Whedonesque : Comments on 3699 : More rumors: ANGEL Movie in Fall?

What does it mean by "cliffhanger"? I've been avoiding spoilers, but I was still under the impressing that although a few things will be resolved, the season will have an open ending--but that's a lot different from a cliffhanger

redtenko | April 23, 18:50 CET

I'd be v. wary of this until more info comes out. Like you said - this is the first I've heard of Tru Calling getting hacked from the lineup. (In which case, I'll be first on the bandwagon for a Faith series!)

And I'd be scared if Joss doesn't have any involvement, unless most of the other ME crew comes back. I wouldn't trust some other director to handle Angel properly.

**Redenko - - unless you want to be spoiled, you'll have to be satisfied with "cliffhanger" ending. Trust me, it is.

[ edited by cubiclesatan on 2004-04-23 16:51 ]

cubiclesatan | April 23, 18:50 CET

Well MediasharX is a pretty good site and they do have reliable scoops. Tru Calling wasn't renewed in the early slate of Fox renewals. But then Eliza was only in the UK the other day promoting the show. So you think she might have mentioned something.

Simon | April 23, 18:55 CET

hmm, interesting, yet i dont know why we "need" faith for these movies. also, if this is true, i was hoping for more of a buffyverse tv movie than just an Angel movie, so that will be a big dissapointment (if it was all the verse, then i wouldnt mind faith, but if its just her then im sad).

norman | April 23, 19:07 CET

I think I'm fine with few or little "Buffy" people coming over. I just want to see the storyline for Angel resolved, considering it's supposed to be a cliffhanger ending.

But you do bring up a good point - how in the heck is Faith supposed to fit in with this?

cubiclesatan | April 23, 19:11 CET

Many other news sites have been saying Tru Calling was picked up for another season. Plus everyone knows that JW is concentrating on Firefly with Angel being over. So to turn the movies over to someon on his staff and be a consultant was the general ssumption to most anyway.

I would take this with a grain of salt and wait for an official announcment from the WB.

DarenG | April 23, 19:12 CET

Most of the Buffy cast have current projects so I imagine it would be difficult to get them to participate in a movie so soon. I've stayed fairly spoiler-free for the Angel finale, but I've heard a few places that the series ends on a cliffhanger. Buffy didn't... those characters were more or less resolved which is probably another reason the movie would be about Angel. Personally, I like Angel better anyway these days.

fate's bitch | April 23, 19:13 CET

yeah, i would like to see a resolution in angel, not just a cliffhanger as well. but i still wanted more of the verse to be involved in the movies (angels great and all, but i personally like buffy)

norman | April 23, 19:17 CET

Simon, someone in a Buffy newsgroup who spoke to Eliza at the convention in the UK said she told them when they asked her that Tru Calling will be renewed. So, that either says a lot about this source, or Eliza's not really in touch with Fox.

kaivaal | April 23, 19:25 CET

While I agree intellectually with everything said above--imho, everything's better with a little Faith in it.

I wouldn't mind having to do a little fanwanking to squeeze a believable Faith SL into the flow of events over on Angel.

Why we need Faith isn't the question, imho. The question is why not?

plus, if the TC obituary is correct----thank god!

[ edited by jeebs on 2004-04-23 17:34 ]

jeebs | April 23, 19:33 CET

If Tru Calling really is going to be renewed, it could also mean that the source is just partly right. There could be a telemovie in the offing but Eliza Dushku/Faith isn't a part of it. As much as I like the character of Faith, she isn't necessary for future Angel projects -- should they happen, praise the sky bully.

phlebotinin | April 23, 19:33 CET

Kaivaal, if Eliza's wrong, I wouldn't necessarily call her "out of touch". Networks have a history of giving you one impression and then - BAM! (ref to: how Joss and all thought they were picked up for a complete season five of Angel, only to hear later on "yeah, we're giving you the go for the final half of the season". They were supremely surprised.)

