February 2004 posts

Previous February 2004  

More February 2004

It is all leaking spoilers up to Why we fight -- Ann, 04:38:33 02/12/04 Thu

I think it is important they opened the show with Gunn's facts fading. They are leaking out. I speculate that because Eve has "vanished" she was the one that held the mindswipe together. (Or maybe Cordy since she is gone too. Could it be that Eve was the PTB' representation for Cordy while she was unavailable) She filled the "hole" and now that she is gone, they will remember. The leak was then taken "down" to show where it is really happening.

They then cut to Angel down in the water once again. It gives additional depth of meaning to Connor's actions dumping him in the water and what that must have meant to him. Everything is striving to make Angel go "down" into his subconcious and deal it all. I like how Angel had a rebirth of sorts through the torpedo tube. He is starting to choose to do good (was this the beginning, not Whistler, even though Angel didn't really have a choice here, they already knew about him), not just have a soul. Having a soul, and choosing to do good are separate things.

Angel fixed the "leaking" pipe on board the ship with his sheer strength. Is that a good omen for his future I wonder.

Sam Law/son. Good choice for a new "son".

The discussion of purpose, greater purpose, following orders reminded me of General Buffy redux.

I am not sure how I feel about Spike's apparent long time love of black coats. Does it make less his wearing of Nikki's coat? I am not sure.

"Put away your hankies". There was a french movie from 1979 entitled "Get out your Handkerchiefs" which was about a husband trying to please his wife. He does nothing right but is convinced he is making her happy. She is terribly unhappy because he doesn't see her, he just sees his efforts. I think this may have been a shoutout to this most excellent film. Sounds familar, trying and trying and just not finding happiness unable to look in the right places.

The Initiative is the grand sire of the Nazis. That was an interesting reworking of history.


[> I think it's the other way around (slight spoiler) -- Apophis, 06:19:36 02/12/04 Thu

The Nazis were the grandsire of the Initiative (at least, its modern incarnation). Just like with the space program.

[> [> Yes, you're correct - pre coffee in the am -- Ann, 04:22:40 02/13/04 Fri

weird question (spoilers WWF) -- buffyguy, 13:07:00 02/12/04 Thu

why do the vamps that are slain dust so quickly? i mean, angel staked the count and he dusted like a right when the tip went in...doesnt it take time? i mean, shouldnt it take a couple of seconds after the initial thrust for the cascading effect of the wound to reach the whole body? Know what i mean?


[> Re: weird question (spoilers WWF) -- Mighty Mouse, 13:11:51 02/12/04 Thu

Well, not considering what they do with graphics, time constraints, etc. I've always assumed that Vamps dust quickly because the magic that was keeping their supposed to be decayed bodies together vanishes, and BOOM, they go back to the state they should (there's also this theory of mine that would make more sense for the recently turned vamps that when the Demon is "forced" to depart with the wooden stake being driven into it's host, it's departure "burns up" the body, causing it to dust).

[> [> Re: weird question (spoilers WWF) -- Rook, 19:42:40 02/12/04 Thu

It just depends on the episode. Usually vamps dust pretty quickly, as in WWF, but sometimes they take a few seconds. Personally I kind of liked it when it late S3/S4 of Buffy they gave the vamps a few seconds to react: Mr. Trick from Consequences and the Pothead Vamp/Sunday dustings from The Freshman were some of the best, just because of the reactions.

[> [> [> Re: weird question (spoilers WWF) -- buffyguy, 20:32:20 02/12/04 Thu

my favorite dusting was of vamp willow when she got back to her own reality. Not just cause she almost said the f-word which is pretty funny, bu because i thought it was the most detailed, i mean, i even remember seeing her hair strands turning to dust. correct me if im wrong. But, yeah, i think it should take a few secs, maybe like 2 or 3 before they go poof and not just POOF, like that. And as for saving time during the show, i really doubt 2-3 secs will make a big difference, just flesh it out and detail it more and ill be a happy camper.

[> [> [> [> Re: weird question (spoilers WWF) -- Ames, 13:27:08 02/13/04 Fri

I think the original idea was that when the demon spirit inhabiting the vamp's body is killed by the stake, the body reverts to its natural state, which by this time is dust. The improved dusting effect in later seasons, where you see the skeleton briefly, is based on that.
But for convenience they used the same dusting effect for vamps who have only "died" a few hours earlier, so the principle doesn't really hold very well.
The occasional 2-3 second delay which gives the vamp time to make a wisecrack is a lot like the cartoon plunge where the character walks off a cliff, but takes a few seconds to realize that they should fall. Since the exact mechanism by which the stake kills the vampire is unknown, I guess you could make up any reason you want why the time-to-dust varies.
More disconcerting is the variation in time-to-dust from sunlight and fire. Some vamps seem to be able to run around in sunlight (e.g. Spike lots of times) or be on fire for several seconds (e.g. Darla and Drusilla on AtS), and still recover from the burns. Others dust instantly, like the vamps shot by fire arrows in Graduation Day 2, or the Turok Han exposed to sunlight by Dawn in Chosen. I guess this is more to do with dramatic requirements than technical explanations.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: weird question (spoilers WWF) -- buffyguy, 15:59:59 02/13/04 Fri

True, becasue when angel threw that lawyer out the window in the first eppy he was incinerated within 4-5 seconds but i believe darla and drusilla were on fire for a little longer...maybe fire and sunlight act differently. and maybe the clothes they were wearing made a difference, ie. leather vs. cotton or polyester. i dont remember spike running around in the sunlight without that giant tarp-thing covering his body. i wonder if he could do that indefinitely, but he was a little singed telling from the smoke coming from him even with the cover.

Rasputin's lover (Spoiler for WWF) -- Hauptman, 14:03:08 02/12/04 Thu

It's interesting to me, considering that am from Massachusetts, that Vampires have a very casual attitude about homosexulity. Angel never seems phased by it, but even Spike, who is always looking for something snarky to say, didn't seem phased or shocked by the "I was Rasputin's lover" line. And the Vamp himself, I've forgotten his name, forgive me, seemed to feel that his relationship was not only not a subject of shame, but something that should be respected, that they should be impressed by it.
I remember early in this season, and someone correct me if I am wrong, Angel was fighting one of Wolfran and Hart's black ops guys in the school and he called Angel a "little fairy" to which Angel replied, "I'm not little". Which I think indicates that Angel was more insulted at being called little than the suggestion that he might be gay. Not to get al shippy on you, but the flashback when Angel first met Spike was, I don't know, interesting...the whole "sharing with another man" line.
So, what does it all mean? I am just thinking about it now, but it seems that in this one area, vampires and perhaps demons have just gotten past the rest of society on this issue. Which is odd, because aren't they all evil? Can evil be progressive, or is ME, accidentally I am sure, saying that homosexuality is evil?


[> One could say that AtS is quite a slashy show -- Rahael, 14:11:07 02/12/04 Thu

In Expecting, Wes says to Angel: "They think we're gay, don't they?"

And Angel says: "adds mystery"

Angel has always been that relaxed. There are many who also see Wes and Gunn as quite slashy themselves (Head Boy??). And in BtvS, there is the ranging controversy as to whether Xander could be slashy

(Calling Spike well compacted and muscled and Buffy responding that she wasn't sleeping with Spike but she was getting to thinking that Xander was)

Or my brain could be addled with the all the slashy videos I've been watching.

Or there could be a disturbing subtext.

[> Re: Rasputin's lover (Spoiler for WWF) -- Glenn66, 15:17:20 02/12/04 Thu

The relevance of the statement "I was Rasputins Lover" might be something totally different. It might be that he is capable of putting up with anything, since Rasputin is usually described as a disgusting and incredibly unclean person (being in the same room with him could make someone physically ill by his filth)

[> [> Re: Rasputin's lover (Spoiler for WWF) -- Hauptman, 15:48:30 02/12/04 Thu

Possible, I suppose Glen, but it's a bit odd. Do you think he was saying, "Respect me because my lover was filthy?" Rasputin didn't wash and was know to wear chains as he walked around the Russia countryside. He was a member of a relgious sect that believed in sinning and then being forgiven for the sin, thereby moving closer to god. So he participated in numerous orgies and may have flogged himslef afterwards. I'm not so sure about the flogging. Now, not having been to many orgies myself I assume that the host would have asked Raspy to wash up a bit or at least to keep to the scary/ filthy guy section. Maybe that's where he met what-his-name.

[> Progressive Evil? -- Dlgood, 15:43:48 02/12/04 Thu

it seems that in this one area, vampires and perhaps demons have just gotten past the rest of society on this issue. Which is odd, because aren't they all evil? Can evil be progressive

I don't think it's particularly about being progressive. For the most part, a lot of the Vampire Evil is about not caring at all. It ends up looking like what being progressive looks like - but it's a different vibe.

And whether Spike is progressive or accepting of Nostroyev's homosexuality, it doesn't prevent him from dropping all manner of homophobic slurs in his discourse.

Beyond that, I think it mostly depends on the individual. I certainly think that, given Vampires like the Master, and demons like the Scourge - that the demon world is likely as filled by progressives and conservatives as the human world.

[> [> Re: Progressive Evil? -- Hauptman, 15:52:55 02/12/04 Thu

Well said. And good point about Spike. He does go on about "Nancy-boys" doesn't he? he once called Angel a "Great Poof" as he watched him from a rooftop.

[> [> [> And 'ponce' -- Pip, 16:05:50 02/12/04 Thu

It's also British slang for 'someone who behaves effeminately'.

[> Throughout history, homosexuality has mostly been viewed as sinful, or evil. -- BrianWilly, 19:40:31 02/12/04 Thu

If the evil/amorality of vampires is directly correlated to what they thought of as evil in life, it could be that the vampires who were born in those conservative times gravitate even moreso towards commiting or condoning this "sin." Obviously I'm not saying at all that homosexuality is sinful, but if vampires lived in times when popular opinion held that it was, they're probably going to be thinking that themselves.

Also remember that for vampires of Angel and Spike's upbringing, Catholicism is held in their mind as the utmost "goodness" and rightness, everything that they as demonic creatures of the night shun or dismiss. And nothing against Catholicism of course, but we all know what it says about homosexuality.

It raises interesting questions on whether evil in the Buffyverse is subjective or not. As the times change and minds open, will we be seeing more and more homophobic vampires?

[> [> I don't know -- KdS, 12:53:35 02/13/04 Fri

I read years ago that the legend of Rasputin's superhuman endurance was only supported by the killers' story, and that they may have made it up to make themselves appear more heroic and Rasputin more demonic. Can't quote the source, though.

[> [> [> Sorry, above post should be in subthread below -- KdS, 13:03:48 02/13/04 Fri

[> Rasputin... -- Rob, 19:52:10 02/12/04 Thu

...was killed by Prince Yusopov, a respected member of the Russian aristocracy who was also a crossdresser and believed to be gay. Legends go that the two were either lovers, or the Prince had him killed because Rasputin spurned his sexual advances. I had assumed that this was that same Prince.

So the Rasputin/homosexual link was not started by ME. They did use it to make a rather complex (and amusing) joke, though.


[> [> Re: Rasputin... -- Hauptman, 20:32:09 02/12/04 Thu

Oh, the Prince was definately bisexual. He had married into the Czar's family and, along with other members of the family, resented the influence Rasputin had on the family due to his supposed healing powers (he supposedly healed the Czars son twice, but historians think it was just good timing in between relapses.) I hadn't heard that Rasputin had spurned his advances, but I suppose it's possible. They blamed him for the million lives lost in World War I, I think, among other things. They tried poisoning him first, which famously did not work. There is a current theory that Raputin had a stomach condition that did not allow the poison to be absorbed in the normal fashion. Then they shot him a lot and threw him in the river for good measure. That worked a little better.

[> [> [> The way I heard it was . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:45:49 02/12/04 Thu

First they tried poisoning him: that didn't work.

Then they tried beating him to death: again, didn't work.

They tried shooting him: got impatient waiting for him to die.

Tied him up and threw him in the river: this (supposedly) did the trick; but, when they found his body, he had already managed to halfway untie the ropes.

Of course, this is just hearsay.

[> [> [> [> To see that scene in "action"... -- Rob, 21:05:10 02/12/04 Thu

...I recommend the film, "Nicholas and Alexandra," which does drag a bit, but is quite fascinating. The book is better, but obviously doesn't give you the visuals.


[> [> [> [> Re: The way I heard it was . . . -- CW, 05:22:48 02/13/04 Fri

Reliable sources say that after everything they did to him, he died from drowning. It was winter at the time, the Neva was largely frozen, and they pushed him under the ice.

Despite the fact Rasputin was a favorite of the Tsar and Tsarina, the killers had little trouble escaping. Whether or not he was bisexual, Rasputin had made himself widely hated by seducing daughters of the upper nobility.

The name Rasputin is from the root -to leave the path, and related to the Russian words rasputnik - lecher, and rasputitsa - The annual season when the Russian dirt roads were so muddy it became impossible to travel anywhere.

