Buffy snubbed by Emmys again

POSTED BY: Hjermsted
UPDATED: Sunday, July 21, 2002 21:58
VIEWED: 6561
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE

HJERMSTED

Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:33 PM

Two noms for Buffy:
Outstanding Hairstyling For A Series
Outstanding Makeup For A Series (Non-Prosthetic)
Both for episode “Hell’s Bells”

Complete Emmy list:
http://www.emmys.com/primetime/2002/2002awardsarts.html

Man this Emmy thing is getting pathetic. What a bunch of snobs.

mattro

TLSMITH1963

Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:41 PM

Babylon 5 never got nominated for the big, important awards, either. I think the Academy members can't look beyond cop-shows, lawyer-shows, & sitcoms. I'm really tired of seeing good series ignored just because they don't conform to narrow-minded views about what is supposed to be good.

Tammy

HJERMSTED

Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:44 PM

Whoops!
Found two more noms. Here's all of them:

Outstanding Hairstyling For A Series
Outstanding Makeup For A Series (Non-Prosthetic)
Outstanding Makeup For A Series (Prosthetic)
All for episode “Hell’s Bells”
Outstanding Music Direction
For “Once More With Feeling”

Whedon, the cast, and writers all still thoroughly snubbed.

Complete Emmy list:
http://www.emmys.com/primetime/2002/2002awardsarts.html

mattro

HAKEN

Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:12 PM

Also, I think it's because only shows that belongs to the big 3 networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and two big cable networks (HBO and Showtime) gets nominated and win in the major categories.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but just think about it. The academy membership consists of people who works in the industry, the majority of which works for the big 3 or the cable big 2.

If you are employed by those networks, you would naturally want to vote for a series that belongs to your network. A winning series or one that gets nominated on the voter's network guarantees that he'll have a job for another season. The larger the production, the more people it employs, the more votes it's able to receive from it's own network, own employees and own subcontractors, etc..

The smaller networks don't stand a chance simply because they don't have enough voters on their side. It's even worst for syndicated shows where production is across the border or overseas.

So unless a Joss Whedon series ends up on ABC, CBS, or NBC, chances of him winning anything in a major category are slim.

PANDORA

Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:43 PM

I think a lot of it has to do with genre as well, obviously- we've had many discussions about it in chat and here. But the thing is, personally, I'm over worrying about the Emmys. Ultimately, an Emmy doesn't really mean anything anyway- all it is is the consensus of popular opinion, and most popular opinion isn't really informed enough to properly judge quality (ok, maybe that's kind of nasty, but I see no other explanation of why melodrama like Judging Amy would be Emmy nominated and not Buffy). Most of the American public sees fantasy and sci fi as silly and for kids, so they would never give an award that takes itself too seriously anyway to a show of one of those genres. (This isn't even getting into the politics of it all.)

I'd be way gratified if they started a TV award that acknowledged quality regardless of genre, network, or otherwise. Of course, I'd also be way gratified if I suddenly inherited a hundred million dollars, so there you go.

Pandora

Edited to add: I will grudgingly add that this year, the bar seems to have been raised with shows like 24... and Sex and the City is really good. I'm also annoyed and gratified in equal parts that Six Feet Under has been nominated for like - everything (annoyed because I hate the Emmys, gratified because I love the show)... however, I think we could have stood to see Buffy nominated for at LEAST best lead actress, or best writing, or *something*. Throw us a bone here, people.

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies
and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

BOBKNAPTOR

Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:07 PM

OK, I just have to say this:

OUTSTANDING HAIRSTYLING?

What the heck? I mean, I am not saying that they have crappy hair, by any stretch of the imagination... I'm just saying, What a lame catagory. Is that so they can say "see, we didn't snub Buffy entirely!"????

Not that I was filled with faith in the process before, (truth be told, i never paid attention to the emmy's before this year) but I have a complete and utter LACK OF FAITH in them now.

______________
I woke up, and I looked in the mirror, and I thought, hey, what's with all the sin?

MILLERNATE

Thursday, July 18, 2002 8:33 PM

Well I guess its time once again for yours truly to post a rambling, somewhat intelligent, response to someone else's post. Hopefully this is more coherent than my usual posts of this kind.

