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
"They swear there was a memo."
11973 members | you are not logged in | 21 October 2020


September 20 2004

Those Wacky Emmys! Herc at AICN bemoans the lack of Angel and Wonderfalls recognition. He reckons Caroline Dhavernas, Amy Acker, Adam Baldwin and Carole Davis should have won various awards.

And you can find a list of the Emmy Winners here.

Arrested Development winning Best Comedy Series, Writing, Directing, Casting, and Editing after almost being cancelled proves that sometimes the Emmys get it right.
The Emmys last night were a train wreck. It was dodging a bullet, not having Angel & Wonderfalls on that show. Why? Cuz those shows are too good for the Emmys. The Emmys celebrate the status quo, the mindlessly popular, or the safe. It's got no bearing on truly celebrating talent and creativity in TV today. Hyde-Pierce put it well in his acceptance speech last night, "They say that there is a change in television today. Well, when it changes back, call me." They'll be calling Whedon too, when that day comes.
Zachsmind, Arrested Development in no way represents the "status quo, the mindlessly popular, or the safe." Sure, the Emmys do reward shows and actors whose time has passed (like The West Wing and Frasier), but sometimes they actually do reward the best and most creative shows out there.

Although I'm still not sure what Joss Whedon did to piss off the Emmy nominators.

[ edited by prufrock on 2004-09-20 15:52 ]
"Although I'm still not sure what Joss Whedon did to piss off the Emmy nominators."

Attempted to bring some quality and originality to our television screens? That would seem to be a crime these days after all.

ZachsMind is absolutely correct. The fact that neither of the shows he mentioned will be on our screens this season is bad enough but the added insult that these so called experts continue to ignore Joss' creations and those shows that emulate him is just too much.

How Angel was not so much as mentioned during the entire proceedings just shows how truly blind these Emmy people really are.
Joss Whedon is not the only person capable of producing quality television. Just because the Emmys made a mistake by only nominating him once and only giving BtVS two technical awards does not invalidate every single award they've ever given.
No but we are only discussing their attitude towards Mutant Enemy here and it does seem that year after year they are continuing the same trends and nominating the obvious, safe options rather than giving any exposure to these guys who really deserve it.

Nobody would argue that Joss' style is an aquired taste and his shows aren't for everybody but these people should be able to see a gem of a series whatever the subject matter is about.
While I'm not about to say that I'm happy with the fact that no Whedon-verse show ever won a major Emmy award, I do have to say that it's not really the "Emmy peoples" fault. The nominees are picked by the same people that vote for the winners. Voting members of the Academy are given a ballot with all the shows/actors/eps that are elegible and put themselves in for consideration. From that list we get the nominees. Plain and simple. I'm attaching an address for a site that tells another similar "Where's the nomination?" story and explains the whole process.
I watched part of the Emmys and almost vomited in disgust during a montage meant to be celebrating the greatest moments of tv over the past year. Most - not all - of the clips shown I found ridiculous, stale, maudlin, tired, and derivative and I kept thinking how Angel was better. "Much, much better," to quote Giles.

However I agree with prufrock that despite the lack of vision shown in the Emmy process towards the Whedonverse, there are quality shows out there that have not been overlooked - lucky them. Arrested Development is clever, funny, and different. I'm glad it was recognized. The Sopranos is excellent. Angels in America was excellent. I'm glad they got awards. There's no directed conspiracy against quality works. Those who oversee the Emmys do not sit around behind closed doors and rub their hands evilly and say to one another, "let's punish quality shows." Please. These people are too busy thinking about money, ratings success and self-interest to have a collective directed vision of punishing quality shows. miss_tress provided excellent info as to how this process operates. It's money and ratings and sometimes, just sometimes, a grudging nod to "quality." The problem is how "quality" is defined. My personal opinion is that many of the people who decide "quality" for the Emmys don't know what quality is. And, alas, genre shows are still considered too silly to be quality. And so Angel, Firefly and Buffy lose.
The fact of the matter is that genre shows in general (and Joss Whedon genre shows in particular) do not fit comfortably into a single convienient category. Drama would be the closest, but even then it's not drama like most people think of drama. Joss' stuff mixes too many genres to be easily pigeonholed into a category that an awards show like the Emmy's can easily use.

And that's not to say that shows that CAN be put into those categories are never good. Just last night the fact that Arrested Development, Angels in America, and The Daily Show all won awards are examples of when the Academy awards quality.

