I am fearful to even slightly hope...it would be too crushing...much to much.

Coll | March 07, 22:14 CET

Well, this is promising news indeed. I hope that it is factual and that talks are going on behind the scenes. How come, though, there hasn't been any talk of the show moving overseas? It seems that both Buffy and Angel were/are more popular over in Europe than here in the States. I'd be willing to wait to see the show on DVD if it did move and that was the only way we could see it, but wouldn't stations like BBC America or TNT be willing to show it in syndication after it was aired in Europe first? Just wondering why this couldn't work as an alternative.

I suppose though, the actors might not want to move to Europe to film the show? I would, though, if it was me.

Firefly Flanatic | March 07, 22:16 CET

I'd like to hear RavenU's thoughts on this. You seem to have excellent knowledge of how things are handled and you have indicated in the past that it could've been a ruse on the WB's part to get a lot of attention for the show and rake in money for the "finale" episode. Do you think if they were talking behind closed doors that they would indicate that to anyone, such as SkyOne, because it seems like they wouldn't want anyone to know if it was secret negotiations and then for SkyOne to then give that indication in an e-mail makes me think this is just another one of those internet rumors. I hope I'm wrong.

Firefly Flanatic | March 07, 22:19 CET

My weak little heart can't take this anymore. It feels to crushing to even dare to hope just the tiniest bit.

For my own self-preservation, I am going to assume that this is misinformation. For the rest of you stouter hearted people, enjoy the seeming promising news!

phlebotinin | March 07, 22:20 CET

Why would Joss ask for the fans to stop sending money if he was still in behind closed doors discussions for season six...I would think that he would want the push to continue...

Coll | March 07, 22:21 CET

More hearsay.

[ edited by IMMORTAL on 2004-03-07 20:24 ]

IMMORTAL | March 07, 22:23 CET

I think money would probably stop Sky or BBC making "Angel", there are hardly any seasons (except crap hospital dramas and football teams) that have seasons longer than even 10 episodes, let alone 22.

The closest thing that's been done to Angel in recent years was probably "Randall & Hopkirk: Deceased", which I enjoyed, but was hated by most people, that was a 6 part first season, and a 7 part second season. "Doctor Who" (yay!!) is apparently going to be 13 parts and I doubt they'd give an american import more than Dr. Who (the hardcore fans of DW'd go mental), "Ripper" when it was still going to be a TV series, was going to be short seasons.

That, and I don't think London would be a suitable replacement for LA. That said whenever I talk about Ripper with people we always get to how much we'd love to see Giles chase a vampire through the Queen Vic.

Ghost Spike | March 07, 22:28 CET

It could well mean that Sky One were referring to the UPN talks. But good for Sky One for sticking up for us Brit fans. Octipal if you're lurking, I wouldn't mind your input on this.

Ummm has anyone noticed the amount of typos and grammatical errors in this email?

[ edited by Simon on 2004-03-07 20:48 ]

Simon | March 07, 22:31 CET

I sure hope that this is true, but I'm very skeptical that this is on the up-and-up. If you actually read the "response" this person got from Sky One, the grammar is horrible and the spelling is nonexistent. If it was an official response from Sky One I would think it would be a much better letter (unless the recipient retyped it for the post???) I'm getting more and more afraid that there are people that are intentionally planting bogus information just to see us all get excited.

spikeangellover | March 07, 22:49 CET

In view of the typos I've edited the description.

Simon | March 07, 22:51 CET

Sorry Simon, I didn't see the last para of your post before I posted mine. You already mentioned the typos and grammar.

[ edited by spikeangellover on 2004-03-07 20:54 ]

spikeangellover | March 07, 22:51 CET

Ah no worries, great minds think alike :).

Simon | March 07, 22:52 CET

Ah, yes:)

spikeangellover | March 07, 23:00 CET

It sadly seems very likely to me that there are cruel people out there intentionally planting bogus info about Angel just to flex their "power." That "Oz" character at City of Angel, and now this. Evil trolls like this do exist out there and they piss me the hell off.

If it all turns out to be true, I'll eat my words shamefacedly. I just don't want people to get unnecessarily hurt by evil internet trolls if that is what's going on. I wish someone we trust would come here and comment on this.

phlebotinin | March 07, 23:05 CET

I don’t think the BBC is any position to pursue a project like Angel after all the trouble they have had recently and Sky One certainly doesn’t have the capital to make Angel. I think the email is in all likely hood bogus although it would be cool if it were to move over here.

cwlaurie | March 07, 23:07 CET

Yep, it sounds like someone is getting off on making these fake reports at a time when they know people are desperate for hopeful news. I would be overjoyed to be proved wrong, but I think this is nothing more than lies.

chasa | March 07, 23:29 CET

It could well mean that Sky One were referring to the UPN talks. But good for Sky One for sticking up for us Brit fans. Octipal if you're lurking, I wouldn't mind your input on this.

