cheesy, but the last time the angry fanboys stood up to Warner Bros., they sent the Superman film screenplay back to the drawing board (and that was after 50k signatures were posted). As it stands right now, there are 21k signatures protesting against the WB decision, and that is only after less than a day of being online. Here's the link if any of you missed it from earlier posts:

    http://www.petitiononline.com/ai5d0162/petition. ht ml

    If our online community moves fast, I'd be willing to bet the show gets saved. IGN, Chud.com, AICN, UGO, and many other online sources are spreading the word.

    And now back to the normally broadcasted crappy WB Network Programming...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  112. Maybe Joss Whedon needs to watch his own shows by rpillala · · Score: 1

    Too much of Whedony goodness comes from reaction or commentary on other TV shows and genres. This was fun for a while, but it has become somewhat predictable:

    • Two characters appear to be conversing, but one is reacting to something behind the other one.
    • A villian's grandiose speech is interrupted by violence, often their death.
    • A character makes a pronouncement and then immediately demonstrates that the opposite is true.
    • The character you thought was weak and vulnerable picks exactly the right time to show their pluck.

    I doubt the WB perceived tiredness in Angel the way I did. The fact is that you can't be snide and sly about how familiar and boring TV is if the audience sees those barbs and clever jabs coming. Also, listen to some of the Firefly commentaries by Whedon to see is he's difficult to work with. I don't know anything about the way pilots and series production work, but it didn't sound like he made it easy for Fox.

    Ravi

    --
    When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    1. Re:Maybe Joss Whedon needs to watch his own shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, listen to some of the Firefly commentaries by Whedon to see is he's difficult to work with.

      There's a lot of stuck-upedness associated with hard to work with actors/people in Hollywood, and I really look down on people like that. Being an actor/associated with the Entertainment Industry doesn't make you a nobleman. That said, a network exec's definition of hard to work with probably reads something like, "won't do what he's told." Sometimes you have to fight the brass to end up with good product, which Buffy and Angel both are. Writing a good TV show is probably a lot like writing a good book, only you have to fight to get the TV show to be made. You can just sit down and write a book if you're so inclined.

      Remember, if network executives were any good at recognizing/creating good TV, they'd be writers.

    2. Re:Maybe Joss Whedon needs to watch his own shows by rpillala · · Score: 1
      Remember, if network executives were any good at recognizing/creating good TV, they'd be writers.

      I think that would be a pay cut for them.

      But I'm right there with you really. I just think that if people want to make it hard for the network to like them, they can't be surprised by things like this. After all, the network doesn't sell TV shows it sells audiences.

      Ravi

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  113. HDTV by elmos_dog · · Score: 3, Informative

    Another problem with the cancelation is that another FINE HDTV show is gone. Reality shows dont broadcast in HDTV and Angel takes total advantage of the aspect ratio and the high quality picture. Right now only CSI, Alias and Smallville can even hold a candle to Angel in HDTV quality.

    1. Re:HDTV by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Another problem with the cancelation is that another FINE HDTV show is gone. Reality shows dont broadcast in HDTV and Angel takes total advantage of the aspect ratio and the high quality picture. Right now only CSI, Alias and Smallville can even hold a candle to Angel in HDTV quality."

      What about Enterprise? Or is it not shown in HDTV? I just naturally assumed that since its broadcast in widescreen format that it was simulcasted in HDTV somewhere. Is Smallville in widescreen format when in HDTV? As for Angel, in syndication (ie., on TNT), they show the episodes in pan & scan, and I don't just mean Season 1 either! :0

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  114. Not to be an economics nerd by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

    Well, it's not like every dollar of your store purchase goes back to the creators. There's the store markup, distributor markup, etcetera. Plus the cost of actually making the DVD and its packaging.

    I'd be surprised if even 50% of the cost you paid went back to the entities who financed the show in the first place. So, you're really looking at 4-5 M sales of a DVD to cover the costs of production. That would be a massive DVD hit.

    I'm sure FireFly will sell far more than well enough to cover the costs of making the DVD, and will probably cover some or all of the losses on making the series.

