angel ratings wise by rita

ANGELUS ARCANUM

angel ratings wise

POSTED BY: RITA
UPDATED: Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5608
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, September 6, 2003 4:45 PM

i have been trying in vain to find out how angel fared in the ratings and how it stacked up against other wb shows ratings wise in quality it of course beats them all
anywhoo i would love the info if any one feels like sharing
cheers

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

Saturday, September 6, 2003 8:06 PM

LENNIER

I believe (but am not 100% sure) that Angel was getting between 2.4 and 3.0 Nielsens last year; it fluctuated a lot through the year, actually (i think it grew; it started at 2.4, and by the end I saw 2.9 etc.). It was usually a bit lower than Buffy and a bit lower than Firefly.
Compared to other WB shows... well, their horrid and bland Buffy-rip-off Smallville has been doing huge business, and getting something like 6.0, which is as good as the big networks. And Gilmore Girls and a few of their other shows were actually doing quite well last year, with around 4.0 etc.
But there are definitely a number of shows that were slightly lower than Angel, like, of course, Birds of Prey,
and even one or two of the shows that they didn't cancel; their very lowest shows were getting lower than 2.0, though of course most of those were cancelled.

Part of the argument for keeping Angel was that they've moved the show around a lot, to different nights, and the numbers stayed the same. So they know they have some flexibility, and also that its numbers won't ever drop too low (ie. it's a sure thing).

of course, Angel used to get much better ratings than it did last year (i think?).

Anyhow, the 3.0 that it does have the potential to get is definitely respectable for a smaller network like WB. The only thing is, they seem to have delusions of grandeur right now, with Smalleville etc. I don't think they would have even considered cancelling Angel if it wasn't for that show and Gilmore Girls, but that's just my uninformed opinion. (just for the record, I think Gilmore Girls is great; i was insulting Smalleville specifically, not the entire WB lineup

)

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

Sunday, September 7, 2003 3:14 AM

TWOBLUEEYES

Quote:
Originally posted by rita:
i have been trying in vain to find out how angel fared in the ratings and how it stacked up against other wb shows ratings wise in quality it of course beats them all
anywhoo i would love the info if any one feels like sharing
cheers

Hi Rita,

Try this site to see ratings for "Angel"

http://home.insightbb.com/%7Ewahoskem/buffy.html

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

Sunday, September 7, 2003 8:16 AM

CAPTBAGGYTROUSERS

Quote:
... horrid and bland Buffy-rip-off Smallville...

Bless you for saying it. Now can I get you to convince my girlfriend of that?

I could be wrong, but didn't Firefly actually do better in the ratings than Buffy and Angel? I heard this somewhere (probably here) and I attributed it to the fact that the WB and UPN are seen in fewer markets than the hated Fox. Good UPN ratings are crappy Fox ratings.

History repeats the old conceits

http://topshelftvshow.com
Updated! Improved! Shiny!

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

Sunday, September 7, 2003 8:42 PM

LENNIER

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptBaggytrousers:

Bless you for saying it. Now can I get you to convince my girlfriend of that?

I could be wrong, but didn't Firefly actually do better in the ratings than Buffy and Angel? I heard this somewhere (probably here) and I attributed it to the fact that the WB and UPN are seen in fewer markets than the hated Fox. Good UPN ratings are crappy Fox ratings.

Yes, as I said, Angel had lower ratings than Firefly. Firefly was way ahead of both shows initially, but by the last 3 or 4 episodes it had dropped down to about the same level as Angel.

About Smallville, it always disturbs me when I hear about girls that like Smalleville better than Buffy. It's kind of depressing. On the one hand you have one of the few truly serious treatments of a journey towards genuine female empowerment, one of the few complex female role models who isn't just a false illusion of female empowerment, or an extreme fantasy of female empowerment (ie. it truly speaks to real-world women and helps them with the issues they need to deal with--and helps all of us of course, it doesn't just apply to women!), a role model (and a whole SET of role models) who has to honestly face the harsh realities of life and has figure out how to totally reconcile her status as a female hero (without becoming a male who looks like a woman, and without being subordinate to any man, ie. truly being her own person, and yet without devaluing the men in her life or her strong desire to be with a man), and which also happens to be basically the most innovative show in the history of television
...and on the other hand you have a totally cliche treatment of young male power (i'm not saying that their rip-off use of weekly teen supernatural metaphors is a bad thing--that's definitely a good thing to do, so i'm not saying smallville is all bad--but they are simply not doing anything new, and they are doing it sooooo badly, and in such a watered-down "safe" fashion; and for girls this is a slightly dis-empowering series, at least in comparison to buffy; and i'll just make a distinction here--although Buffy raises up its women, it is NOT dis-empowering for men; it shows men who are strong, too, and it shows many different WAYS of being strong or useful, and it shows how men can actually become stronger and better by learning from women or embracing some of their female side--eg. the whole ending arc with Spike in season 7 ...or just about anything they did with Angel in the early seasons; and i'm also not saying there's anything wrong with a supernatural treatment of male power--again, see Angel the series. but Smalleville is far too simpleminded and trite, and has nothing new to offer. and for me the bottom line is--what relevence to Superman have anymore, especially such a traditional treatment of him? I think he's only interesting in counterpoint to more conflicted "gray" heroes, or as a VILLAIN type character who is so blinded by his own sense of moral superiority that he ends up on potentially the wrong side--eg. in Dark Knight Returns; well ok, i don't want to say that no "straight" superman story could be interesting, but Smallvile is definitely not an example of a way to breath fresh air into his mythos).

