This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"What's in cyberspace at the moment is less than divine."
11973 members | you are not logged in | 09 July 2020


May 26 2005

Executive Producer of the WB's new show Supernatural compares it to Angel and The Grudge. Joseph 'McG' Nichol, the executive producer on The WB's upcoming series Supernatural, says that this show will tap into the same vein as Angel and The Grudge.

"McG previously produced and directed the Charlie's Angels films "

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

I miss my 6th season of Angel and am not real open to try new shows the WB creates.
WB pay Boreanaz and the cast alot more, get Joss, beg him back, and sign everyone on for 2 seasons of Angel, then we'll all come back, and correct your mistake.
I remember hearing about this show right around the time ATS got canceled, all I could think was some suit at the WB boiled down season 5 to two attractive guys driving around in a hot car and suggested it could be done younger, cheaper and without any unnecessary character development or story.
Whatever, McG. I think the producer/director of the Charlies Angels movies and the O.C. (isn't he involved in that in some way?) would do better not to compare his work to Whedon's.
I'll pass...why set myself up for a fall that is surely to come...cancellation. The WB is SOOOO good at that! IF they could not stay behind ANGEL...why even think that they would back another show...for more than a few episodes! No thanks!
"Supernatural is 180 degrees removed from anything I've done, which is why I'm so delighted to be a part of it."

Oh, so it won't be terrible? Somehow I doubt that.

We better be careful. Someone might mistake us for bitter. ;-)
Help me out with this. Angel was not good enough to keep, but good enough to use to hype a new show on the same network it was cancelled on...that is why most TV people should be shot twice...

[ edited by two_guns on 2005-05-26 21:31 ]
Another WB show I'll never see. Cheap shot - using Angel as a comparison. As if anything could compare. Deal around me.
I have no interest in 'Supernatural'. I'll pass.
Yeah, comparing the show to Angel (and throwing in SMGs movie on top of that) is a real cheap attempt to try and use us. And the show being on the network that threw both AtS and BtVS away is like a slap in the face! If I think a show is worth watching I'll watch it but don't try and con us into watching it by comparing it to the same shows (and fans) you treated like crap.
Charlie's ANGELs - ah ha! There's the connection... /cry I was tempted to make a McJoke here...

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2005-05-26 21:40 ]
Ooh, directed by McG (who did those totally awesome Charlie's Angels flicks, like videogames on crack only without any real plot or character development!) and written by Eric Kripke of Tarzan fame?!

I'm so excited! Not.
"And we're just really, really excited to give people those scares week in and week out and to truly get you to a place where you cannot watch this show by yourself, or you ain't going to sleep that night."

Yeah, Angel was all about the scares.

You know what's a lot MORE like Angel? Angel!

the show will tap into the same vein as Angel, The Ring, The Grudge and The Amityville Horror

I don't see how Angel fits in with The Ring, The Grudge or Amityville Horror. I keep hearing the Sesame Street song "Which of these things is not like the other ones" everytime I read that line.
If I want Angel, I will watch my Angel. No way is the WB ever going to convince me to watch a show by using Angel as an example. You want the magic of Angel? Don't cancel the damn show.

*grumble mumble*
Jensen Ackles is their golden boy now. And remember alot of Angel's problems came from the lack of money it brought in. They could not re-run it because it did not make money, nor were investors that intrested in it. The barely advertised for it and usually only late at night. Angel's direct loss can be atributed to money. And the fact no matter what it never held consistant in it's viewers. One week way up, another way down. For the WB it is all about money, remember how dramamtically they slashed Angel's budget in season 5?

And sorry, but I think Fox has the prize for worst network and how they treat fans. Tru Calling, Dark Angel, Firefly, John Doe, to name a few. The difference is Fox also has some big winners and ALOT more money behind them.

I for one love Jensen Ackles. I will give it a shot. Based on him alone. If people refuse to watch the few remaining and new genre shows coming or on tv it might give the studio's a false sense that nobody is intrested in them.They might start believing that is what the Sci-fi network is for and to keep it off network tv.
Still not watchin' the WB. If Angel was on - I would watch it but it's not and I am not interested in watching knock-offs. So no thank you Mr. McG!
Yeah, Angel was all about the scares.


Wow, remind me not to upset Caroline :)
Being a Brit - I don't get the option of watching, or turning off for that matter, the WB. I do know, however, that the UK would pick up anything from the Buffyverse!