Yeah there discussing the UPN talks Which we knew, and are over(there is no good reason anyone would try to hide discussion with another network). Sky will obviously miss Angel, its a good little performer here, but Sky One could not, nor would they want to finace Angel. It's far too expensive. The BBC is top dog on budgeting Drama, and they could barely afford Angel and they couldnt buy it anyway, (Fox and the BBC are in a big despute over Digital Encryption so there out, until its resolved). ITV are next best, they spend arround $1 million an hour on drama, which wouldnt cover Angel, and they wouldnt be intrested in Angel anyway. Sky One will be paying only a fraction of the cost, their entire lineup is practically cheap imports, and Angel does not generate sufficient ratings for them to be bothered by its demise, certainly not enough to up payment by 400% to cover it. They'll just stick something else on at a fraction of the cost, and they'll take the slightly less ratings. At the end of the day Angel has to end sometime, the situation will be no different in a years time.

Ocipital | March 07, 23:37 CET

Yeah, you would think people would proofread stuff like this, try to make it sound half-professional if we're to believe it's from someone at a network. I mean, it sounds more based than that OZ guy, but that's not saying much. I think it's just someone wanting to kick up some stuff.

Rogue Slayer | March 07, 23:38 CET

Actually I think the email itself is genuine, its only an email from a customer service rep, not an official press release, it's just its out of date. It doesnt say anywhere that Sky One would be willing to finance Angel, just that if Angel is renewed they will of course still be showing it. Some people seem to have missread it thats all.

Ocipital | March 07, 23:56 CET

Just to remind people, Sky in the UK is a Murdoch company same as Fox, who are the producers of Angel. So there may be a line of communication there that may not exist between seperate companies. But Sky, selling advertising in a market of 65 million, cannot afford to fund Angel the same as a network in a country of 260 million.

zz9 | March 08, 00:13 CET

Ah I'm just taking it as it comes now. My hopes will neiter go up anymore, nor completely die and fade away. Still not expecting anything though.

EdDantes | March 08, 00:46 CET

If anyone's interested, here's the original post (I always seem to be doing this. I guess I like tracking things down :P) : original post at SaveAngel forums

forcorreo | March 08, 00:50 CET

Based on your above info forcorreo, I did some more investigating. That person just joined that forum on March 4. He or she posted three times on Saturday, the first of which mentioned that the WB may have changed its mind based on the note on the official site that reads "Angel will be back...". This actually refers to the March hiatus, not the sixth season. Anyway, it was a few hours later that he/she posted this "info" we are discussing, claiming that the response was just received. Is it likely that a Sky One rep would have sent a reply at 10:30 pm on a Saturday? That wouldn't happen here in the U.S. I think it's bogus though I get the impression that the poster may be more delusional rather than a prankster.

marmoset | March 08, 01:10 CET

Thanks for both of your investigative efforts, forcorreo and stakeholder. A possibly delusional poster? Yikes. The internet is a minefield.

To paraphrase Giles, I hate these false rumors quite a lot.

phlebotinin | March 08, 01:14 CET

This is so frustrating. I'm trying not to get my hopes up every time I hear a false rumour on the web. But it's hard not to. :-(

cal | March 08, 01:21 CET

These kind of things should be expected by now, the false hope of rumors spreading like wildfire. I for one don't doubt that FOX may be trying to do some fast negosiations, esspecially knowing what the cost will be if they don't pull out another season - as for the cost of Angel - truthfully I think it would be cheap at double the price - $2 million an episode is almost chump change now a days in Hollywood when you have 2nd rate sitcoms that cause nearly that much on the top 3 networks. I think FOX is aware and is feeling the effects of Buffy leaving last season - syndication is down 35% and even though DVD sales are still strong they are also taking a hit since the demand for the special character box sets are not meeting the expected demand. I, however can not really seeing Sky being all that privy to information other than gossip ad rumors that may fly around FOX companies like any other major corporation. So unless I see a more forth coming news from this side of the pond, I have a salt lick standing by. I have heard rumours from friends of mine that works at some of the studios out there about Angel and it's chances at coming back but even with their information - I take with the disclaimer already firmly attached. So I'll bide my time, and in the meantime we have until mid-April to May to keep the pressure on - in this case I think it's a matter of seeing who will be worn down first the network or the fans. Cause in Hollywood cancellations are not set into the stone that they oncemay have been. Just keep hope alive and a lot of salt at your side.
You have to remember that the WB had only optioned for half a season this year but picked it up for a full season after other shows had tanked, of course my pessimistic optimism believes if that could happen, why not do that again.