ok, maybe i've gone to far there, but the bottom line is, Smalleville is trying so hard to be like Buffy, and it's failing, even as a male-version of Buffy it's failing (it is, at best, as good as Buffy season 1's worst episodes--and that's where the closest similarity to Buffy shows up, in those season 1 Buffy episodes). So, since there is already a show exactly like Smalleville out there, that is much more complex and speaks much better to women and has a woman main character, that's why I find it disturbing whenever I hear women prefering smallville, and possibly even mocking Buffy. It's almost like, our society is so biased towards the male that even women prefer an identical show about a man rather than a show about a woman, even if the show about the woman has far more complex dialogue and acting, and more innovative style-twisting and plotting.
The only girl-heroes that are hugely popular are the ones that blatantly use sex-appeal and treat their heroines as comical and safe (eg. Charlie's Angels); there are certainly exceptions, but none have dealt with the difficult journey to independence and personal strength as seriously or as maturely as Buffy did.

ok, oops, this is the Firefly board, i should stop ranting about Buffy. Firefly is where it's at!
yay to the Firefly movie!
yay to Mal and his greatness.
now THAT'S a hero!

forget superman.

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

Monday, September 8, 2003 5:26 AM

CAPTBAGGYTROUSERS

Wow! Talk about taking the words out of my mouth...

I'm completely in agreement with you on everything except Superman as a character, whose seminal presence (if you'll excuse the masculine-derived word in this context) could still be fresh and interesting if someone blew some of the dust off him. Smallville is an attempt to do this, but I think it fails for all the reasons you cited. And the fact that Clark is written as such a bland character. The original Siegel and Shuster Superman (before they got screwed by the publisher) was an extremely vital character who experienced a range of emotions, including my favorite, righteous indignation. He was, in a sense, a fighter for social justice rather than a tool for the status quo.

Anti-heroes are wonderful too, but it's all about context for me. Used in the proper context, I love me some pure, unconflicted Superman. On Smallville, not so much.

History repeats the old conceits

http://topshelftvshow.com
Updated! Improved! Shiny!

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

Monday, September 8, 2003 11:14 PM

LENNIER

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptBaggytrousers:
I'm completely in agreement with you on everything except Superman as a character, whose seminal presence (if you'll excuse the masculine-derived word in this context) could still be fresh and interesting if someone blew some of the dust off him. Smallville is an attempt to do this, but I think it fails for all the reasons you cited. And the fact that Clark is written as such a bland character. The original Siegel and Shuster Superman (before they got screwed by the publisher) was an extremely vital character who experienced a range of emotions, including my favorite, righteous indignation. He was, in a sense, a fighter for social justice rather than a tool for the status quo.

Anti-heroes are wonderful too, but it's all about context for me. Used in the proper context, I love me some pure, unconflicted Superman. On Smallville, not so much.

oh, i don't disagree with you there (didn't I say that at the end of the last post?). I realize that Superman could be done well, even as a straight-hero, but you'd have to really work at it, I think.

by the way, about my comments about casting Superman as "not quite right", there is a fantastic comics series starting right now, written by the creator of Babylon 5, called "Supreme Power". It's a retelling of all the big DC characters, except in a totally separate universe (and with different names, and it's published by MAX so it's a gritty adult title).
The concept is they're going to show how things would "really" be if there were beings with that much power--how would they interact with normal humans etc.? what would their attitudes really be? Only the first issue has come out so far, and it was the Superman origin, and what they did with it has me very excited. Basically superman is found and raised by the goverment in a setting that they themselves describe as "Rockwellian". They teach him to be a "perfect american" and to hate communists etc. But by the end of the issue you can see that he's aware of how they might be manipulating him and as he's starting to grow up he's getting a tiny bit scary. It's such a great concept. I can see them hitting on two of the great potentials of the superman concept, neither of which have been explored that much--one is Superman as a stooge of blind american nationalism, or any kind of un-questioned absolute "positive" values (however Superman may have been done originally, you can't deny that his very existence allows him to be this kind of symbol), and another is the basic idea of power itself--how would a person with ultimate power deal with it? Would they really act the same as a regular human, would they really uphold the same values, if they could literally do anything they wanted? And what if their upbringing or the power itself made them a bit "messed up" in the head? (well, ok, i suppose you'd get a VILLAIN is what you'd get, but I think they're not
going to take things that far, it will be more on the edge of morality).
now, i don't know where supreme power's story is going, but I suspect there will be at least a little exploration of powerful beings that might not be the ideals that they are often written as; it's a good way to go after the whole power-corrupting thing, but also to go after the idea of Gods that could interact with humanity, and what that would be like, and what would happen if these people were truly "alien" to ourselves?
(again, i don't know where it's going, i'm just speculating based on what i've heard)