    Japan has had a long tradition of direct-to-video series. But that's really an artifact of there being an artificially low number of TV channels there. In the US, there are so many darn TV stations that almost any show you can imagine can get broadcast somewhere. I'm sure USA, Spike, or other lower-tier cable network would be happy to broadcast FireFly, they just wouldn't sell enough ads to cover the production cost. So even if you did a show mainly to sell DVDs, you'd still broadcast it for marketing reasons, and to get the additional marginal revenue.

  115. As I said on the Bronze:Beta board... by AudioEfex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not gonna let a bunch of suits get me down. We got 12 seasons of Buffyverse - more than 250 episodes by the time they are done. "Angel", and "Buffy", will live forever in our DVD players, and the suits can't take that away. Audio

  116. I thought 6 was OK, but 7 sucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Season six was OK, but 7 they definitely jumped the shark.

    1. Re:I thought 6 was OK, but 7 sucked by LuxFX · · Score: 1

      My biggest beef with 6 was all the sex. Not that I have a problem with watching sex (and my Spike-fan wife certainly didn't mind), but it was so overblown that it ultimately felt like the producers saying, "Hey, we're on this little network that adores us! Let's see how far we can take this...." Sex shouldn't be too over-the-top.

      --
      Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
  117. I'd rather be typecast as Superman instead of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scott Peterson! Jesus H he looks like that guy.

  118. True by unassimilatible · · Score: 1
    I heard that the production costs of Angel were astronomical, what with all of the exotic sets, often used only once. Plus the large ensemble cast has to add up.

    Maybe if we could outsource the crew to India?

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  119. What else could the WB show?? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Most WB shows are kinda lame. The stats show Angel beating West Wing, an award winning show, and they are going to can it??? What the fuck, over? Go to renewangel.com and do some petitioning stuff if you want to help the show stick around. If Angel does not get another season, i would hope for something with Spike and/or Willow. Spike is my favorite character on any TV show. i would also love to see Sci-Fi pick up Firefly, that show was headed for greatness. Alas it was on Fox and they cut it to replace it with "Fast and the Furious" the TV show.... Movies of the Buffiverse would rock.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    1. Re:What else could the WB show?? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "i would also love to see Sci-Fi pick up Firefly, that show was headed for greatness. Alas it was on Fox and they cut it to replace it with "Fast and the Furious" the TV show.... Movies of the Buffiverse would rock."

      Eh? You are right in spirit but wrong in facts. SciFi passed on FireFly already, as did all the cable stations it was offered to. Fox didn't exactly replace FireFly with "Fastlane" either since that show has also been cancelled. There's food for thought, Tiffani Amber Thiessen on Angel Season 6... I'm just saying! And if you didn't hear, Charisma Carpenter is rumored to be up for WONDER WOMAN. I guess the timing is right since she'll be posing for Playboy later this year.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    2. Re:What else could the WB show?? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      "Eh? You are right in spirit but wrong in facts. SciFi passed on FireFly already, as did all the cable stations it was offered to." @ There is a difference between being wrong and not having a bit of trivia, such as firefly being turned down. "Fox didn't exactly replace FireFly with "Fastlane" either since that show has also been cancelled. " @ It WAS replaced by fastlane in the sense that fastlane was given its time slot, and was allowed to finish the season. "And if you didn't hear, Charisma Carpenter is rumored to be up for WONDER WOMAN. I guess the timing is right since she'll be posing for Playboy later this year." @ Sweet merciful crap! my life will be complete when i get that issue! Even after having a baby she's one of the hottest of the hot. Wonder Woman the movie? or TV show? Hmm, that could have potential... esp if she buffs up for it. *sigh*

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    3. Re:What else could the WB show?? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "It WAS replaced by fastlane in the sense that fastlane was given its time slot, and was allowed to finish the season."

      That's not a replacement. That was shifting an existing show to a different time slot. Obviously, that timeslot sucks [Friday nights] and Fox itself hasn't really had a hit in that time slot since The X-Files occupied it. A replacement is like cancelling Angel and replacing it with Dark Shadows v. 3.0. :)

      Even after having a baby she's one of the hottest of the hot. Wonder Woman the movie? or TV show? Hmm, that could have potential... esp if she buffs up for it.