[> The way I've always seen it is that... -- KdS, 12:59:46 02/13/04 Fri

ME subscribe to the theory (Foucault's? I don't know) that almost everyone is slightly bisexual, and that most people identify themselves as "gay" or "straight" because of dichotomising social pressures. Hence vampires, not feeling pressure to conform, can act out all their impulses. I think this interpretation is supported by the fact that all of the vampires we've seen engaged in overtly or subtextually homoerotic sexual behaviour have also shown sexual interest in the opposite sex, suggesting that vampirism is associated with indiscriminate sexuality rather than gayness.

casting question (spoiler 5.17) -- buffyguy, 18:28:23 02/12/04 Thu

I was lurking around in the spoiler trollops and saw a message listing the cast members for episode 5.17. i noticed that next to the name hamilton, who i assume is the new liason much talked about, was Adam Baldwin. Now do we know if we are talking about the adam baldwin that was in Ghost, u know, the bastardly jealous guy...i dont remember seeing him anywhere else...oh yeah he was in Independence Day.


[> Re: casting question (spoiler 5.17) -- Rob, 18:58:10 02/12/04 Thu

Adam Baldwin was in Firefly, as Jayne, which is where Joss knows him from.


[> [> Re: casting question (spoiler 5.17) -- Nino, 19:05:29 02/12/04 Thu

oh man....i loved him! I hope this is a true spoiler...he was A) a really good actor and B) very very hot.

[> [> [> Re: casting question (spoiler 5.17) -- Rob, 19:48:15 02/12/04 Thu

I believe this one is pretty much confirmed, because it came off a casting sheet. Unless the casting sheet was a fake, which is always possible. But it is very likely.


[> Error -- Claudia, 10:16:15 02/13/04 Fri

"Now do we know if we are talking about the adam baldwin that was in Ghost, u know, the bastardly jealous guy...i dont remember seeing him anywhere else...oh yeah he was in Independence Day."

Adam Baldwin was in "Independence Day", but he was never in "Ghost". The bastardly jealous guy was Tony Goldwyn.

[> [> Re: Error -- buffyguy, 10:30:30 02/13/04 Fri

OOPS!!! your right...honest mistake...

The memory issues have been solved (spoilers for "Why we Fight") -- Ray, 23:02:21 02/12/04 Thu

When Fred asks Wes what they did to pass the time in the hotel he replies "I seem to remember a lot of Jenga."

Now, those who've watched the show for years, know that they never played Jenga for a second. So clearly all the memories of Connor, the Beast, etc have been replaced by Jenga. So many Jenga memories that it hurts and confuses them to remember anything else.
And of course Angel being the solitary guy that he is, avoided most of the implanted-Jenga games. Therefore he is free to remember what really happened.


[> Jenga -- Dlg, 23:32:51 02/12/04 Thu

Jenga is a highly symbolic choice.

It's the game wherein one must remove pieces from the base of a tower and add to the top, in order to build higher and heigher - yet without the tower toppling over when it is no longer able to support itself.

Representative of the dilemma the MoG face at W&H. How much higher can the build the tower, before it becomes unsustainable and collapses.

[> [> Re: Jenga -- Hauptman, 04:05:20 02/13/04 Fri

Wow, we really read into everything, but I agree. I don't remember any Jenga at all. And it is the perfect metaphor for the gang current status. Thanks. It makes me feel better to know that the subject is being addressed by ME, if only subconsciously.

[> [> [> Re: Jenga -- Rob, 07:29:14 02/13/04 Fri

It wasn't only addressed by ME through the Jenga, but through the main plot of the episode, which had dozens of allusions to the Connor situation and Angel's current relationship with his friends.


[> [> ugh, I'm gonna sound stupid, but... -- Seven, 06:53:24 02/13/04 Fri

What does MoG stand for? I can see that it refers to the AI gang but what does it mean?

(really bothered by this cause I have no life) 7

[> [> [> Not stupid, just not a reader of TWOP -- lunasea, 08:35:42 02/13/04 Fri

It is Ministers of Grace from Shakespeare. It is how the writers at Television Without Pity refer to the Fang Gang. They think they are being clever.

From their FAQs

What does "MoG" mean?

It's short for "Ministers of Grace," and is a collective term for Angel's sidekicks, which I came up with when I got tired of typing out everyone's name. It comes from Hamlet, I, iv, 20: "Angels and ministers of grace defend us!"

[> [> [> [> I was wondering about that for a while! -- Rob, 09:07:59 02/13/04 Fri



[> [> [> [> [> Re: I was wondering about that for a while! -- Masq, 09:22:47 02/13/04 Fri


I'm with you Rob. I went there a couple times and just couldn't handle it. I suppose they are equal opportunity bashers, making fun of every show out there, but I don't get any enjoyment out of seeing my favorite shows poked and prodded, criticized and nit-picked by people trying to prove their own cleverness.

Perhaps I have no sense of humor. Or maybe I just prefer spackling up plot holes rather than ripping open new ones.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with you 100%. -- Rob, 09:55:05 02/13/04 Fri

I just peeked at a Six Feet Under one and ran screaming in horror. I couldn't even bear to imagine what they were saying about Buffy or Angel. I just don't agree with their mission statement that every single show is worth making fun of, particularly in their smart-ass, know-it-all way. And why do the people who claim to hate these shows so much spend so much time poring over each episode to rip them apart? They could be spending their free time watching, I don't know, things they actually like. It seems like they're just wasting their time to me.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Those who can do, those who can't make fun of those that can -- lunasea, 10:09:45 02/13/04 Fri

I mean, these guys hate Spike more than I do.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hee! -- Rob, 10:27:49 02/13/04 Fri

And I've heard they even hate Wesley, and that's just...unforgivable.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Unless, of course... -- Gyrus, 13:29:46 02/13/04 Fri

And I've heard they even hate Wesley, and that's just...unforgivable.

Unless, of course, they mean Wesley Crusher. Then it's commendable. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I liked Wesley Crusher! -- Masq, 14:02:59 02/13/04 Fri

I thought he was a great character. And now that I know what the term "Mary Sue" is, I'd argue he wasn't one. He was just smart, and that annoyed people. But he fucked up all the time.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree. Also like Troi, another character a lot of people seem to hate. -- Rob (checking the room to see if anyone's surprised), 15:03:02 02/13/04 Fri

Riker, though, I can't stand.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That was my reaction, exactly -- Masq, 10:21:38 02/13/04 Fri

And why do the people who claim to hate these shows so much spend so much time poring over each episode to rip them apart? They could be spending their free time watching, I don't know, things they actually like.

If these shows suck so badly, why are you even watching them?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Masochism? -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:26:03 02/13/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pseudo-intellectual snobbery? -- Jane, 17:18:57 02/13/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> To each their own -- Inge, 12:03:53 02/13/04 Fri

I had the exact same reaction when I first got there, but it's not all criticism. When shows do good, they get praise. When they are bad, they get critized. It's the same thing here, except that some of the TWoP people in general seems to be a lot more critical.

people trying to prove their own cleverness.

No offense, but there are stupid people everywhere and who knows if some of the people from TWoP post here?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To each their own -- Rob, 15:27:08 02/13/04 Fri

No offense, but there are stupid people everywhere and who knows if some of the people from TWoP post here?

If the TWoP people can't take some snark aimed at them for a change then they (a) write for the wrong website or (b) are hypocrites.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To each their own -- Dlgood, 22:17:34 02/13/04 Fri

I get plenty of enjoyment out of TWoP, and their forums are actually fairly decent as well. IMO.

[> [> Re: Jenga -- Ames, 15:34:46 02/13/04 Fri

Good call, but here's another interpretation of Jenga as a highly-appropriate choice of memory filler:

As others have pointed out, Jenga is a game where you have to carefully extricate pieces from a tower contructed of variously-shaped blocks without causing it to fall down.

In this case we are talking about all events to do with Connor having been carefully extricated from the gang's memories without causing the remainder to collapse in inconsistency. But has it succeeded? Or is Gunn's momentary mental lapse this week an indication that the tower is wobbling?

[> [> [> good one, ames! -- anom, 18:56:44 02/14/04 Sat

"In this case we are talking about all events to do with Connor having been carefully extricated from the gang's memories without causing the remainder to collapse in inconsistency."

Great parallel, & very nicely said.

"Or is Gunn's momentary mental lapse this week an indication that the tower is wobbling?"

We don't know yet if it's just momentary, since Gunn didn't exactly get a chance to say much more in the rest of the episode. I wondered about the implications for the stability of the mindwipe too. Gunn's legal (etc.) download was a separate deal, & the mindwipe was in exchange for Angel's agreeing to run W&H LA, which he's still doing...so it may not be affected.

Gunn's question last week about whether the Senior Partners would let them walk away if they wanted to also has implications for the wipe's remaining in effect. At the time it sounded like Gunn was suggesting their lives might be in danger, but maybe the threat is really to the memory removal, the reality alterations...& Connor's happiness. (Freudian typo? The 1st time I typed that sentence, it came out "their lies might be in danger." Angel's lies, anyway.)

[> There are lots of things we don't get to see -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:13:35 02/13/04 Fri

For example, name some point in Seasons 1-3 of Buffy where she was shown liking cheese, as Willow claimed in "The Initiative".

Fact is, we don't get to see a lot of what the gang does in their spare time. I took this instead to mean that, without memories of all the times they had to worry about Connor, the Fang Gang instead focuses on something else: Jenga.

[> [> Cheese -- Inge, 12:09:15 02/13/04 Fri

We only heard her say that she had a craving cheese. But that was when she was a rat, so that may not count.

Oh, that wasn't your point, was it?

But yeah, you're right. And thank god we didn't have to see Gunn play golf or something like that.

*imagines a whole episode of Gunn playing golf*

That would be weird. If he sang Gilbert & Sullivan songs while playing golf, that would be something.

I've just pre-ordered Season 4 AtS and S7 BtVS! -- Marie, 01:36:15 02/13/04 Fri

Well, I must have something to while away these long maternity weeks!!!!!!!


p.s. Hee-hee-hee!!


[> Hi, Marie. Hope you and the baby are doing well! -- CW, 04:57:34 02/13/04 Fri

[> Re: I've just pre-ordered Season 4 AtS and S7 BtVS! -- LadyStarlight, 05:10:59 02/13/04 Fri

Good call!

Remember, if you indoctrinate the spawn early enough it sticks with them. My small spawn was roughly 2 when I got into Angel, and during the Pylea arc, he fell in love with Angel.

Me: What does Angel do?

Small Spawn: Angel go grrrrr. (complete with "monster hands" by the face)

How's baby? And you? All well?

[> [> I second this -- lunasea, 08:23:53 02/13/04 Fri

My children know the characters on sight and even fear Spike (no matter how many times I tell them he has a soooooul now, they don't seem to understand the difference). The baby loves the Grrr argh monster and does a very good impression.

If you get them young enough, then they will know what to get you for presents. They will even learn where the Buffy section is in the book and video stores are. When they pass by a magazine rack, they will tell Daddy, "Mommy would like this. It has Angel on the cover." You will receive crayon drawings of your favorite characters that will rival anything Angel can do.

Education is a parents a parents sacred duty. We have to educate them what to like so they know what to give us.

[> [> [> Re: I second this -- alix, 09:37:22 02/13/04 Fri

Just delurking to square that (fourth it?? to second the second, in any case). My brother, a non-believer, gave me Buffy S1-5 on DVD for Christmas and the best compliment my 5-year-old daughter has ever paid me was the recent declaration, "Mom, YOU are *my* Buffy!" High praise, indeed.

Doubt I'll delurk again anytime soon, as so many of my Buffy/Angel-related reflections have already been expressed here so much more concisely and eloquently than I ever could, but it suffices to say that your musings have been my daily delight ever since discovering this site. Need I say, they verge on effulgence...

[> [> [> [> Re: I second this -- Ann, 11:37:56 02/13/04 Fri

Welcome and me too! My kids play Buffy and my son wanted me to be her for Halloween. I think children key into her fight for good. They see the world in this black and white way that is the surface of these shows. Evil bad. It is much closer to the fears and terrors that they experience as children. They are glad that Buffy is fighting this and cheer her on. And it is extremely cute!

[> Taking care of Donovan isn't going to keep you busy? -- Masq, 13:57:30 02/13/04 Fri

Or do you plan to have one eye on the baby and one eye on the television?

[> [> Newborns sleep a lot -- lunasea, 10:34:53 02/15/04 Sun

a whole lot. They sleep, eat, sleep, eat, sleep, eat and poop too.

[> A warning -- Fleem, 17:19:28 02/13/04 Fri

God knows I love BTVS and AtS, and I used to watch them constantly, both on TBS and DVD, when my son was an infant. Unfortunately, as soon as he got old enough to imitate the characters on the screen (like, 11 months!) he did -- hitting people, just like Buffy and Angel do -- and that was the only place he'd had the chance to see that behavior. We've now got a moratorium on the kid (now 21 months) watching any tv shows with fight scenes. Which forces me to buy more DVD's because I now can't watch the 6 PM AtS reruns. Darn! ;)

It's sad, because my son LOOOOVES Buffy: he shows an odd attraction to young blonde women (I'm brunette), and recently, when I flipped past an episode of AtS on the tv -- no SMG in sight, he smiled and said "Buffy!"

[> [> my son too!! -- Ann, 07:30:27 02/14/04 Sat

He too enjoys blond(e)s such as Buffy. But he also has a healthy respect for strong women which I encourage. I do keep my finger on the remote just in case. The Santa Claus references in a few of the episodes almost caused a kerfluffle. I was quick enough. I have to say, that the social issues that Buffy deals with has allowed many conversations especially with my daughter. We watch together (obviously) and that seems to work.

