I've got a theory

[Uncle Rory]

I wonder if some folks may just hate this theory but it's really not mine, just a bunch of conversations I have overhear with likeminded Buffy, Angel and Firefly fans.

Seeing as Firefly was cancelled in late 2003 and Angel cancelled in May 2004, some of us have floated the possibility that MAYBE Joss Whedon or someone else in the Mutant Enemy camp may have just Peed off the wrong person. Were the ratings so absolutely bad for Angel that it deserved to get canned? I have no idea. I wasn't living anywhere that ran it on regular network TV at the time.

Honestly I think that the Networks should be taught a lesson. A completely unrelated show that I like is The 4400 which cancelled that after 4 seasons and never even bothered to wrap it up at all. Would you pay to see a movie with no ending? No!! There are millions of good arguements to say that tuning into a program doesn't entitle you to anything but I disagree. They make POTS of cash because the viewing public decides to tune into one show more than another. THEY OWE THE PUBLIC AN ENDING.

Ok, so we got an ending for Buffy and Angel. Can't say as much with Firefly - at least until the movie. (which I tolerate but don't really love)

I cannot verify my earlier theory except to say I have seen Joss Whedon in interviews and although he was funny as hell, he left me with the impression of a tempermental ARTIST and who knows where that took him. (or the fans)

My 2 cents.
Uncle Rory
PS. if the studios cancel another project like they did FIrefly or 4400, it's time for an INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTT.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

For the sake of Jesus.

Shos get cancelled because of many reasons BUT the networks don't owe us anything.

They may have cancelled it BUT they put it on in the first place and they continue to put things on we like, so I think that evens it out.

As for your preposterous 'International Boycott' - yeah, you do that and have fun - there is NOTHING that will make me miss a brand new episode of a show I watch especially a ranter online who doesn't even have any facts before spouting a theory.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]

Relic agrees: I don't thik these guys would be cancelling good shows out of spite. thats bad business. however some people show a penchant for not being able to seperate art from the artist. Could be a factor, but it shouldn't be.

Just so we're clear, thats not what I was suggesting.

I actually agree that the shows are cancelled for what the networks deem a reasonable reason.

 

[Faith]

I actually agree that the shows are cancelled for what the networks deem a reasonable reason.

You raise an interesting point, I think the issue is what they consider 'reasonable'. In most cases the fans just don't agree with what they feel is a reasonable reason.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

You raise an interesting point, I think the issue is what they consider 'reasonable'. In most cases the fans just don't agree with what they feel is a reasonable reason.

Yeah BUT if a show has one fan and is cancelled he is going to agree with the decision is he?

I just don't think the network would stop a show because of a spat with the guy running it.

That does not make good financial sense and the networks would be failing - a 'creative genius' is bound to piss off those big wigs and I guarantee every show producer, writer and creator is is a temperamental git sometimes.

 

[Faith]

Yeah BUT if a show has one fan and is cancelled he is going to agree with the decision is he?

I just don't think the network would stop a show because of a spat with the guy running it.

That does not make good financial sense and the networks would be failing - a 'creative genius' is bound to piss off those big wigs and I guarantee every show producer, writer and creator is is a temperamental git sometimes.

I wasn't disputing your point I was agreeing - just pointing out that what they (the network) deem reasonable is probably not what the fans deem reasonable because the fans are personally involved and don't see it as a business decision.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I wasn't disputing your point I was agreeing - just pointing out that what they (the network) deem reasonable is probably not what the fans deem reasonable because the fans are personally involved and don't see it as a business decision.

Ohh ok, sorry just clarifying then.

 

[Relic]

So do I...hence the not cancelling good shows out of spite.

Or if it does happen, as I'm sure it might have on occasion, I bet the act is viewed as bad business and the one proposing such an idea are punished...unless the one proposing the idea is in such a place of power the only punishment they will recieve is lack of funds the series could bring in.

Their are some artists who are never appreciated in their own time or when they were alive. Why is that? I think that in some but not all cases it was because the artist was precieved to be a pain in the ass and unfortunatley some people tranfered that to the art. When a man is dead it is harder to be a pain in the ass.

So to try and be clearer, I'll say when people sign on to projects and don't finish them, or complain at great length about a job, sometimes employers wonder how productive they will remain at similiar jobs. Sometimes these employers talk amongst themselves and influence others in related idustry. Perhaps there could be a nee jerk reaction to stop the bleeding when it is a trickle rather than a hemmorage.

