Angel doesn't rerun well? by Killedbyriversbrain

ANGELUS ARCANUM

Angel doesn't rerun well?

POSTED BY: KILLEDBYRIVERSBRAIN
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 18:56
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6211
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:39 AM

This may be a stupid question, but isn't one of the prime reasons TNT was targeted for a campaign to save Angel how well the show is doing in reruns on that network?

I hope you like Guinness, sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for . . . food.
-Jack O'Neill

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:49 AM

RITA

SO are you saying it doesn't rerun well? i wasn't able to tell either way from your post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:32 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ yeah, what the?

Reruns are a good indecator of course. I think Angel reruns just fine as it gives viewers the chance to see older shows.

Something people love to do.

As for the content not rerunning well I have to think Angel reruns fine. My theory is a simple one (sometimes referred to as the Hercules theory of viewership) - people with watch good shows again. Crap only once.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:17 PM

KILLEDBYRIVERSBRAIN

Quote:
Originally posted by rita:
SO are you saying it doesn't rerun well? i wasn't able to tell either way from your post

I'm reporting what WB keeps mentioning as one reason it is being cancelled: it's poor performance in reruns.

I hope you like Guinness, sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for . . . food.
-Jack O'Neill

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2004 4:18 PM

RITA

oh i had never heard that that was one of the WB's complaints. Well i watch the reruns quite a bit why oh why doesn't that count for anything? gosh darn i'm really going miss that show if it doesn't get saved but i'll keep my fingers crossed!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 27, 2004 3:28 AM

KILLEDBYRIVERSBRAIN

My fingers are certainly crossed. How I've avoided typos I'll never know.

I hope you like Guinness, sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for . . . food.
-Jack O'Neill

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 27, 2004 8:25 AM

LINDLEY

The rerun value isn't as good as Firefly, but its decent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 27, 2004 3:06 PM

KILLEDBYRIVERSBRAIN

Yeah, the same fourteen episodes of Firefly have been watched how many times by the average member of this forum? You certainly would be unable to beat that.

I hope you like Guinness, sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for . . . food.
-Jack O'Neill

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2004 10:35 AM

GHOULMAN

Well imho, the WB will say whatever makes thier point. I wouldn't trust thier numbers or any of them either. It's a simple rule, if you're wearing a tie I can tell your lieing.

Angel reruns should do just fine I feel. The show is setup with an easy premise (until they go into WolfRam & Hart) - Vampire detective and sidekicks.

It's basically Batman.

It's not like it's a new concept. It's easy genre for TV viewers. Sure; it's the build up and emotional payoff given from following the stories that give Joss and Co. thier bullet powered impact, but this is built upon an easily recognisable genre setting.

It's not like Buffy is suffering in reruns, why would Angel suffer more? Can someone compare?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2004 12:58 PM

ATHERTONWING

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

It's not like it's a new concept. It's easy genre for TV viewers. Sure; it's the build up and emotional payoff given from following the stories that give Joss and Co. thier bullet powered impact, but this is built upon an easily recognisable genre setting.

It's not like Buffy is suffering in reruns, why would Angel suffer more? Can someone compare?

I always think ANGEL is a very hard show to grasp if your not already a fan, first of all its a spin off of a show which complicates things. secondly come season 3 the plots were becoming very involving and you would have no idea what the hell was happening unless you had seen the episodes prior, this is one of the factors i have always loved about ANGEL. Buffy always had a very simple message, it was very black and white. where as angel is grey, there is a line, you can cross it and if you come back you have to deal with the consiquences.Buffy nearly always tried to keep it light, and when it did dark (season 6) the fans didnt like it (i did) ANGEL is a very dark show.truth is fans of Buffy are not always fans of ANGEL which may be why the show doesnt re run as well as Buffy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2004 2:14 PM

PUNKINPUSS

Angel doesn't rerun well in regular network scheduling because it's an arc-heavy show. It does better in syndication such as on TNT where it's shown daily Monday thru Friday. Arc-heavy shows are always problematic for reruns because eps don't make sense out of sequence. Ergo, you don't see Fox airing any old ep of 24. Also, that arci-ness is why Alias' recent syndication deal was much lower than many people expected.

Unlike sitcoms or procedural dramas like L&O which are basically all standalones, arc-heavy shows don't do so well in reruns on it's first-run network. That's why the WB mandated more standalones when they renewed Ats for a 5th season.

