WHAT THE FRIGGIN' FRAGGIN'$!U##$(#%*_#%$($%&*#$^@#(*&^CRAZY INSANE, TROLL-LOGICAL WORLD DID I WAKE UP IN???? TRU GETS A SECOND SEASON EVEN THOUGH IT DID WORSE THAN ANGEL ON A BIGGER CHANNEL???

Pant pant.....oh....Jason Priestly joins. Ya-a-ay. Well HE's obviously still the idol of millions. (sarcasm emphasized) And of course 'Friends' will be gone. And NOW Fox suddenly decides to STAND BY it's shows. Yeahhhh, guess they weren't DOING that yet when FIREFLY got nixed after barely HALF a frikkin' season with HIGHER frikkin' RATINGS! DO I SOUND BITTER??

AAARGHHH first the David Fury "Angel's a goner" thing and now this! How much bad news can you get late at night on a sunday? I have no recourse but to go on a killing spree.

EdDantes | February 23, 13:18 CET

Hang on Ed - I'll join you on that spree in a minute - I suggest we start at Levin's house - instead of killing let's just re-wire his home and make him watch the surreal life marthon for a day or 1 episode of 7th heaven. After that he'd probably kill himself and we wouldn't to worry about murder charges then.

:)

RavenU | February 23, 13:37 CET

just when i was starting to like fox again...ok well that was a blatent lie. How the f*ck can tru calling be picked up for a second season, firefly had higher ratings! firefly had better scripts but firefly didnt have jason priestly...oh now i see where joss went wrong,shame on you joss for choosing actors who could actually 'act' as well as pout and look pretty, eliza is too good for this show.while i'm not too bitter about no faith spinoff, i am bitter about fox not standing by firefly a show which didnt even get a first season run to the magnatude of tru calling and second of all for not standing by a show they f*cking produce, angel. which as we all know has higher ratings on one of the inferior networks, can i join the killing spree?...i have grenades!

[ edited by willowzbitch on 2004-02-23 13:26 ]

willowzbitch | February 23, 15:21 CET

If your one of the top shows then ratings trump demos - if your at the bottom then demos trumping rating. If Tru is pickedup it is because it exceed the networks demo expectations. If everything was based on ratings alone then the WB would dropall it's comediesbefore dropping any of it's dramas but hey guess what they didn't they are keeping some of their low-rate low-brow comedic fair and dumping Angel instead. No ill will to Doug P or anyone else the WB picks up next year but I hope al their hour dramas take a ratings nose dive. Oh and if notto add insult to injury guess what 7th Heaven just announced next year will be their last. Well that sucks - why couldn't they have ended it this season instead of next year which will make it's 8 or 9th season, there is also rumors that it may be Charmed's last season as well.

RavenU | February 23, 16:06 CET

The world has finally gone irretrievably mad.

If I didn't like Eliza Dushku I'd suggest her show got renewed because she's sleeping with a WB executive. But I think she's great (Tru aside) and don't wish to mud sling, so I won't.

Every day things just make less sense. Isn't there a cosmic law that states when something this stupid happens -- Tru getting renewed -- on the heels of Angel's horrific non-renewal, that to right the balance, Angel HAS to get picked up somewhere? The balance has to get righted!

phlebotinin | February 23, 17:52 CET

I TRIED TO WATCH TRU CALLING A FEW TIMES BUT FOR ME IT JUST WASN'T WORTH WATCHING AND I DON'T PERSONNALLY KNOW ANYONE WHO DOES WATCH IT BUT I DO KNOW LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO ALWAYS WATCH ANGEL. THANK HEAVEN FOR DVDS BECAUSE THE WAY ITS GOING I AM GOING TO BE WATCHING THEM INSTEAD OF WHAT THE NETWORKS ARE GOING TO BE OFFERRING

Linda | February 23, 19:06 CET

Just stunned - I can't understand what the heck is going on in TV Land. Is everyone out to get Joss Whedon? Are they renewing Tru just so he can't do a Faith spinoff? Nothing makes any sense to me anymore.

Firefly Flanatic | February 23, 19:22 CET

I am really happy for Eliza if this is true. I was someone who adamantly believed that there was NO CHANCE for Tru Calling to survive in its time slot and that was one of the reasons I have never checked it out.