Good shows with good numbers have gotten canceled before, I'd bet. maybe because of a hangup with an actor/actress or writer/director

I'm not sure if any of this is the case with Joss, you hear stories though. It comes down to what you want to believe.
(I've heard the conspiracy bit before too.)

 

[ILLYRIAN]

As far as I understand it Fox TV prefers shows that have a constant flowing theme not a series of unrelated episodes, like Firefly had.
Will Dollhouse go the same way? At present I've read it is being aired on Friday evening by Fox, which isn't a good time for high ratings. Now if there is a recession then TV ratings would increase causing advertisers to pay money for adverts during the show.

(7) The old ones of past to here did wander,

 

[Uncle Rory]

I probably shouldn't bring this up again, and wasn't going to until I found this info on another page buried deep in the site somewhere. It is about the industry reaction to the Angel cancellation.

It states,

On a ratings level, Angel is one of the network's most popular shows with the prized 18-to-34-year-old demographic, coming in behind only Smallville among the WB's offerings for that age group. Earlier this month, WB's "weekly ratings" release sent out to television critics boasted that Angel had gotten "outstanding year-to-year gains" in all of the key demographic groups. This week, WB's weekly ratings release conspicuously lacked any mention of Angel at all.

In other words, Angel was doing just fine thank you BEFORE they decided to cancel it. Then after it was cancelled they removed any record of its SUCCESS or FAILURE from the ratings list.

Kind of adds credibility to the theory, don't you think? (rhetorical question)

One would think that RATINGS and RATINGS alone would be the deciding factor but if the above mentioned quote is at all accurate, I guess that wasn't the case.

Of course, if you just ignore history and prefer to think of HOLLYWOOD types as NORMAL folk, that's your perogative.

I am reminded of the McCarthey era blacklisting and trials, the scandals and back-stabbing that HOLLYWOOD is known for so I wouldn't be suprised if something else went on here.

Last point - I don't watch TV. Buffy, Angel, Firefly,Star Trek, Heroes and 24 are about the only shows that have ever had my rapt attention in the last 10 years or so. And whenever possible I buy the box set.

Uncle Rory

 

[AndrewCrossett]

The problem is that art and commerce are not, and never have been, completely compatible. Sometimes they are not even slightly compatible.

We the viewers are concerned only with art -- a good story and our enjoyment of it.

The networks/studios are concerned only with commerce -- how much money they can make off the project.

The creators have to try and straddle the line between the two. It's a terribly difficult job -- far harder than we laypeople can ever imagine -- and it can be soul-killing at times.

For casual artists and writers, who can make their art at home inexpensively, it's not as big an issue. But TV shows and movies, unfortunately, are EXPENSIVE art... meaning it can never just be the creators' vision you get to see.

In the world of television, the sad reality is that a million rabid fans are simply not enough. A million fans are only enough to generate a 1.0 share, which will get any show cancelled post haste. Networks will sometimes let a low-rated show slide for a while because the demographics are good, but that won't last forever.

I wish it were otherwise... but until technology advances to the point (and it will) where we can all sit at our computers and create fully-realistic CGI movies without the need for sets, actors, production crews, printing, or distribution... that won't change.

 

[nerd4hire]

Seeing as Firefly was cancelled in late 2003 and Angel cancelled in May 2004, some of us have floated the possibility that MAYBE Joss Whedon or someone else in the Mutant Enemy camp may have just Peed off the wrong person.

Firefly was Fox. Angel was the WB.

The guys running the WB at the time made a lot of questionable decisions to the point I would find it real easy to make a case for them being idiots, not entertainment-wise, business minded professionals with financial profit as the bottom line. It wasn't just canceling their second most popular drama in Angel (which was giving indications of adding to it's popularity). You should have seen some of the other crap they did.

Joss has always used Fox as his production studio. That end and the network were different animals at the time. According to Joss the production guys have always been easy to get along with. It was the network guys he had problems with concerning Firefly. Not the production guys.

Check out this audio interview with Whedon. He goes into detail about what's necessary to get along with a network, and the compromises he was prepared to make. It's an eye opener.

MoJo Audio: Joss Whedon

 

[PurplePoof]

Joss Whedon does seem like he'd be an unbearable, arrogant ass. He surrounds himself with patsies that all worship him, like Marti Noxon, and he buys into his own hype to the nth degree. However, I don't believe a network would cancel a television show with outstanding ratings that was making tons of money just becaue they found the creator or executive producer to be a thorn in the side...people are willing to put up with all kinds of bull if they're getting richer out of it.