      Buff up for it? Linda Carter was not buff, she was busty. And so is Charisma Carpenter. Buff or toned is like Ms. Alias, Jennifer Gardner. To me, she isn't Elektra.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  120. Re:Good God by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 0

    "You guys really do need to find a girlfriend."

    My girlfriend and I both watch(ed) "Buffy" and "Angel." She also likes videogames and is bi. Beat that, fanboy playa hater... What's that? I think your mommy is telling you to get off the computer... :)

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  121. Let's be real... by FireballFreddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A Willow spinoff wouldn't work. Believe me, I love Alyson Hannigan but I don't think she could hold her own as the lead role. (Does anybody else want to scream "Blow your nose!" when she's talking?) Faith couldn't pull it off either... Eliza Dushku is mega-hot but anybody who has watched her new show should agree that her acting is often painful. Xander... please. Couldn't possibly build a show off that character. Tony Head has the best acting skills of them all but let's face it, Giles spent most of the battles knocked out. Now that he's even older, how exactly is he going to kick ass in true Buffy/Angel style? It'd be like watching Star Trek Generations all over again... a bunch of old farts scrabbling around on rocks.

    On the topic of Buffy characters, I wouldn't mind seeing Amber Benson and Emma Caulfield pop onto the set of Angel. Heavenly helpers and all. But I suppose they already played that with Cordy. *shrug* And did anybody else feel guilty watching the preview for Eurotrip when Michelle Trachtenberg yanks off her shirt? Although I suppose she's old enough now that I don't have to feel *too* guilty. :)

    But back to the subject, the end of Buffy and Angel is the end of an era. Two of my all-time favorite shows down the tubes. Sad.

    But I have to admit, I'd have sacrificed them both anyway to get a few more episodes of Firefly. ;)

    -FF

    --
    SQUEAK, the Death of Rats explained.
  122. iTMS? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
    If they promised to use quicktime could apple start something like this? But realize that 5% of your bill would only pay for 20 hours of programming a week. that's a lot of empty TV!! But your right that a subscription model would work, say $15-20 per season/show..perhaps on TV with rights to download?

    iTMS has got everything you just asked for already in place...mini-payment structure, accounts, ratings...assisting procucers making a show would be the next logical step. I bet Steve Jobs could even find them a prominant customer to kick it off who's pissed off at a large distributor???? They even have that iMovie program to burn your movies to disc!!!

  123. STUPID NIELSENS! by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Check it out for yourself. 5,100 homes tyrannically decide what we watch on television here in America. Bland, unsophisticated, dumbed down crap thanks to these fools:

    http://www.nielsenmedia.com/

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    1. Re:STUPID NIELSENS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if we could find out who the Nielsen families are and well, kill them. Would this be bad or wrong?

    2. Re:STUPID NIELSENS! by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "I wonder if we could find out who the Nielsen families are and well, kill them. Would this be bad or wrong?"

      I mentioned in a different thread that that could be the basis for an Angel episode in Season 6. A wacked out fanboy gets a list (from a supernatural source) of Nielsen families and systematically wipes them out because of the countless number of television shows he loved but were prematurely cancelled. Team Angel has to come in and save the day even after much soul searching (pun intended).

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  124. Hate to say it.. by Outland+Traveller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This should be obvious, but the show should have been killed a few seasons ago.

    I'm a big fan of JW (Woohoo Firefly!) and I followed Angel closely for many seasons. However, this show jumped the shark for me when Angel's son come into the picture. At the end of that season (which had some very strong supporting characters with Holtz and assistant) I found myself hoping ardently that Angel would die, that someone would kill him.

    The Angel character was tired, completely eclipsed by the cast around him both in writing and in acting ability. Seeing him week after week eventually became too painful and I had to stop watching.

    Best Angel moments:

    - Spike's mocking monologue as he watches Angel talk to a would-be client

    - Almost everything involving the Wolfram&Hart firm, especially scenes with Lyla, and the "evil hand" scene.

    - The Holtz character

    - Their cool run-down ex-hotel.

    - The Kate policewoman character from the early seasons.

    Worst Angel moments:

    - In the first few seaons, every 3 or 4 episodes would feature gratuitously underdressed women for no plot-purpose.

    - Charisma Carpenter got really annoying to listen to and to look at after a few seasons.

    - David Boreanaz writing and acting level got really annoying to listen to and watch after a few seasons.

    - Without fail, all of the strong, complex supporting characters and foils were killed off while the more one-dimensional, less interesting characters stuck around.

  125. Mixed Feelings by NaCl · · Score: 1

    First time I heard of a Buffy's spinoff, I was happy not to see Angel in Buffy anymore. Back then I thought I could enjoy my favorite tv serie without that boring vampire.

    But, amazingly, the Angel show developed, slowly, it's true, to something with its own life. Where else I could find a demon karaoke?

    I think the comic side of Angel is great, but the adventure side is almost comic.

    RIP!

    --
    I shot the sheriff
  126. You people are clueless by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2, Funny


    Angel, Firefly, ______(fill in the blank), rabid fanbase, show is profitable, they're all killed. Why? The shows do not attract the type of viewer (stupid teens) that attract big time advertisers.

    Now you want to start a new show, based on a character from a show that failed to attract the desired advertiser demographic. What is wrong with this picture? As an intellectually snobbish geek, I must say I am embarrassed by the stupidity of your proposal.

    Lets sit in on a hypothetical studio meeting discussing a Willow spinoff by network executives who are as stupid as you:

    (*ACTION*)

    CHIEF EXEC: We need new shows that will attract most of the 18-25 year olds in the country, so we have advertisers beating down our doors to give us money!

    EXEC #1: I know! Buffy was the most popular show among the 30-45 year old age group when it ended. If we create a spinoff show based on the Willow character, we can attract all those OLD fans. That will chase those advertisers away...

    EXEC #2: And Alyson Hannigan will be turning 30 this year. She's already starred in a movie where she gets married. Yeah, all those teenaged boys lust after aged women. And all those teenaged girls will tune so they can get tips on how to appear as matronly as Willow. (Or how to appear as an adult behaving like a ditzy immature girl.) After all, teenaged girls want to desired by teenaged boys more than anything. Everyone knows that only middle-aged men lust after Britney Spears. (Yuk.)

    CHIEF EXEC: Great idea! Let's put that show into production. In two years, spend millions of dollars, we can lock up the entire 30-45 audience, and no advertiser will pay for that show!

    (*CUT*)

    Congratulations. You have just demonstrated you are even more stupid than TV executives.

    But fret not. I think there is a potential scenario where there could be a Willow spinoff. Since you've demonstrated how mentally challenged you are, let me spell it out for you:

    (*ACTION*)

    CHIEF EXEC: We need new shows that will attract most of the 18-25 year olds in the country, so we have advertisers beating down our doors to give us money!

    EXEC #1: I know! Buffy was the most popular show among the 30-45 year old age group when it ended. We'll create a spinoff show based on the Willow character!

    CHIEF EXEC: Are you a total moron?!?! The only audience it will attract are the rabid AGED fans we don't give a damn about. We'll go bankrupt!

    EXEC #1: Not if its properly executed! We can't have those crappy writers from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Subtle humor, metaphors to adult crisis, sharp dialogue, good plots, long story arcs; they can only attract mediocre old people with the attention span to appreciate that sort of crap.

    No, we'll hire all those writers from "Sabrina the Teenaged Witch"! Vacuous comedy, inane, irrelevant plots. That show did rather well in the teenaged & pre-teen audiences. And best of all, they're out of work now, we'll get them for a song...

    CHIEF EXEC: You talk a good game, but there's no way Alyson Hannigan will appeal to kids. My God, she's already taking roles as a married woman.

    EXEC #2: Chief, don't worry about that. We'll just make Hannigan the head crone of the coven. We'll hire really young actresses to play the buxom, sexually dripping, apprentice witches. We'll keep shifting all the script plots and lines to focus on the young hotties. Its done on all those sucessful shows. Remember "Party of Five" started out focusing on the older sister, what's that crone's name... Nieve Campbell. But then they put on Jennifer Love Hewitt. Ratings skyrocketed. Campbell disappeared, and nobody noticed.

