|
|
Post by deborah on Feb 16, 2004 11:14:34 GMT -5
WB decides it's time for 'Angel' to fly away
Sun Feb 15, 7:00 PM ET
JOSEF ADALIAN
(Variety) This "Angel" has gone to heaven.
The WB has opted not to renew the Joss Whedon-produced drama "Angel" for a sixth season. Frog topper Jordan Levin informed Whedon of the decision to cancel the skein Thursday night.
Move on the surface is a head-scratcher. Twentieth Century Fox TV-produced skein is the net's second highest-rated hour among viewers 18-34 (behind lead-in "Smallville") and fourth among auds 12-34. Its numbers have been solid this year, even against brutal competish on Wednesday night and in a year in which the WB is experiencing double-digit Nielsen declines.
But Frog execs are also facing the reality of an aging sked, with skeins such as "Charmed," "7th Heaven" and "Gilmore Girls" potentially facing final seasons next year.
Levin also said the rapidly changing economics of network television played a big role in the decision to end "Angel." Skein doesn't repeat well, and Levin anticipates having to double run one or more dramas in primetime next season --- as well as add more reality programs to the Frog's mix.
"We have a lot of veteran shows that are aging, and we're going to have to make room for new programs," Levin said. "I know this will make lots of fans unhappy. But we have to have more at-bats, and we need to create timeslots where we can repeat shows (the same week episodes premiere.)"
"This isn't about the WB bailing out on one of its top shows," Levin added. "The show had a loyal core following, but it didn't have a tremendous amount of new audience upside."
All parties involved said the cost of the show itself was not the central factor in the decision to cancel "Angel." The WB made waves three years ago when it decided to part ways with Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" after a squabble with 20th over its license fee.
Whedon said that while he understands the business part of the decision, he's nonetheless "heartbroken."
"I thought that if a show was really good and doing really well (in the ratings), it was renewed," scribe said. "I was apparently misinformed."
Whatever the intricacies of the Frog's business model, Whedon said the decision to axe "Angel" doesn't seem logical.
"I do understand the business of it," he said. "But to me, when they're scrambling to hold on to their audience, their revenue, their dignity, it doesn't seem the best decision. And it's certainly not the classiest."
"If there's no place for quality in the equation, I don't know why we're here," Whedon added.
Dana Walden, prexy of 20th, said she understands the WB's point of view, even if she's disappointed by the net's decision.
"I can see their perspective. Jordan has been very honest about the decision-making process," Walden said. "(But) when a show works on your air, you have to find ways to keep it there. Shame on all of us for not finding a way.... There are a lot of disappointed fans."
Levin said he and Whedon started talking about the show's future a few weeks ago, right around the time of the show's 100th episode party. Conversations about the changing state of the TV business left open the possibility that "Angel" --- despite its creative and ratings strength --- might not be a slam-dunk to return.
"He said he wanted to protect his cast and crew, and asked if I could let them know sooner rather than later," Levin said. "These are usually decisions you wait until the last minute to make. But after 'Dawson's Creek,' I saw how important closure was for a cast, and given Joss' request, I owed him (an early decision.) It was a very bittersweet parting and an end of an era for us," Levin added. "I have the ultimate respect for Joss as someone who created two landmark series and stood behind them the whole time."
Because ratings and reviews have been solid for "Angel" this season, Whedon said his cast and crew were "stunned" when he broke the news to them Friday. "Nobody saw this coming," he said.
On the positive side, with casting season just heating up, the show's thesps will now have time to line up projects for next season.
Whedon said he and "Angel" exec producer-showrunner Jeff Bell have already mapped out the series finale, which Bell is slated to helm. Whedon continues to explore the possibility of a feature based on his short-lived Fox skein "Firefly."
As for "Angel," Whedon said he was glad the show passed the 100 episode milestone, and grateful to Walden and 20th prexy Gary Newman for their support during a two-year frame that saw the natural end of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Firefly" and now the end of "Angel."
While there's already talk of some "Angel" telepics, Whedon said it's too soon for him to imagine such a possibility.
"All we have left on 'Angel' is to end the season with episodes as strong and meaningful as we can muster," Whedon said. "But then, we were going to do that anyway."
"Angel," which starred David Boreanaz (news) as a vampire with a soul, was created by Whedon and David Greenwalt.
Copyright © 2003 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. Variety is a registered trademark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. and used under license. All Rights Reserved.
emotional state: rushed
back to top
Comments
harmonyfb
2/16/04, 03:21 pm
leave a message after the beep Link
This makes no sense whatsoever. It's the second-highest rated show in the "plenty of disposable income" age range, and yet they're going to axe it because...why? It's "mature"? They want stupider shows? More tits? Who the fuck knows?
I won't be watching that network after Angel's off the air, I can tell you.
back to top
wisteria_
2/16/04, 03:31 pm
leave a message after the beep Link
This line offers a more plausible (albeit still stupid) explanation:
But Frog execs are also facing the reality of an aging sked, with skeins such as "Charmed," "7th Heaven" and "Gilmore Girls" potentially facing final seasons next year.
So, basically, they're looking at all their hourlong dramas (except maybe Everwood) having only one year left, and they don't want to face them ALL ending at the same time. Angel's ratings were marginally better than the others', but they were all still quite low. I wouldn't be surprised if the others were still under contract for next season, whereas Angel's contract was over, making it the easiest of the shows to axe.
