Hee. I was going to say, "What Cindy said," but in fact I'm trying to find out if I can keep my cable Internet and cancel my cable TV. So not so much TV's bitch.

I think the WB was clueless, because there's no percentage in them being deliberately offensive. And I don't think they're the source of all evil for following the money, which is why I never posted on the cancellation earlier. Yeah, it makes me sad, but they gave the show 5 years and enough warning for a wrap-up -- that strikes me as pretty decent, all things considered.

Even the "Thank you" would have hit me less hard if they'd let all the credits play out first.

Hee. I was going to say, "What Cindy said," but in fact I'm trying to find out if I can keep my cable Internet and cancel my cable TV. So not so much TV's bitch.

I'm not really TV's bitch, either. I think I'll amend that to M.E.'s bitch.

eta, thank you -t.

also...

Even the "Thank you" would have hit me less hard if they'd let all the credits play out first.

Yes. And if it didn't say "your friends." It was just corny, and not really true. I mean, they're not our enemies either, but they're not our friends.

they're not our enemies either.

Well not your enemies perhaps. "We hates them precious, hates them forever...."

Or maybe they did it for the simple reason that most Angel watchers are not Buffista-smart. Or even saveangel.com smart. And they assume that most of the WB viewers of the Angel finale will not view the "Thank you for being with us for the last five years" thing as offensive.

Well, also, the WB does this for every show that's ending, regardless if it's going away voluntarily (Dawson's Creek) or not (Felicity, Angel).

Well not your enemies perhaps. "We hates them precious, hates them forever...."

Oh, I still hates them, yes I do. They're just not my enemies. They're...beneath me.

Good point Maysa.

As much as I have ranted about the cancellations (I was actually more upset about Wonderfalls than Angel), the networks can do what they want. My main criticism (as a CEO) is that they are not taking real risks anymore and are making short-sighted decisions that will undercut the long term value of their properties. This is for a lot of the same reasons people have stated earlier (Reality programming having no legs in syndication, massive ratings variabilities because of chasing fads, etc.).

My hope is that the new multi-season in a season approach will open up more creative scheduling and carve out some space for new genre-based material. Not holding my breath though...

From Yahoo news:

Fox aims to rewrite the rules of the primetime business by making good on its vow to shift to a 12-month programming cycle beginning in June, with second and third fronts opening in November and January. It's all an effort to mitigate against the network's annual October pre-emptions for Major League Baseball postseason coverage. In addition to headaches for Fox's scheduling executives, Fox's tri-part launch strategy means a whole lot of rotating of shows and time slots. The X factor, of course, is whether viewers will be able to navigate the changes.

I think that Fox will find that most people aren't going to try to navigate the craziness. And it would only be worth doing for shows that you love -- not for shows that you're trying out.

I think that Fox will find that most people aren't going to try to navigate the craziness.

It works well enough in the UK, though there only being five terrestrial channels may have something to do with it (cable not being as widespread). If additional "programming cycles" translates into fewer repeats and more shows, then it's all good.

Yes, I'm so naive.

I don't think people are all that attached to the seasonality of television, really. It's more convenient for the networks and the neilsons and advertisers, I suppose, but viewers, NSM.