Good articles. Really love the TV Zone emmy list. I must say, after that "Oh, we forgot to list Joss Whedon's 'Once More, With Feeling' for best musical!" stunt, I can't seem to take the Emmy seriously anymore.

Madhatter | September 15, 11:27 CET

You know how they get put on the list - the network, the production company, their management has to pay a fee to have them "nominated". None of them even made it on the "paid nomination" ballot so it's no wonder they were never nominated, cause no one put them in the running for anything. Typically the network ponies up and pays the nomination fee (cause they get the free publicity from it) and who here really believed that the WB would do that for Angel - if they are not going to do it FOX, ME, or their management is more than likely to take a pass on it cause it would be free publicity for the WB. If Ancier really wanted the show or something like it back he would have paid to get them nominated to see what would have happened but he didn't. I might have more faith that the TV movies would be welcomed by the WB if they would do more than give just lip service to them.

I do not mean to sound to snarky but I told people back in March, while the whole SA was in full motion to send postcards to FOX, ME, and the actors management to get them nominated but no one listened - so it's kinda frustrating when the first round ballot came out in the end of May that no one from Angel was on there. So what did anyone expect, that Hollywood was fair and shows are judged on their actual talent and abilities, it's about money, those who are willing to spend on it will get the most credit from it, whether they deserve it or not. Joss needs to goto HBO cause at least they spend the money to make sure every show they have gets some sort of nomination, even the technical ones. BTW - the cost of the initial nomination is $250 per catagory.

RavenU | September 15, 15:59 CET

One would wonder if the likes of 20th Century Fox and its ilk have done any research into whether TV DVD boxsets sell more if they have a sticker on them saying "Nominated for two Emmys" or whatever.

Simon | September 15, 17:10 CET

RavenU, in all the time I campaigned to save the show I never heard your suggestion to try to get them nominated. We must frequent different websites. At $250 a person we could have easily covered the initial nomination fee for everyone on the show. I didn't know it was something we could do. I figured you had to be an industry insider.

killinj | September 15, 17:42 CET

RavenU do you know for a fact that the Emmy nominations depend on network payola? Am I this naive? How is this remotely legal?

I can't see how this doesn't completely undermine the validity and respectability of the Emmys. Even if they're able to do it in such a way as to make it seem legal, surely this practice is unethical, and if properly communicated to the public, would end the illusion in the minds of many that the Emmys are in any way substantial.

ZachsMind | September 15, 17:43 CET

Angel not nominated again?! I'm reeling from the not-shock of it all.

meredith | September 15, 17:48 CET

I have to say, while Angel definitely deserved a nom, I'm not sure James did for this season. Seasons 2 & 5-7 of Buffy absolutely, but he wasn't really allowed to shine on Angel(no one's fault, they had a fully situated cast already). But maybe that's what they meant by overdue. I just wasn't pleased with the little James had to do on Angel, so I'm not sure it was emmy worthy on it's own. Well, if I'm comparing to most of the characters on tv right now, he was still head and shoulders above many of them, even given short shrift. Amy definitely deserved one. That girl blew me away in season 5.

Rogue Slayer | September 15, 18:16 CET

There's some confusion as to the nomination system for the Emmys. According to John Leverence, Vice President for Awards, ANGEL *was* on the initial "nominating" ballot for which the producers pay a fee, in the categories of:
Writing
Directing
Sound editing
Music
James Marsters, Supporting Actor Drama Series

The nominating ballot is the extensive one that goes out to every member of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, from which the actual nominations are selected, according to peer group (Performer, Director, Producer, Make up, Sound, etc.) The top 5 in each (in some categories there are a couple more or less) are then considered Emmy nominated entries. The actual winners are selected in a second phase by judging panels made up of members of a particular peer group.

So there's the rub -- in the first part of the process, a show like ANGEL is given short shrift because not enough members of the Academy watch the series to nominate it for a main category (such as those above!) Genre shows only really get recognition in categories such as Special Visual Effects or Makeup. What galls me is that ANGEL didn't get put up for consideration on the ballot for those categories, like "Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup" where there were only three nominees chosen -- Enterprise, Nip/Tuck, and Tracey Ullman!

The complete rules and procedures can be downloaded from the Emmy Web site.

Whedonage | September 15, 19:13 CET

If James Marsters made the list then I'm guessing Himber put up the money. I can see the producers putting up the fees for the others but not the actors. In that case the actors management would have to put up the money, therefore explaining James name making it.

I did put it on renewangel.org and a couple other sites including the wb.com - no one ever said they were interested in doing it.

Zachsmind - yes they do charge $250.00 for each nomination. How do you think they pay for everything. Most of it comes the nomination fees, and it is legal.

However, after the first nominations come out it's up to whoever nominated them need to do some marketing to make sure they make it to the next level - which really didn't happen for Angel - and the next level is the top 10 (starting this year) - which is then narrowed down again to the top 5.

RavenU | September 15, 20:38 CET

As I’ve said before, I can’t help but feel relieved that Angel was excluded from a bloated, self-congratulatory crapfest of an awards show like the Emmys. If not enough people in the industry watched and/or have snubbed the cast and crew this far, I really can’t give much weight to any decisions they make about who or what shows they do nominate. It’s not that I feel they don’t all deserve recognition for outstanding work, but I don’t think there is such a category as ‘One of the Best Series—Ever’.

bloodflowers | September 15, 21:37 CET

I stopped being shocked at these kind of shenaniganms years ago. The whole academy thing is a sham. These people don't watch genre shows and in most cases won't watch a show for the first season or two of its run. Exceptions are shows that get a lot of hype. Worse yet is that they'll continue to vote for a show that is quite obviously past its prime *cough*WestWing*cough*. Every year its the same three or four sitcoms until they get cancelled and then they scramble to get something new. The Simpson always wins best animated, not because its good, but because its established. There's pretty much a well accepted list of things you can do to win an Emmy, and being in a genre show is not one of them (unless you want makeup/FX/costume etc). This is pretty much the same as the Oscar members voting for a Holocaust doc every year in that category (before Micheal Moore came along). Frankly just about every award show category I can think is run on this level. Instead of getting a wide range of whats good, you get a narrow range of what a heavily skewed group of people like.

sTalking_Goat | September 15, 21:47 CET

Seems like everybody involved in the TV industry I see on talk shows claim to never watch TV anyway. They seem proud of it most of the time. I don't know how they can claim to be able to decide what the best shows are if they don't really watch any of them. The movie industry isn't quite as bad, but nearly.

ella | September 15, 21:57 CET