Saturn awards -- pellenaka, 13:58:55 02/13/04 Fri

Buffy and Angel got a good pile of nomination for this year's Saturn awards. You can see the rest of the nominations (including movies and stuff) here



ANGEL (WB Network)







Richard Dean Anderson - STARGATE: SG-1 (Sci Fi Channel)

Scott Bakula - ENTERPRISE (UPN)

David Boreanaz - ANGEL (WB Network)

Michael Shanks - STARGATE: SG-1 (Sci Fi Channel)

Michael Vartan - ALIAS (ABC)

Tom Welling - SMALLVILLE (WB Network)



Eliza Dushku - TRU CALLING (Fox)

Jennifer Garner - ALIAS (ABC)

Sarah Michelle Gellar - BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER (UPN)

Kristin Kreuk - SMALLVILLE (WB Network)

Ellen Muth - DEAD LIKE ME (Showtime)

Amber Tamblyn - JOAN OF ARCADIA (CBS)



Alexis Denisof - ANGEL (WB Network)

Victor Garber - ALIAS (ABC)

John Glover - SMALLVILLE (WB Network)


Michael Rosenbaum - SMALLVILLE (WB Network)

Nick Stahl - CARNIVALE (HBO)



Amy Acker - ANGEL (WB Network)


Charisma Carpenter - ANGEL (WB Network)

Victoria Pratt - MUTANT X (Tribune)

Katee Sackhoff - BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (Sci Fi Channel)

Firefly also got one nomination:







WISEGUY, SEASON 1, PART 1-2 (Studioworks)

Thanks to slayerverse.de for this.


[> Re: Saturn awards -- Claudia, 15:53:04 02/13/04 Fri

Amy Acker and Charisma Carpenter were nominated and not Alyson Hannigan? Or Elisha Dukshu, for that matter?

PANIC!!! Possible bad news. -- Apophis, 18:05:31 02/13/04 Fri


Aintitcool.com is reporting that Angel may not be back next season. Granted, someone says that every season, but this is the first time (in my memory) that Hercules at Coaxial News has made such a statement.


[> Re: PANIC!!! Possible bad news. -- drc, 18:16:09 02/13/04 Fri

Well, it seems to be for real:

News at Zap2it.com (article contains spoilers for next episode)

[> Breaking News -- RJD, 18:17:10 02/13/04 Fri

The WB's website has this link posted:

[> [> Nooooo! (weeping and tearing at hair) -- Jane, 18:42:40 02/13/04 Fri

[> [> Aaaargh! -- Ames, 19:07:23 02/13/04 Fri

It's all the fault of you American viewers. Every single Canadian watched Angel, I swear!

[> [> God, and this season was so g.d. good. How sad. -- Rochefort, 19:20:32 02/13/04 Fri

[> *runs from the room screaming and babbling incoherently* -- angel's nibblet, 19:53:38 02/13/04 Fri

*returns and sits in the corner, sobbing quietly and still babbling incoherently*

Why? I've only just managed to begin getting over the psychological damage caused by Buffy ending....

[> And Zap2it says.... ::runs off on Nibblet's heels:: -- Sofdog, 20:14:02 02/13/04 Fri


Why?!? Why?!? ...:sobs heartily:... why-yy-yy....?

[> [> Damn it! -- Rob, 23:30:23 02/13/04 Fri

And I was going to go to sleep and not check on-line, but no, I had to go and check and get depressed! What the hell is wrong with The WB? Why do they refuse to let a Joss show run more than 5 seasons? The only good thing about this situation, and I mean the only good thing, is that they respected them enough to tell the cast and crew early enough so they could actually prepare to make this the final season. But damn it...Just damn it! I was hoping that it would at least be able to match "Buffy"'s 7 years. I don't know if I can deal with both Buffyverse shows being gone, one after the other like this. Here's hoping Joss comes up with a new show, pronto.


[> [> [> Re: Damn it! -- Rob, 23:31:23 02/13/04 Fri

Or, of course, better yet, another network picks up Angel. *sob*


[> You can sign a "Save Angel" petition -- s'kat, 20:17:11 02/13/04 Fri

If you want to sign a fan petition to renew and save Angel the Series fro Cancellation go here:


There's over 5000 signatures so far.


[> [> Thanks for the link, s'kat! -- Dariel, 20:52:08 02/13/04 Fri

I'm pretty cynical about signing petitions, but made an exception for this one. I was never that big an Angel fan before, but have really enjoyed it this season. It figures!

[> [> I couldn't get to it.. -- Jane, 22:17:54 02/13/04 Fri

Could some computer genius out there make a link from this board? I tried googling, but it said the page couldn't be found. And I WANT to put my name on it! Come on everyone, lets inundate the WB with signatures! WE WANT ANOTHER SEASON!

[> [> [> Here's the link: -- LittleBit, 22:33:06 02/13/04 Fri

Angel Petition

[> [> [> [> Thanks, Littlebit. -- Jane, 22:38:30 02/13/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> Up to 6945 signatures, at last count. -- Rob, 23:36:41 02/13/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Now 8661signatures, at last count. -- Ann, 05:35:21 02/14/04 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> 9386 now! -- Rob, 07:18:38 02/14/04 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Over the ten thousand mark - 10,034 and rising -- Pip, 08:27:11 02/14/04 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 14902 as of 6:00 pst ,but I fear it's all in vain -- skpe, 18:14:40 02/14/04 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> amazing -- littletrigger, 21:56:10 02/14/04 Sat

hey everyone,

i'm just a lurker here, but i have to say this:
that petition is simply amazing. not only are there at least 100+ signatures every hour (i checked periodically today), but look at all those countries these signatures are coming from!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 17226 -- Ann, 05:28:13 02/15/04 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 19054! -- Rob, 11:06:58 02/15/04 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 20,665! We've beat the twenty thousand mark! -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:19:54 02/15/04 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 27961 -- Ann, 13:58:52 02/16/04 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not sure how valid some of these signatures are though -- s'kat, 19:29:36 02/16/04 Mon

Apparently David Boreanze has signed twice. Joss Whedon has signed. James Marsters has signed. Amy Acker has signed.
Now, maybe it's just me...but that just sounds a tad fishy
don't you think? Especially since people can apparently sign any name they like as long as they use their email address for verification. So if you have five email addresses - you could technically sign five times.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah...its cool that people are doing this, but it doesn't amount too much of anything -- Nino, 19:40:03 02/16/04 Mon

[> Re: PANIC!!! Possible bad news. -- Raven_NightDragon, 20:22:23 02/13/04 Fri

And yet... Charmed will probably get renewed... Joss hasn't had the best luck over the past 14 months.

[> [> Re: PANIC!!! Possible bad news. -- buffyguy, 20:40:03 02/13/04 Fri

I dont understand this...is there any possibility that this is a joke? Everything was coming along so well, everything was falling into place to make this season an especially memorable one. I just dont get y it wouldnt be renewed...could UPN possible pull a buffy? This is so frustrating becasue i dont know the reason behind this. THEY BETTER BRING IN THE BIG GUNS BEFORE THEY END IT!!! i wanna see buffy and i wanna see giles and willow, and i wouldnt mind seeing xander. DONT BLOW THIS FOR ME, WHEDON!... oh god, can i go cry my eyes out or what? and they'd better get on top of getting a new spinoff off the ground very very very quickly. Willow the Wicca, Xander the Zany Zeppo, Giles: Watcher Extraordinaire. Well, they can think about titles, i just want the buffyverse to continue...oh for the love of god, CONTINUE!!

[> [> [> No!!!! They need at least 7 seasons! -- Giles & Nick, 20:45:28 02/13/04 Fri

Otherwise our buffy and angel shelves wont be equal. quick, everyone pray to the UPN gods!

[> UPN? -- Apophis, 21:12:39 02/13/04 Fri

I think I heard a while ago that, when they picked up BtVS, UPN agreed that it would also take on Angel if the WB ever cancelled it. Was this true or am I making things up to make myself feel better?

[> [> Re: UPN? -- Raven_NightDragon, 21:20:05 02/13/04 Fri

They did say that at the time... although I think they meant if Angel was cancled at the same time as Buffy, or if ME decided to bail on WB alltogether at that time. Not sure if it still holds true today.

[> [> [> Re: UPN? -- LittleBit, 21:31:01 02/13/04 Fri

If I recall correctly that agreement had a two year limit. So even this current season wouldn't have fallen under it.

[> [> [> [> Re: UPN? or Fox -- Casino21, 22:11:28 02/13/04 Fri

Why the hell doesn't Fox pick it up? They can replace the Thursday night 8pm - 9pm slot with Angel. No one really likes what's there now anyway.

P.S. I know perfectly well what is current in that times slot, I love E.D. She's the reason I even started watching Buffy, but groundhog day crap just isn't flying with me. Sorry Tru fans.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: UPN? or Fox -- Raven_NightDragon, 22:37:14 02/13/04 Fri

Fox would just cancel it again after 8 episodes. They do that alot I hear

[> [> [> [> [> Re: UPN? or Fox -- buffyguy, 22:37:15 02/13/04 Fri

i dont care what network picks it up...just as long as it continues. Dont be stupid networks, pick it while u can

[> [> Forget UPN, what about HBO? We could finally get the all-naked episode -- Pony, 06:20:53 02/14/04 Sat

Well, what a wonderful Valentine to the fans the WB is sending. It's going to be hard not to projectile vomit the next time I see a Charmed promo. It's always hard, but this time it feels more personal.

[> [> [> the all-naked episode - with oil!! -- Ann, 07:23:44 02/14/04 Sat

[> [> Re: UPN? -- Wolf Breeze, 18:30:19 02/14/04 Sat

In the good old STL, MO we have Angel sinicate on UPN already. Does any one else?

Sunday 8:00pm - 10:00pm

~Wolf Breeze

[> *quiet weeping* -- Ixchel, 00:43:34 02/14/04 Sat

[> Re: PANIC!!! Possible bad news. -- YesPlease, 00:44:49 02/14/04 Sat

GAH! Motherfaders! I agree, it feels real this time!

Can't help but recall that a WB exec said that Angel:TS and their crapola remake Dark Shadows were not "going to be in competition with each other." Makes me wonder how long this has been planned >:(

[> [> Dark Shadows -- Ames, 08:26:06 02/14/04 Sat

Looks like the WB marketing group told them:

a) Vampires popular
b) AtS aimed too high, dumb it down - say, to the level of a network exec

[> Darn, darn, darn -- Pip, 02:46:08 02/14/04 Sat

OK, who's for a 'big pile of dust' as the season ending?

It even has a kind of awful symmetry. BtVS S2 ended with Angel's 'death', AtS S2 ended with Buffy's death. BtVS ended with Buffy's physical death, so AtS S5 should end with Angel's physical death.

If they then move to another network, they can resurrect him a la Darla.

But still ... I was hoping they'd make it to S6, at least.

[> [> Should be 'BtVS Season 5 ended with ...' [above] -- Pip, 02:55:23 02/14/04 Sat

[> [> Re: Darn, darn, darn -- botitas, 12:18:26 02/14/04 Sat

Bring on the dust, baby! Maybe I'm just pissed off, but I feel they should end Angel ala "Blake's Seven" or "Hamlet". Kill everybody and wipe L.A. off the face to the earth, or better yet bring back Dark Willow or the Master to usher in the Apocalyspe.

[> What? No. No. No. This is just so wrong! -- phoenix, 06:28:45 02/14/04 Sat

[> DAMN!DAMN!DAMN! -- skpe, 07:25:24 02/14/04 Sat

First 'Firefly' then 'Farscape' then 'Buffy' and now this.
I think I'll toss my TV out the window

[> [> Re: Valentine's Day and my heart is breaking -- Brian, 10:15:42 02/14/04 Sat

In the Jossverse, the end comes too soon. Rats!

[> [> [> Re: Valentine's Day and my heart is breaking -- Brian, 10:18:29 02/14/04 Sat

The Jossverse ends too soon.

[> [> [> [> Re: Valentine's Day and my heart is breaking -- Jane, 12:04:51 02/14/04 Sat

Yeah, what a lovely Valentine's gift from WB. I suggest that all of us (especially those in the U.S., cause the Networks don't seem to care about viewers in Canada)write to the head of WB in protest. We should start a boycott of all WB programmes if they go ahead with cancelling Angel. I know I will. Not hard, since Angel is the only decent programme on the WB,IMO. I can't believe that I could be so upset by this. The other thing that upsets me is that after Angel, this board might go away! I would miss it just as much as the actual show. Sob.

[> [> [> [> [> Right there with you -- Athena, 12:31:14 02/14/04 Sat

That's what I'm going to do. Channels are always taking away any type of decent show. They often do this with movies too. Heck, look what was done to Joss's part in the X-men movie.

WB: Look! This program has depth! BAD PROGRAM. BAD BAD. KILL. KILL.

[> HBO should just hire Joss and make us happy... -- grifter, 12:43:24 02/14/04 Sat

If they can air stuff like Carnivale, which is even far more removed from mainstream then Buffy or Angel, they can afford to have Joss just go wild with a new series over there! Just make sure James Marsters is in it and the content doesn¥t matter that much ratings-wise. ;)

[> [> Re: HBO should just hire Joss and make us happy... -- phoenix, 13:19:12 02/14/04 Sat

I wish. But what are the chances?