Here's my question. Buffy ended last year. Angel may end this year. If and when there is a new Buffyverse show in the next 6-18 months, what would the theme/focus be? Assume that any and all alums save perhaps SMG, Eliza, Allyson Hannigan, Brendon and perhaps Boreanaz were available for a weekly show.

brother_grady | February 23, 19:22 CET

Definitely Giles as Ripper in England.

prufrock | February 23, 19:25 CET

Prufrock, while I agree that Ripper would be an interesting show, wouldn't it necessarily leave out all the other possible great characters and storylines?

brother_grady | February 23, 20:13 CET

"I TRIED TO WATCH TRU CALLING A FEW TIMES BUT FOR ME IT JUST WASN'T WORTH WATCHING AND I DON'T PERSONNALLY KNOW ANYONE WHO DOES WATCH IT BUT I DO KNOW LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO ALWAYS WATCH ANGEL."

I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!

(But seriously - all caps makes it hard to read your post, please use lowercase and uppercase where appropriate.)

Caroline | February 23, 20:14 CET

I agree that "Ripper" would be an excellent choice and I believed that years ago when it was first mentioned! I'm still waiting. Giles would be the perfect character to head a cast and they could make it darker by more exploring his past like they've done with Angel. I obviously thought a spin off with Willow was a great choice and am still confused as to why that never happened or was even proposed. She was most likely the most popular and loved character on Buffy and had great potential for more stories (as long as Kennedy isn't in the picture!!). But now she's got a deal with NBC. I also think Giles as the head of the new Watchers Counsel would be a great show and if Angel does't get renewed you could have Wesley and Fred on it too. Oh, and Andrew too because you need to have that humor and he and Giles always played off each other brilliantly. Xander could be a key character because they could do so much more with him now. He could be a more darker person because of the loss of his eye and Anya.

Also, I'm happy for Eliza too but, frankly, the show isn't that good and everyone is just stunned that the brilliance of Firefly was so quickly axed even though it had higher ratings. It just makes absolutely no sense at all.

Firefly Flanatic | February 23, 20:43 CET

Wasn't Ripper last said to be a TV movie rather than a spin off? It would be a BBC connected project and I don't think they'll turn it into a show from the start. But who knows.

Oh and if someone says that Tru 'performed well in the demograpics' then point out to them that Angel performed well in the male 18-34 demographics too....as the WB so recently and triumphantly pointed out, the unmitigated @$^&*#$)@s....

EdDantes | February 23, 21:22 CET

I can understand Fox's perspective. Firefly must have been a vastly more expensive show than Tru Calling. I just watched the "Out of Gas" and "Ariel" episodes last night, and I was wowed by how many large sets and fancy special effects were used. Firefly would have had to be scoring high ratings - like glory years of X-Files ratings - to justify its cost.

It's too bad Firefly took four or five episodes to get really good - some early critical raves might have made Fox hedge its bets. But you can't make a show as fancy as Firefly and wait for people to show up.

In other news, Tru Calling blows.

DaveW | February 23, 22:05 CET

That's true, the early eps were good and promising, but the show really kicked off after the first 5 or so. Really good stuff. And yes it was clearly high production value but I still say they just didn't want it after they saw it. Who starts a new show with an ambiguous nature on friday night with hardly any promotion?? There's a reason they call it the graveyard shift. And the throwing off of the order of eps really did not help. I still fail to see how what they aired as a pilot was better than the actual double pilot episode.

Heheh 'in other news...' good one. Tru blows, film at eleven.

Oops that sounded like something of a double entendre.

EdDantes | February 23, 22:41 CET

Ugh. I'm disgusted. I've watched Tru Calling a couple of times and it's some of the worst dreck I've ever seen on television. Eliza deserves much better material and I'm sorry she's going to be stuck doing this crap for another year. She'd be much better off doing just about anything else (short of Eurotrip 2). Dammit Sam Raimi wants her for Black Cat! I think.

