Originally Posted by jdiehl
Most "good" shows go out on their own terms, not when the network pulls the plug on them.
Interesting. Most of the "good" shows I like were prematurely canned, and the ones that weren't usually limped on a season or two longer than they should have. Five seasons -- 110 hour-long episodes -- is a very good run, and few series ever approach that point. Arguing that Angel
must inherently be a bad show because it only
had five season is ridiculous. If you watched the seventh season of Buffy
and the fourth season of Angel
-- both of which aired at the same time -- and thought Buffy
was vastly superior to what was happening on Angel
, then...I'd be at a loss. Not sure what to say. I'm sure Buffy
's earlier successes played a massive role in Angel
lingering as long as it did, but there have been dozens of spin-offs of successful shows, many of which never made it past a first season. If Angel
weren't doing well enough, the WB would've cancelled it without hesitation.
It's a silly point to debate, though; ratings are an indicator of viewership, not quality.
Originally Posted by fredfa
But it seems to me that if the fan base were truly expansive, the desperate WB execs (who managed to come up with nine of the 2004-2005 season's lowest-rated 11 shows) would never have cancelled it.
If it had been an in-house production instead of Fox's, who knows...? Maybe it'd still be on the air. I doubt it's a coincidence that the show was cancelled with a WB-produced vampire series slated to take its place (even though Dark Shadows
wound up never making it to air).
I'm sure you know it doesn't matter how many total viewers you have -- a series can be extremely profitable with lower ratings as long as it brings in the right demographic.