[ edited by ringworm on 2004-09-20 17:18 ]
I got no opinion on Arrested Development one way or the other and could care less. It's cable. I gave up paying for my television when they dumped MST3K. The viewer shouldn't have to pay for TV unless it's completely devoid of commercials. If I'm gonna pay for TV I'll just buy/rent a DVD and control my viewing experience more directly. Cable makes you pay for channels you never watch like The Food Channel. Who the hell watches The Food Channel? And I'm a guy, so I'd never watch Lifetime or Oxygen. And anyone who pays for cable channels that put commercials on their programming? You are ENCOURAGING the behavior of amoral businessmen. Stop doing that.

I miss The Daily Show. When I left cable, Craig Kilborn was leaving and Jon Stewart looked promising even back then. Off the top of my head that's the only show I wish I could get, but I'm not willing to return to cable just for TDS. I refuse to watch The Sopranos. I refuse to watch Angels In America or Deadwood. I might catch Six Feet Under via DVD, but it's not high on my list.

There was a point during the Emmys where they did this cheesy montage of shows that said their goodbyes. Friends was mentioned, as was the Larry Sanders show, Seinfeld got included briefly, Fraiser, and others. No flash edit of Angel staring down a dragon or Buffy smiling at the crater. No image of the Serenity crew standing around a coffin. Wonderfalls was barely given a chance to say hello, much less say goodbye. Hell, they gave Just Shoot Me a second in the sun, and that show sucked in all kinds of directions. I felt insulted. This was an ideal opportunity to include Whedon's efforts, and he was blatantly ignored.

Whedon's getting snubbed by the mainstream TV City incrowd, and therefore we who are viewed at his 'cult-like following' are also being snubbed and ignored and insulted. I've restarted my Netflix subscription, because I plan to minimize my viewing of prime time TV this fall. I'm starting as few new shows as I can bare and weening myself off a lot of old ones. Charmed has lost my interest. Smallville's about to jump the shark. Things like Lost, The Mountain, LAX, Joey, and all the reality TV stuff just gives me a stomach ache. I may try to give Jason Alexander's new show a try just cuz I like the actor, but I hate sports so I don't expect to last.

I don't want to support this TV City that doesn't support what I consider to be entertaining. They're feeding us crap and expecting us to like it. There's gotta come a point where we take a stand. Draw a line in the sand and then cement it.
Arrested Development is on FOX, which last time I checked was not a cable channel. And why the refusal to watch quality HBO shows?
Who the hell watches The Food Channel?

Me! :) Although there are a ridiculous number of channels that I don't watch like Oxygen. I could never get into Smallville and I have to agree also on Just Shoot Me.

The TV Landscape is starting to look like Wasteland, though there are a few bright spots out there like Rescue Me on f/x.
“My personal opinion is that many of the people who decide "quality" for the Emmys don't know what quality is. And, alas, genre shows are still considered too silly to be quality.”

I also doubt genre shows are taken seriously enough to be recognized and yet I notice there is a category for “outstanding reality/ competition” program. Grrrrr! That just makes the cartoon steam come out my ears.
I had absolutely no interest in watching the awards, but congrats to Arrested Development, The Daily Show, Jeffrey Wright, Elaine Stritch, Meryl Streep and Drea deMatteo anyway.
Arrested Development is not on cable. And it's good. As for HBO shows, they run 100% without commercials. There are commercials in-between HBO shows but they are few and are mainly for other HBO shows. Sopranos and Angels in America are dynamite productions. I can't comprehend watching Smallville but refusing to watch Sopranos.

When one watches "free" network tv, one pays in time and patience. Sitting through 15 minutes of commercials for every 45 minutes of a "free" network show is payment for watching that network show. In my opinion, it's a crap exchange in most cases.

[ edited by phlebotinin on 2004-09-20 19:06 ]
ZachsMind -- If you don't want to pay for any cable channels and deprive yourself of quality programming, I say go for it. The majority of us are going to continue supporting those "amoral businessmen" and their evil commercials. Oh, and I like The Food Channel quite a bit.

As for the Emmys, the only thing that made them worth watching were the awards given to Arrested Development, which is still on network TV last time I checked. Though they didn't even get that completely right -- where was Jason Bateman's much deserved nomination?? The rest of the awards were either completely predictable or infuriating. It hardly seems fair that 4 out of 5 slots for Best Writing in a drama series can go to ONE SHOW. Can't they spread the wealth just a little?

I just thank the heavens that The West Wing didn't win again. I may not watch The Sopranos or care to, but at least it hadn't won before.
MindPieces, good points all around.