Very little about all this crap makes any sense whatsoever, but if Levin had come out and said it in those terms, I could've kinda sorta understood the business angle of the decision. Instead, he has to make it all about "finding a new direction" and "going out on top". What-the-hell-ever.
back to top
leave a message after the beep 2 comments
|
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 16, 2004 11:29:21 GMT -5
WB decides it's time for 'Angel' to fly away Sun Feb 15, 7:00 PM ET JOSEF ADALIAN (Variety) This "Angel" has gone to heaven. The WB has opted not to renew the Joss Whedon-produced drama "Angel" for a sixth season. Frog topper Jordan Levin informed Whedon of the decision to cancel the skein Thursday night. Move on the surface is a head-scratcher. Twentieth Century Fox TV-produced skein is the net's second highest-rated hour among viewers 18-34 (behind lead-in "Smallville") and fourth among auds 12-34. Its numbers have been solid this year, even against brutal competish on Wednesday night and in a year in which the WB is experiencing double-digit Nielsen declines. But Frog execs are also facing the reality of an aging sked, with skeins such as "Charmed," "7th Heaven" and "Gilmore Girls" potentially facing final seasons next year. Levin also said the rapidly changing economics of network television played a big role in the decision to end "Angel." Skein doesn't repeat well, and Levin anticipates having to double run one or more dramas in primetime next season --- as well as add more reality programs to the Frog's mix. "We have a lot of veteran shows that are aging, and we're going to have to make room for new programs," Levin said. "I know this will make lots of fans unhappy. But we have to have more at-bats, and we need to create timeslots where we can repeat shows (the same week episodes premiere.)" "This isn't about the WB bailing out on one of its top shows," Levin added. "The show had a loyal core following, but it didn't have a tremendous amount of new audience upside." All parties involved said the cost of the show itself was not the central factor in the decision to cancel "Angel." The WB made waves three years ago when it decided to part ways with Whedon's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" after a squabble with 20th over its license fee. Whedon said that while he understands the business part of the decision, he's nonetheless "heartbroken." "I thought that if a show was really good and doing really well (in the ratings), it was renewed," scribe said. "I was apparently misinformed." Whatever the intricacies of the Frog's business model, Whedon said the decision to axe "Angel" doesn't seem logical. "I do understand the business of it," he said. "But to me, when they're scrambling to hold on to their audience, their revenue, their dignity, it doesn't seem the best decision. And it's certainly not the classiest." "If there's no place for quality in the equation, I don't know why we're here," Whedon added. Dana Walden, prexy of 20th, said she understands the WB's point of view, even if she's disappointed by the net's decision. "I can see their perspective. Jordan has been very honest about the decision-making process," Walden said. "(But) when a show works on your air, you have to find ways to keep it there. Shame on all of us for not finding a way.... There are a lot of disappointed fans." Levin said he and Whedon started talking about the show's future a few weeks ago, right around the time of the show's 100th episode party. Conversations about the changing state of the TV business left open the possibility that "Angel" --- despite its creative and ratings strength --- might not be a slam-dunk to return. "He said he wanted to protect his cast and crew, and asked if I could let them know sooner rather than later," Levin said. "These are usually decisions you wait until the last minute to make. But after 'Dawson's Creek,' I saw how important closure was for a cast, and given Joss' request, I owed him (an early decision.) It was a very bittersweet parting and an end of an era for us," Levin added. "I have the ultimate respect for Joss as someone who created two landmark series and stood behind them the whole time." Because ratings and reviews have been solid for "Angel" this season, Whedon said his cast and crew were "stunned" when he broke the news to them Friday. "Nobody saw this coming," he said. On the positive side, with casting season just heating up, the show's thesps will now have time to line up projects for next season. Whedon said he and "Angel" exec producer-showrunner Jeff Bell have already mapped out the series finale, which Bell is slated to helm. Whedon continues to explore the possibility of a feature based on his short-lived Fox skein "Firefly." As for "Angel," Whedon said he was glad the show passed the 100 episode milestone, and grateful to Walden and 20th prexy Gary Newman for their support during a two-year frame that saw the natural end of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Firefly" and now the end of "Angel." While there's already talk of some "Angel" telepics, Whedon said it's too soon for him to imagine such a possibility. "All we have left on 'Angel' is to end the season with episodes as strong and meaningful as we can muster," Whedon said. "But then, we were going to do that anyway." "Angel," which starred David Boreanaz (news) as a vampire with a soul, was created by Whedon and David Greenwalt. Copyright © 2003 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. Variety is a registered trademark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. and used under license. All Rights Reserved. emotional state: rushed back to top Comments harmonyfb 2/16/04, 03:21 pm leave a message after the beep Link This makes no sense whatsoever. It's the second-highest rated show in the "plenty of disposable income" age range, and yet they're going to axe it because...why? It's "mature"? They want stupider shows? More tits? Who the fuck knows? I won't be watching that network after Angel's off the air, I can tell you. back to top wisteria_ 2/16/04, 03:31 pm leave a message after the beep Link This line offers a more plausible (albeit still stupid) explanation: But Frog execs are also facing the reality of an aging sked, with skeins such as "Charmed," "7th Heaven" and "Gilmore Girls" potentially facing final seasons next year. So, basically, they're looking at all their hourlong dramas (except maybe Everwood) having only one year left, and they don't want to face them ALL ending at the same time. Angel's ratings were marginally better than the others', but they were all still quite low. I wouldn't be surprised if the others were still under contract for next season, whereas Angel's contract was over, making it the easiest of the shows to axe. Very little about all this crap makes any sense whatsoever, but if Levin had come out and said it in those terms, I could've kinda sorta understood the business angle of the decision. Instead, he has to make it all about "finding a new direction" and "going out on top". What-the-hell-ever. back to top leave a message after the beep 2 comments Lordy - what language was this article first written in? Who translated it? That is some strange wording. OK - had to get that out of my system. Thanks, deb, for posting this. It is depressing not to hear one word from Joss suggesting there is even a prayer of renewal on the WB or elsewhere. Maybe it is somehow smarter, business-wise, for him to play it cool, and hope that his phone starts ringing - I mean, it may be smart for him to act like he's resigned to ending it, and not eager for an offer. I don't know this business, so I don't know what to think, but am trying not to get too upset about how final and resigned Joss sounds - in the article above, and in his BronzeBeta post. |
|
|
|
Post by Dev(Rob) on Feb 16, 2004 11:47:33 GMT -5
Poor Joss - at least this article offers a little more explanation!
|
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Feb 16, 2004 12:00:43 GMT -5
Lordy - what language was this article first written in? Who translated it? That is some strange wording. OK - had to get that out of my system. Thanks, deb, for posting this. It is depressing not to hear one word from Joss suggesting there is even a prayer of renewal on the WB or elsewhere. Maybe it is somehow smarter, business-wise, for him to play it cool, and hope that his phone starts ringing - I mean, it may be smart for him to act like he's resigned to ending it, and not eager for an offer. I don't know this business, so I don't know what to think, but am trying not to get too upset about how final and resigned Joss sounds - in the article above, and in his BronzeBeta post. Again, short of bable fish and translator microbes, I present this link, which I saw earlier today on BuffyGuide/Watcher's Diary in a reply from poster"Rob" www.acrobat-services.com/modfest/slanguage.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 27, 2005 18:29:54 GMT -5
Posted by deborah:
Here's an article featured on Buffy.nu today:
Making sense of the Angel rumors
From Moviehole.net - 2004-05-12th
According to Aint it Cool, news about "Angel" moving to NBC might have been a bit premature. The site contacted an anonymous source who shed some light on the situation. “I wish it were true, but it’s a steaming pile of BS. The sets have been struck, the writers are on new shows, etc. Joss is very focused on SERENITY which starts shooting in three weeks.”
There is good news though. James Marsters recently told reporters that he could be spraying the hair white again for a ‘Spike’ Spin-off. We heard from a reliable source overnight who backed up this one.
“It’s about the only thing that’s likely to happen at this stage. Marsters is pretty keen to keep on being Spike. You can’t blame, it’s a cool character. They’re looking at shaping the telemovies around him, only because Boreanaz isn’t that interested, not because Spike’s the more appealing option.”
According to ‘Tabasco’, the telemovie might happen before the end of the year - but not as early as September as previously rumoured. “Best case scenario for everyone: telemovies go off, Spike gets a series. Whedon’s taking a break at the moment though, so don’t expect anything official for a couple of months”.
Meanwhile, J.August Richards [‘Gunn’] is testing for a plum role movie role, according to his official site.
*******************************************
Damn & Blast! The ***##//**#!!! board ate my post! Whimper, bitch & moan. Here's a much abbreviated version of what I'd originally taken a good deal of time and trouble trying to say.
That is, that I almost hope that no Spike spin-off or Spikecentric movie removed from the AtS/BtVSverse ever gets made. I hope James will think long and hard before jumping back into Spike.
Joss says he has many more stories on AtS to tell. Fine. Wonderful. I'd love for him to have the opportunity to tell them, whether as MOTW or feature films, and I'd dearly love to see them; stories that continue where the series leaves off, with many if not all of the core characters, that continue to explore its themes and that will tie up any of the series' dangling plot threads. I'd feel relatively confident about any project in the near future that has Joss firmly at the helm and any additional writing in the capable hands of an ME writer(s); one who knows Spike, the other characters, the mythology and history of the 'verse inside and out.
But the last thing that I want to see is for my most beloved character Spike to whither and die in some removed construct designed to capitalize on his popularity and milk it for all the milage it's worth. That would be a tragic ending for such an exceptional character. As it is, some would have preferred that he had never been resurrected on AtS. But at least there he was in the same verse and in the company of a main character with whom he shared a long established history. I dread Spike being out and about in the world on his own, removed from the AtS story in something entirely new. It just seems like too risky a proposition. What if it sucks? It doesn't even have to suck; being merely okay or reasonably good would be enough to crumble and diminish his reputation and memory of (not to mention seriously f**k with fanfic) in the hearts and minds of fans and critics alike. While as it now, his place is secured and fixed in tapes, DVDs and in a myriad of other sources springing from his vast popularity. Keep him safe forever and move on.
I want to see JM take on and shine in other roles in other projects. I want the world to recognize him as the brilliant actor he is. I want to see what else he can do. I want to see the acting James that is More Than Spike. And I want Spike to stay the Spike we know and love forever.
deborah
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 27, 2005 18:31:32 GMT -5
Posted by Diane:Here's an article featured on Buffy.nu today: Making sense of the Angel rumors From Moviehole.net - 2004-05-12th According to Aint it Cool, news about "Angel" moving to NBC might have been a bit premature. The site contacted an anonymous source who shed some light on the situation. “I wish it were true, but it’s a steaming pile of BS. The sets have been struck, the writers are on new shows, etc. Joss is very focused on SERENITY which starts shooting in three weeks.” There is good news though. James Marsters recently told reporters that he could be spraying the hair white again for a ‘Spike’ Spin-off. We heard from a reliable source overnight who backed up this one. “It’s about the only thing that’s likely to happen at this stage. Marsters is pretty keen to keep on being Spike. You can’t blame, it’s a cool character. They’re looking at shaping the telemovies around him, only because Boreanaz isn’t that interested, not because Spike’s the more appealing option.” According to ‘Tabasco’, the telemovie might happen before the end of the year - but not as early as September as previously rumoured. “Best case scenario for everyone: telemovies go off, Spike gets a series. Whedon’s taking a break at the moment though, so don’t expect anything official for a couple of months”. Meanwhile, J.August Richards [‘Gunn’] is testing for a plum role movie role, according to his official site. ******************************************* Damn & Blast! The ***##//**#!!! board ate my post! Whimper, bitch & moan. Here's a much abbreviated version of what I'd originally taken a good deal of time and trouble trying to say. That is, that I almost hope that no Spike spin-off or Spikecentric movie removed from the AtS/BtVSverse ever gets made. I hope James will think long and hard before jumping back into Spike. Joss says he has many more stories on AtS to tell. Fine. Wonderful. I'd love for him to have the opportunity to tell them, whether as MOTW or feature films, and I'd dearly love to see them; stories that continue where the series leaves off, with many if not all of the core characters, that continue to explore its themes and that will tie up any of the series' dangling plot threads. I'd feel relatively confident about any project in the near future that has Joss firmly at the helm and any additional writing in the capable hands of an ME writer(s); one who knows Spike, the other characters, the mythology and history of the 'verse inside and out. But the last thing that I want to see is for my most beloved character Spike to whither and die in some removed construct designed to capitalize on his popularity and milk it for all the milage it's worth. That would be a tragic ending for such an exceptional character. As it is, some would have preferred that he had never been resurrected on AtS. But at least there he was in the same verse and in the company of a main character with whom he shared a long established history. I dread Spike being out and about in the world on his own, removed from the AtS story in something entirely new. It just seems like too risky a proposition. What if it sucks? It doesn't even have to suck; being merely okay or reasonably good would be enough to crumble and diminish his reputation and memory of (not to mention seriously f**k with fanfic) in the hearts and minds of fans and critics alike. While as it now, his place is secured and fixed in tapes, DVDs and in a myriad of other sources springing from his vast popularity. Keep him safe forever and move on. I want to see JM take on and shine in other roles in other projects. I want the world to recognize him as the brilliant actor he is. I want to see what else he can do. I want to see the acting James that is More Than Spike. And I want Spike to stay the Spike we know and love forever. deborah While acknowledging the validity of your fears, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here, Deb. Angel survived transplanting from Buffy to his own series. The stories were different, but the series was wonderful. Spike also has successfully survived transplantation from one show (Buffy) to another (Angel.) Why wouldn't he survive a second shift, this time to his own series? I don't trust Joss to give us happy endings or anything other than angish and suffering--but I DO trust him to give us rip-roaring good stories. I think that if JM is willing to continue doing the character (and those fight scenes can get brutal after one turns 40) we can safely assume that JW (who is apparently constitutionally incapable of producing schlock TV) will find a venue worthy of him. I say GO FOR IT!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 27, 2005 18:33:31 GMT -5
Posted by deborah:buffy.nu/article.php3?id_article=4124Angel is not coming back, not as the series we now know From Eonline.com - By Kristin Veitch - 2004-04-16th Fan Fervor Runneth Over to Save Angel--See If All Your Energy Paid Off I used to consider myself the most die-hard TV fan on the planet. It was a badge I wore with pride, sorta like my "I heart Bo & Luke Duke" T-shirt back in the good ol’ days of the good ol’ boys. (Sigh.) But you "Save Angel" folks put me to shame. This week, even though we asked readers to send in questions for the huuugest show on television right now, The Apprentice (those answers are coming Tuesday), you Angel fans still managed to send in more queries than people asking what the bejesus is up with the Donald’s hair. And that’s saying You’ve written letters. You’ve sent flowers. You’ve organized blood drives and food drives and candy-bar drives and truck drive-by drives. You’ve raised thousands for ads in the Hollywood Reporter and Variety and given the show more publicity in a month than it received in five years at the WB. Your fervor amazes me...and it breaks my heart. For weeks now, I’ve been trying to break it to you gently that, sadly, there is no promising news about the fate of Angel. And still, you keep asking. And asking. And asking. To the point where I want to cry because I so badly wish I had something good say. Instead, I think I’ll just tell you the truth on where Angel stands. I’ve spent considerable time over the past few weeks talking to network, studio and production insiders, as well as a few of the actors (we’ll get to them below), and I can tell you this with a fair amount of certainty: Angel is not coming back. At least not as the weekly TV series we now know and love. It sucks, and it’s wretched and wrong. But the sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can move on. Now, I know from my dear friend Mary that a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, so here are two of the sweetest people I know (no dookie) to give it to you straight. "It’s over," James Marsters (Spike) told me Wednesday. "And we’ve known for a while. It was a shock. I’ve never in my wildest dreams thought they would do that. But it’s their game, their football, and it seems they want to pass it to someone else." An emotional Amy Acker (Fred) also weighed in Thursday before going to set for her final day of shooting. "I guess they had just sort of decided the cancellation was for good, at a point. So, it seems so sad all these people were working so hard and nothing happened. The whole thing has been so sweet, and we all have been like, ’Oh maybe it will work!’ But it seems like they’re pretty set in their way." That’s the consensus I’ve gotten from various sources -- the WB suits aren’t changing their minds on Angel. Though the cancellation seemed like a whack-job, crack-induced whim to us fans, Frog net insiders tell me the higher-ups feel strongly that Angel had "limited moneymaking potential," due to limited advertising revenue and what they consider to be a substantial budget. The fan base is clearly devoted, but these bigwigs see little hope of that audience expanding. The final stake through Angel’s heart? Dark Shadows, that remade vampire series the bigwigs believe to have "vast potential." Presumably, the man behind it is John Wells (ER, West Wing). If J.W. created a series about three young witches or, say, a reverend’s family, things may have been different. Meanwhile, UPN and Fox have both passed on Angel. UPN has a strict new edict not to pick up "other networks’ scraps" (the same message given to the producers of Wonderfalls, though when you read on you’ll find some promising news on that). And even if they did want these "scraps," quite frankly they can’t afford ’em. As for Fox, well, one look at its midseason lineup and you know they’re going for a slightly different angle than quality scripted television. Littlest Groom, anyone? I’m told the feeling on set is not morose these days--but rather like graduation. Though it’s been rip-out-your-heart difficult, the actors are learning to accept the show’s fate and move on. "I’m used to things being over," James said. "Coming from theater, I’m used to plays being wonderful or less than wonderful, and even if they’re fabulous, they do have to come to an end. And you kind of come to a point where you’re at peace with that." And I can’t help but mention that David Boreanaz seemed ready to move on before the show was even canceled: "I’m really itching to explore other characters and do other projects," he told me in January. "I think I’ve been stuck in this medical school for a while, and I need to open up and get out." Not so much the case for Amy. She admits she’s the weepy one. "I just keep crying, and everyone is like, ’Stop it! Or I’ll cry, too.’ It’s hard because last Friday was Alexis’ last night, and yesterday was Andy’s last day. And today will be everyone’s. It’s hard to imagine you won’t be spending 12 hours a day with them anymore." All that said, you Save Angel folks, please, for the love of TiVo, do not despair. Though the campaign might not have accomplished exactly what we’d hoped, James points out that it managed to do something else truly magnificent. "It may not have saved the show," he explained, "but what it does for the entire cast and crew is give us a little pop as we go out. Everyone takes notice that we connected well enough with the audience to give them that passion...And I have to tell you, it feels so good. After all these years of, frankly, battling time and money and always having to give up what you were planning to do and getting frustrated, at the end of it, to see everyone really going out of their way to try and save it, it just feels really, really good. So, big warm vampire fuzzies over here. It really took the sting out of getting canceled." And really, after five years of stellar television, it seems the least we could do, no? "I just want to say to the fans, thank you," Amy says. "I think that [Save Angel] has been so awesome and it has made us feel better when we’ve all been so sad. For people to come up and say, ’Did you hear there’s a rally today?’ or ’I saw the big poster today.’ That has been as comforting as it could ever be." Still, the best news is this: According to sources, the finale is supremely open-ended (Amy says it "opens new doors" and "doesn’t tie up any strings" , and I hear the Powers That Be at the WB have approached Joss Whedon about doing at least a movie-of-the-week or two (possibly as many as six) next season--thanks in large part to the folks at Save Angel. "I think a Buffy movie is more likely to happen now," James said, "and they may be given better budgets, seeing this kind of interest, because there’s a feeling that there’s a guaranteed audience. So, the effort that I’ve seen, it is not in vain." Rumor Patrol: While we’re in the mood for telling it like it is when it comes to Angel, we should address a few more burning Q’s for any and all conspiracy theorists. 1. Sarah Michelle Gellar isn’t evil, just busy. She truly wanted to guest but couldn’t make it back in time for episode 21, because she was shooting a movie in Japan and had commitments to Scooby-Doo. Sarah said she was available to do episode 22, but Joss already knew exactly what he wanted to do for the finale (and it sounds genius). They then tried to reverse the shooting of the two episodes, but it was logistically impossible to get everything together in time. (Joss hadn’t even written the script.) So, put simply, it didn’t work out. 2. Alyson Hannigan, Michelle Trachtenberg and Sarah Michelle Gellar really are not coming back. Unless this is the mother of all foilers, and/or all my sources are bold-faced liars, these three lovelies all had to decline because of other commitments. Alyson was doing a play and a new pilot, Michelle a Disney movie, and S.M.G. had the aforementioned non-evil conflicts. 3. The finale won’t suck. Despite the surprise cancellation and guest-star disappointments, from everything I’ve heard, Joss really pulled through on the series ender. "The characters are in self-doubt and self-conflict and at each other’s throats," James said of the finale. "I really didn’t think there was any way for these characters to overcome what they were facing, frankly. And it’s really suspenseful as to whether they can or can’t. It’s gonna be bloody, and people are going to get hurt. It’s a Joss Whedon finale, man--blood and tears and death." Gulp. ********** deborah
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 27, 2005 18:50:35 GMT -5
Posted by deborah:Originally posted on main thread, I think it's worth saving here: ********************************************* I'd heard about this essay a couple days ago, but hadn't read it until now. Depressing, but illuminating. If you follow the link there's also a couple pages of comments that I didn't bother to copy. deborah www.livejournal.com/users/rosenho/216502.htmlHope (rosenho) wrote, @ 2004-02-16 08:48:00 You Never Want to be a Cult Hit If you're really, really raw over the cancellation of "Angel," you may want to skip this one. It's all about dollars and cents, and nothing to do with heart. Still, I've been thinking about the cancellation, especially since Joss Whedon issued his statement from The Chair, and I've seen more than a few people quoting Jordan Levin, grand high poobah of the WB, saying that "Angel" was a ...cult hit and DVD sales are through the roof, taking that as proof of his hypocrisy. Not so much with the hypocrisy; it's just a different language. You never, ever want the head of your network to say your show is a cult hit. Ever. People hear "hit" and think that's a good thing, but cult is the key word here. A cult hit means enough people are watching that it's going to be a bucketload of bad publicity when the network cancels the show, but not enough people are watching to actually pay for said show. The bottom line is, Whedon et al should have seen it coming when Levin mentioned cult hit and DVD sales in the same breath at the 100th episode party. Those are three key pieces of information. 1) Cult hit means niche show. Niche show means small, but devoted, audience. 2) Small but devoted audience means said audience will buy the DVDs, which don't cost multiple millions per week to produce. 3) 100th episode means they have enough episodes for a cherry syndication deal. Genre shows are always a dicey proposal, as they're always expensive to make, and they rarely bring in a big audience. Taking "Angel" for an example, my base, lowball guess is they spend $20,000 a week on Lorne's makeup *alone*, and Lorne is hardly the only demon who appears on a weekly basis. Angel's game face is probably not quite as expensive to create, but it happens regularly enough that the costs mount. People protested the "sunlight filtering" windows in Wolfram & Hart, to allow action to take place during the day on "Angel," and while that might be stupid for the story, it's brilliant for the budget. It's cheaper to shoot during the day. And none of that includes the expense of CGI rendering a vampire dusting, which would have to be done on a dusting-by-dusting basis because they render the actor into dust instead of (comparatively) replacing an actor with a CGI cloud of black spots (the way Piper's ability works on "Charmed," or any of the other innumerable weekly magic effects "Angel" employs. They're spending a shitload of money every week on the visuals alone, beyond the cost of the cast, crew, screenwriters, film, etc.. That "Angel" survived past the first season is a testament to the network's fondness for Joss Whedon and his universes. If "Angel" hadn't been Whedon's show, if it hadn't been a spin-off of another, more successful genre show, "Angel" wouldn't have lasted a year. In the first year alone, nearly the entire show was shot at night (expensive,) they had regular dustings (expensive,) and they had one lead character who morphed into his demon face when he sneezed (really expensive,) and another lead character who regularly morphed into his game face (also pretty expensive.) While DVD collections make fans happy, fans should always be wary when a genre show produces one while the show is still airing. Yes, the network is trying to turn a fast buck because there's very little overhead to the DVD sets, but the network is also trying to gauge how big that niche audience is; whether they need to hang on until that 100th episode to make their money back in syndication on their cash-sink. The WB obviously needed the 100 episode syndication deal (which tends to have better terms and better returns than the very new-fashioned short-syndication runs that start with fewer than 100 episodes,) and the DVD sales to make up for how much "Angel" costs on a weekly basis. This is why ordinary dramas like "Seventh Heaven" and "awson's Creek" run for eight or nine seasons, even though the audience is tiny: they're cheap to make, so the small audience is still big enough to pay for the show. Your "Seventh Heaven"s get cancelled not necessarily when quality drops to a subzero level, but when that small audience finally migrates to something new. A family drama doesn't require regular use of stunt people, night shoots, special effects, effects make up, pyrotechnics, etc.. The network can actually make money on a show like that while it airs, which is why we have the "awson's Creek" soundtrack, but only two seasons worth of the "awson's Creek" DVD collection. The network already made the return on its investment; they need definitive proof that that small audience will continue to pony up sixty dollars a set before they bother to produce the next DVD collection. The network understands that genre fans will buy a DVD collection; they need proof of market before releasing a collection for an ordinary drama. With all of that in mind, "Smallville" fans should probably brace themselves- there have been a lot of complaints about seeing Clark's inner-ear shot (and I happily complained when we saw it three times in one episode,) but "Smallville" has a bottom line, too. At the end of the year, when they're accounting for all their pennies, Millar & Gough have to explain the 20,000 to 40,000 dollars they spent creating that effect. It makes the accountants a lot happier if they hear, "Yes, we spent 40 big on a full-motion CGI-rendering of Clark's inner ear, but we used it in X, X, X and Y episodes." rather than "We spent 40 big on a full-motion CGI-rendering of Clark's inner ear, and we only used it once." You'll note that Clark's x-ray vision usually consists of Tom Welling concentrating really hard now- just like "Angel" and "Buffy"'s vampire-dusting effect, the X-Ray Vision effect has to be rendered for each individual use, and that's expensive. As funny as it is to viewers when yet another car bites it on the show, "Smallville"'s pyrotechnic and prop car budget alone has to be insane. Their effects budget has already been cut, once for each season, and unless the show starts pulling a 12 share and regularly beating at least one of the Big Three Networks, I don't think it's likely that "Smallville" will survive its 5th season. Like "Angel," it's just too damned expensive to produce on a weekly basis; the WB's not going to make any money until they can syndicate it and quit paying for new episodes. Fortunately for the fans, "Smallville" has a huge media history behind it, and Warner Brothers makes money when "Smallville" fans become Superman fans, when they buy Superman schwag, when they watch related Warner Brothers properties, which might stave cancellation off until 6th season, but I doubt it. The WB's already testing the market with those DVD collections, feeding us more features to make sure we buy this one. "Smallville"'s the biggest hit the WB has ever had, but it's still just a cult hit. Television may be an art form, but art's only completely pure when the artist alone is paying for its creation. As long as producers (and when I say producers, you should think writers) take networks at patrons, the patrons are always going to have the final say in how the artist spends their money. After all, Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel because he was inspired- he painted it because he was paid to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 27, 2005 18:51:23 GMT -5