RavenU | March 08, 01:47 CET

Though I think it's a foiler because I don't think Sky 1 have that much money to even part funded a show like Angel ,shows have been part funded by British stations in the past like "FAME",by the BBC, and Channel 5 in Britain apparently pays most of the cost of the Australian soap opera "Home and Away"

garda39 | March 08, 02:05 CET

I was idly wondering about the chances of Angel coming back as a mid season replacement this time next year. Lets say the WB's new dramas go all pear shaped and Levin realised he's been sold a pup. Would he turn to a reliable show that can get good enough ratings and more importantly the right demographics?

Ocipital, nice to see you posting again.

forcorreo and stakeholder who did the digging into the Sky email. Glad to see you posting at Whedonesque.

Simon | March 08, 02:07 CET

It doesn't say that Sky are going to part-fund a sixth season of Angel, it's saying that negotiations are underway at The WB for The WB to do another season, and that if the result is good, Sky will show the next season.

That's if it's true.

A mid-season replacement, hmmm that's quite a good idea, Joss would probably have left Serenity in the hands of the effects people by then, leaving him open to come up with a story for a 12 part season.
There is then the matter of whether the cast would want to come back for 12 episodes, I'd think they'd want a full seventh season confirmed before doing it.
Also, would Joss really want to bail Levin out of a hole after the abysmal way he's been treated by the guy.

[ edited by Ghost Spike on 2004-03-08 00:11 ]

Ghost Spike | March 08, 02:08 CET

That's how I read it too, Ghost Spike. Stranger things have happened I suppose, but I won't hold my breath.

cal | March 08, 02:12 CET

I'm not believing it for a second until I hear something official. Sorry, it's in my nature to not trust anything with that many spelling mistakes.

[ edited by Cabus on 2004-03-08 00:14 ]

Cabus | March 08, 02:14 CET

I was idly wondering about the chances of Angel coming back as a mid season replacement this time next year. Lets say the WB's new dramas go all pear shaped and Levin realised he's been sold a pup. Would he turn to a reliable show that can get good enough ratings and more importantly the right demographics?

Ocipital, nice to see you posting again.

They have done something similar before, though infact it was merging two existing shows into one slot. In 2000/1 Felicity and Jack & Jill returned, Felicity for 17 episodes, and Jack & Jill 13, they then aired Felicity at the start, switched to Jack & Jill for its 13 episodes, then went back to Felicity. It's called the Wheel (the remaining weeks were repeats of other programing, specials and films). It is actually used occasionally by networks to keep shows going that repeat badly, though it does have negatives, in that it is more expensive to fund 30 episodes than 22.

Now perhaps they could plan for this, Angel is still a profitable show for the WB (AFAICT). That isnt the issue, the issue is the number of slots the WB like drama to take up (which I agree with, more than 8 is problomatic). They need to launch some new shows, because shows like Smallville are down 25% on last year. So it could work in principal to have Angel as a midseason replacement. I cant actually see much in the way of negatives in doing this, though Im sure there is

Ocipital | March 08, 03:26 CET

It's interesting to note that with news of the possibility of Angel being cancelled for good, the New VR has been promoting the show by placing ANGEL advertisements all over the buses here in Toronto.

I know that they're trying to increase the ratings but couldn't they have been doing that earlier? Like.. 5 years earlier? Anyway, atleast they're helping.

Christopher | March 08, 03:45 CET

While I'm not sure if this particular rumour is true I would be surprised if it wasn't an accurate representation of what is going on behind the scenes. A lot of TV channels outside the US, like Sky and BBC 2 in the UK, know that they have a guaranteed 'cult' audience for Buffy & Angel. They wouldn't dream of canceling Angel if they were consulted. They might even be squeezed into paying a little more money for it, but they aren't going to admit that before any negotiations.
Unfortunately while these overseas sales are great for Fox they don't influence the WB much.
All the predictions I have seen are that TV advertising revenue will continue to decline. One of the few things quality shows have in their favour is that they can generate better overseas sales.

technovamp | March 08, 04:32 CET

"For Your Love" was originally on ABC, I think. Eventually it ended up on the WB. When they cancelled it, they kept it around as a mideseaon replacement, which became it's final season.

Invisible Green | March 08, 04:46 CET