I suppose that the US networks do not take into account anything regarding the ability to sell the product outside of their native audience?
Not really. If they did Tru would still be on the air as it did great overseas.

And since most overseas get the shows in the middle of the US run or even sometimes after they have already been cancelled, it has little effect on the decisions of the studios.
Why compare one of your new shows to a show you previously canceled? This show is going to be so good that we'll cancel it to for no apparent reason as well! Check out supernatural, cause only in a world of the supernatural do I believe it could be muttered in the same sentenced as Angel. You know what the WB could compare to Angel and say it might be like Angel, a Spike TV movie... But so this doesn't get carried too far off topic, like some of you have mentioned - don't know if I'm quite ready to trust the WB with my heart again, but Serenity Sneak Peak #2 tonight will help my craving for more Joss. What can I say, I'm addicted :)

[ edited by RIPWesley on 2005-05-26 23:13 ]
Didn't McG work on Fastlane as well? That wasn't too high on character development either. All I remember were a lot of nice cars and Tiffany (Amber) Thiessen's much-hyped lesbian kiss scene.
Same reasons they keep comparing Veronica Mars to Buffy. To get that fanbase. TO intrest those who watched one to watch another, reguardless of it being cancelled or not.
Funny...I read that piece and didn't have time to comment (had to run into DC to give a pal his Serenity ticket), and now I don't have to...everybody has already said everything I had to say, and spilled at least as must bile as I was prepared to.
Its McG who compared it to Angel not the WB. As much as i love to smash the WB this statement is not on them. McG is way off base on this one but nice attempt to try and lure in Angel fans.

[ edited by Gunn 2 N's on 2005-05-26 23:31 ]
FalenAnjil - Yeah, obviously it's about profit, but I think you're a little off talking about the reasons behind Angel's cancellation. I mean, *any* show has some variation in audience numbers, and I don't remember seeing any articles saying Angel was particularly problematic in that respect. And yeah, reruns tended to get crap ratings. But, even from a business perspective, it's hard to understand why you'd cancel a show after a year when its budget had been slashed dramatically and its ratings had gone up.
McG is a hack. I'm surprised OC survived having him as a executive producer but I guess Josh Schwartz had more control than him obviously.
It's rating may have gone up slightly, but the number of actual viewers went down every week. And it lost alot of it's lead in numbers at that time. The advertisers which have more to do with a show staying on were non exsistant.

To me, I have always believed the WB only kept Angel out of spite for losing Buffy. Angel was supposed to follow Buffy the next year, but the WB held on, refused to market it and then the next year, when Buffy had ended and it would have no home, it slashed it's budget and did less the zero promotion and killed all reruns.

Not the work of a network who is behind a show.
I'm still amazed that Charmed is getting a 8th season. Its ratings are below what Angel's was when it was canceled and it re-runs horribly. Why does this show get to live longer than Buffy?
Ok, aside from all the justified outrage about him comparing this to Angel... Can I just say how truly terrible this premise sounds? The fact that the only promotion he gives it is that it will scare viewers makes it even less appealing. Ack. I'm happy to tune into the WB, FOX, or any station that has a good show on, past mistreatment aside, but count me out for this one.
I feel like it's the networks saying - Oooh! Look! ABC had a hit with Lost! So let's take anything with a supernatural/mystical/fantasy/x-files-ish premise, never mind the quality or writing (or even giving it a creative name) and people will lap it up.
I sincerely hope the success of Lost and even Desperate Housewives (a show i've never watched) will convince networks that yes, audiences DO crave good storytelling, building plots, dramas that you have to tune in to week-to-week, but I'm also expecting a lot of poorly crafted and conceived clones to fall by the wayside this fall.

[edited to correct an its/it's error - a personal pet peeve of mine :-)]

[ edited by acp on 2005-05-27 00:39 ]
I don't understand how the WB says Angel didn't do well on reruns when TNT is doing fine with reruns and I know a lot of fans who watch everyday. The WB needs to get off it's pedastal and admit they were the ones responsible for Angel's cancellation. They showed reruns at a time when people weren't even awake and they didn't advertise it.