[> [> Re: HBO should just hire Joss and make us happy... -- Matlack73, 13:54:31 02/14/04 Sat

I would get HBO just for Angel.

[> [> Re: HBO should just hire Joss and make us happy... -- MaeveRigan, 11:39:04 02/17/04 Tue

Um--no. Speaking purely for myself--and thus from an admittedly selfish point of view--I think this is a terrible idea. I don't have HBO, and I don't plan to have HBO. I believe my entertainment budget is better spent elsewhere. Joss should make movies. He's got the rep. to do it now, I bet. Make the Firefly film and blow everyone away, THEN maybe he can go back to TV with a little more clout.

Or make even more movies. I'd be first in line to see them.

[> Re: PANIC!!! How many eps left to be written and filmed? -- Silky, 18:21:17 02/14/04 Sat

Sure the WB gave them notice -- but how much is it really? Episode 14 airs this week, they must have at least 3 more in the can, so that leaves what? maybe 5 episodes or less to be filmed, rewritten or whatever.

Or maybe they'll just go with what they had already planned.

And, will SMG find time NOW to return before the end?

I hate the networks....

[> Joss' s reaction on the bronze beta -- pellenaka, 04:34:33 02/15/04 Sun

From the Bronze Beta's VIP archive:

joss says:
(Sat Feb 14 22:31:16 2004) [Context]

Some of you may have heard the hilarious news. I thought this would be a good time to weigh in. to answer some obvious questions: No, we had no idea this was coming. Yes, we will finish out the season. No, I don't think the WB is doing the right thing. Yes, I'm grateful they did it early enough for my people to find other jobs.

Yes, my heart is breaking.

When Buffy ended, I was tapped out and ready to send it off. When Firefly got the axe, I went into a state of denial so huge it may very well cause a movie. But Angel... we really were starting to feel like we were on top, hitting our stride -- and then we strode right into the Pit of Snakes 'n' Lava. I'm so into these characters, these actors, the situations we're building... you wanna know how I feel? Watch the first act of "The Body."

As far as TV movies or whatever, I'm not thinking that far ahead. I actually hope my actors and writers are all too busy. We always planned this season finale to be a great capper to the season and the show in general. (And a great platform for a new season, of course.) We'll proceed ahead as planned.

I've never made mainstream TV very well. I like surprises, and TV isn't about surprises, unless the surprise is who gets voted off of something. I've been lucky to sneak this strange, strange show over the airwaves for as long as I have. I don't FEEL lucky, but I understand that I am.

Thanks all for your support, your community, and your perfectly sane devotion. It's meant a lot. I regret nothing (except the string of grisley murders in the 80's -- what was THAT all about?) Remember the words of the poet:

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn."

See you soon.


[> [> Re: Joss' s reaction on the bronze beta -- Raven_NightDragon, 15:31:08 02/15/04 Sun

That's Joss for you... always managing to find the laugh even in the pain.

[> [> Re: Joss' s reaction on the bronze beta -- angel's nibblet, 18:59:03 02/15/04 Sun

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn."

Poor wee man *gives Joss a huge bear hug*

[> Re: PANIC!!! Possible bad news. -- Marginal Drifter, 17:34:59 02/16/04 Mon

This isn't good. This isn't good *at all*. I mean, does *everything* have to come down to money in the end *always*?

ZachsMind's Fantasy Network -- ZachsMind, 21:34:48 02/13/04 Fri

Here's a question for you. If you had a television network and fifty five billion gazillion dollars and could have any kind of television shows you wanted, what would you put on your TV network? This is mine. I call it SCN aka the Second Chance Network. All times are central, cuz I'm central. Other timezones please do the math accordingly.

7p - The Tick/The Lone Gunmen
8p - Serenity Flies Again
9p - Adventures of Brisco County Junior

7p - Strange Luck
8p - Ripper the Series
9p - The New Prisoner

7p - Birds Of Prey
8p - Buffy Summers the Series
9p - Janeane Garofalo Does Whatever the Hell She Wants

7p - Charlie's Angels the Series
8p - Angel the Series
9p - Quantum Leap 2017

7p - Police Squad!/The Critic
8p - Oz the Series
9p - Northern Exposure

7p - Daria/Futurama
8p - Willow the Series
9p - Politically Incorrect Returns with Bill Maher

7p - Freaky Links
8p - Faith the Series
9p - VR-5


[> Re: ZachsMind's Fantasy Network -- Dandy, 05:56:04 02/14/04 Sat

I love you Zach. You gave me back Northern Exposure.

[> [> Re: ZachsMind's Fantasy Network -- phoenix, 06:13:54 02/14/04 Sat

Ooh. Northern Exposure. God I miss that. Plus, Janeane Garofalo does whatever the hell she wants. And Faith, Oz, and Willow, the series. My cup runneth over. I think love Zach too (-;

Now, if we could just get him to bring back Robin of Sherwood...

[> [> [> Re: ZachsMind's Fantasy Network -- ZachsMind, 23:52:38 02/14/04 Sat

Robin of Sherwood? I had a re-creation of the short-lived tv series "Covington Cross" in mind as a midseason replacement. Does that help? =)

[> [> [> [> Re: ZachsMind's Fantasy Network -- phoenix, 03:52:04 02/15/04 Sun

Hmm. Could be, but I've never seen Covington Cross.

Robin of Sherwood was a British TV show back in the earl '80s, retelling the legend, but with a lot more mud and mysticism than any other version I've ever seen. Herne the Hunter wandering about the forest, poping up to give cryptic speaches; an insanely camp Sherrif of Nottingham, and a genuinely dangerous Will Scarlet. Plus a wonderful soundtrack by Clannad. It got cancelled after three seasons. Still has many happy childhood memories for me.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: ZachsMind's Fantasy Network -- ZachsMind, 18:38:52 02/15/04 Sun

Covington Cross was on American television for less than half a season. It was a story about feudal England with an admittedly modern sensibility. Such things as women being more independent and the idea that maybe a man shouldn't be master of his kingdom without.. well needless to say it was too inaccurate to appease fans of historical fiction, and it was too accurate to appease people not fans of historical fiction. It just couldn't find its audience in time. I adored it though.

So if there were an eighth day of the week, Covington Cross could be the first hour, Robin of Sherwood could be the second and then in the final hour of that eighth day we could have a series based somehow on Neil Gaiman's Sandman series of graphic novels. That'd be fun.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ZachsMind's Fantasy Network -- phoenix, 02:03:09 02/16/04 Mon

Niel Gaiman. Yes please. While we're at it can we persuade Joss Whedon to direct a mini-series based on Gaiman's novel 'American Gods,' 'cause then my joy would be complete (-:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ZachsMind's Fantasy Network -- Pip, 13:52:11 02/16/04 Mon

Oh, yes. BTW, the BBC did a six part tv version of Neverwhere, which was great fun. Could that get popped in somewhere?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ZachsMind's Fantasy Network -- phoenix, 03:08:53 02/17/04 Tue

You're right. *smacks forehead* I knew I'd forgotten something (-:

Call to arms! Saving Angel: How do we "Get It Done"? -- Matlack73, 08:36:15 02/14/04 Sat

The petition was a great start. Thanks to the person that started it. What kind numbers do we need to make a difference? Have petitions ever saved a show before?

Just brainstorming:

Is there anything else we could do? Where do we direct our efforts? Besides the WB, do we also direct them to UPN? Fox?Joss and ME? Does Joss have a plan? How do we find out? What could our involvement be? How do we offer him our encouragement? How do we let him know that if he needs an army, he's got one.

If he doesn't lead us, who amoung us will? Does anyone on this board know a lot about the television business?

I think we don't have much time, since Joss is probably rewriting right now with the end of the series in mind. What do you guys think?

I think Angel and the Jossverse is worth fighting for.


[> Sign the petition link in the below thread, for starters. -- Rob, 10:02:22 02/14/04 Sat

But it seems like The WB is very sure about its decision, fan campagns or no, and from what I've been reading, the likelihood of it being picked up by another network is about zero, due to the costs, the fact that it's a cult show, etc.


[> [> Maybe a hard decision has to be made -- Ames, 12:10:09 02/14/04 Sat

Angel probably is a relatively expensive show to make, what with the ensemble cast and the FX. Especially compared to the latest "reality" dreck. In the numbers game, maybe the WB and UPN just don't pull enough audience to support an expensive quality show. It seems unlikely that one of the big networks would pick it up - they're strictly mass-market pap, catering to the lowest common denominator (e.g. "Charmed") to make their numbers. Maybe HBO?

If the choice came down to cutting the budget for AtS in half, getting rid of some of the cast, toning down the expensive parts of the script - or opting for occasional "specials" instead, which should we support?

We may be seeing the end of an era here. With the fragmentation of the entertainment universe, there may not be enough money in any one segment to make a series like AtS again.

[> Boycott -- Ann, 12:30:34 02/14/04 Sat

I think a boycott may be in order. WB has been moving towards this sort of decision since at least 1999.

The Family Friendly Programming Forum is comprised of the following companies:
Ace Hardware Corporation, AT&T Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Eastman Kodak Company, FedEx Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Mills, Inc., General Motors Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline, H&R Block, Inc., Hallmark Cards, Inc., Hershey Foods Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Kellogg Company, KFC Corporation, Kraft Foods, Liberty Mutual, Masterfoods Incorporated (M&M/Mars), McCormick & Company, Inc., McDonald's Corporation, Merck & Company, Inc., NestlÈ USA, Inc., Novartis, PepsiCo, Inc., Pfizer Inc, Schering-Plough Corporation, Sears, Roebuck and Co., Sprint Communications, State Farm Insurance Companies, Texas Instruments Incorporated, The Coca-Cola Company, The Gillette Company, The J.M. Smucker Co., The Lowe's Cos., Inc., The Procter & Gamble Company, Tyson Foods, Inc., Unilever United States, Inc., Verizon Communications, Wachovia Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Welch Foods, Inc., Wellpoint Health Networks and Wendy's International, Inc.
Also I guess we should have known it was coming. See http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,5165,00.html. They even mention Buffy: ìWith racy shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dawson's Creek and Felicity in its fold, the Frog is generally regarded as being a teen-appeal network. But the network's highest-rated program is 7th Heaven, a drama about a minister and his family, exactly the type of show favored by these advertisers--all members of the Family Friendly Programming Forum, cochaired by executives at Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble.î
But one hand doesnít know what the other hand is doing. From http://aoltw.com/companies/warner_bros_index.adp
For the 2003-04 season, Warner Bros. Television has television's highest-rated new comedy in "Two and a Half Men," highest-rated new drama in "Cold Case," highest-rated new cable series in "Nip/Tuck" and the high-rated summer sensation "The O.C." Of the 14 new network series produced by WBTV this year, 11 received full-season orders (an impressive, for industry standards, 79%).
They claim certain ìfamily standardsî on the one hand but make other TV shows that would not necessarily meet such standards. Since profits seem to be their only criteria, we should boycott these companies.

[> [> How about a reverse boycott? -- Matlack73, 13:56:52 02/14/04 Sat

What if we contact the current sponsers with a pledge of support if they intercede on Angel's behalf with the WB?

[> [> Re: Boycott -- Matlack73, 15:38:44 02/14/04 Sat

Boycott. Great idea Ann! I clicked on renewangel.com and just e-mailed all the listed sponsers thanking them for sponsering Angel and letting them know that I and many others will boycott the WB if they follow through on not renewing Angel. I wrote that their advertising dollars would be spent on a smaller audience and that they should voice their concern to the WB.

[> [> [> Why a Boycott Would NOT be a good idea... -- Rob, 16:04:05 02/14/04 Sat

The Save Farscape campaign succeeded because there was no boycott, because a boycott sounds like a hostile action. We should be writing very polite letters to WB thanking them for the five years and saying how we wish they would reconsider. Threats do nothing. Besides the fact that I have other shows on The WB, such as "Smallville," that I don't plan on giving up, and I'm sure a great deal of other viewers feel the same.


[> Msg from Joss at bronzebeta -- abt, 14:42:37 02/14/04 Sat


posted at 22:31:16

[> [> Reprinting the message, since it took me 8 mins. for the page to load, with high-speed connection... -- Rob, 15:40:44 02/14/04 Sat

joss says:
(Sat Feb 14 22:31:16 2004)

Some of you may have heard the hilarious news. I thought this would be a good time to weigh in. to answer some obvious questions: No, we had no idea this was coming. Yes, we will finish out the season. No, I don't think the WB is doing the right thing. Yes, I'm grateful they did it early enough for my people to find other jobs.

Yes, my heart is breaking.

When Buffy ended, I was tapped out and ready to send it off. When Firefly got the axe, I went into a state of denial so huge it may very well cause a movie. ButAngel... we really were starting to feel like we were on top, hitting our stride -- and then we strode right into the Pit of Snakes 'n' Lava. I'm so into these characters, these actors, the situations we're building... you wanna know how I feel? Watch the first act of "The Body."

As far as TV movies or whatever, I'm not thinking that far ahead. I actually hope my actors and writers are all too busy. We always planned this season finale to be a great capper to the season and the show in general. (And a great platform for a new season, of course.) We'll proceed ahead as planned.

I've never made mainstream TV very well. I like surprises, and TV isn't about surprises, unless the surprise is who gets voted off of something. I've been lucky to sneak this strange, strange show over the airwaves for as long as I have. I don't FEEL lucky, but I understand that I am.

Thanks all for your support, your community, and your perfectly sane devotion. It's meant a lot. I regret nothing (except the string of grisley murders in the 80's -- what was THAT all about?) Remember the words of the poet:

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn."

See you soon.


[> [> [> Thanks! -- Matlack73, 15:47:55 02/14/04 Sat

Thank you very much for posting it, Rob.

[> [> [> Thanks Rob... -- Jane, 17:51:00 02/14/04 Sat

that just totally broke my heart. Poor Joss. Poor us.

[> [> [> Thanks except... -- Pony, with the ranty-pants, 19:28:42 02/14/04 Sat

I was fine all day and now I feel like crap. Seriously, Joss needs to go cable networks, they at least seem to have some vague appreciation of auteurs which is far more than the mainstream networks have demonstrated. I was actually feeling pretty good about television this year, but really all the stuff I've been enjoying on the networks - besides Angel - is fluff. Alias and The OC are fun but they have no other ambition than to be well-written entertainment. Scrubs and Arrested Development sneak in a certain amount of absurdism to the sitcom format but its more about style than anything else. Joan of Arcadia may aspire to Buffy-level dialogue and acting but of the admittedly few episodes I've seen I can't really see the point of the show. 24 is doing its usual mid-season collapse and The Simpsons are usually better in reruns. Is there no place for television to examine the larger issues - and by larger issues I don't mean "ripped from the headlines" crime and politics but the actual big questions of why we're here and how we exist with one another - without underlining, highlighting and pretentiously pointing out the deep thought moments? Joss' problem is that he believes in subtlety, he believes in metaphor and above all he believes in the story, so that people could watch and be entertained and not always realize that there was something larger at work. So now I'm bitter and ranty because I'm starting to think that there's no place for that in television. Television's where I work, it's where I spend a lot of time, and I have to wonder why.

[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks except... -- Rob, 20:45:33 02/14/04 Sat

24 is doing its usual mid-season collapse

I'm actually enjoying this 24 midseason more than the earlier part of the season. That last episode, soapy or not, had to have been the most delicious hour of Sheri Palmer ever.


[> [> [> [> [> Kinda killing my rant buzz there, Rob. -- Pony, 13:17:45 02/15/04 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> Erm...Sorry. Don't let me derail your ranty train...Grr, aargh, networks! Cont -- Rob, 13:23:58 02/15/04 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That last word should be "continue." -- Rob, 14:18:13 02/15/04 Sun

[> Suggestion -- Ames, 16:38:24 02/14/04 Sat

Move production to Vancouver, cut the cost in half. It's a 2-hour flight in the same time zone for anyone that really needs to commute home on the weekend. It's not like the LA background figures prominently on-screen so that it would be a problem. Plenty of connections too: Tru Calling is filmed in Vancouver; SMG shot Scooby Doo 2 in Vancouver.

For that matter, lots of series made for syndication manage to make it work financially by filming in Vancouver, like Stargate SG-1 and Andromeda.

[> Community -- Maura, 17:04:43 02/14/04 Sat

I'm one of those who has mixed feelings about the end of _Angel_. I'm depressed and would love to see it continue in some form. I'm also hopeful that, knowing this season will be the end, ME can get away from catering so much to the "episodic" demands of the WB and get back to some really super story arcs before it's all over.

But what's really impressed me over the past day or so is the immense sense of fan community out there. Whether or not it all proves to be useful in keeping _Angel_ on the air in some form, it's truly inspiring to see. Feeling really close all you folks out there right now!

[> [> This community will continue -- Masq, 17:46:47 02/14/04 Sat

The ATPo site and the board aren't going anywhere. There will be much to discuss in both BtVS and AtS for years to come.

[> [> [> That's good to know. Thanks, Masq. -- Jane, 17:47:42 02/14/04 Sat

[> [> [> Re: This community will continue -- zargon, 08:05:41 02/15/04 Sun

Yay Masq! Thanks! I'm sure it will take me many years just to read everything on the site! :)

zargon still lurking in Amsterdam with the 6+ hour ahead of EST time difference :(

[> [> [> [> Hey zargon! -- Masq, 08:18:23 02/15/04 Sun

How are things!?

[> [> [> [> And to make it worse... -- Masq, 08:54:49 02/15/04 Sun

I'm sure it will take me many years just to read everything on the site! :)

I have several sections I want to rewrite, and tons of material I've been wanting add and just haven't had the time for.

ATPo is far from "done"!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: And to make it worse... -- zargon, 09:36:42 02/15/04 Sun

I gulp may have some time..... (though I'll probably regret typing this!). Besides, I need to practice my English! I've forgotten how to spell words correctly (several words are similar in Dutch but slightly off....success/succes, door/deur, green/groen, blue/blauw, red/rood, white/wit).


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And to make it worse... -- Masq, 14:54:25 02/15/04 Sun

We're back logged with the archives. If you want to pitch in, just give me another email.

an otherwise happy valentine's day to all, & an otherwise happy birthday to d'herblay! -- anom, 18:39:57 02/14/04 Sat

I've never been superstitious. In particular, having been born on a Friday the 13th, I never thought it was bad luck. This particular one, however, seems to be an exception. But I hope some of us (& you know who you are, esp. a certain 2 of you!) are enjoying today for other reasons!


[> Happy birthday d'H! -- Pony, 18:58:39 02/14/04 Sat

[> Birthday with your sweetie... -- Masq, 19:19:01 02/14/04 Sat

Sounds perfect!

[> Happy B-Day, d'H! -- OnM, 19:37:47 02/14/04 Sat

[> Friday the 13th is lucky (just most folks don't know it) -- Vickie, 21:04:23 02/14/04 Sat

I have a grandfather and a brother both born on
Friday the 13th. I consider 13 my lucky number.

HB, dH! (a little late)

[> [> well, *i* know it! it was pretty lucky for me! @>) -- anom, 21:19:34 02/14/04 Sat

[> Happy Birthday dH & anon! -- Jane, 21:16:54 02/14/04 Sat

[> [> oops, I mean anom! (sorry for the typo) -- Jane, 21:18:17 02/14/04 Sat

[> [> [> thanks, but it's not my b'day! -- anom, 21:57:50 02/14/04 Sat

I was born on a Friday the 13th, but in November, not February. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[> [> I hope you had a WONDERFUL BIRTHDAY, dH!!!! -- Briar Rose, (late as always.*L), 10:25:28 02/16/04 Mon

[> Feliz Cumpleanos -- kisstara, 08:46:15 02/15/04 Sun

Well, I hope you enjoyed your birthday! I'm looking forward to the chat this Wednesday coming. Till then, Be Well Anom.

[> Re: an otherwise happy valentine's day to all, & an otherwise happy birthday to d'herblay! -- zargon, 11:07:57 02/15/04 Sun

Gefeliciteerd! Prettige verjaardag! (Congratulations! Have a Nice Birthday!) (in Dutch)

[> Thanks everyone! -- d'Herblay, 20:20:45 02/17/04 Tue

[> happy burble, d'herble -- MsGiles, 02:24:14 02/19/04 Thu

or happy birblay, d'Herbday

Dangerous Visions -- OnM, 19:53:35 02/14/04 Sat

As I sit here writing this, music from Kate Bushís The Red Shoes is playing in the background. Kate and
Joss have a lot in common, when I come to think about it. Both of them are creative people who donít really fit
into conventionís conventions, as it were. The salient personal characteristic they share even reminds me of some
classic lines from a older K.B. album, via a tune called Cloudbusting:

I had a yo-yo / That glowed in the dark
What made it special / Made it dangerous
So I bury it / And forget...

I think thatís itís important to remember that what makes Joss and his diverse partners-in-sublime special
also makes them dangerous, at least to the minds of certain folk in the entertainment establishment. I donít
think it takes more than a little casual observation to grok that the standard broadcast TV networks are
increasingly Dilbertian in nature, and furthermore that this sitch isnít likely to change for the better any time soon.
Too many things are working against organizational principles that extend beyond consideration for the bottom
line above all else, or worse yet, the desire to promote a political agenda.

On the one hand, it would be easy to guess that the cancellation of Angel was due to either basic
monetary or political concerns, but we will likely never know for sure, so I would rather concentrate on what we
might be able to do to make the future of the show a reality, rather than dwell on what probably canít be
changed. One thing I can assure you is that neither money nor politics can be argued with except by application of
more extreme money or politics. We viewers are mostly ordinary folk who have access to neither of those forms
of leverage, so while signing petitions doesnít hurt anything, it isnít apt to bring Angel back to network TV

So letís assume for the sake of argument that the WB wonít change its mind. Where do we go from here? There
are several possibilities, but keep in mind as you read through these that my comments reflect only my own
humble opin, and as Dennis Miller often quoth, îI could be wrong...î

1. Another network could buy the show.

If we are talking about the 7 broadcast nets (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, FOX, WB, UPN) the only likely
candidate would be UPN. Another poster commented previously that s/he recalled UPN stating that if the WB
ever gave up on Angel they would make an offer for the show. I recall this also, and if you wish to send
letters or e-mails, Iíd concentrate them in this direction. Our extreme fondness for the Whedonverse tends to
make us overlook that in terms of total viewership the numbers are pretty small compared to even minor big
network efforts. Therefore, a show like Angel just isnít worth it to them. UPN is tiny enough that Angel
could provide adequate revenues, but there is one kicker-- they bought into Buffy (and I thank them most
sincerely for doing so, since I loved Season 6 and thoroughly enjoyed Season 7) in her hour of need, but lost their
collective shirts by doing so. They knew going in that the best they could do was maybe break even, but hoped
that the show would draw in viewers who might also start watching other network programming, and so theyíd
make out like the way McDonalds does-- not with the hamburger itself, but with the fries and the Coke.

But that didnít happen, because many viewers detested one or even both seasons, and the show lost viewers
over time, not gained them. UPN took a big gamble, and crapped out. They may fear that exactly the same thing
could happen if they roll the dice on Angel.

The best possible thing that could happen would be for PBS to pick up the show, but they have even less money
than UPN (as becomes plainly evident when you consider the seemingly endless fundraising drives they have to
endure). Angel is an expensive show to produce, and there are probably fewer PBS stations in the
country than either the WB or UPN. On the one hand, the show would become both commercial-free and far
more flexible in terms of run time, but would there be enough viewers willing to pay in advance by becoming PBS

Like I just said, this is an extreme long shot, but if you hate commercials and donít care to shell out for expensive
pay-cable or satellite networks, consider writing to PBS and tell them that if theyíd pick up the show, you
will become a member for every year that the show runs to the tune of (whatever you can afford).
Remember that subscribing to HBO for a year costs about $150.00, so even a $60.00 PBS membership is a

Speaking of HBO, there is no question that Angel could fly there, but if you donít have cable or satellite
service, you are extremely S.O.L until tape or DVD time. Also, as previously noted, is the cost. On the plus side,
lotsa other good stuff on the network, so the investment does tend to be worthwhile if you do have access.
Personally, content-wise, I think the Showtime network would be a somewhat better choice than HBO and
would be more likely to take over the show, but Iím nitpickiní here. Any of the major pay channels would be
cool, and wheeeee! NO ***DAMN COMMERCIALS!!!

2. Other, non-TV network possibilities:

There is always movies. As long as Sarah is willing to come back sometime, there will surely be Buffy flicks in the
future. Even if she isnít, there is always the Fray universe or a ëTales of the Slayerí scheme to work within. There
could even be a Faith-based film!

So Angel cinema is certainly viable, I mean, if the Trek franchise can roll in the big bucks, thereís no
reason Joss canít sell his visions also. Write to FOX or whoever, and tell them to underwrite the efforts if they are
approached. Make it plain that you want to see films with these characters and their universe.

Another possibility that has never been tried to date, but that I see no reason for not being workable, would be
a direct-to-DVD production/sales methodology. That is, the shows would be made just exactly like they
would be for TV broadcast, but then go directly into video sales, bypassing the nets entirely. This has been done
plenty of times for ëB-Moviesí over the past several years, but absolutely nothing prevents it from being done for
an ëAí film, or TV show. All you need is the potential viewers, who basically show they are willing to pay for
quality entertainment. A few years ago I would have been leery of suggesting such a technique, but the incredible
success of DVD technology has changed the industry permanently.

Industry moguls scoffed and heaped ridicule on the idea that ordinary peeps would shell out good bucks to view
their favorite TV shows on video, and then were forced to eat their words when millions did exactly that, and
keep on doing it. DVD sales now bring in truly significant dollars, from a world-wide marketplace.

So, the new season of Angel starts up as usual, but after four shows are completed, you hie on down to
your local video shoppe and glom them up on a disc (or of course VHS for the retro folk). Approximately every
6 to 8 weeks, the next disc gets issued. By summertime next year, you have six discs, and a complete season.
Commercial-free, with eps not constricted by length. (42 minute show? Fine. 65 minute show? Also fine. 24 or
25 eps instead of 22? Okey-dokey. A disc at the end of the season with a whole buncha extra goodies and
commentaries etc? Kewl!)