Posted by Pet:Originally posted on main thread, I think it's worth saving here: ********************************************* I'd heard about this essay a couple days ago, but hadn't read it until now. Depressing, but illuminating. If you follow the link there's also a couple pages of comments that I didn't bother to copy. deborah www.livejournal.com/users/rosenho/216502.htmlHope (rosenho) wrote, @ 2004-02-16 08:48:00 You Never Want to be a Cult Hit If you're really, really raw over the cancellation of "Angel," you may want to skip this one. It's all about dollars and cents, and nothing to do with heart. Still, I've been thinking about the cancellation, especially since Joss Whedon issued his statement from The Chair, and I've seen more than a few people quoting Jordan Levin, grand high poobah of the WB, saying that "Angel" was a ...cult hit and DVD sales are through the roof, taking that as proof of his hypocrisy. Not so much with the hypocrisy; it's just a different language. <snip> Hello Deborah: I didn't want to quote your whole post, but I gotta say this was an awesome analysis of the state of affairs and gave me a good peek behind the "motivation". But I have questions for you. Cult hit but it has been going on for 5 years (7 if you count Buffy). What makes this so unmanageble for them now, at this juncture? While CGI's are expensive, I'm sure they have found and are finding expedient ways to produce them, I would think. For example, why would Charmed continue (which I do not like or watch by the way), given what you have outlined? Just the charisma between Spike and Angel alone is compelling. And "Buffyisms" have sunk into the American culture and is "of the good". You can always tell a fan when they tell you something is "unmixy". Heh! What are your thoughts about other networks picking up Angel , or even a Spike spinoff. I'm not a Smallville fan--haven't even watched on epi all the way through, so no clue on the effect of a middle ear thingie, although I do understand what you've said about the FX. What about Dark Shadows? Can't imagine another vampire show without the special FX. Is it just the cost? I read a JM interview where JM was approached by Jonathan whatsisname of the original Dark Shadows where he told him that he was now the best vampire out there and congratulated him. Hmmm. Bringing Spike on board has increased numbers, not dramatically, but in the cult sense, yeah, which has increased DVD sales. But if I understand you, DVD sales are just a way to scoop up more revenue to make up a whole in the budget. Given the 3 pieces of information you outlined, it would seem these are pluses to continue. So, are we dealing with more political, etc., factors here? Comments on this concerning the Spike addition please. Understand that I am a Spike fanatic and would not like to see that character leave the screen, so it fuels the frantic "shrill of hysteria in my voice." Heh! You may have already answered some of my questions if I read over what you said again very carefully, but I'm in denial. Thanks again for this, pet. Pet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 27, 2005 18:52:31 GMT -5
Posted by deborah:www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040217/APN/402170872The WB cancels supernatural drama 'Angel' By ANTHONY BREZNICAN AP Entertainment Writer LOS ANGELES -- The WB has done what no vampire slayer could: It killed "Angel," the do-gooder bloodsucker with a soul. WB network executives announced their cancellation decision earlier than usual to give series creator Joss Whedon, who spun off the supernatural comedy-thriller from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," a chance to prepare for a grand finale. "Angel" stars David Boreanaz as an 18th century monster living in Los Angeles in the present day as he tries to redeem his past evil deeds. The series is in its fifth season. Whedon, who overhauled the show with new cast members and story structure after barely avoiding cancellation last season, said he was "heartbroken." "It seemed like we hit our stride, so this is a big shock," Whedon told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "It's like a hale 49-year-old fellow just having a heart attack and dying like that." The show maintains a small but loyal cult-fan base, but WB executives decided the numbers were not high enough to justify the program's cost. There may be hope for resurrection. Although nothing is finalized yet, the WB has proposed a few "Angel" TV movies to tie up any loose ends in the story. "It's my fervent hope that all my cast and my writers will be much too busy," Whedon said. "It's not that I'm not interested in the idea, I just want steady jobs for my people. But I definitely think there are more stories to tell." A lot depends on whether Whedon and 20th Century Fox Television, which produces the show, will succeed in shopping a sixth season of "Angel" to another network, such as TNT, which carries reruns of the show, or UPN, which previously picked up "Buffy" after it left the WB. Whedon also plans to ask "Buffy" star Sarah Michelle Gellar about a possible guest role on one of the final episodes. Her character's romance with Angel was one of the vampire's defining storylines. "I'm sort of assuming she wouldn't want to," Whedon said. "But I intend to find out." ---
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 27, 2005 18:53:46 GMT -5
Posted by Dev: 
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 27, 2005 18:54:45 GMT -5
Posted by Julia:
USA today chat with Robert Bianco
Albany, Oregon: I just read that the WB is cancelling Angel. Is there any hope for network television? Other than Arrested Development, there isn't a single first-rate sitcom that is less than five years old. All the really promising network dramas in the last two seasons (Boomtown, Karen Sisco, Firefly) have been sabotaged and destroyed by the networks. Is there going to be anything left on network TV other than aging cop shows, spin-offs of aging cop shows and reality TV?