cubiclesatan | April 23, 19:35 CET

to jeebs comment, i think the point is whedon and everybody was clear they didnt want to bring people in just for the sake of it. SMG was available for the finale but there was no real story for her to be there, so they didnt change that. if they try to bring faith in, that kind of goes against this, and would definately irritate me (i know this is the movie not the finale, but if they write a story for her to be there, then why not everybody else?).

norman | April 23, 19:42 CET

You're right cubicle. I should have said "in touch with Fox's ambiguous state of mind which could turn around and slap you in the face at any moment." : P

kaivaal | April 23, 19:43 CET

Well I guess it's wait and see. What are the odds we will be waiting till the third/fourth week in May when the WB announces its plans for the 2004/2005 season to if it will happen?

And if the 6 movies concept is valid (I'm discounting Faith coming back for the moment), Joss' role would still be the same i.e. final approval of the script etc. How ever I do believe that Tim Minear, David Fury and David Greenwalt would be more than capable of making Angel TV movies.

Simon | April 23, 19:43 CET

Hmmmm...this is the first time that I am staying spoiler free. Cliffhanger huh??? I'm going to have to fight myself to keep from checking out those spoilers...I hope I'm strong enough!!! WB keeping it's "word" on the movie thing????...I'll believe it when I see it!!! Color me a tad skeptical!!!

[ edited by Coll on 2004-04-23 17:53 ]

Coll | April 23, 19:52 CET

Coll....spoilers....spoilers....you know you want to....come on.... >:)

cubiclesatan | April 23, 20:02 CET

I'm spoiler free as well! It's actually kinda nice! I read the Buffy spoilers before "Chosen," but I was sure they weren't true. I couldn't fathom that the cookie dough speech could really happen. But it did!!! I want to be surprised with Angel and pray that the Powers That Be stay away from cookie dough metaphors.

fate's bitch | April 23, 20:09 CET

Can't set myself up for disappoinment, but WB right from the moment they canceled Angel, menstioned tv movies, the save angel campaign only help probabley make that viable, smooth over the audience who are disappointed, 6 tv movies would be cool then no angel at all. Faith is cool,if you wanna bring a character in for a reason, you think hard about the story to bring a character in. But the focus should be on Angel totally of cource.

SeanValen | April 23, 20:11 CET

Don't do it Coll--it's a slippery slope!

Now this article has an update noting the "girls and boys at Whedonesque" pointed out there are conflicting rumours about the status of TC.

And did that picture of Amy Acker and Nicholas Brendon melding together creep anybody else out?

marmoset | April 23, 20:14 CET

I'm staying as spoiler-free as possible and to say something has a "cliffhanger" or "open" ending is like a film review saying "there's a surprising twist" at the end. It may not be revealed, but it can't help but color your expectations.
Stay strong, Coll!
Cubiclesatan--you're eeeevil! :-)

bloodflowers | April 23, 20:17 CET

Remember Spike coming into Angel seemed pretty iffy, but it was a decision forced by WB executives, thus JW had to think up ideas to make it seem reasonable, they'll do the same with Faith if she's used.

SeanValen | April 23, 20:26 CET

Lol stakeholder, I wonder if marcus is a poster here. And yes, I only just noticed that warping picture of Amy and Nick, and it's really creepy. Someone should make a site of melds of the Buffy and Angel cast. What the real Spuffy would look like, or their kids? Or Gordy (Giles and Cordy), THAT would be creepy...

Edit: I think the one they've got there would be Frander... *shudder*

[ edited by kaivaal on 2004-04-23 18:57 ]

kaivaal | April 23, 20:28 CET

The Host's rules of spreading a bogus rumour:

1) Tell them something they know -- eg "Whedon is working on some other movie". If this source knows as much as they are saying, they would KNOW it was Firefly. This is the case of getting the readers into saying "Yeah he's right, it's Firefly".

2) Tell them something plausible, the TV movies we've already heard from the WB statement.

3) Tell the readers that it's from a reliable source that hasn't been wrong so far, but has no name.

4) Now you've got them on your side thanks to numbers 1 through 3, let rip with the total unbelievables:

- Tru Calling has not had an official renewal or cancellation - and like all others chances are the fans would find out first

- They can't have possibly already cast guest stars for something as yet unwritten and not negetiated on when the current season is in post, and the writers on hiatus.

- A TV movie is massive undertaking. It took Farscape 3 months to just FILM 2 x 1 half hour TV movies and they're in post now to air in the autumn. Having one ready for September would take a genius.

Sorry folks. Someone's nose is growing right now, and it aint Pinnochio's.

The Host | April 23, 20:34 CET

if they bring in faith, and not buffy ill cry like a baby (lol) (im a big buffy fan:))

i like The Host's comment above! :)

[ edited by norman on 2004-04-23 18:37 ]

norman | April 23, 20:35 CET

happy, happy, joy, joy

I don't care how or why or who. I am thrilled that May 19th isn't the end of ANGEL.

kdeweb | April 23, 20:37 CET

bloodflowers, of course I'm evil!

Yeah, September for a tv movie really looks like someone's fanciful pipe dream.

Where's their pipe and will they share?

cubiclesatan | April 23, 20:43 CET

Oh my god--The Host's post sounds just like The Host, er, Lorne. Funny!

Ugh, and I just caught "Frander" again. Maybe if they didn't use a pic of NB with five o'clock shadow. Shudder is right.

[ edited by stakeholder on 2004-04-23 19:42 ]

marmoset | April 23, 21:39 CET

I've received an email from Marcus who points out that he doesn't post here but lurks here instead. And on a personal note, I've been to MediaSharX every day for the last few months. It's a very good reliable site and they don't make up stories for the sake of it.

And in regards to what Eliza said, I've seen a post at Slayerverse.de which says " Eliza said at the UK convention she thought TC would be renewed, she never said it had been".

Simon | April 23, 22:44 CET

Ok...Six two-hour mini-movies equals twelve regular episodes...Why not just sign-off for an abbreviated season six?

Simpleba | April 23, 22:54 CET

I have always believed that if the spoilers for the final episode are accurate and it does end on a cliffhanger the only way Joss would willingly do that to us is because he is already assured of a way to end the story properly. That has been my main reasoning why i think the rumours about the movies are accurate. One will get made at least, sure of that.

The Arcane | April 23, 23:28 CET

If the season does end in the cliff-hanger, it's cuz Joss is pissed off at the WB. He knows he can finish the story in another format.

Invisible Green | April 23, 23:33 CET

While I remain extremely skeptical of anything having to do with the WB's plans (when they're nice, positive plans, at least), I'm with Technopagan here. I think.

If the spoilers for the series finale are correct, I simply cannot see Joss ending things that way. It is possible that the spoilers leave out some sort of ultra-secret wrapping up, of course. But a cliffhanger? No way.

And here's the other thing: what about what Chris Buchanan at Mutant Enemy said a little while ago? That there was promising movement afoot to continue the Angel story in some other way? That, coupled with the eeeeeeeevil WB's original statement about possible telemovies, makes me wonder if there isn't at least a kernel of truth in these rumors. Maybe not six telemovies; maybe not the first being ready for September.

Sure, things could have since fallen through since Chris Buchanan said what he said and we don't know in which arena ME was trying to continue Angel's story, but having someone like Buchanan make such a statement gives me at least some hope. A small sliver, anyway.

phlebotinin | April 23, 23:39 CET

Well, I was definitely impressed with Marcus' added disclaimer. I'm sure he's fully aware of why we're so jaded and suspicious. I hope he doesn't take it personally. His subsequent behavior speaks to his integrity.

marmoset | April 23, 23:43 CET

I want a tv series that features Johnathan, Amy, and Clem. Amy's an amoral witch, Johnathan's an amoral mystically enchanted undead guy (not a zombie not a vampire he's nigh-immortal! mua-ha-ha-kaff-kaff!) and Clem is just.. Well, Clem. They're thrust together through a series of seeming coincidences and have a series of adventures in which they try to make money or accumulate power with their mutual abilities. Think Pinky and the Brain meets The Three Stooges. Our threesome keep getting themselves in and out of trouble and rather than trying to be champions or dragging their heels at being 'chosen' they just try to survive and make enough money to put gas in the tank so they can get some place that might help them take over the world, and of course they never succeed, but it's funny watching them try. Clem actually works as the conscience of the gang.

No Angel. No Buffy. No Spike. Maybe Xander. Little to no mention of other characters from the other shows, and cameos or special guest appearances only during sweeps or when otherwise advantageous. Sunnydale is a crater and L.A.'s too expensive to breathe in, so WitchBitchAmy, DeadJohn and FlabbyClem go everywhere else, from Tulsa to Battle Creek. They all hate each other but can't seem to live without each other. The very antithesis of previous shows.

I'd tune in.

ZachsMind | April 23, 23:50 CET

Exactly, Joss hates cliffhangers so much he rarely used them even when he knew that his shows were renewed. He wouldn't spite the fans with one no matter how he felt towards the WB.

The Chris Buchanan post was also a fair sign that things were in the pipeline. All in all i have to think that this is going somewhere.

The Arcane | April 23, 23:52 CET

Please god let it be going somewhere, I just wish we could get confirmation either way to at least be able to rest our brains.

Duke101 | April 23, 23:53 CET

Funny ZachsMind. I've thought for a while that a tv movie or a mini-series with Darla, Dru and Harmony painting the town red would be interesting.

marmoset | April 23, 23:57 CET

I have one lonely match left in my matchbook of hope. Shall I strike it or not?

*ponders*

Oh, all right. *spark*flicker* It's either that, or stay in the dark and stew in WBitterness, I guess.

[conditional glee] Whoo hoo for Angel TV movies! [/conditional glee]

Wiseblood | April 24, 00:07 CET

"And here's the other thing: what about what Chris Buchanan at Mutant Enemy said a little while ago? That there was promising movement afoot to continue the Angel story in some other way?"

Chris said that there were more Angel stories to tell, although those stories most likely would not be told on television. He basically said the same thing Joss did when "Firefly" was cancelled.

So I am expecting a big screen "Angel" movie in, oh, 2006 or 2007. (Well, more like hoping, but you get the idea.)

Invisible Green | April 24, 00:22 CET

Simpleba - as to why not renew for an abbreviated season six...because that would require actual thinking and intelligence on the part of the WB. Both of which we know they sorely lack!

cubiclesatan | April 24, 00:55 CET

If there was a choice between six 2 hour Angel movies or 12/13 episodes of a season six I would choose the latter purely for plot development. But then beggars can't be choosers.

Simon | April 24, 01:39 CET

"While we consider the possibility of Season 6 of ANGEL as remote as the discovery of WMDs in Iraq, Mutant Enemy already has plans for more tales from the world of ANGEL. I can't comment on exactly what form they'll take, but rest assured, it's in the works."

This is the direct Chris Buchanan quote lifted from the March 26th post here at Whedonesque. Buchanan doesn't rule out tv per se -- just an Angel season 6.

Telemovie, big screen movie, I'll take what I can get. As long as Buchanan wasn't referring to a graphic novel or something.

phlebotinin | April 24, 02:02 CET

Angel tv movies. Bah. Humbug. It's like begging the networks for scraps.

I'm still holding out for Clem the Series (with Amy & Johnathan). I think someone should start a campaign...

ZachsMind | April 24, 02:09 CET

Now dose 20th century fox own everything buffyverse related or just btvs and ats? Because if the warner brothers made these movies themselves they wouldn't have to pay 20th 's large licensing fee and they would be able to receive the profits from the dvd sales. Six movies at 15-20 bucks each plus the guaranteed 3-4 million viewers when the movies air sounds like a really great way to fleece us out of some decent cash while keeping us happy. But I'm just a ignorant Midwestern slob that knows nothing about the t.v. Industry. I just trying to see if it would be more profitable to the wb to make these movies vs. a short 6th season

[ edited by adventures in spelling on 2004-04-24 00:14 ]

adventures in spelling | April 24, 02:12 CET

Zachsmind, I do like your idea of a "Clem: The Series." For the Whedonverse alums, it'd be like "The Zeppo" writ large. The best would be if Buffy and all the other main characters never appear for a single nanosecond.....and are only referred to in the most passing terms. As if they're slightly annoying and definitely boring. Yeah, that's it.

phlebotinin | April 24, 02:15 CET

adventures in spelling - I think Joss's contract is exclusive to 20th Century Fox, so everything he does has to be picked up (or rejected) by them, and no one else.

And for another adventure, it's "does." : )

Invisible Green | April 24, 03:07 CET

Thanks for the spell check Invisible Green. What about David Greenwalt? I thought he never resigned with 20th after Season 3 of angel, yet I See his name as consulting producer in the credits. If the angel movies were under his name with Joss 'consulting', Would that make my theory possible? I'm not going to complain If we do get the movies, I just don't see It being more cost effective than a 6th season. Then again, this is just a rumor and maybe I'll quit speculating for now and wait till may.

adventures in spelling | April 24, 03:44 CET

The difference isn't cost so much as Marketing. An Event is much easier to market than "Just Another Episode!" and it can ride on the back of the "Save Angel" hoopla.

Lots of triumphant Angel returns to the WB, etc, even though he was gone only for the summer...

Plus, they can take it on a film-by-film basis, i.e. if one doesn't produce boffo ratings, they don't have to make another one, and there's not a lot of fanfare because it is, after all, just a television movie (typically a one-time event, y'know).

It's a neat marketing move, even it is a little questionable by the fans...

[ edited by TheJoyofZeppo on 2004-04-24 02:01 ]

TheJoyofZeppo | April 24, 04:00 CET

Very glad to hear about the Angel movie. This had better bring about the return of some major BTVS characters...mainly a certain hot blonde slayer. Also, I hope it has the gang back to their original "Helping the helpless" selves, not behind the walls of that damn law firm(I don't know what the finale will hold, maybe they will leave W&H.). I hope the movie runs commercial free, and WB doesn't pull anymore "ratings" bull! I hope to see a lot of Angel movies next season. Oh and one more suggestion No more Andrew! oh, and I dont think Fox cancelled Tru Calling, apparently this show is giving the Fox executives a major Orgasm.

Gio | April 24, 04:22 CET

Well I'd like to believe it, but this guy who reported it doesn't even know about the Firefly movie. ("Apparently, Joss is doing a movie!") And I'm supposed to believe he's more in the loop than we are?

And I doubt Joss would not be involved at all in an Angel movie. Even if he doesn't write a script or direct, he started or helped develop the basic story. But, we'll see. Also, someone said Spike was 'forced' on by the WB. Not true. They wanted it, but Joss already wanted it. He always said Spike was perfect to go to AtS. Let's not twist things now eh?

And yeah, everything is better with a little Faith. I'd want to see Buffy again, but then there is a big chance it would quickly render all former lovers back to mopers and whiners. Well, as ever, it depends on what they do with it.

Oh and the only site that directly said Tru was picked up for S2 was the Budweiser site. (Not the most reliable of sources) and every other site mention came from that. (That I saw at least) As I understood it, they were waiting to see what the addition of Jason Priestly would do to the ratings. Anyone know if they have radically increased or something?

It's a verrry mediocre show, but it has shown SOME improvement. And while I'd prefer to see Faith again, at least I get my Eliza shot weekly now. Still, it's just not very good. And they take forever to GET TO THE POINT with the Priestly character. Sigh. Joss is always so much quicker with things like that. Or at least he allows the characters to be about more than just 'their mystery'.

EdDantes | April 24, 09:56 CET

Well, if the rumors are true, will be great see an Angel movie. I just hope that in the movie we can see the original cast, I mean that the actors accept beeing there, cause I know David wants to find a new rol, but for me, he is the only one who can play Angel, but well, we will have to wait and pray for that.

Sonia16571 | April 24, 11:38 CET

I dunno. Angel spent about seven episodes being pure, unfiltered mystery...

TheJoyofZeppo | April 24, 11:39 CET

If James Marsters is cutting off all his hair on Ryan Seacrest show (which we'll have to see if it really happens) then how would it be possible to have a TV movie ready for Sept? I'm sure his hair wouldn't grow that fast (and I doubt the fans would accept a wigged-platinum Spike. Or Spike wouldn't be in the movie plans, which I doubt, especially from his recent comments. This article was just another smoke screen to get us all excited. Rumors, rumors, rumors.....

spikeangellover | April 24, 18:36 CET

Well if he shaves his head at the end of this month as planned he will have around two to three months to grow it back again, depending on how accurate these reports are.

Speaking as someone who has shaved his head and grown it back several times in the past i can tell you that he has plenty of time to get it to a decent length again, especially if he doesn't go for a clean shave.

The Arcane | April 24, 19:27 CET

Erm, just to clarify, having now noticed some very poor wordage in my above post, i have never grown my head back.

Not yet anyway!

The Arcane | April 24, 19:48 CET

"I dunno. Angel spent about seven episodes being pure, unfiltered mystery..."

Yes, but then he was more of a plot element than a character at that time. The characters we followed as protagonists were Buffy, Willow, Xander and Giles. Priestly is part of Tru's team and he hangs around all the time. Not to mention the fact that in the opening or the commercials he's shown as the second-to-the-lead character, and he's not EVEN a real plot device yet, let alone an actual character.

On Firefly, Book's past was a mystery, but it was only one element of his character, and not the most important one. The whole Lindsey-as-Doyle thing on Angel would have been dragged out for an entire season on most other shows, but Joss generally gets to the point of these things faster.

EdDantes | April 24, 20:30 CET

Too fast, on occasion. The Lindsey thing seemed brilliant, but then he comes back with a motivation of "I just don't like you."
WTF?^^

I would've preferred a little more time with Lindsey badding it up against W&H. Given that storyline a little more time to breathe, to get some background on where our favority Tiny Texan/Ornery Oklahoman has been and why he's back with a vengeance when the last time we saw him, he was pretty mellow - even giving Angel advice (which he failed to take).

Gah, this is just me on my usual "fresh storytelling? Uh, whatever" S5 rant. Pardon me.

TheJoyofZeppo | April 25, 00:03 CET

Well I can tell you no one has talk to the cast yet and from the way Mercedes was talking - they all think it's a carrot the WB is dangling to fans and is not going to happen.

RavenU | April 25, 01:52 CET

RavenU, I like the way u think. It seems like something that the WB would definetely pull. Lets hope they don't, but given their history...we'll have to see.

Gio | April 25, 03:31 CET

I interpreted the whole Lindsey thing as a corporate jealousy metaphor. He didn't "just not like" Angel, he was jealous of him. Angel became CEO without ever working for W&H, while Lindsey worked there for years, but never really moved up the corporate ladder.

I also would've liked to have seen more time spent dealing with Lindsey before the senior partners picked him up, but what they did was fine.

Invisible Green | April 25, 04:03 CET

Sonia- with all due respect, Im sorry, but I gotta call U on ur latest post on this topic. it's kinda stupid for you to even assume that if these movies happen(heres hoping)that there would be a chance, since he expressed wanted to explore his talen with other roles, that someone other that DB would portray Angel.

Again, I dont MEAN disrespect, but Im sure youre getting it.(BTW) can someone mail me(puppetcancer@aol.com) and let me know how I can quote someone else when I post here? Like I did with Sonia's comments, but I couldnt paste it.

It kinda makes me question how big of a fan you are Sonia, that it seems you dont even know how ME works on a level that simple, baby. Im sorry if these seem like stones

Puppet Cancer | April 25, 06:47 CET

Puppet Cancer, calling another poster here 'stupid' is pretty much unacceptable. Please phrase things with a little more respect for your fellow Whedonesque posters.

Caroline | April 25, 10:46 CET

April 23 2004