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.

I think that people would still like the shows to go all the way through and then have a repeat of the season so you could a. catch episodes you missed or b. watch shows on other channels that conflicted with shows that you watched first run.

This is for people who aren't going to even attempt either tivo or watch a, tape b -- because they are less invested in the shows. (Or the post show discussions.)

That's a good point, sumi. People do expect time to "catch up in reruns". 24 does that replay on F/X thing, though, I think that's been working out pretty well for them.

But nobody likes the hiatus, do they? Does hiatus have a plural? Though I guess it's an early shot at that seeing the ones you missed thing.