In addition to our shared wish that Jason Batemen had been nominated, I also wish that the extremely talented actor who plays Batemen's father had won the best supporting award.
"I don't want to support this TV City that doesn't support what I consider to be entertaining. They're feeding us crap and expecting us to like it. There's gotta come a point where we take a stand. Draw a line in the sand and then cement it." - ZachsMind

That sounds very familiar to a point i was making just the other day. Nice to see i've converted you. :)

I do agree with most of what ZachsMind said in his last post as i've already said. Regardless of who it is that is causing the problem at the end of the day the Emmys are not reflecting the true spectrum of quality that television has (or had up until this year) to offer.

It occurs to me that a large part of why Joss' shows have suffered is due to people making assumptions about what they are and deciding not to watch based on that. If the people behind the Emmy nominations were to have included Buffy, Angel and Firefly over the last eight years in more of the major categories i would imagine more of the viewing public would have given them a chance and perhaps the ratings would have been considerably better than they were.

You could excuse the average man on the street for not noticing Angel but these television experts are supposed to be more aware of what is on the box. Surely Angel must have been on the radar of at least a few of them and they must have recognised the quality. Why then did the show not get decent representation?

The only reason i can think is because none of the people who could have nominated it had the guts to stand up and say "Hey, this vampire show, it's damn good!", much easier instead to keep quiet so as not to embarrass yourself in front of your peers who were probably all watching it and secretly loving it as well!

Angel, Buffy and Firefly were snubbed because not enough people were willing to stand up and say just how good they really were. A real pity.
"Angel, Buffy and Firefly were snubbed because not enough people were will to stand up and say just how good they really were."

Senior Partner, aside from a lack of moral courage, I can think of a couple of other reasons. First, the larger the pool of candidates for Emmy nominations and awards becomes, the less a chance each candidate in that pool has. The majority who are doing straight drama and comedy have an interest in excluding the minority who are doing genre. Second, I have to believe that there is an envy factor, especially in terms of the Whedon shows. If you were an actor working within the constraints of mundane, Emmy-acceptable television, would you think it was fair that someone who plays a superhero gets as much or more critical praise as you do? While playing multiple death scenes and still being alive? As an ordinary writer or producer, would you think it was fair that Joss Whedon *exists*?
How can anyone rationalize paying for a channel with commercials on it? That's like getting double billed at a restaurant. To get 'premium' channels like HBO, one has to pay more on top of some annoying 'package' of channels which include channels I'd never watch. I end up paying a lot a month for less than a dozen channels I did watch, and eighty channels I didn't watch, and most of the channels I did watch had more commercials than regular TV. So I scrapped cable and if it's not on the airwaves, to me it doesn't exist.

I used to tolerate the scam, but I tired of being perpetually screwed every month. If you want to continue being ripped off, more power to you.

I didn't know Arrested Development was on Fox. I haven't actively tried to watch it. Sounds like AD is getting the same treatment from Fox that Firefly got. Getting moved around a lot. Also caught the writer from AD last night on the Emmys begging people to watch his show. Sounds like it doesn't come back to Fox until November. Maybe I'll give an episode a try, but I don't like supporting Fox in general anymore. Why? Because of what they do to shows like Arrested Development.

And Senior Partner I'm still not converted. You're talking about some idealistic image of TV City. Your approach is that you think you can change TV City. I know better. I can however change my own behavior, so I choose not to support them. This will not affect them in the least, any more than a grain of sand affects the sea. It's a question of semantics. Our opinions are perhaps similar, but we come to dramatically different conclusions.
"And Senior Partner I'm still not converted. You're talking about some idealistic image of TV City. Your approach is that you think you can change TV City. I know better. I can however change my own behavior, so I choose not to support them. This will not affect them in the least, any more than a grain of sand affects the sea. It's a question of semantics. Our opinions are perhaps similar, but we come to dramatically different conclusions."

My comment about having converted you was actually meant as a joke, hence the smiley and the reason i said i had made a "similar" arguement rather than an identical one.

Our idea's aren't all that different though as you say, we both want the same outcome, better quality television. Only real difference is that you don't think we will ever achieve it, i'm just willing to be that little more hopeful is all.
How can anyone rationalize paying for a channel with commercials on it?

Plenty of magazines and comic books are filled with advertisements, too. Some magazines even have more pages of advertisements than articles. Though I'd think that this lowers the cost to the consumer. Maybe even for basic cable, too.
I don't have HBO either and I don't plan on getting it. Nor do I have cable. But I check out their shows by renting them on DVD. The Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Angels in America from HBO and Nip/Tuck from FX were all worth watching and I watched them without commercials. I'm glad I didn't have the notion that not being broadcast on a regular network meant that they weren't worth my time.