So why aren't we seeing any Angel reruns this season? There are plenty of standalone eps this season that could've been rerun but we're not getting a stretch of them because the WB had already decided not to renew AtS for next season. So, rather than show Angel reruns, they're showing Smallville reruns in Angel's timeslot to promote a show they still give a rat's ass about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:39 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ great responces and I'd agree if I didn't have a buzz in the back of my mellon telling me that rerunning TV shows is what cable is for. If someone (either the WB or whoever) can't figure that out I can only offer flowers to yet another failed notion about TV. The entire 'stand alone ep' thinking has been around since the Networks ruled in the 50s. Surely we are beyond that.

Just a thought - Even if this theory does hold in some way it seems to me everything you lot have been saying above makes for great DVD viewing. After all, isn't a long story (think mini-series) sold best on DVD?

What's the score? DVDs 1 pointb / reruns 0.

Cable TV looses in both scenarios!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:00 AM

PUNKINPUSS

Ghoulman, you have to remember that when a network buys scripted programming (as opposed to reality tv), that product is meant for both a first-run airing and some reruns to fill out the lag time between 2-3 hiatuses. A season is 22 shows but over a time frame of 30 or more weeks. A show has to perform somewhat marginally well in reruns to make it worth their while. The WB decided that AtS doesn't do that, so in the cost analysis, they're paying for a show they can only air once. Not a good thing.

The WB doesn't care how AtS does in 2nd-run syndication on TNT or in dvd sales, since they don't see a penny of that revenue stream. They make money off AtS thru advertising revenue and the fewer commercials they sell (because of fewer reruns), the less valuable AtS becomes. Fox TV, which owns AtS, gets the moola for both dvd sales and selling syndication rights to cable channels or individual stations in various markets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:20 AM

GHOULMAN

Hey, thanx for the comments punkinpuss - you're the best. Now I remember some of the finer points - TV has had a rather long history of trying to rationalize it's weird methods of determining 'success'. Of course, this has been greatly changed by the 90s deregulation of broadcasters, networks, and ownership. Convergence wasn't just a buzz word for Corporate piracy and takeovers of production and distribution, Convergence was the paridigm shift into a new era of media.

The era of crap!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:40 AM

PUNKINPUSS

The TV business is byzantine yet based on networks who really have no friggin idea what works and what doesn't.

Oh and another thing, which makes me hate Dark Shadows & the WB even more, is that the WB owns part of the new Dark Shadows series that John Wells (of ER & West Wing) is producing for them. So, if DS does well, the WB will earn more than just ad revenue. And that's why when push came to shove, the only vampire show they had room for was Dark Shadows. Bastards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:25 AM

KILLEDBYRIVERSBRAIN

Quote:
And that's why when push came to shove, the only vampire show they had room for was Dark Shadows. Bastards.

You said it. Someone should tell them if we don't watch it they still get no money, only now they look bad for trying to foist crap on us.

I hope you like Guinness, sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for . . . food.
-Jack O'Neill

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:07 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by punkinpuss:
The TV business is byzantine yet based on networks who really have no friggin idea what works and what doesn't.

Oh and another thing, which makes me hate Dark Shadows & the WB even more, is that the WB owns part of the new Dark Shadows series that John Wells (of ER & West Wing) is producing for them. So, if DS does well, the WB will earn more than just ad revenue. And that's why when push came to shove, the only vampire show they had room for was Dark Shadows. Bastards.

Aaaaah. I grok your insight and wisdom. Now I'm really mad at the WB!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:56 PM

ANGELDOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Killedbyriversbrain:
This may be a stupid question, but isn't one of the prime reasons TNT was targeted for a campaign to save Angel how well the show is doing in reruns on that network?

Just wanted to post the verbatim quote from Levin regarding this whole rerun thing:

"We have a lot of veteran shows that are aging, and we're going to have to make room for new programs," Levin said. "I know this will make lots of fans unhappy. But we have to have more at-bats, and we need to create timeslots where we can repeat shows the same week episodes premiere."

So in other words, he doesn't feel it will capture enough viewers a second time around during the same week, as they have done with Gilmore Girls, Smallville, Onetree Hill, & Everwood on The WB Big Sunday, however have they ever tried? To answer this question, they did try running a repeat episode on Thursday nights Season three when Angel was on Tuesday nights, but it only lasted two weeks and they stopped doing it because of lack of viewership. However, Thursday has always been a difficult night for TV against NBC, especially two years ago, and for a second run episode from the previous Season this was a death sentence from the get go. They never gave it a chance and tried adding it to their Sunday recap, who knows how it would have done then? But Levin feels that reality shows make the best second run premiere fare, and that is what he is going to stand by as we are forcefed High School Reunion on Sunday and Tuesday nights (? not exactly sure on those nights and don't feel like getting the TV guide, but you catch my drift).

I only fell is all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE