Angel was cancelled for FRICKIN' REPEATS?
Levin accused of backstabbing by Angel fans due to reasons for cancelling the show (his quotes taken from Variety article 13/2/04).
[ edited by Simon on 2004-02-25 09:44 ]
February 25 2004
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
And how weak is this getting. Basically comes down to 'Yeah it's one of out tops shows doing well in the ratings, fan response and critics reviews, but we need room for RERUNS.' If it wasn't so sad I'd laugh my ass off. If this is the best he can come up with, it's even more pathetic at the WB offices than I thought.
And yeah....they pissed off their loyal vampire loving fan base by killing Angel.....because they're hoping we'll tune into a new vampire show that's failed several times in TV history already! If they were aiming at a totally new audience I could see why they wouldn't care about the Angel audience being mad but as it stands we're the audience they hope to keep for it! Idiots!
EdDantes | February 25, 04:00 CET
cal | February 25, 04:05 CET
spikeangellover | February 25, 04:22 CET
I think the cumulative noise of disappointed, mobilized fans is what will begin to wear down the WB's insistence that axing 'Angel' was a good idea. The press they're getting over this continues to be overwhelmingly negative (interspersed with variations in the key of 'huh?'), and I'm betting they're just beginning to inkle how very, very pissed off this fanbase has become.
I think in writing my local affiliates, I'll start include links to the major 'Save Angel' petition. Don't you think the station directors would find it interesting to see just how many people are upset and not planning to watch the WB's shiny, crappy reality TV shows/reruns/has-been vampire remakes this fall?
Wiseblood | February 25, 04:32 CET
kdeweb | February 25, 04:43 CET
Well this article by itself won't be read, but in it you see how much OTHER press there has been and that the WB HAS felt the heat, because otherwise, Levin (And his reaction was new to me) wouldn't be squirming like he is. He wouldn't even be talking about this to the press anymore if he could avoid it, I'm sure.
EdDantes | February 25, 04:53 CET
I don't know anything about Dark Shadow's history; I'm not a vampire fan, I'm a Whedon fan. But, according to this article, it aired for five years before being dropped for low ratings. (Sounds familiar.) I didn't know that made a show a failure.
The WB are currently showing repeats of Smallville on Sundays where it fails to top 3 million viewers with audiences preferring to tune in to never-seen-before shows on other stations.
As mentioned before, they're trying to play the bottom line. It doesn't cost them anymore to rerun a show later in the week, so even if the ratings are weak, they can still make a larger profit than with new episodes.
I don't agree with the decision; I think that it will be harmful for the WB and lose them a lot of trust with their audience. I suspect that the Dark Shadows audience will be mostly old fans, and that it won't manage to gain new viewers (their main complaint about Angel). But I think it's unfair to call Levin "backstabbing" when David Fury has come on record that when Joss asked Levin what his plans were, Levin came straight out and said that he's not planning on renewing the show. He's making a business decision, and while it may be influenced by his own interest in the show, and may not be the best decision, he is behaving just like every other television executive. I wish the show has the opportunity to continue next year, but if Joss really thought it was in the bag, then I worry about him in this business. His apparant naivety about how the industry works astounds me.
No matter how a show ends, the viewers are always going to find someone to blame. I understand that it's a grieving technique, and that a lot of people are hurt that their fandom is changing in such a major way, but it really bothers me to see the way the namecalling has become so commonplace. Shows get cancelled before their time, all the time. Maybe it's time for a campaign to change the network system?
abbylee | February 25, 04:55 CET
I'll tell you what this boils down to. The real reason Levin cancelled Angel is this: Levin said, "We have a lot of veteran shows that are aging, and we're going to have to make room for new programs." This is SuitSpeak for, "I mean come on! David's supposed to be a vampire and vampires are already dead right? So how come he looks a couple decades older than he did in the first episode of Buffy? If I don't kill this show now he's gonna start wrinkling, and no amount of makeup is going to save this show. It's a mercy killing! Really!"
Naturally, I think we should all light our torches and storm Levin's house.
ZachsMind | February 25, 05:26 CET
Possibly so, abbylee, although it's already happening. Joss himself said not too long ago that "Television ultimately finds itself, and after it finds itself, it finds itself changing". Sounds like he's not unaware of the subtler cross-currents that may have worked to sink AtS before what many agree was its 'time'.