Fox is unbelievable. I hope all the networks' ratings nosedive next year even more! A pox on all their Nielsen ratings!

punkinpuss | February 23, 22:55 CET

"It's too bad Firefly took four or five episodes to get really good - some early critical raves might have made Fox hedge its bets. But you can't make a show as fancy as Firefly and wait for people to show up."

If they had showed it in the proper order, that wouldn't have been a problem. If they had highly promoted like they've done other shows, like say, Tru Calling, people would've shown up. I was seeing ads for Tru Calling a couple of months in advance and that wasn't the case with Firefly. You hardly ever saw an ad for it. If they hadn't pre-empted time after time for baseball games, it would've had a better chance to find an audience.

And yes, the X-Files was their greatest show but it started off really slow ratings wise and took a couple of years to really find an audience. Some of televisions greatest shows also started off slowly before building an audience.

The critics raved about the pilot but Fox yanked it anyways and then the critics complained about that. Fox approached Joss Whedon and requested a sci-fi show from him so they knew it would be expensive because, frankly, most sci-fi shows are.

Firefly Flanatic | February 23, 23:41 CET

*Jaw drops* Who has that killing spree sign-up sheet?

Karen | February 24, 00:36 CET

blwessels - Good point. In summer 2002 I was getting home at 7:30 or so and watching TV, usually Fox, while I made dinner. I saw TONS of commercials for Girls Club. Countless commercials. The stupid dialogue is burned into my brain - "Are we drinking tonight? Ohhhh yeah."

I don't remember seeing a single ad for Firefly until September, and it wasn't really impressive ... shots of the spaceship.

So this leads me to another theory - Firefly needed hot babes. I personally think Jewel Staite is very cute, but she's dingied up and stuck in work clothes. I don't find Gina Torres or Morena Baccarin very alluring - not in the way Sarah Michelle Gellar was. Now, you and I can sit back and say "Fox's biggest hits have been a show about a cartoon family, a show about a cartoonish family ("Malcolm"), and the X-Files, whose stars didn't become sex symbols until fans said they were! Why would they care about sexy stars?"

Well, I think that's what the Fox of 2002-present wants to sell. Witness the Boston Public revamp with Jeri Ryan. Witness Girls Club. Witness sexy reality shows. Witness Tru Calling, which exists because Eliza Dushku is gorgeous.

So maybe Fox undersold a VERY promising but expensive property because Joss Whedon - who'd made his name with a show that got critical raves and teenybopper fans - didn't give them hot chicks to market.

DaveW | February 24, 00:37 CET

No power in the 'verse can convince me that Sarah Michelle Gellar is hotter than Gina Torres and Morena Baccarin. She's a very pretty girl but so much of what makes her shine is in her personality. Torres and Baccarin are truly two of the most beautiful women I have ever seen. It's a pity that you feel that two women of color can't hold a candle to an extremely skinny blond. Kudos to Joss Whedon for flouting the marketed stereotype.

marmoset | February 24, 01:03 CET

I thought Firefly was cram-packed with hot chicks. And there was one that pretty much fit someone's type no matter what it was. For instance, I found Summer Glau irresistable.

ringworm | February 24, 01:07 CET

stakeholder - If you honestly think I was dismissing Torres and Baccarin because they're not Aryans, you don't deserve a response from me.

ringworm - The women of Firefly were not bombshells in the way Eliza, the Girls Club cast, or the OC cast are bombshells. I'm not talking about looks as much as bottom-feeding sex appeal.

OK, I'll explain for anyone who missed my point - Zoe was a married ex-soldier with an unrevealing wardrobe. Inara was a futuristic prostitute. Compare those characters to "sexy female lawyer" or "sexy high school rebel" and think about how your average urchin at Fox is gonna market this show.

[ edited by DaveW on 2004-02-23 23:50 ]

DaveW | February 24, 01:44 CET

Well, if that's not what you meant then fine, I misunderstood you. I still think your "didn't give them hot chicks to market" line is way off and based on your own very narrow taste in beauty.

marmoset | February 24, 01:52 CET

Oh, you edited before I posted again. Is a prostitute really less sexy than a lawyer??

marmoset | February 24, 01:53 CET

Sorry, DaveW, I think that Firefly was doing pretty well in the babe factor, but ONLY for Torres and Baccarin. Jewel was "cute" and Summer was only about 100 sandwiches shy of attractive, not that there's anything wrong with that. Certainly sex appeal is a big part of marketing, though, and I think that marketing that BEFORE the show started would have been a good idea.

