Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi

WB Cancels Angel 447

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the is-this-the-end-of-joss-on-the-tube dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WB Cancels Angel

Comments Filter:
  • Say it Ain't so! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by titaniam (635291) * <slashdot@drpa.us> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:13PM (#8285944) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by saintlupus (227599) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:13PM (#8285945) Homepage
    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
  • Wha? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JoeLinux (20366) <joelinux@gm a i l . c om> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:16PM (#8285973) Homepage
    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...
    • Re: Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot (19622)


      > 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.

      • Impatient (Score:3, Interesting)

        by fm6 (162816)

        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 th

    • Re:Wha? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:24PM (#8286055) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • Re:Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by diverman (55324)
        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 stab
      • by MourningBlade (182180) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @08:54PM (#8289894) Homepage

        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.

        • by cyril3 (522783)
          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 mone

  • UPN (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ironsides (739422) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:16PM (#8285974) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Yeah (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Cyno01 (573917)
      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...
    • Re:UPN (Score:4, Insightful)

      by johnpaul191 (240105) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @03:00PM (#8287496) Homepage
      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).
    • Re:UPN (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cquark (246669) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @03:35PM (#8287769)
      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.
  • by El Camino SS (264212) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:17PM (#8285983)
    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
    • by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:28PM (#8286670) Homepage
      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.

      • by CrazyJoel (146417) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:48PM (#8286853)
        Maybe they cancel shows because you're only watching them on DVD. Maybe if you'd watch some commercials now and then...
        • by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:59PM (#8286979) Homepage
          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.

          • 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 ev
      • by kalidasa (577403) * on Sunday February 15, 2004 @02:07PM (#8287061) Journal

        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 [slashdot.org]. 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.)

        • 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 try
      • by calags (12705) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @03:06PM (#8287539)
        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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:17PM (#8285984)
    "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)
  • by Psykechan (255694) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:19PM (#8286003)
    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?
  • by El Camino SS (264212) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:20PM (#8286007)

    You mentioned a cancelled show on Slashdot!

    Quiet! You'll wake up the Farscape fans!

    Quick, delete the thread!
    • by Maserati (8679) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:30PM (#8286113) Homepage Journal
      It's a Joss Whedon project, you'll wake up the goram Firefly fans !
    • by antis0c (133550) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:31PM (#8286125)
      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.
    • Forget Farscape, what about Firefly?!??
      (another show by the Angel director, with fan base that took out a full-page ad [sgcwebdesign.com] to try to get it back, canceled after 11 shows.)
  • Go Out with a Bang (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MidnightBrewer (97195) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:20PM (#8286010)
    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 [ign.com]. Needless to say, Joss Whedon is not amused.
    • by Golias (176380) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:15PM (#8286537)
      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.)

      • by mpe (36238)
        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.
  • Spike! (Score:2, Funny)

    Now maybe they'll give Spike his own show. He da man!
    • Re:Spike! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:39PM (#8286183)
      They did: its called "Angel"
    • Re:Spike! (Score:3, Funny)

      by T-Kir (597145)

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

    • Re:Spike! (Score:3, Funny)

      by mhifoe (681645)
      Spike is a good character. It's just a shame he talks like Dick Van Dyke [imdb.com].
  • A Sad Day (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kannibal_klown (531544) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:21PM (#8286019)
    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.
  • by andih8u (639841) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:23PM (#8286042)
    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"
  • Ah man,,, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Predathar (658076) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:27PM (#8286081)
    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!
  • Oh well... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Orne (144925) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:31PM (#8286120) Homepage
    Given the flurry of fan activity [fireflyfans.net] over Joss Weldon's last show, Firefly [foxhome.com], 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.
  • by UserChrisCanter4 (464072) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:33PM (#8286142)
    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.
  • by Nick of NSTime (597712) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:34PM (#8286149)
    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.
  • by handy_vandal (606174) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:36PM (#8286169) Homepage Journal
    There's only one way to save ourselves: cancel all programs. Everything!

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

    -kgj
  • by eddy (18759) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:39PM (#8286182) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Er, but why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by An Onerous Coward (222037) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:43PM (#8286217) Homepage
    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.
  • Spare me (Score:5, Funny)

    by Froze (398171) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:45PM (#8286232) Homepage
    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.
  • Petitiononline (Score:4, Informative)

    by cobbaut (232092) <paul.cobbaut@NOsPAm.gmail.com> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:47PM (#8286253) Homepage Journal
    Time to sign the petition [petitiononline.com].

    A show on Spike and Willow would be nice though.

    cheers,
    pol :)
  • by failedlogic (627314) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:49PM (#8286269)
    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.
  • Pay Per View (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shannon Love (705240) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:52PM (#8286295) Homepage
    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.
  • by mbourgon (186257) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:53PM (#8286301) Homepage
    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.
  • No suprise here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cyranoVR (518628) <cyranoVR AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:57PM (#8286343) Homepage Journal
    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 [fark.com]. Coming soon: Cordelia the Animated Series on SpikeTV. 'Nuff said.
  • Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gertsenl (719370) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:57PM (#8286346)
    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'.

  • by lordDallan (685707) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:07PM (#8286441)
    who have never been excited about the show.

    If you have ever been to the Warner Brothers Television [warnerbros.com] 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, [thewb.com] 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."

  • Good. (Score:3, Funny)

    by xigxag (167441) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:28PM (#8286664)
    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.
  • Between the lines (Score:4, Interesting)

    by blonde rser (253047) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:50PM (#8286876) Homepage
    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.
  • ...it WAS great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LuxFX (220822) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:51PM (#8286892) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Felinoid (16872) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @02:26PM (#8287222) Homepage Journal
    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...)
  • by wowbagger (69688) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @02:42PM (#8287354) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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
  • This fucking sucks. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Durandal64 (658649) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @02:43PM (#8287364)
    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.
  • by Gorimek (61128) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @02:47PM (#8287403) Homepage
    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?
  • HDTV (Score:3, Informative)

    by elmos_dog (649192) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @09:48PM (#8290137)
    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.
  • STUPID NIELSENS! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Lynxpro (657990) <lynxpro@gma i l . c om> on Monday February 16, 2004 @01:39AM (#8291393)

    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/

  • Hate to say it.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Outland Traveller (12138) on Monday February 16, 2004 @01:46AM (#8291425)
    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.

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Working...