    EXEC #3: Why don't we hire Jennifer Love Hewitt instead of Alyson Hannigan?

    EXEC #2: Nah, we already have a head crone. We have to hire Alyson as the head crone because teenagers are incredibly stupid viewers. They're don't have the intellectual capacity of imagining Jenni

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  127. Seriously by brocktoon · · Score: 1

    Seriously, why is this topic on ./

  128. Wrong. Just a chicken. by Kwil · · Score: 1

    Chicken and egg implies one thing can't exist without the other.

    You *can* watch the shows, crap and all. You choose not to. TV companies cannot make a good product consistently and frequently without somebody telling them what's good and what's not.

    You said it yourself.. good restaurants get your business often, but bad ones get it a single time. Yet here you are saying you don't even give the TV companies the single time.

    Which basically means, you don't get to choose between the good and the bad, that's unfortunately left up to the population that actually watches TV. Too bad for us that they seem to like The Bachelor and American Idol over shows with quality.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    1. Re:Wrong. Just a chicken. by anagama · · Score: 1

      "chicken and egg" implies that it is hard to know which came first, not that both must exist. Present existence of both is presumed - historical precedence is the real question. However, here is a Tongue in cheek solution to that age old dilema.

      • You said it yourself.. good restaurants get your business often, but bad ones get it a single time. Yet here you are saying you don't even give the TV companies the single time.

      Actually, I left out the part in which I could have explained that before 1990 I was a TV junkie, as in "wake up Sunday morning and sit around in my pajamas ALL day flipping channels feeling bored and frustrated" type of TV junkie. I gave TV a hell of a good chance to show me something good. It didn't and I decided not to waste my life.

      Besides, if a sci-fi show comes out, I'll get reviews here on Slashdot. If it sounds compelling, I could watch at a friend's place. Doesn't happen often - I get in about less than 3 hrs of television per year (not counting DVDs of course).

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  129. Phew.. by tobe · · Score: 1

    For a minute I thought it said 'Dark Angel'..

  130. Only from the mouth of a geek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "OT: heck, remember when the choice wasn't whether you could watch Science Fiction on TV, but what kind? Friday nights were nerdvana for a while. Farscape, Dark Angel, Invisible Man, G vs E, etc, etc."

    For most people, "Friday nights" and "nirvana" won't appear in the same sentence as "SCIENCE FICTION" :)

    1. Re:Only from the mouth of a geek by mbourgon · · Score: 1

      Hence "Nerdvana". And I'm out with my friends on Fridays, so everything has to be taped anyhow.

      --
      "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
  131. Angel was lame..... by heffrey · · Score: 1

    .....his hair went straight up and he was bloody stupid.

  132. God dammit! by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

    It's MY FAULT!

    Every lane I get into slows down, and every show I like gets CANCELLED!

    Sliders
    Witchblade
    Special Unit 2
    Angel
    etc...

    /*sigh*

  133. Re:jesus christ you soapopera watching faggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're obviously one to be telling people to "get a life" and calling them "idiotic".

    And what, pray tell, is "oilslick-like" supposed to mean? Particularly coming from a pond-scum-like individual like yourself? :)

    Go back to your mom's basement, and keep your childish cussing and derogatory words to yourself, kid.

  134. Online Petitions by Darth23 · · Score: 1

    For anyone interested. They're probably redundant - the first one has more sigs right now. http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi? ai5d0162 http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-si gn.cgi?angels6

    --

    -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

  135. Re:jesus christ you soapopera watching faggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    watching soaps is not idiotic. lol!

  136. The colors! AAAAAARGGH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who makes a website with dark yellow and charcoal gray text on nearly-black burgundy needs to have their eyeballs taken by a melon-baller.

  137. GOOD! by ivanmarsh · · Score: 1

    Angel was taking up a really good time slot for yet another infomercial about people's reaking feet, or miricle food processing device that can replace a two dollar knife.

  138. Re:jesus christ you soapopera watching faggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I moderated this insightful, and was then metamoderated as unfair... I agree, these shows suck.