This last option is quite frankly what I would love to see. I despise commercials, and the idiotic restrictions they
ineveitably place on the quality of the finished art. I think I can state with some degree of assurance that many of
the ëplotholesí and ëout-of-character momentsí and failures in continuity would have evaporated from the past
seasons of BtVS (and Angel) if the shows did not have to be forced into exactly 42.00 frickiní minutes every damn week.

So, if you think this is a good idea also, write to the Jossverse powers-that-ME and tell ëem so. Thatís what I
plan to do.

You can find you own way. Letís see if we can change the world.

-- OnM


[> Re: Dangerous Visions -- Jane, 21:13:29 02/14/04 Sat

Thanks, OnM, for giving us some good ideas for the continuation of Angel. I would love to see direct to DVD shows as well. I think that's a brilliant suggestion! Since the networks don't seem to be able to understand the intelligence that is in the Jossverse, perhaps we should just go right over their heads. Hit them where it hurts, in the wallet. Brilliant!

[> Possible Continuation of the Jossverse: Cartoon Network -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:08:50 02/14/04 Sat

I know the Buffy cartoon fell through, but I think, with the right strategizing, a Jossverse show on Cartoon Network could be the solution. I'm basing this mainly off of another Cartoon Network show which is so unorthodox that it makes Buffy and Angel look downright mainstream. I'm referring to .Hack//Sign.


.Hack//Sign, which Cartoon Network airs at 12e/11c on Saturday nights, is the story of an MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) called "The World", where people are able to use virtual reality software to more fully emerse themselves into the game. Trouble arises in The World when a player named Tsukasa discovers he can't log out of the game or remember who he was in real life. The mystery of who Tsukasa is and what's behind his predicament is the plot of its 26 episode run. While there are monsters and battles in the world, those are shown very infrequently; instead, the series's plot is usually moved along through characters sitting around, talking, and occasionally getting cryptic info from bizarre sources.

As should be obvious, .Hack//Sign is not the sort of show which would fit in on most other networks. Just the fact that it's a Japanese cartoon which centers around an RPG is enough to scare most people away. Then there's its overall talkiness and cryptic forebodings, which can turn off many of those who give it a chance. Then, of course, there's its incredibly arc centered structure. .Hack//Sign is pretty much one long story that throws you into a confusing, mysterious arc, without the benefit of "previouslies" or constant past references to clue you in. If you're not willing to sit through several episodes just figuring out what the hell is going on, .Hack//Sign won't make any sense, and even dedication won't help you if you don't jump in early enough.

This is why I feel that the Cartoon Network would make a great home for a Buffyverse cartoon show. The network's already airing a show that's far more confusing, unusual, and alienating than Buffy or Angel have ever been. This makes them far more likely to accept a Buffyverse show (provided it was animated) than WPN or WB ever could be. The language, sexuality, and some of the violence would need to be toned down, but not by much if it was given a late night timeslot like .Hack//Sign's. There are additional benefits as well:

1) The WB and Cartoon Network already air some of the same shows, so having Joss go from one network to the other probably would be quite easy.

2) An animated Buffyverse show would be able to avoid many of the extra expenses fantasy/action shows tend to have. Having the animators draw demons and fight scenes rather than using loads of makeup and fight choreographers has got to be less expensive.

3) While Buffy and Angel don't have the large audiences of "The West Wing" or "CSI", their viewers tend to be more dedicated and likely to follow the show across networks and into different mediums. This should appeal to the Cartoon Network, whose late night shows (primarily anime) rely upon developing a small but loyal fanbase.

So, if all other options fall through, I think Joss should definitely try pitching an animated show to the Cartoon Network. There he might find the ability to stretch his creativity without iminent cancellation fear found in the big networks.

[> [> Re: Possible Continuation of the Jossverse: Cartoon Network -- Egak, 09:17:49 02/16/04 Mon

The network's already airing a show that's far more confusing, unusual, and alienating than Buffy or Angel have ever been.

A show? As in singular? Fooly Cooly, Reign, Big O, Blue Gender, all at least as confusing, unusual, AND alienating as B&A, each moreso in at least in at least one of the three.

The language, sexuality, and some of the violence would need to be toned down, but not by much if it was given a late night timeslot like .Hack//Sign's.

... The only thing I CAN'T cite specific examples negating the need for being toned down is same sex relationships, and even then only compared to S6/7 Buffy.

[> [> [> Was only citing one example because that's really the only one I watch -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:35:17 02/16/04 Mon

Unfortunately, I have to get up pretty early on weekdays, so I'm really only able to sample the late night shows on the weekends. However, I do think some toning down would probably occur. I'm mainly basing this off of their show "Ruroni Kenshin", where a scene of a guy burning alive was pretty obviously (and poorly) censored from its original version. Still, I'll leave that call to those more informed than me to decide.

[> Re: Dangerous Visions -- Ann, 05:21:22 02/15/04 Sun

I am glad I am not the only one who thought PBS. But I like your straight to dvd/video idea even better. Thank you for all of these possibilities. All of this potential.

[> Showtime -- Dochawk, 14:23:15 02/15/04 Sun

I think everyone should be concentrating their efforts on Showtime. its a perfect match. DVD sales of Angel have shown that many people are willing to pay money for Angel RERUNS let alone first shown episodes. By taking on a cult classic in its prime, Showtime would add many of those viewers. In addition it would be a reason for the videophiles among us to get HiDef Showtime. In any case they are fufilling their need for original programming and adding MANY new customers. They would have to be made aware that this would happen for them to go for it.

[> [> One of the reasons I thought of Showtime was... -- OnM, 15:53:29 02/15/04 Sun

... that a number of years ago, they took the canceled TV series The Paper Chase and not only reran the one season that did air, but made two additional brand new seasons that followed the characters through the remaining years of law school. (The TV series was based on the film of the same name, as you may recall).

They did an excellent job, and I'm hoping one day they'll release this series on DVD-- it was an intelligent, thoughtful and well crafted production.

Could they do the same for Angel? What Doc says is certainly true that it could be a benefit for them, so the financial incentive would be there.

[> [> Re: Showtime -- Rufus, 20:16:46 02/15/04 Sun

Oooooo that and ME could do more naughty things with the show than the WB would allow...darkness would reign..;)

[> [> Some doubts -- Sophist, 20:38:38 02/15/04 Sun

Xander: Look, I don't mean to poop the party here, it's just, you get your hopes all up, and then it's just a big fat raspberry, and I feel bad.

I'm not sure this is realistic. Consider the ratings. AtS began S5 with about 5.2 million viewers. That has dropped to a range of 3.3 to 4.0. The same precipitous decline happened last season. I interpret this to mean that the "core" viewership is about 3.5 million, give or take.

The show is not that cheap to produce (costs could be reduced by eliminating some regulars or cutting the special effects). Because Showtime does not sell commercials, it can only make up those costs by enticing additional subscribers. Some of the current AtS watchers are already subscribers, so Showtime would gain nothing. Others may be unable to add Showtime or uninterested in doing so. The economic benefit to Showtime is not at all clear.

There are actually advantages to ending it now. Ending it this season will leave the core viewers with fond memories of the show. Far better that should happen than it go on a year too long. This may also increase DVD and other residuals.

If the core fans are left wanting more, that creates demand for a movie (not necessarily Angel, but some Jossverse movie). In general, there is a needed delay between a successful show and a movie in order to avoid saturation. If the show ends "artificially" early, the unsatisfied demand may actually cut the waiting time for a movie.

When all is said and done, I won't be surprised if AtS ends this season. It may actually be a mistake to try to force it to continue.

[> [> [> Re: Some doubts -- OnM, 05:36:42 02/16/04 Mon

*** When all is said and done, I won't be surprised if AtS ends this season. It may actually be a mistake to try to force it to continue. ***

Uhhmmm, I wouldn't say 'force it to continue' is the appropriate phrase in this case, for several reasons.

One, Joss very clearly wants the show to continue for at least another year, possibly longer, as long as the staff can come up with good stories. He did not feel the same about Buffy at the end of 7 seasons-- he was happy with what had been done, but felt burned out and that it was time to call it quits for at least a while.

Two, no one can 'force' the show to go on. If the network wants to drop it, they'll drop it (and apparently have). ME's only alternative if they want to keep going is to find an alternate outlet.

Three, the majority of Angel fans very clearly are not tired of, or have become disinterested in the show, as many did with the last two seasons of Buffy. While is is very unlikely that fan reaction to the cancellation will influence the WB to change their minds, it could influence another distribution entity to step in and pick up the show.

(In fact, I personally think that trying to influence the WB to do a 180 would ultimately backfire-- witness the fan reaction back in the 60's that returned Star Trek for a third season after it was canceled by NBC. The network grudgingly brought the show back, but slashed the budget and hired the cheapest/most inept writers they could find, and the show quality plummeted like a coyote falling off a cliff clutching an anvil. No one wanted it back for a fourth season after that. I suspect that the WB would likewise see a serious fan challenge as an affront to its 'business acumen', and seek retaliation in some subtle [or not so subtle] form.)

*** . Some of the current AtS watchers are already subscribers, so Showtime would gain nothing. ***

I don't follow this logic. Nothing? Yes, undoubtably a number of Angel fans are currently Showtime subscribers, but surely many of them are not. Exactly how many subscribers Showtime would gain I have no idea, but it would have to be some, perhaps quite a respectable number. Showtime, like HBO, Cinemax and other 'premium' cable/sat channels, is a pay service, so 'big' viewership numbers are not essential in the way that they are for a commercial network or channel. Do you think that shows like Oz or Six Feet Under attract more than a niche audience, and could possibly survive on commercial networks, content issues aside?

*** AtS began S5 with about 5.2 million viewers. That has dropped to a range of 3.3 to 4.0. ***

I think any of the pay services would absolutely excrete if they could suddenly add even 1 million new subscribers to their viewer ranks. Would it be that high? I have no idea, but I do know that fan loyalty to Whedon shows is far greater than the average.


*** The show is not that cheap to produce. ***

Which is exactly why it needs to go to a pay-in-advance marketing strategy, either HBO/Showtime etc. or as I suggested, a direct-to-video/DVD plan.

[> [> [> [> How about Sci-Fi? -- Majin Gojira, 05:58:50 02/16/04 Mon

They're deperate for programing, and having 2 massive cult shows on the air would be a boone to them (the other being Sci-Fi Staple "Stargate SG-1", their hieghst rated program and in competition with Buffy as to "Who's fanbase will replace Trekkies first")

Hell, given Angel's numbers, they'd shit themselves over the viership like that. To them, Stargate's 2.2 for their midseason return (and end to a 2-parter "Evolution") was record-breaking. their usual ratings are a 1.0-1.9, with an average of 1.5.

Plus...well...Scifi needs the programming desperately.

[> [> [> [> [> Not too keen on those guys, but that's just me. -- OnM, 06:13:36 02/16/04 Mon

First, and again this is a personal thing, but Sci-Fi is a commercial network and I hate commercials, not olny because they interrupt the flow of the show, but because they force a rigid time format, thus constricting the writers vision. Granted that you can't have a wildly varying run time for shows, like 40 minutes one time and 2 hours the next, but minor variances could be easily accomodated in a pre-pay distribution format, such as, say, from 48 minutes to 56 minutes.

Second, these are the same people that were responsible for abruptly and inexplicably cancelling Farscape, one of the most intelligent and original science fiction programs in recent years.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Not only did they abruptly cancel "Farscape"... -- Rob, 10:36:46 02/16/04 Mon

...but they did so less than two months after officially annoucing that it had been picked up for the next season. By the time this cancellation occurred, the end of the season had already been filmed, and so the show was left on a cliffhanger. Which is why I still say that at the very least I appreciate that The WB had enough respect for the show and its fans to make them aware of the cancellation early on, even if it didn't have enough respect for it to leave it on the air, where it should be. Showtime still sounds like the best option to me. They would be much more likely than HBO to air a sci-fi/cult series. Carnivale, although I love it, does not count, because it is more surrealistic/magical realism than straight sci-fi or fantasy, whereas Showtime had Stargate for 5 or 6 years, Jeremiah, and a few others, I believe. They'd probably be much more willing to go for the wacky/weird slant to the Joss shows than HBO.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not only did they abruptly cancel "Farscape"... -- buffyguy, 11:16:47 02/16/04 Mon

was farscape a good series...i never really got into it...also what was carnivale about, although i saw rpomos for it i never really understood its premise

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Farscape"... -- monsieurxander, 06:00:27 02/17/04 Tue

A little side-note... I read a couple of months ago that Farscape would have a TV movie made to cap off the series (instead of the horrible cliffhanger we were left with). I haven't really kept up with the status, so it could be in development Hell... but there's hope.

