I agree, RS. If the author's logic were applied equally, then Alyson Hannigan would have been a shoe-in.

brownishcoat | September 16, 21:17 CET

Rogue Slayer is right...along with the fact, or suspicion, the TV Academy still isn't convinced the WB is a real TV network. Otherwise, Lauren Graham (one HELL of a Swan) would have gotten nominated long ago..along with other swans like James Marsters, Amy Acker and David Boreanaz.

impalergeneral | September 16, 22:11 CET

I disagree, and I think the premise is asinine.

Lauren Graham and Aly Hannigan are fantastic actresses, no doubt. I think SMG is good, great in Buffy, but hardly serviceable in other roles. She has also made miserable choices.

The bigotry against the WB is well founded, however.

SMG hasn't not done anything to impress me since the earlier half of season 7. "Conversations with Dead People" was particularly evocative.

Chirp | September 16, 22:13 CET

Chirp: Whether SMG has or hasn't been great in other roles or whether she has or hasn't made great choices in terms of her movies hasn't really got anything to do with this particular topic (although personally I think she's been more than serviceable in plenty of other roles). It's about her portrayal of Buffy and the fact that in that role, despite what were fantastic critical reviews, she was never nominated for an Emmy. IMO she should have at least been nominated following seasons 2, 3 and 5. I'd have nominated her for other seasons personally, but looking at the material she was working with etc, those seasons stand out. It's obviously subjective, but I've never been particularly impressed by Alyson Hannigan so I'm not sure that she would necessarily have been nominated regardless.

I think the author has a point, but things have also been oversimplified for the purposes of the article. There's no question that being on the WB was probably the key factor in the lack of nominations, followed by the genre issues.

[ edited by Impossible on 2005-09-16 21:10 ]

Impossible | September 16, 23:08 CET

I always felt that Sarah outshone many other actresses who were handed Emmy awards. This slight was due more to the fact that the show was never really taken seriously by the mainstream than to her beauty however. Sarah is an extremely talented actress, one of the best ever to grace my television set. She was doomed by the title of her show as were many other members of the cast who gave superior performances throughout the series. Unfair and frustrating.

Del | September 16, 23:15 CET

I didn't think Sarah did very good acting as the series went on. Maybe it just depended on what she had to work with. Once the show wasn't exclusively about Buffy anymore she didn't have as many places to shine. I wouldn't call JM a swan, but I think this article is about actresses. I think they are reading too much into who is pretty and who gets an awarded.

charisma | September 16, 23:19 CET

I thought she was ace in The Grudge. For me that was her best performance outside Buffy.

Simon | September 16, 23:34 CET

I've seen people criticise SMG's performance in seasons 6 and 7 of the show especially, but I always felt she got it exactly right in those seasons. The character was depressed for much of the time, wasn't really feeling emotion in the normal ways, was floating through life in a bit of an emotionless daze in fact. So if the character didn't have the same energy that had been there previously, that didn't have anything to do with SMG 'phoning it in' or whatever phrase people want to use IMO. I thought that was entirely what the scripts and situation called for.

Impossible | September 16, 23:40 CET

I agree with Chirp. I think the article's premise is pretty silly.

Two words: Jennifer Aniston

kdavid323 | September 16, 23:43 CET

I think SMG was a much better actress in the first three seasons. Buffy's emotions always seemed very realistic, especially in regards to her relationship in Angel. In the later seasons, Buffy just seemed whiny and melodramatic. Maybe SMG's better as acting as a teenager than a young adult.

vampire dan | September 16, 23:52 CET

I doubt the premise is correct and agree that the other factors mentioned were more responsible. Now, about Sarah not doing a good job....I would put her up against any actor, any time, any place...she is as good as I've seen and at my age, I've seen most. Also, I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I think Alyson Hannigan is flat out beautiful! In my list of the 25 most beautiful Whednoverse gals, I rank her in a three-way tie with Sarah and Charisma Carpenter at the top. All my friends feel the same way....I'm amused that someone took a cheap shot at her looks...different strokes I guess.