Quote:

. But the thing is, personally, I'm over worrying about the Emmys. Ultimately, an Emmy doesn't really mean anything anyway- all it is is the consensus of popular opinion, and most popular opinion isn't really informed enough to properly judge quality (ok, maybe that's kind of nasty, but I see no other explanation of why melodrama like Judging Amy would be Emmy nominated and not Buffy).

But you see, the thing is, these awards are *supposed* to be about judging quality. It isn't supposed to be a popularity contest or a political game (I have the same annoyance at the Oscars for just that reason, well that and continuing to let Whoopi Goldberg host). Also, I don't know if you read Kurt Vonnegut but you might want to check out the foreward to his short-story collection Welcome to the Monkeyhouse in which he talks about those who dismiss Science Fiction.

Quote:

I'd be way gratified if they started a TV award that acknowledged quality regardless of genre, network, or otherwise. Of course, I'd also be way gratified if I suddenly inherited a hundred million dollars, so there you go.

Well, judging only by its first slate, the AFI awards at least seem to be making the attempt to reward merit so its a start. NO it isn't perfect but it seemed to genuinely try to reward based on merit (hey they awarded best director to Robert Altman instead of Ron Howard so that's a step in the right direction

).

Quote:

I will grudgingly add that this year, the bar seems to have been raised with shows like 24... and Sex and the City is really good.

You know, I saw the first 3 or so episodes of 24 and I didn't come off as overly impressed. I mean it was alright but it really came off as more of an intellectual game than a great show (plus the fact that there wasn't really any sort of connection with the characters that weren't Jack Baeur). I personally would have liked to have seen Buffy nominated for Best WRiting (I think we all know for what episode) and Best Supporting Actress (Alyson Hannigan for making completely horrid writing tolerable) though if they are going to nominate Jennifer Garner (

) they might as well nominate Sarah Michelle as she did a better job than her (even if I didn't care for her performance for much of the year).

Nathan
"Being popular and well liked is not in your best interest. Let me be more clear; if you behave in a manner pleasing to most, then you are probably doing something wrong." - Janeane Garofalo, from "Feel this Book"

ZICSOFT

Thursday, July 18, 2002 10:04 PM

Hmm. I rather like the hair for the last couple of seasons. But before then -- blech! I suppose it was deliberate -- B is supposed to be a valley girl who dresses herself from bad fashion magazines.

As for the Emmys -- WHO CARES? It's just a bunch of shallow TV types congratulating themselves for their "quality" shows. I'll not watch the awards ceremony for the same reason I don't watch 90% of what's on TV -- I need something to engage my brain. Not too much, of course -- that's what books are for!

ZICSOFT

Thursday, July 18, 2002 10:12 PM

Quote:
You know, I saw the first 3 or so episodes of 24 and I didn't come off as overly impressed. I mean it was alright but it really came off as more of an intellectual game than a great show (plus the fact that there wasn't really any sort of connection with the characters that weren't Jack Baeur).

That's an interesting perspective. I started out liking 24 a lot, then hating it totally -- and for exactly the opposite reasons. I thought the first 4 or 5 episodes were interesting and engaging. But then when they finally got around to "explaining" things, I began to lose interest. They were obviously making things up as they went along, and had no desire to make things fit together. The plot was determined by drama, not logic. For example, it makes no sense for the scheme to kidnap Jack's family to be so damned elaborate. But of course if the Bad Guys and just gone to his house and taken the women at gunpoint, there couldn't have milked that part of the story for so many episodes!

BOBKNAPTOR

Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:05 PM

I'm not sayin I didn't like the hair. the hair was fine. some might even say great. but the point is... it's a STUPID catagory... it's like a throw away. They got tons of "anti-buffy" press when they left OMWF off the ballots. Then they turn around and nominated the show for something that nobody gives a rats ass about.

I was glad to see that Michael Chiklis was nominated for "The Shield". It was a great new show (and I saw every episode). But I thought 24 was agressively un-interesting. Oh well. I never paid attention to the Emmy's before, i shouldn't be annoyed that the first time I do, they suck. I just won't pay attention to them anymore.

______________
Demons after money. Whatever happened to the still-beating heart of a virgin? No one has any standards anymore.

1 2 NEXT PAGE