I won't watch this new show because I still haven't turned on the WB since 10pm 5-19-04 and that network cost themselves a ton of viewers. Did they think the campaign was a joke? Did they really think we'd put that much energy in it just to forget they cancelled our favorite show by next season and start watching their channel again? I won't even forget in years.
I don't know who MCG is but he works for the WB and therefore his words represent that network.
When did they show them when people weren't awake? WB's latest time slot is 9 p.m. on all nights. Angel's time slot.
I don't know, Eddy, it's about 9 right now where I live and I'm getting ready to hit the sack!
Okay, okay. I know The WB is the big bad. But they did give Buffy a chance when no one else did. Sure, they've been recently screwy but I'm going to watch a show regardless of the network it's on. If it's a good show, it's a good show. I can't help but have some distaste for The WB at this point, but there would be no way I could give up on Gilmore Girls. And for the record, I'm willing to give Supernatural a test run.
I'm willing to give Supernatural a test run, too. Via Kazaa or Ares, that is. No way in hell am I giving the WB even a PENNY.
SlayerTV, I'm all for watching a show regardless of the network it's on, if I think it's going to be good. I just don't appreciate the comparison to a much loved show that was doing well and had a steady fanbase, with a season that had growth in viewership and they had made Whedon and company jump through hoops to get that season five and then they just decided not to renew it with only a handful of episodes left to film. If they had let it be known at the beginning of the season that Angel wasn't coming back that would've given Joss a proper amount of time to wrap things up. I loved season five and think it was great but a lot of it's plot was gearing up for what was going to happen in the next season. I'd rather hear what Supernatural is going to be about and if critics think it's going to be good. Don't make it sound like it's going to be a similar show to the much loved show that was cancelled. A lot of people shunned Firefly because it was the show that replaced Dark Angel and they refused to watch anything on Fox. I'm not a fan of Fox or the WB but I will tune in if I think a show has potential and is something I'd like.

Will, I watch this show, probably not. It doesn't sound like it's going to be good at all.
Whoa, hostililty guys!

I don't think its fair to totally dismiss this show without seeing it first just because of the network, the producer, and comparisons to a beloved show. That's exactly what we don't like about people who won't give the whedonverse a chance for whatever reasons.

I loved Angel too and I wish so much it wasn't canned, but at least appreciate this could be an interesting or likeable show, and AT LEAST it's not another reality island type show.

If you don't want to watch just because you don't want to give the WB ratings, it wouldn't even matter unless you have a Nelson Box.
Firefly Flanatic- well said and my feelings exactly!

buffbuff - I don't have a Nelson Box, so if I watch or not will not affect the WB ratings. I may see a bit of this show when it is on but I do not read anything in this article that makes me think "this may be a good show for me to watch"
You make a valid point buffbuff. However while I am generally in favour of the ‘try everything at least once’ approach to life, I also have to say that if it looks like manure and it smells like manure one doesn’t necessarily have to stick one’s hand into the WB pile just to make sure :)

And yes I am still bitter, because you know, the bastards made me cry. As far as the Nielsen box is concerned, it doesn’t matter to me whether me watching or not makes a difference to someone else, it only matters whether it makes a difference to me. If that makes any sense at all (which to me it does).
Guys, guys...It is not Joseph 'McG' Nichol's fault that Angel was canceled:-/
Now, while him comparing "Supernatural" to Angel might sound does show that he recognizes that Angel still is a good solit property that people will recognize.

While I rather have a Spike television movie then 22 episodes of this show...I'll give it a shot....if I have nothing else to do :-)
I agree that judging Supernatural on the basis of it being compared with Angel in some way or other may seem a little premature. Perhaps the show will be watchable. Maybe even good, I don't know.

I'm basing my opinion mostly on the fact that I really, sincerely disliked the direction of the Charlie's Angel movies (which were my husband's picks when it was his turn to choose at the video store) and am figuring if this show is directed by the same person, that odds are I wouldn't enjoy it, "supernatural" trappings or not. Another factor for me, an entirely personal one, is that it appears to feature only two leads, both of whom are male. That's less interesting to me because there's nobody there that I, as a female, can immediately identify with or project myself into. Everything I've read so far has led me to believe it's going to be a "scary"/male-sibling-bonding/coming-of-age thingy, and I'm just not feeling it. (And did you actually see Tarzan? Yikes.) Your highway may differ and your mileage may vary.

Added to that, being reminded that only a year ago Angel -- one of the WB's most critically acclaimed, buzz-generating shows, as evidenced by McG's attempt to connect with that abandoned audience -- was, metaphorically speaking, unceremoniously shoved out of the WB bed without so much as cab fare or a kiss goodbye (especially when Charmed gets to loll around under Froggy's sheets for yet another year) does not inspire the love.

I'm generally a very forgiving person, but hey! Like Miranda said, the bastards made me cry. On Valentine's Day, no less!

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home