Anyhow, with JMS onboard i'm sure there will be some great arcs if nothing else. I think he's actually more suited to the comics medium than he is to tv.
His "overdramatic" style works better here, and obviously he doesn't have to worry about having long arcs.

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

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 6:58 AM

CAPTBAGGYTROUSERS

I did read Supreme Power, enjoyed it, and will be getting #2. My big question is whether or not JMS will be doing anything sufficiently different from other "superhero-to-its-logical-conclusion" books such as Watchmen, Miracleman (two by Alan Moore...Hmm), The Authority or, oh, the original Squadron Supreme (dated though that last one may be now). So far, so good, though.

Yes, JMS' work is well suited to comics, although his run on Spider-Man is finally starting to wear on me after a strong start.

History repeats the old conceits

http://topshelftvshow.com
Updated! Improved! Shiny!

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

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 11:22 AM

RITA

TWOBLUEEYES thanks a million that website featured exactly what i wanted to know

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

Monday, March 22, 2004 2:47 PM

NOITALL

You are certainly intense about your Buffy workship. I also enjoy the show. However, I think you have really gone a bit far with your analysis. Yes, Buffy is about a strong young female hero - a great role model for young women. Her supporting cast is equally strong as role models. There is a lot of growth in the characters over the years. But 'far more complex dialogue and acting'....PLEASE. The three-word choppy sentences are hardly complex dialogue. The acting leaves a little to be desired upon occaision as well. What about the episodes done as musicals that were so far fetched even a 16year-old had a hard time paying attention to it. Smallville, has had its moments like almost all series have. You seem to forget the most important purpose of these shows (& TV for the most part) - ENTERTAINMENT. To watch these shows and just enjoy yourself without having to think about an intense plot line...to relax in the evening after a hard day at the office.

Relax Dude - watch something else and don't analyze so much!

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

Monday, March 22, 2004 3:20 PM

SPYMAY

Gee,I like Smallville,but not for any reason you think.As a girl of the late seventies/early eighties,I have and always will be in love with John Schneider (and Rick Springfield too,but that's another story).I just want to see Bo Duke- teehee.
spymay

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

Saturday, March 27, 2004 10:34 AM

PHOENIXSHIP

Quote:
Originally posted by noitall:
You seem to forget the most important purpose of these shows (& TV for the most part) - ENTERTAINMENT. To watch these shows and just enjoy yourself without having to think about an intense plot line...to relax in the evening after a hard day at the office.

Relax Dude - watch something else and don't analyze so much!

Okay, yer half right. There will always be the need for brainless entertainment. I like watching silly TV as much as the next guy. But I disagree that TV needn't be a valid form of theater, complete with complexity, lengthy story arcs, characters that actually do things/go through changes, and thoughtful content. The Whedon Universe is enjoyable (addictive) because it is so complicated - it requires the viewer to pay attention. We don't turn on Buffy or Angel for background noise and read the paper. There is nothing wrong with our "completely sane devotion" to these characters and their adventures. It's fun!

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

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

Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:51 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptBaggytrousers:
I did read Supreme Power, enjoyed it, and will be getting #2. My big question is whether or not JMS will be doing anything sufficiently different from other "superhero-to-its-logical-conclusion" books such as Watchmen, Miracleman (two by Alan Moore...Hmm), The Authority or, oh, the original Squadron Supreme (dated though that last one may be now). So far, so good, though.
Yes, JMS' work is well suited to comics, although his run on Spider-Man is finally starting to wear on me after a strong start.

By #8, Supreme Power really starts getting going - certainly a new twist on the superhero genre at one point in that issue.

As for Spidey, I'd agree its gone a little off the boil with the mystical stuff recently (and I've been less than impressed with Fiona Avery's scripts). However, I think JMS has been setting things in place for Sins Past, which is the arc staring soon, and it sounds interesting.

"I threw up on your bed"

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE