SiriCerasi
Cadet
i know...
V
verdantheart
Guest
In Matt Roush's Ask Matt column today, he answers a question about TV Guide's choice of Jennifer Garner as a fantasy Emmy nomination:
~~~~
Question: I'll admit right off the bat that I haven't watched much Alias. Can you explain why Jennifer Garner is a mainstream darling (and an Emmy voters favorite), while Sarah Michelle Gellar has never achieved the recognition she deserves? Granted, Alias is more mainstream than Buffy. But isn't it sometimes possible for individual actors to be recognized, even when their shows aren't widely watched/known (e.g. Michael Chiklis from The Shield)? Besides, Alias's ratings are nothing to write home about. Is Garner's work on Alias really so superior to Gellar's on Buffy? And, of course, don't get me started on the remainder of the Buffy cast, or the superb writing — Buffy was (sniff... past tense) consistently a phenomenal mix of drama and comedy. I can't imagine that Alias will ever match Buffy's long run of quality ensemble work, let alone any of the standout episodes (e.g. "Hush," "The Body" or "Once More with Feeling"). In that you are obviously a fan of both shows, I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks! — Laurie
Matt: We'll see if Garner is an Emmy darling if she scores a second consecutive nomination, which I'm not sure is guaranteed (although it is deserved). First off, Sarah was always at a disadvantage being on what the Emmy voters consider the fringe of TV: first WB, then UPN. While both shows are without doubt cult in nature, Alias's spy milieu is probably more acceptable and accessible to the staid Academy membership than the fantasy-horror-allegory of Buffy. But if you're talking about media recognition or buzz, I don't think Sarah has suffered at all. Jennifer Garner is newer on the scene and thus commands a great deal of attention, but look at the coverage of Buffy's and Sarah's TV farewell. The attention far outweighed the ratings that followed. Sarah Michelle Gellar, like Jennifer Garner, is a major TV star and a viable movie star, and I think that has been adequately acknowledged — in the media, anyway. If you're looking for validation from the Emmys, you're cruising for a heartache. As for comparing the best of Buffy with the best of Alias, I also find it hard to imagine that Alias will ever deliver episodes with the emotional and creative impact of "The Body" or "Once More, With Feeling." But Alias in its own crafty way is pushing the bounds of episodic, formulaic spy drama, and that's nothing to scoff at.
~~~~
Sadly, Mr Roush did not come to the defense of Alias's "quality ensemble work"! Although I can see room for debate regarding relative artistic quality in either direction, I'll stack Alias's ensemble against Buffy's any day.
~~~~
Question: I'll admit right off the bat that I haven't watched much Alias. Can you explain why Jennifer Garner is a mainstream darling (and an Emmy voters favorite), while Sarah Michelle Gellar has never achieved the recognition she deserves? Granted, Alias is more mainstream than Buffy. But isn't it sometimes possible for individual actors to be recognized, even when their shows aren't widely watched/known (e.g. Michael Chiklis from The Shield)? Besides, Alias's ratings are nothing to write home about. Is Garner's work on Alias really so superior to Gellar's on Buffy? And, of course, don't get me started on the remainder of the Buffy cast, or the superb writing — Buffy was (sniff... past tense) consistently a phenomenal mix of drama and comedy. I can't imagine that Alias will ever match Buffy's long run of quality ensemble work, let alone any of the standout episodes (e.g. "Hush," "The Body" or "Once More with Feeling"). In that you are obviously a fan of both shows, I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks! — Laurie
Matt: We'll see if Garner is an Emmy darling if she scores a second consecutive nomination, which I'm not sure is guaranteed (although it is deserved). First off, Sarah was always at a disadvantage being on what the Emmy voters consider the fringe of TV: first WB, then UPN. While both shows are without doubt cult in nature, Alias's spy milieu is probably more acceptable and accessible to the staid Academy membership than the fantasy-horror-allegory of Buffy. But if you're talking about media recognition or buzz, I don't think Sarah has suffered at all. Jennifer Garner is newer on the scene and thus commands a great deal of attention, but look at the coverage of Buffy's and Sarah's TV farewell. The attention far outweighed the ratings that followed. Sarah Michelle Gellar, like Jennifer Garner, is a major TV star and a viable movie star, and I think that has been adequately acknowledged — in the media, anyway. If you're looking for validation from the Emmys, you're cruising for a heartache. As for comparing the best of Buffy with the best of Alias, I also find it hard to imagine that Alias will ever deliver episodes with the emotional and creative impact of "The Body" or "Once More, With Feeling." But Alias in its own crafty way is pushing the bounds of episodic, formulaic spy drama, and that's nothing to scoff at.
~~~~
Sadly, Mr Roush did not come to the defense of Alias's "quality ensemble work"! Although I can see room for debate regarding relative artistic quality in either direction, I'll stack Alias's ensemble against Buffy's any day.