The problems of the marketing of the show are plain to see in hindsight, and could have saved the show. I know that I watched the initial episode and was disappointed, and I am a Whedon fan, so I know that the casual fan went, meh, and didn't come back. That was accompanied with the fact that it was hard to find in the first month because of baseball was a death knell.

If Firefly had been shown in order, with better marketing, as a midseason replacement, then it would have a good shot to be on the air right now. And that is what is so maddening.

brother_grady | February 24, 02:00 CET

stakeholder - Understood. Maybe I'm projecting, but probably not. I actually held off watching Buffy for years because SMG annoyed me (in Scooby-Doo et al), but when I saw her characterization and acting in the first two season DVDs, I was hooked, and I found her really cute.

A large part of Buffy's success - correct me if I'm wrong - was the use of cute, well-drawn teenage characters with whom the young audience that WB wanted could crush on and identify with. This wasn't there at all with Firefly. The characters were adults with sexualities already well-established. The only classic "will they or won't they?" situation was Kaylee-Simon (the Mal-Inara situation was cool, but more layered because she's a companion who pays her rent by sleeping with other men). Buffy seasons one/two had "will they or won't they"s with Buffy-Angel, Buffy-Xander, Xander-Willow, Giles-Jenny, and eventually Willow-Oz.

brother_grady - Yeah, I think I agree with you in part. I'm probably overstating the sex appeal thing. I just don't see what other factor was involved in keeping Tru Calling. The guys I know who watch it (not religiously, but turn it on when it's on) do so because Eliza Dushku is on it. And the promos were shots of ELIZA DUSHKU (cue close-up on her face) running in tight shirts.

[ edited by DaveW on 2004-02-24 00:04 ]

DaveW | February 24, 02:01 CET

stakeholder - I'm not sure which is sexier, but there have been some hit shows featuring sassy female lawyers ... not so many with prostitutes. I'm thinking it's because the guy viewers don't want to watch the babe onscreen and say "whoa, she's making love to multitudes of other men!" As opposed to "whoa, she looks hot in that business suit!"

DaveW | February 24, 02:07 CET

DaveW - In retrospect I can see that my post comes off snotty. I actually wasn't meaning to imply racism. What I meant was I really think it's too bad when people only confine their tastes to what's generally marketed--which is what I thought you were saying in your post.

Anyway, I definitely agree that Joss wanted this to be about adults and that might not have as initially appealing to the younger audience he usually attracts.

The only classic "will they or won't they?" situation was Kaylee-Simon (the Mal-Inara situation was cool, but more layered because she's a companion who pays her rent by sleeping with other men). Ah, but did you read the script for the episode they didn't even get to shoot? I wouldn't read it until you've gotten through it all.

marmoset | February 24, 02:46 CET

Tru Calling given a second season? What next, Dreamworks greenlight Eurotrip II?

I agree with the general consensus here. Eliza is hot and talented, Tru Calling is an average show with a derivitave, repetitive, plot. She deserved better.

You'd think that after getting and reading all those BtVS and Ats scripts she'd know how to spot good writing.And after all the effort that Joss and co put into lining up a Faith show (the last few episodes of Buffy were so obviously building Faith up) she'd have trusted them more to deliver the goods, such as real character development, funny AND moving scripts, interesting plots and so on. It would still have been a big risk, and I can understand why she chose to do something else. But I would have expected her to hold out for a really great show, not settle for TC.

zz9 | February 24, 02:54 CET

stakeholder - No, I never read that script! I'll google it and hit fireflyfans. Thanks!

DaveW | February 24, 03:05 CET

I'm getting the "Tru Calling = Truely Boring" vibe but fortunately we in the UK will be able to see it for ourselves on April 13th on Sky One. Tru Calling on at 8pm, followed by Angel at 9pm.

Ironic really.

Simon | February 24, 03:11 CET

Simon, be afraid. Be very afraid.

prufrock | February 24, 03:54 CET