Calledon | September 16, 23:57 CET

Any discussion of Gellar seems to generate extremes of opinion and that goes for her acting as with most other things about her. Whatever view is taken of her choice of films and her performances in those roles (I like her films and think she is an excellent actor, but that is a very subjective opinion), surely it cannot be denied that she was frequently superb in BtVS. Personally, I think her acting improved as the show went on. By the final two seasons she had developed an understated acting style that was, I think, absolutely right for the character at that time.

Having said that, it was the show in general that was snubbed, not Gellar specifically. Opinion about her (both positive and negative) is perhaps sometimes driven by her looks but I do not think her lack of nominations had anything to do with this.

alien lanes | September 17, 00:07 CET

Would have been a lot worse had Joss orginally gone with "Martha the Immortal Waitress".



Spot on. My thoughts exactly.

Simon | September 17, 00:12 CET

That's right. It must be beauty.

Or it could be that the thing is called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

No, that would make too much sense. Beauty it is!

BAFfler | September 17, 00:36 CET

I agree that the most like reason Sarah was looked over for awards was because of the snobby attitude scuh organisations hold towards genre shows like Buffy. They of course have no problem with Desperate Housewives, which is entertaining but generally light and has over the top acting. Yet they can't see around the supernatural elements of the show, and also the fact that it was on a small network.

Razor | September 17, 02:30 CET

Um, complete b.s. - I haven't read the article or any of the above comments yet, but plenty of beautiful women win top awards all the time, probably moreso than non beautiful women. And just what would SMG have won an award for anyway? BtVS? We all know why she never won Emmys for that and it has nothing to do with her looks.

forcorreo | September 17, 02:42 CET

Forcorreo, I'm a little bit confused. If you haven't actually read the article or any of the comments resulting from it, what exactly are you basing your comments on?

alien lanes | September 17, 02:51 CET

And what is it that "we all know"???

Calledon | September 17, 02:56 CET

Yes, only unattractive actresses are allowed to be nominated.
That is the rule. And obviously that is why the likes of Mariska Hargitay, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Garner, Sela Ward and Teri Hatcher have made the list. We all agree they are sufficiently homely, huh?

I believe the snub to BTVS was more likely a result of a general disregard for the network and the inability to clearly define its genre.

If forced to make an argument, I could probably find reasonable evidence to support the age factor. Even if Amber Tamblyn was nominated, the teen/young adult roles are severly under represented.

Guess that means that Kristen Bell is outta luck. Darn, because she so belongs on the short list. The very same one that should have had SMG on it for Seasons 2, 3, 5, and 6.

Rank Amateur | September 17, 04:40 CET

OT but why was the Southland Tales picture thread deleted.

garda39 | September 17, 05:00 CET

dashboardprophet: I based my comments on what Rogue Slayer said the article was about - "contesting that beautiful actresses are overlooked for awards because of their looks"

Calledon: the 'we all know' is the stuff that we pretty much do all know (as evidenced by the many comments above, which I have now read), the stuff that has been discussed to death for many years - 'BtVS' has a funny, off-putting (to some) title, it's genre, etc, etc, - and I didn't feel I had to say because it's all been said so many times before.

forcorreo | September 17, 08:58 CET

Because the writing didn't have anything to do with the change in character or character behavior, only the acting? It's not as though SMG suddenly lost the ability to act and decided to single-handedly make Buffy whiny and melodramatic. It's quite possible the writing is what "soured" (for you) and not simply the acting. I know it might be seen as taboo to criticize the writers but perhaps it is easier writing in a high school setting as opposed to writing for characters who have grown up and gone to on to university (or elsewhere).

The article is quite silly.

[ edited by Kyotoyoshi on 2005-09-17 16:06 ]

Kyotoyoshi | September 17, 18:02 CET

Kyotoyoshi, you're probably right that the writing played a large role in how I perceived Buffy's character. It's often hard to distinguish whether I like or dislike a character because of their acting skill or how well their script was written. I do think that the writing, for the most part, declined in the later seasons of Buffy. There was less humor, the character's emotions weren't as real.

vampire dan | September 17, 20:17 CET