Also... When will the next season of Carnivale air? I kind of got the impression it wasn't that successful... so... I don't know. I like it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Farscape update - Miniseries is halfway through production! -- tomfool, 06:56:58 02/17/04 Tue

Here's that latest update I could find:
"Rockne O'Bannon, Farscape series creator, sent the folks at Watchfarscape.com a little email today. Here's what he wrote:

Hi WatchFarscapers,
A quick shout out from the fringes of the Uncharteds -- just to say a loud and sustained Thank You for your continuing passion for and efforts on behalf of The Little SF Show That Could. As I mentioned at the Farscape Con in Burbank, David Kemper and I spent last Fall working on a secret project -- well, the most unsecret of secret projects. And though I cannot confirm or deny anything, let's just say that your undying efforts to keep awareness of a certain television series alive within the entertainment community is the singular reason why a particular unnamed project is now halfway through production. On behalf of everyone currently working on -- oops, almost said it! -- well, on behalf of everybody working on SOMETHING down in Sydney, Australia, a resounding Thank You. Here's hoping you'll all be pleased with the fruits of your efforts. Cheers, Rockne"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And Carnivale info... -- Rob, 07:23:59 02/17/04 Tue

The second season of Carnivale is set to air in late 2004/early 2005. While it wasn't quite as successful as some of their other shows, HBO actually cares about viewers over ratings. Apparently, Carnivale got their biggest response on the fan messageboards the night after every show, more so than any show in their history, and based on that, despite less than stellar ratings, the show has been renewed, and the second season is even going to have one episode more than the first, which means they're willing to spend more money on it than before. Which is awesome.


Can we put part of the blame for this on Janet Jackson? -- LeeAnn, 03:23:20 02/15/04 Sun

BtVS has been described as one of the most sexually explicit shows on network TV. And it was. That was one of the things I liked about it. It's true that AtS, particularly this season, has been pretty bland sexually, but maybe the rep helped sink the show since Michael Powell and the right wing in control of America are on the rampage against any sexual material or taboo language. I'm not saying that was all of it, but it might have been a factor.


[> Re: Can we put part of the blame for this on Janet Jackson? -- Ames, 09:18:04 02/15/04 Sun

Sure, why not.

But maybe not in the way you propose. Maybe the network execs said "Wow, 200,000 letters to the network complaining that a singer's boob popped out during the halftime show! I guess the American television audience really are a bunch of yahoos. Let's cancel all our highbrow shows and put more trash on the schedule!"

[> [> Re: Can we put part of the blame for this on Janet Jackson? -- rationalizer, 09:38:30 02/15/04 Sun

is it just me or is it significant how much press jj's hooter got? it's not a particularly nice one and it's not the 1st america's seen. what's special about it? i think the whole thing proves that america needs to get over its taboo about sex and treat it as the great, natural, beautiful thing it is. it says something when a huge no. of viewers tune into the grammys just in case they get a glimpse of a breast.


[> Seriously, -- CW, 12:05:52 02/15/04 Sun

When a network executive gets dragged before a committee of the US Congress and lectured about how sex and violence are out of control on broadcast TV, it's time to realize that the WB isn't working in a vacuum. Angel almost got cancelled after last season, so cancellation itself shouldn't be that big of a shock. The fact that the WB may also selfishly use the cancellation in its own defense later to demonstrate it is seriously considering the concerns of the Congress and the tens millions of voters it represents, may not be pleasant for us, but it's something we have to take into consideration before we get too upset with the network.

Janet Jackson may have been the last straw. But, I doubt it was the fundamental reason the show was canceled. That way, I feel like I can still cuss at the WB. ;o)

[> [> I was reading the PTC summary of Angel -- Simon, 13:43:59 02/15/04 Sun


Way things are going another couple of years, we're not going seeing programmes of Angel's ilk around.

[> [> [> Re: I was reading the PTC summary of Angel -- Night, 16:02:59 02/15/04 Sun

No, we will. It's just that they're all going to move from these broadcast-type networks onto the cable channels. America can have a nice, homogenized, family-friendly schedule, and the rest of us can watch HBO.

[> [> [> [> Re: I was reading the PTC summary of Angel -- angel's nibblet, 18:49:21 02/15/04 Sun

The group has also been given control of the law firm of Wolfram & Hart, their former enemy and source of all the evil in the world.

All the evil in the world??? Honestly, have these people ever watched the show before passing judgement on it? I'm pretty sure it's always been 'represents all of the evil in the world, and some outside it' :-P

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I was reading the PTC summary of Angel -- LeeAnn, 19:57:37 02/15/04 Sun

The group has also been given control of the law firm of Wolfram & Hart, their former enemy and source of all the
evil in the world.

Source of all evil in the world!! Isn't that the Bush White House?

[> Re: No, this is strictly about money -- punkinpuss, 12:07:54 02/15/04 Sun

Look at what the WB has done. The signs have been there all along. In hindsight, it's pretty clear that the decision to cancel AtS must've been made last fall, probably before the shooting of the 100th episode.

First sign of the apocalypse:
They told Joss that Angel was renewed for a 5th season, suggesting a full 22-ep pickup, but revealed in the fall that they'd only committed to 13 eps and meant to piggyback a new series in its timeslot. AtS's ratings improved enough to give them a full slate and their other show tanked. So did all of their new shows, especially Tarzan. One Tree Hill is the only show they've managed to build an audience for and it's exactly the type of teen/family melodrama that is the WB's bread and butter.

Second sign:
Developing a new Dark Shadows series from ER/West Wing producer John Wells as an in-house production but not telling Joss about it. The Futon Critic had an item about this on Nov. 11th. Do the math. Then when the news came out in January at the annual press tour hoopla, Jordan Levin lied thru his teeth about how the WB had room for two vampire series. Suuuure and we were dumb enough to think, uh yeah, they could have a cool all-vampire night on the WB. Duh!

Third sign:
Barely promoting AtS even when it showed up on so many critics' top 10 lists for 2003. They didn't blow a great promotional opportunity -- they never meant to spend the money on a show that was doomed. Instead, they spent it on promoting One Tree Hill. Everytime I pass a bus-stop with that fricking OTH ripoff-of-Friends-poster, I wanna hurl.

Here's the Variety article on the AtS cancellation:

"Angel" is headed for TV heaven. The WB has opted against renewing the Joss Whedon-produced drama for a sixth season. Frog topper Jordan Levin informed Whedon of the move Thursday night. Move on the surface is a head-scratcher: Skein is the net's second highest-rated hour among viewers 18-34 and fourth among 12-34 auds. Its numbers have been solid this year, even against brutal competish on Wednesday night. But Frog execs are also facing the reality of an aging sked, with skeins such as "Charmed," "7th Heaven" and "Gilmore Girls" potentially facing final seasons next year. WB topper Jordan Levin said the net needs to find timeslots to establish a new generation of hits. Such decisions are usually made in May, when nets have all of their new development in front of them. "(But) like some of the great series that are leaving the air this year, including 'Frasier' and 'Friends,' the cast, crew, writers and producers of 'Angel' deserve to be able to wrap up the series in a way befitting a classic television series and that is why we went to Joss to let him know that this would be the last year of the series on the WB," Levin said. "We have discussed continuing the 'Angel' legacy with special movie events next year, which is still on the table."

Special movie events? This could be a defensive maneuver by Levin to discourage Joss from shopping Angel around to other networks. They don't want Angel still on the air to compete with their own vampire series, now do they? OTOH, tv movies are part of the new paradigm at the WB for next fall and they know AtS has a loyal fandom which will guarantee respectable if not spectacular ratings. The offer has the added gloss of making nicey-nice to Joss while they pull the knife out of his back.

The only way AtS could've gotten a 6th season is with ratings comparable to or better than Smallville, Charmed, or 7th Heaven, their big hitters. Of course, I blame the WB for doing such a lousy job promoting the show in the first place. They never had a clue how to market Angel and therein lies the rub.

Until somebody at the network level figures out how the hell to market Whedon shows, Joss (and all his fans) will always get screwed over by the bean counters. Joss needs to hire some major marketing talent for ME.

[> [> Re: No, this is strictly about money -- Cypres, 20:24:42 02/15/04 Sun

Come on!Of course,it is!And who can blame them.It's the way things are.I work for money,you work for money,the WB too.And they are not to blame for the cancellation.
JW had a great opportunity to make his show work.The WB gave Ats a good time slot and a very good lead(Smallville),no more Btvs or Firefly which meant a lot of Whedon's afficionados starving.He HAD the opportunity to reunite the two fandoms(and,yes,there was two:only 25% of Btvs'viewers were watching Ats and vice-versa).So,He brought back Spike and it was a very good idea cause ,hey,popular!But,IMO,he made a lot of mistakes after that.First,he sent continuity in the toilets and it began in May.I'm an old Ats fan and "chosen" was a big slap in my face.Come on,four years of evolution,"Home"(the loss of his child,his best friend in a coma,a deal with the "devil")and he appears all happy on Btvs?Then he fired CC and VK(JW's explanations:CC wanted to leave to take care of her child and he had no storyline for Cordy ,Connor was not needed anymore.JW=Pinocchio )Great!I wanted,no,"needed", to see how Angel and co. were going to deal with the aftermath of season four,but it's only me.
On the boards a good part of the Ats'fans began to say that they wouldn't watch anymore because of the lack of respect ME was showing to us,but...words,words. Then we heard about the "brand new show",the show would be lighter,more standalones and a very exciting storyline...And it would drag a lot of viewers.Promises,promises!
When the show started,the numbers of viewers was ,well,correct,but not exceptional(potential IMO,at least NR 5.0)and they made NR 3.4.The second one with Spike's return :NR 3.6)The third one made a 3.1. and the show navigated between 3.0 and 2.7 until hiatus (Ats third season ratings give or take)
The potential of viewers for the show was a lot higher than that:Ats/btvs/firefly viewers,"new viewers",...I think the WB was expecting better ratings but they gave a green light for a complete season,hey,the show could hit its stride and improve in numbers and some of their shows tanked*g*...From January to february,the ratings began to get down (the lowest:"Soul purpose" at 2.3 ,the highest "damage" 3.0).Not great!
Why didnt it work? IMO,a lot of reasons...
First,new viewers.Come on ,it's almost impossible to understand what's going on if you have not watched Ats or Btvs from the beginning of the series,they(ME)knew it and we had a lot,a LOT of boring exposure and,imo,it hurt the pacing,the storyline and didn't bring a lot of new viewers(see ratings).Then,the Btvs viewers.Were they disappointed because Ats is not Btvs,(was ME surestimating the numbers of Spike's fans?)"just rewards" was(and is)the most watched Ats5s'episode and the show lost 0.5 points with "unleashed".Who are these people who stop watching after two eps?I don't know,but probably a lot of disappointed Spike's fans.Why? May be a good part of them mostly loved the B/S relationship and not Spike alone or they didn't like ghosts?Who knows?
The Ats fan's?Well,I think "some" of them(I am) were disappointed with the storyline.Gone the friendship,gone the purpose,gone the continuity.Hey,the show was well written,there were a lot of action,good plots,some laughs,some tears...but ...and this is only my point of view,but where are my heroes?(Rant ahead!)
Angel and Spike were(are) bickering back and forth to know which one is the real champion,who is Buffy's love interest(she's not even in the show,for Godsake!)Two teenagers trying to resolve their love/hate relationship!Where is the maturity,adult relationships that made Ats so interesting before?Why is this show only about Spike and Angel?What about the others?
Wesley is mostly in the background and giving instructions.Gunn is,well,I have no idea(wannabe-lawyer?Bad guy?Bewitched?)He has no storyline.Fred is everybodies' love-interest and working in her lab?Because,let's not forget,they are all working for WH,now.The AI gang has become a band of yuppies.Aint'it cool!
And there are new players!Eve,I'm not going to complain(hum,ok,I am),but Lilah-junior,please!... how uninteresting is she?(At least,Lilah could face Angel as an equal!)Harmony?Fine for a good laugh,but thats all.
All this whining to say that this show is intellectually interesting (I can agree with that),but emotionnaly,it's cold!And I think this is were JW has lost his bet because,a good show,it's not only good stories and good acting,it's also emotion,caring for the characters and ...I don't care anymore for these characters and I loved them and it's sad.I watch (I'm a masochist,I need therapy!),but how many have left?
I'm probably not the only one who hates the mindwipe,WH,the lack of Connor,Cordelia,Lilah and the constant references to Btvs and the love/triangle of the century.
JW could have made a great show in keeping the continuity,his strong females leads,Connor and a lot of viewers wouldn't have fled.
How great this show could have been(sigh)...and may be it will be.Since "damage" and "You're welcome"(Thanks,Cor!),the show is getting back on track,but it's too little,too late.
Piss off old fans to conquer new ones is not a very good idea.Give all the screentime to two characters even if they are very popular is not good idea either,ignoring Wesley,Gunn and Lorne except for an ep here and there.
A lot of viewers have left the show and even if they came back now it wouldn't change it's fate.The WB can't be held responsible for ME'S failure(see beginning of the post).Yes,the budget was tighter this year,but Ats is an expensive show,a show must drag viewers and the good demographics to be kept on screen and JW has no excuses :good actors,good writers,...JW tried to kill a lot of birds with one stone...and he killed his own show.Yeah,I'm cruel but it's true!I hope he will find a new home for Ats,but I seriously doubt it.He proved to the Networks that he can't keep his own viewers even when given the opportunity and ,in Money-city,it's a big sin.

So,Ats RIP!(Loved you,baby!)

[> [> Yep and also ....there's that family-oriented drama thing to consider -- s'kat, 21:11:04 02/15/04 Sun

While it's true it's about money, Angel cost about 1.8 million to produce before it's budget was cut, which means it's probably a million now per episode, this is also largely about the networks skittering about to find a way to survive in the *new* pay-per-view/tivo/cable climate. Which uhm is also about money - but it's about *how you get the money the frigging money* - ie selling ad space, if you aren't a premium channel with subscribers.