Fox is actually treating Arrested Development fairly well considering that its ratings would have meant cancellation for other shows. They're giving it the slot right after The Simpsons on Sunday and they're probably going to be promoting it pretty heavily during the baseball playoffs (although hopefully not so much as to make people sick of it). I think Fox learned a lot from its mistakes with Firefly. They even gave Tru Calling more than its fair share of chances which they have now mercifully stopped doing.

Sure, Fox is still far from being the perfect network, but they realize what a gem they have in Arrested Development and only the most stupid of network executives would let that go. Plenty of other networks have expressed interest in it if Fox does decide to drop the ball though.
I don't think Wonderfalls deserves an Emmy.It isn't a popular show.The story isn't that good.The only reason why some users here wanted it to win, was because they were fans of the show.Buffy is an emmy nominated tv series.Unfortunatley Angel isn't.This is probably because Angel is one of those least popular shows.Buffy was a hit.It was the greatest show.It was even better, and popular than Angel.
TheSlayer246, i think it goes without saying that the reason we wanted these shows to win is because we are fans, that would seem to be fairly obvious.

However your opinion that Buffy was the better show and therefore nore worthy of an award is not neccessarily true. Just because you clearly prefer it doesn't make it the most deserving of an Emmy.

I adore Buffy and i would not argue that it is by far the most well known of the shows we discuss regularly here. Most people will at least be aware of the existence of Buffy whether they watch it or not, Angel, Firefly, Wonderfalls and the rest are not so much in the public awareness.

However this does not mean that they are less deserving of an Emmy or any other award for that matter. Angel certainly surpassed itself this year not to mention it surpassed the majority of shows that did win an Emmy this time around.

Buffy was a truly brilliant show and will always be more well known than Angel. Doesn't mean that Angel didn't deserve some recognition too.
TheSlayer246 - Popularity shouldn't factor into an award ceremony supposedly based on merit (but unfortunately, it does).

I'd also like to point out that "Angel" was actually an Emmy-nominated series: It received a makeup nom for "The Ring."

[ edited by Invisible Green on 2004-09-21 00:02 ]
I always hate when people say BtVS is way better than AtS or AtS is way better than BtVS. To me, they were both great shows and each had their moments of magic. AtS was always fighting to come out of the shadow of BtVS and I think after a not so great first season (and that's my opinion) was getting better and better. There were lots of promising things happening when the show was ending. Illyria was one of the most exciting Buffyverse characters to be introduced and we only had a brief amount of time to get to enjoy her. BtVS was groundbreaking and wonderful and is my favorite of the two shows but because it was the beginning of both and the start of it all. Angel, Wesley and Cordy all started off on Buffy but became even better characters on AtS. Some of my favorite Faith moments occurred on AtS. To me, the two shows are an extension of each other and really shouldn't be overly compared. They each had their own, distinct mission but they are, after all, the same family. Firefly, again in my opinion, could've outshone them both but we'll never have that opportunity to find out. It started off great and I can only imagine what five to seven years of storytelling could've got us. Of course it could've bombed after a season or two but I hardly doubt that would've happened with Joss at the helm. It's a shame that a man who is so known for his wonderful dialect between his characters only got nominated a few times for makeup. And I can only imagine that if BtVS and AtS had been recognized by the Emmys as they should've been and had Emmy after Emmy heaped on them what a difference it could've made for Firefly to be introduced as the new show by Emmy award winning creator of BtVS. Whether we want to admit or not, quite a bit of respect comes to those who win that prize whether they deserved it or not. Joss deserved to honored for his wonderful, creative and unique storytelling.

That's why a lot of us are so turned off by the Emmy's. So many fantastic shows have been ignored or overlooked for the same type of shows over and over again. I've heard many a people complain that The West Wing is not good anymore yet here it was again nominated. If the fans think it sucks why is it being honored? I'm glad to hear a show like Arrested Development was honored. I haven't seen it but a bunch of Whedonesquers have and have praised it. Here's a show that was on the brink of cancelation and to have it recognized as the quality show you all talk so highly about it's great to see that maybe there is a change coming. Maybe people who haven't seen it will tune in and see what a difference quality writing brings to a show and in the future that may stop the flood of nominations for these overdone formulatic shows we see popping up season after season.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

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