TV today isn't what it was even a year ago; all the dependable old yardsticks are becoming increasingly useless. It's no wonder the network suits are scared crapless. They're not sure where their audience share is going (except downward); the systems in place to track those much-vaunted demographics are probably fatally flawed (and also too entrenched to be easily changed); and they've trained viewers to be as demanding as they are interactive. Hence, the AtS community rising up against the WB is just another manifestation of what's going on everywhere.
'Angel' was going to be cancelled at some point, if one or another involved party (DB or Joss himself) didn't decide to call it quits beforehand (although I honestly think the show could have easily run another compelling year with the current premise).
It's just that the WB's reasoning is coming across as spurious if they're trying to convince anyone but themselves. It would have been courteous of Levin to let Joss know last year there was a very distinct possibility the show could end, so that ME could have had an entire season to wrap up the show instead of the four episodes (or three by now) that have yet to be written. I don't dispute their bottom-line attitude because, hey -- big business? It's All. About. $$$.
What galls me is the element of hypocrisy in all this, which the WB is having a hard time spinning to their advantage. They give ad nauseum play to the party line about providing TV that people can care about -- and yet when people actually do tap into something and genuinely care about it, they cancel it. Nice.
Wiseblood | February 25, 05:55 CET
[ edited by spikeangellover on 2004-02-25 05:15 ]
spikeangellover | February 25, 06:55 CET
Although you may not have seen it, everything attributed to Levin in that piece was in the Variety.com article that was posted on 2-13 and updated on 2-15. I haven't seen any actual new quotes from Levin since then (if you do, please let me know,I'd like to actually see the source). So I'm not sure he's really showing that he's feeling the heat (at least not yet). Hopefully that will change due to our efforts. I just don't want us all to feel comfortable that he's hurting (yet).
spikeangellover | February 25, 07:02 CET
Well if you follow all the info it's obvious they already knew for a while, even while saying things like "Oh I don't think Dark Shadows and Angel will compete", and giving pretty speeches at the 100th ep. That is pretty underhanded and unnecessary. They had no intention for a S6 and just used Angel as filler while knowing full well what Joss and all the rest were going for and they let them think they had a chance. That's also pretty underhanded I'd say. 'Just business' does not cover rudeness and duplicitous behavior no matter how often people try to use that line for it.
Not to mention the fact that if Joss hadn't asked they would've let everybody sweat it till after S5 ended. So we're now to commend him from not even outright lying when Joss asked? Sorry, doesn't fly.
EdDantes | February 25, 07:05 CET
Hmmmm ... and yet, somehow, I just can't seem to care.
[ edited by RavenU on 2004-02-25 05:53 ]
RavenU | February 25, 07:43 CET
Jordan Levin...he brings to mind Mal's response when the guy with the cows on Firefly called Badger a psychopathic lowlife...
Chris inVirginia | February 25, 08:00 CET
[ edited by Coll on 2004-02-25 06:10 ]
Coll | February 25, 08:08 CET
Maybe I just don't know enough about the television business, but isn't that commonplace when a show is on the bubble? I'm not saying it's right, or even good business sense, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to me that Levin's acting any differently than any other network executive. Complain all you want about the practice, but be aware that some of us have a hard time respecting any arguments that involve name calling. I do see a difference between saying "networks don't tell shows that they won't be renewed, but they should because it will keep the fans on their side and allow scripts to be shaped for an ending" and "Levin is a backstabber because he didn't tell us that he was going to replace the show". I may be the only one, but I feel it's an important distinction, and I'm going to make it :D
As a whole, we tend to forget that we had three previous seasons where Angel was on the bubble; it almost didn't make it past season two. I would love to see the show continue on, but even if it ends this year, I'm grateful for the run. It may make me a pollyanna, but it makes my own experience much more enjoyable.
abbylee | February 25, 09:13 CET
I think it's backstabbing to congratulate a show on 100 episodes and call a show a cornerstone of your network, assuring said show not to worry, that it won't be in competition with a new vampire show, and then cancel said show. I can just HEAR Levine now: "Hey, I SAID not to worry about Dark Shadows....And now that you're cancelled, you have no worries...."
Rogue Slayer | February 25, 09:19 CET
[ edited by Simpleba on 2004-02-25 07:58 ]
Simpleba | February 25, 09:56 CET
You see I have a serious problem with the stuff he spews forth from his mouth. Especially when he cancel a show that after 5 years on the air and has seen an 11% increase in it's ratings over the previous season and yet he gives an early renewal to a show that has had almost a 20% drop in it's ratings this season from last and it is in it's 4th season and which Angel seem to be in competion with sometimes beating it in the overall network ratings for the season - I am refering to Gilmore Girls - which I started watching because of Danny Strong but after a while that show gets boring and annoying on some level cause you can tell it's scripted cause it's to fast paced and broken in it's dialogue - that kind of communication works in spurts but after awhile you no longer can watch it without going who really talks like that. It's frustrating to hear him talk and then he dares mentions repeats not doing well. Ok can I just say duh, if you'd play them maybe people would watch them - I'm sorry but am I the only one who remembers hardly any Angel was shown over the summer ... or was that just me that couldn't find it on the wasteland that is the WB. As for this seasons repeats what do you expect when the other networks are running new programming your going to suffer a loss and perhaps of the repeats the affilates descided to air local programming instead. So how is that any of the shows fault itself - where does the WB step in and accept some of the responcibility for Angel's low ratings - people need to know there is something there to watch or else all you will get is the loyal viewer. So it is your ball dropping Mr. Levin that caused Angel to not succeed on your network it was your lack of work that facilitaded the eventsand ultimately Mr. Levin it is you and the WB that killed this series from the beginning of this season and you need to take the responcibilty for it instead of propigating lies and falsehoods about why it didn't meet your expectation to get another season. Mr Levin in the end everyone is right who blames you for Angels cancelation - but I blame you for the cold blooded murder of this intelligent series. I can only guess as to your motives but your actions scream your guilt. So be a man and admit it - quit trying to fool people in to believing you benevolence cause I for one am not buying it and you Mr. Levin are the only fool I see.
[ edited by RavenU on 2004-02-25 08:32 ]
RavenU | February 25, 10:24 CET
Invisible Green | February 25, 10:47 CET
(Well I do enjoy GG, but I can see it not being everyone's thing)
And it's true the WB did little to nothing to help Angel out and promote it. I saw posters everywhere in the city for the reruns of Angel on TNT, but the WB couldn't be bothered to taut the big revamp of what it refers to as one of it's 'cornerstones'.
And I do believe that the reruns on TNT have been quite succesful too. But then they actually showed them with regularity.
EdDantes | February 25, 11:42 CET
"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.)"
Now I've amended the subject line as Angel was not primarily cancelled for repeats. I do not wish to see subject lines give a misleading impression. When it came down to it, Levin made a business decision about Angel. I believe it was wrong and it will harm the WB in years to come.
Simon | February 25, 11:44 CET
RavenU | February 25, 12:08 CET
Simpleba | February 25, 13:32 CET
kathylovesspike | February 25, 17:27 CET
However, what Levin is saying(and mind you I don't think he's aware of what he says - he's told so many stories) is that it would repeat the program during primetime hours during the week it airs. Meaning say an episode of 7th Heaven that aired on Mon at 8pm would also air Thur or another day of that same week at 8 or 9 pm. Again I apologize perhaps it is my ignorance of this idiotness that fails to see this as a vialbe reason to remove a show from the air - when it is a well known fact that every show does poorly in repeats not just Angel but again here comes the key word - promotion.
Loyal fans may not tune in for the repeat but if you put some promotion into letting people know it's on in the first place you might find some more viewers - so again the issue doesn't lie with the shows ability to attract viewers (esppecially after seeing an 11% incrase in that area this season) as much as it lies with the network ability to promote the show in order to attract new viewers. Anyone with the least ammount of sales experience can tell you that basic rule of marketing. So again Mr. Levin your reasoning does not wash ... but please try again, it is humorous.
RavenU | February 25, 21:32 CET
However, the way that Angel has faired doesn't mean that it's not a worthwhile experiment for the network to try reairing shows later in the week. (Worthwhile for the WB, of course. Not so for the fans.) I wish that they weren't sacrificing Angel, but that in itself doesn't make the repeats a bad plan.
With reruns of a show the network already owns the rights to, they don't care if it attracks less viewers on its second airing, because they've already paid for it. It's pure profits; they make money from the advertisers (presumably at a lower rate) and have the opportunity to gain a larger total viewing audience from those who might not normally catch the first airing, which may in turn increase the ad rate.
If you want more familiar terms, think of the WB as a fast food restaurant. Their decision to air reruns is like upsizing. The cost to produce a large drink may be 1% more than a small, but the customer is willing to pay 10% extra. And reducing the number of shows is like specializing the menu: some customers are going to miss their old favourites and leave, but the overhead will decline as well.
The WB is needing to turn itself around financially. Choosing not to renew Angel may help in the decline, or their choice to spend less money each season may help them back up. Only time will tell. I may not like their decision, but I recognize that they're playing by the same rules as the rest of the networks.
abbylee | February 26, 04:07 CET