This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"I'm Kiki. I don't know how I got here, I sorta don't care... am I drunk?"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 22 December 2014




Tweet







July 19 2004

HB... Oh no not again, but what about Buffy. A short article talking about HBO's domination of the Emmy nominations, while shows like Buffy and Angel are constantly re-buffed by the mainstream award show.

"As an unapologetic Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan, the mind boggles at how this character rich and philosophically challenging tour de force was scoffed at year after year by Emmy. Other entertaining shows facing the same non-nominated fate are the WB's defunct Angel and Showtime's, Dead Like Me."

All this is true they have overlooked Joss Whedon's shows for too long and now it's too late he doesn't have any on the air anymore. I personally like Angel better than Buffy so I'm probably a minority in that sense. I just think that Angel deserved something. Especially Alexis Denisof I feel bad for him because at the Saturn Awards James Marsters (Spike) won best supporting actor. I mean James is a great actor, but he was only on the show for one season I just felt that Alexis was more deserving of the awards, but that's just my humble opinion.
The whole awards thing is a snare and a delusion...Buffy was so vastly better than anything else on TV other than Angel, and I rate them a toss-up (althought my wife, who adores Angel, thinks Buffy is something entirely else altogether.)

Sometimes I feel as though I was born out of time, but then I read like-minded thoughts and opinions on this site and am somewhat reassured.
Genre TV is rarely recognised by the emmys, with that said I always feel it's more prestigious to earn a genre award since those who are giving it are generaly interested in the subject matter.

True, it might not mean as much in the long run, but hey I love seeing the shows I love get some recognition.
This same article was posted just a few days ago, though I think it was on a different website...
I looked - I found the MSNBC article that mentions Amy and then another link straight to the emmy, also tvgal at zap2it talking about who she'd like to nominate, but that was it.
Its very simple, Buffy and Angel were too smart for the emmy's. They weren't crappy sitcoms on NBC/CBS, or tired crime dramas. They were original shows that no one had ever seen before. I have no problem with the HBO shows that are nominated each year, I watch many of them and they are deserving of the awards. However, garbage like "Everybody Loves Raymond" getting nominated each year is just upsetting. I mean if crap like that is considered "good TV" then what kind of country are we living in? And I really don't understand how Amy Acker could have not been nominated, its not everyday that you see an actress play two completely different roles on the same show and do it that well.
I think it’s the awards shows themselves that should be whacked. I’m actually glad ‘Angel’ and ‘Buffy’ weren’t made a part of the Emmy crapfest. They were too cool to be part of such an empty display.
Perhaps the nominating academy were afraid if Joss Whedon’s shows were introduced to a larger audience it would set viewer’s expectations too high and they would demand better than the same old plots and sh*tcoms. (Okay, that probably wouldn’t happen but I can dream can’t I?)
HBO does have some really good original series and movies—and some mediocre ones that just gets swept along with the “water cooler” stuff. I don’t know if it’s because the academy thinks it makes them look cutting edge or that they are just too lazy to look anywhere else. I can honestly say there’s nothing on HBO that can compare to ‘Buffy’ and ‘Angel’. Nothing. ‘The Sopranos’ may have some good dialogue, but for the most part it’s kinda boring and repetitive. I still don’t know half the characters names or their relation to each other. The only surprises come in the ‘when’ not in the ‘what’. ‘Six Feet Under’ may deal with death and ‘Carnivale’ with good and evil, but they both lack any real complexity that would allow me to watch them over and over. ‘Buffy’ and ‘Angel’ weren’t so much “must see” as “can’t live without” and it’s almost unbelievable how they were ignored.
I mostly agree with your assessment of "The Sopranos", bloodflowers. We recently rented the 1st season on DVD, and were sufficiently gripped to pay a couple of days' late fees to finish it out. On the whole, I thought it was beautifully shot, had a terrific cast, infectious theme, and some nice plot twists and turns. We enjoyed it. Just as BtVS et al. tweaked the horror genre, the Sopranos did a nice spin on the gangster genre (of which I am quite fond), with the dysfunctional family, mob boss on Prozac and in therapy, etc. etc.

But unlike Buffy, the show never got any deeper than that for me. Its complexity lay purely in its labyrinthine plots whereas BtVS's lay in its layers of meaning. I can see that the Sopranos had stuff to say about family and loyalty, but those themes never really struck home with me. A few days after finishing the season, I was hard-pressed to remember much of it, and we haven't rushed out to rent the 2nd.

And yet most of my friends have (literally) laughed at me for suggesting that BtVS is as good as, not to mention, *better* than the Sops. Oh, the trials that we "genre" (although isn't gangster a "genre"?) fans must submit to! :)
I didn't really fall in love with The Sopranos until maybe midway through Season 2. Season 3 cemented my need to see it through to the end. Before that though, while watching Season 1 and the first half of Season 2, I was mostly marvelling at what I saw as the vast amount of overhype the series had received. It's really rewarding for the longtime viewer though, and at this point (Season 5 just having finished in June), I can attest that the show has probably said almost as much about the human condition as Buffy did. I would never compare the two though, they satisfy different entertainment needs. The Sopranos is rarely as fun or funny as Buffy though, which is fine 'cause it's not intended to be that.
They were too cool to be part of such an empty display.

I kinda think that nails it right there. If Buffy or Angel had been lauded by the Academy, they wouldn't be 'outside', wouldn't be rebels and punks and upstarts and all those other good, troubling things that society abhors but must have to remain viable and alive. Or cool. The Academy celebrates the mainstream, whether they want to admit it or not. Because the shows we love are cool, they are also hard to articulate to non-fans. They are standoffish and mysterious, in a Greta Garbo kind of way; they don't come to you, you have to come to them.

In terms of art, think of the Emmies as rewarding those who buttress the prevailing tastes of the predominant culture -- the state-sponsored Salon in 19th c. France, for example. Joss's shows are like the art that ended up in the Salon de Refusé -- works that weren't generally appreciated by the masses in their time, but which ended up defining what was groundbreaking about art in the long term, and helped to generate everything progressive in the field that's come along since.

While it's galling that all the amazing hard work on these shows we love never got the official recognition it deserved, I think I'm still glad Joss and his cohorts are too cool for school. It means he's really saying things of consequence, and we're the early adopters who picked up on it before everyone else did.

[ edited by Wiseblood on 2004-07-20 10:15 ]

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home