If you look at your channel listings - every one has a catch-line:

I'm the network for MEN
I'm the network for Women
I'm the network for "wholesome family entertainment" - that's CBS.

When advertisers go shopping for networks, they want to know who the viewers are - what's the demo? And the best demo for advertisers right now is a family - particularly young families since they buy stuff. Lots of stuff. Young hip upwardly mobile families - that's the demographic WB wants to land. So how do you do that when these people can
watch over 1000 channels?

Well, you hunt the trend - check out what the other guys are doing and what's working. Basically jump on the same trend everyone else is on - I call this the lemming approach - network people are a lot like lemmings (those little creatures who follow each other over a cliff once a year because everyone else is doing it). Joan of Arcadia - family oriented drama - took off like gangbusters. Miss Match - 30/20 something single dramedy died. Then you look at the rest of your line-up to see what your identity is, which programs are pulling the most advertisers, and what they have in common. Here's WB's line-up:

Everwood - single widower dad with two kids in small town
Seventh Heaven - minister with family of five kids
Smallville - young struggling clean-cut superhero with clean-cut mom and pop and apple pie with a nice dark anti-hero for contrast
Gilmore Girls - single mom, grandparents, small town (the female version of Everwood)
Charmed - three sisters battling evil with the help of boyfriends, have a baby, have family members drop in.
Grounded for Life - parents with kids
Reba- single mom with kids

In development: Lost in Space - about a family lost in space. Dark Shadows - basically the OC meets Dracular, it's a *family* who has a vampire move in next door.

The *only* dramatic series that isn't about *family* on the WB is Angel. So that's the one WB decides to cancel. Nice business decision. Nothing personal. Ugh. This in a nutshell is why I hate the entertainment business.

[> [> [> It's Not About Sex -- Felicia, 13:55:11 02/16/04 Mon

It can't be about sex. For the past two seasons, Alyssa Milano (and occasionally Rose McGowan and Holly Marie Combs) has been wearing just about every sexually explicit costume possible, for the past two seasons - as a mermaid, "superheroine", nymph, a Xena copycat, Mata Hari and now Jeannie. Plus one episode after dumping her husband, HM Combs' character jumped to dating other men, again.

If the WB is cancelling "ANGEL" due to family values, they're guilty of hypocricy, since they have decided to renew "CHARMED" for a 7th season.

[> [> [> [> Huh?? -- s'kat, 19:20:40 02/16/04 Mon

It can't be about sex.

Uh...I think you posted your response in the wrong thread.
My post wasn't about the PTC or sex. It was about family-oriented drama.

ATS isn't a family-oriented drama, no "traditional" family in evidence. Charmed - has three biological sisters fighting evil. WB doesn't care about what the PTC thinks about sex - they have high school students having sex like bunnies in Everwood and One Tree Hill. Heck I think Rory had sex in Gilmore Girls. They have more sex in OTH, Everwood, Charmed, Gilmore Girls than they have had in Angel for five years. Angel is however a tad more violent, perhaps.

But no - Angel's cancellation has zip to do with PTC. What it has to do with is a trend towards family-oriented drama's and comedies, not to mention reality shows - not to be confused with family-values or the PTC's interests.

[> [> [> ....there's that family-oriented drama thing to consider. So ... -- Pip, 15:59:10 02/16/04 Mon

... what we really need is a spin-off series. For its pilot, Spike decides to leave Los Angeles for Europe (after the spectacular and highly expensive destruction of Wolfram and Hart in the last episode of AtS - blow the bloomin' budget, Joss). Since he's a vampire and all vampires seem to be terrified of flying, he has to take a road trip across the U.S. to catch a cruise ship. He therefore hitches a lift with Andrew (who was in Los Angeles for AtS's final episode). Scenes of banter in a car with Andrew require no special effects.

However, whilst travelling through the desert they spot Fred. Fred was returning to her parents in Texas, when her car was accidentally sucked into an alternate dimension (luckily, she wasn't in it at the time. Even more luckily this happened before Spike and Andrew arrived and the audience don't see it, thus saving lots of money). The evil magician (not a demon, so requiring no expensive make-up) who caused this inter-dimensional breakthrough turns out to live in a small town made up of back-lot sets.

In the small town, they discover that the evil magician has taken over the minds of a number of extras. This only requires extras, pale makeup, and is very cheap (The evil magician controls the extras by good acting and a lot of stylised arm movements). The wholesome population who aren't mind-controlled (who look strangely like the mind-controlled population - except for the fact that their make up and costumes have been changed) are up in arms about 'dark magicks' and the only thing standing between the town and destruction by mind-controlled extras is an eighteen year old single mother who has a Secret.

The baby, incidentally, is the only baby in the Jossverse to turn out not to be a demonic spawn of hell. Nor was his father a vampire.

The eighteen year old single mother's Secret is that - yes, she is a Slayer. But she doesn't know that. She's also afraid to reveal her super-strength because the remaining non-mind-controlled wholesome population (RNMCWP) will think she obtained her super-strength by 'dark magicks' and probably burn her at the stake. They are good folks, but they're real scared right now.

However, a mass attack by extras with pale makeup (in which they show their abnormal strength by chucking lots of cheap styrofoam around) forces her to reveal her strange abilities to save the RNMCWP. Spike also joins in the fight (hey, it's a fight). Unfortunately one of the mind controlled extras hits him with a cross, causing him to leap back and smoke slightly. Very slightly. How much smoke effect do you think we can afford? And no, he's not going into game face.

The RNMCWP are too spooked by this 'unnaturalness' to reflect on the fact that Spike and Single Mom Slayer have just tried to save them. No, the panic and fear lead them to try and burn their saviours at the stake. Which, since vampires can be killed by fire, is a bit of a bugger for Spike. It's also not much fun for Single Mom Slayer, sobbing over the thought of her definitely-not-a-demon-spawn-in-any-way baby becoming an orphan.

Meanwhile, Fred is constructing a techno-magic whatzit to defeat the evil magician by interrupting his trans-dimensional power supply. The whatzit looks remarkably like the insides of old computers, a couple of baked bean tins, and a straw doll. The budget may also stretch to a couple of feathers, if you're lucky. It does have flashing lights (batteries are cheap).

Andrew has seen the danger for Spike and Single Mom Slayer. He has to find an inexpensive way to rescue them. Since this rules out anything involving large explosions, he goes for the good old reliable 'drive the car in and threaten people with a crossbow'. Since even Andrew can figure out that threatening people with a crossbow and simultaneously cutting the ropes tying Spike and Single Mom Slayer to their respective stakes needs about three hands, he has to take Fred along. This causes more dramatic debate, because her baked bean cans are showing her that they haven't much time before a really large dimensional portal opens and sucks the entire small town back-lot into a demon dimension.

However, Fred has always had a soft spot for Spike, so she puts the techno-magic whatzit on her lap and drives off with Andrew to the Town's bi-annual 'let's burn weird people' event. They manage to arrive just before the flames are lit, so we don't need to pay for any flame or smoke effects. Andrew isn't much of a driver, so he skids straight through the crowd. Some sound effects hint that he's crashed the car (offscreen). But Andrew and Fred bravely run back, threaten the crowd with one crossbow, and manage to cut Spike and Single Mom Slayer's ropes.

It's at this point that the surviving mind controlled extras attack. We soon see the reason why - our evil magician is making even more stylised hand gestures on the roof of a building, and Fred's baked bean tins are going wild. It's a demon dimension for this small town, folks!

Except that Fred has worked out that if she can only get to the focus point of the portal with her whatzit, she can reverse the energies and send the spell caster himself into the demon dimension. Uh, wait, the special effects for that'll cost too much. It'll remove all his magic powers forever, OK? Strangely enough, there are a large number of mind-controlled extras between Our Heroes and the focus point. Spike and Single Mom Slayer have to fight. If Spike doesn't go into game face we'll be able to afford a light show for the opening of the dimensional portal.

The mind controlled extras appear to be winning by sheer weight of numbers (really tight camera work making 20 seem like a lot), but, in a tribute to wholesome small town values, our RNMCWP see the light (in a metaphorical sense. Not any sort of light that we have to actually pay for). These weird people are trying to help them. In a stirring tribute to tolerance they join in with the fight and turn the tide. Fred reaches the focus point, but it looks like it will be too late - but, no. Andrew has managed to fire his crossbow in the right direction. It misses, but distracts the evil magician just long enough for Fred's whatzit to do its stuff. Since we spent the special effects budget on the opening of the dimensional portal, the removal of the evil magician's magic powers will be signalled by a change in the lighting and the actor going 'arrgh'.

Sobbing, Single Mom Slayer reclaims her definitely-not-a-demon-spawn-in-any-way baby in a heartwarming scene of motherly love. Despite the RNMCWP begging her forgiveness, she feels that it would be best to leave her small town backlot. Andrew tells her that the new Watcher's Council will be glad to have her (and definitely-not-a-demon-spawn-in-any-way baby). Andrew also has to admit that he's totalled the car (offscreen), but the RNMCWP are so deeply repentant of their behaviour that they offer Fred, Spike, Andrew, Single Mom Slayer and definitely-not-a-demon-spawn-in-any-way baby an old Winnebago, which they just happen to have available.

The pilot is finished, and surrogate vampire dad Spike, wacky scientist surrogate mom Fred, their two surrogate kids Andrew and Single Mom Slayer (with definitely-not-a-demon-spawn-in-any-way baby) are all set for their 22 episode road trip in an old Winnebago, where they will discover potential Slayers, small town America and heart warming family values. Which will not involve sex unless Fred and Spike get married first. And possibly not even then.

We may get to meet Fred's parents again, though. They're pretty wholesome.

[> [> [> [> Re: ....there's that family-oriented drama thing to consider. So ... -- Raven_NightDragon, 18:20:45 02/16/04 Mon

You know the sad thing? I'd watch this for at least four episodes... cause hey it'd still be better than Charmed.
And we all know Spike driving a Winnebego is COMEDY GOLD BABY!

[> [> [> [> That is great!!!! LOL!! NT -- Kris, 18:23:34 02/16/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> Thanks ::blushes:: -- Pip, 14:09:34 02/18/04 Wed

[> [> [> [> Re: ....there's that family-oriented drama thing to consider. So ... -- s'kat, 19:25:38 02/16/04 Mon

LOL! Assuming of course that Spike and Fred are amongst the characters that survive this season.

Sort of Touched by An Angel meets Miracles meets the Fugitive. It has everything - comic relief (Andrew), romantic tension (Spike/Fred/Teen Slayer), and bringing up baby. Although I'm not sure I want to watch a season of Season 5 BTVS Spiral, sans Buffy, Tara, Willow, Anya, Xander, Giles, Dawn and the Knights of the Holy Whatsit. ;-)

[> [> [> Re: Yep and also ....there's that family-oriented drama thing to consider -- LeeAnn, 01:24:35 02/17/04 Tue

Do we absolutely HAVE to have a baby mucking up the works?

Babies don't make very interesting characters.

I'd prefer the "Shack of Hammers" Slayer. But I suppose to count as a family drama you need a ...family.

[> [> [> [> Re: Yep and also ....there's that family-oriented drama thing to consider -- angel's nibblet, 00:00:20 02/18/04 Wed

Instead of a baby, it could be a cute little toddler played by a set of twins who have little/no acting skills but have a high "awwwww" factor. This of course paves the way for the evntual canned laughter and 'awww's that the studio will insist on putting in to let people know when things are funny/cute.

need help figuring this right vs wrong thing out -- rationalizer, 08:49:19 02/15/04 Sun

i'm a virgin to the forum and pretty green to the site and philosophy.

i'm having a tough time figuring out how much i should do for myself vs for other folks. i am getting ready to lay out some cash for something i've always wanted. it's not a ton of $ but it would be to someone who makes $1 per day (1 billion or so people), and i know that i could go without and give that somebody the annual salary, make their lives easier, maybe save a life. it's a me vs. them question.

angel said something along the lines of it's all about reducing human suffering. what is the framework for answering the generic question, "where's the line between taking care of me vs. taking care of those who are suffering?"

it would be most helpful if someone could guide me toward an answer or framework that considers capitalism, self-interest as a component of our natural wiring, adam smith, etc. because that is how i tend to see the world.

the rationalizer


[> The question is: which one will make you happier? -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:09:46 02/15/04 Sun

Will the knowledge that you helped out people in need provide more satisfaction than purchasing the thing you want? No one besides you can answer that question.

Here's a strategy I've used to try to make such decisions: I flip a coin. I'm not advocating making your decision based on chance, though. What I've found in the past is that, at the moment the coin lands, I suddenly find a clarity as to what result I want it to give. So, many times when I make the coin toss, I ignore what the coin says entirely. Rather, I go by how I feel when the I see what the coin says. For example, if it comes up heads and I feel relieved and comforted at this solution, I'll do whatever action I assigned to heads. If heads comes up, though, and I'm dissapointed or frustrated with the result, I decide to ignore the coin and take the tails option. It may not work for you, but I've found a coin toss to be an excellent way of discovering what I really want to do.

[> [> From the Heart -- Claudia, 12:36:01 02/17/04 Tue

Whatever actions you take, listen to your heart before making that choice. If that choice will benefit you . . . fine. If that choice leads to helping others, also fine. Act from the heart. However, try to do so without DELIBERATELY harming another.

Current board | More February 2004