Robert Bianco: "Is there any hope for network television?" That's the $64,000 Question, isn't it. (And no, by the way, I'm not old enough to remember the show - just the reference.)
I guess my answer is yes, there's hope - but with the exception of CBS, not under the networks' current managers. In fact, week to week, it's hard to tell which network president I'd fire first, given the chance.
As long as the current crop are in power, we probably do have a few more years of aging cop shows, spin-offs and reality to suffer through. And then ratings will drop, stock holders will fidget, and change - one hopes for the better - will come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
London, England: I am sure you are getting shocked questions about Angel but this is a surprise - ratings are higher, the show is still good quality and must sell well overseas and on DVD and video etc. I am dumbfounded that Charmed continues whilst Angel is canned! I am not however a fan of the decision to dump Charisma Carpenter from the show and change its setting. To me it has not worked. Also I liked the darkness and continuing story arcs of the previous season. I do not find the show as compulsive - though episode 10 was terrific. Charisma and David gave sensational performances. Big shame! What do you think is the reason it went?
Robert Bianco: First, a note to non-"Angel" fans: Don't worry, the show won't hijack the chat. After this, we'll move on.
So what happened? WB will put the blame on so-so ratings and rising costs - neither of which would probably be a problem if the show were produced by Warner Brothers instead of by Fox. Here you have another example of the dangers of cross-media ownership, not that Congress has any intention of doing anything about it.
I love the show, and think it's having a strong season. (I do miss Carpenter, but her exit was apparently unavoidable, as was WB's demand that the show drop the big story arcs.) And I'd be more willing to let it go if WB had shown any ability over the last few years to come up with something that would do better or be half as good.
But here's what really has me worried: the creativity drain that seems to have struck network television. Look at some of the great writers who have left network TV over the last three years: Marshall Herskovitz and Ed Zwick, David Milch, Aaron Sorkin, and now, apparently, Joss Whedon. The networks should be begging these people to stay, and instead they seem to be actively pushing them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 27, 2005 18:55:59 GMT -5
Posted by deborah:I previously posted this on the Save AtS Campaign thread, but wanted to save it on this thread: ******************************************** Re: What Joss Said « Reply #4 on: Feb 14th, 2004, 6:43pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.sparklies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=611&sid=de0cb2798825abf4d54a3677afd408baPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:40 pm Post subject: Joss was in The Bronze Beta..Message below -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- joss says: (Sat Feb 14 22:31:16 2004) [Edit/Delete] Some of you may have heard the hilarious news. I thought this would be a good time to weigh in. to answer some obvious questions: No, we had no idea this was coming. Yes, we will finish out the season. No, I don't think the WB is doing the right thing. Yes, I'm grateful they did it early enough for my people to find other jobs. Yes, my heart is breaking. When Buffy ended, I was tapped out and ready to send it off. When Firefly got the axe, I went into a state of denial so huge it may very well cause a movie. But Angel... we really were starting to feel like we were on top, hitting our stride -- and then we strode right into the Pit of Snakes 'n' Lava. I'm so into these characters, these actors, the situations we're building... you wanna know how I feel? Watch the first act of "The Body." As far as TV movies or whatever, I'm not thinking that far ahead. I actually hope my actors and writers are all too busy. We always planned this season finale to be a great capper to the season and the show in general. (And a great platform for a new season, of course.) We'll proceed ahead as planned. I've never made mainstream TV very well. I like surprises, and TV isn't about surprises, unless the surprise is who gets voted off of something. I've been lucky to sneak this strange, strange show over the airwaves for as long as I have. I don't FEEL lucky, but I understand that I am. Thanks all for your support, your community, and your perfectly sane devotion. It's meant a lot. I regret nothing (except the string of grisley murders in the 80's -- what was THAT all about?) Remember the words of the poet: "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." See you soon. -j.
|
|
