I am completly outraged that anyone whould even think about canceling Angel, i grew up watching it. dont give up Joss

vastgirlie | February 16, 23:55 CET

He's not wrong.



(whimpers and tears) “When I heard that Angel was cancelled, I was having fruit punch, and I thought well Spike and Angel and those other vampires will NEVER HAVE anymore fruit punch that looks like blood EVER!!! It’s stupid. It’s mortal and stupid, and no one will explain to me WHY!?!?!?” (turns evil and all powerful and causes computer equipment to overload)

G Thing | February 17, 00:16 CET

G Thing - I'm giggling hysterically....through tears.

meredith | February 17, 00:22 CET

This is, sadly, a very good analysis of why things happened the way they did for AtS. It doesn't make me feel any better, but it does make sense.

wissxwe | February 17, 00:49 CET

Very good piece. Who is that person? And I have been wondering for the last couple of days--was Angel actually losing money or were the profit margins just not as high as the WB would have liked?

marmoset | February 17, 01:19 CET

From all of the articles I have read I have gleaned that Angel was making a profit but the cost of production vs. total revenue wasn't good enough for the WB. Does anyone have some ballpark figures concerning the licsense fee that Fox charges for Angel? Blwessels or RavenU, you guys usually have some pretty good insider info concerning this sort of thing...any ideas?

Simpleba | February 17, 02:28 CET

I do have a hard time believing 20000 dollars just on Lorne's makeup. The dusting of a vamp is about 6000 as I recall, and I doubt putting on green paint, some horns and a fake nose would be that much more.

But I agree Angel was expensive, and that 'cult hit' is probably less good than it sounds. Good point too about Smallville's 'flying into body orifices' shots. Kind of expensive and not nearly as significant as most effects on Angel are.

Still, let's not forget the famous example of Star Trek getting cancelled as a 'cult show' with too small an audience.

Anyway you cut it, it's still a potentially stupid move of the WB. Sure, "Dark Shadows" could be the next big thing and they'll no doubt make it cheaper. But chances are bigger it will tank since they've already pissed off the main potential audience it could have by REPLACING Angel for it.

EdDantes | February 17, 03:00 CET

The article should be called "You Never Want to be a Well-written, Extremely Written, Exciting, Vibrant, Entertaining, Marvelous, Dynamic Show."

It doesn't pay in Hollywood to be above par. Look at your TV Guides or Pre-Vue Guides and count the amount of schlock on network television. They pander to the lowest denominator. Anything that's actualy smart as well as entertaining is cancelled.

angiebear | February 17, 06:22 CET

One thing the author mentions is WB partially recouping the cost through DVD sales. Does anyone know if this really happens? I was under the impression that all the DVD profits went to Fox, the production company.

bobothebrave | February 17, 06:50 CET

I believe that is the case (that the WB partially recoups..) that's why getting a show to hit that 100 episode mark is a boon. Then they can start sening the show out in syndication and then DVDs...they sell them internationally, it's tantamount to getting a return on your investment.

angiebear | February 17, 06:57 CET

Well-meaning, but the "analysis" is full of basic inaccuracies about the business of television production and broadcasting.

--No network ever makes money off of the selling of syndication rights for a tv series unless they own the show in whole or in part. The WB network pays for first-run broadcasting rights. They pay that to 20th Century Fox Television Production. Fox Broadcasting (the network) is a different division of the Fox conglomerate. Revenues don't get smushed together -- what is earned by the individual divisions of Fox have to be kept separate.

Several years ago, when the X-Files were being sold into syndication, David Duchovny successfully sued the producers (Chris Carter's company)and the owners (20th Century Fox TV) for underselling the syndication rights to another Fox subsidiary. Why? Because DD could've earned more money from the syndication deal if Fox TV had shopped the syndication deal around, but they didn't. Very smart move on DD's part. I believe the settlement was about 20mil in his favor.

--Networks don't make much profit from the bulk of ancillary product sales. The WB must pay a licensing fee to 20th Century Fox TV to make Angel t-shirts or anything else with Angel or more likely, it's part of their broadcast deal. But the bulk of the show's tchotchkes are produced for the profit of Fox. Fox does not actually make any of that stuff either. They sell the licensing rights to other companies, allowing other companies to make the stuff and sell it. There are exceptions, but that's only when the network owns the show or has contracted for specific licensing. When South Park became really big, Comedy Central made a ton of money off of t-shirts and the like, because that was in their deal. The creators never saw a dime of that. They've since renegotiated to keep SP on Comedy Central and have no doubt gotten a better deal for themselves.


--Networks don't make profits from the dvd sales for the same reason. All that moola goes to the owner (in this case, 20th Century Fox and Mutant Enemy). The WB won't see a red cent of profit from Angel dvds. The only possible benefit to the WB would be if the dvd profits were so good that they offset rising costs that would normally be foisted on the WB when renegotiating, but since dvd profits are a relatively new revenue stream for the tv market, most shows contracts don't take that into consideration.

BTW the audience for Seventh Heaven isn't tiny. It's the WB's highest rated show.

Also, I really do doubt that Lorne's makeup costs that much on a weekly basis. Once the prosthetic pieces are designed, producing multiple sets of them aren't very expensive. The same makeup crew that do everyone else's makeup have to do Lorne's. They're union crew and probably have set rates for the different kinds of work involved, but those are on an hourly basis. 3 hours a day for application and 1 hour for taking it off is not much compared to the other costs involved in producing a show. Craft services, cost of film, CGI effects, all sorts of things cost much much more. It's an unbelieveably complicated business. I work with production crews for commercials and music videos, which are nowhere as complicated and it's beyond insane.

punkinpuss | February 17, 23:12 CET

Thanks punkinpuss you summed up a lot I thought was a little fishy about the article, but I lacked much of that factual knowledge. I've worked for record companies but TV is a whole different oprah.

Like I said, I know the dusting-vamp CGI costs 6000 per piece. No way does applying Lorne's make up cost more than 3 times that much.

EdDantes | February 18, 01:32 CET