Is Jane Espenson Emmy Kryptonite?

[Buffyverse Fan]

Very tongue-in-cheek title, and I'm a huge fan of Jane's work. But why do you think Espenson's popular shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Once Upon a Time never received recognition from the more prestigious primetime Emmy Awards categories, where other genre shows like "True Blood," and "Game of Thrones" have been put up for the biggest awards at the Emmy Awards?

 

[Black Eye Guy]

lol, I dont think so, I think she is a writer that likes genre shows and unless that show is on a cable network it's probably not gonna be in the running for an Emmy.

 

[SallySparrow]

Sadly for BTVS, that was kind of before genre shows were getting much acclaim, or were even mainstream. It really wasn't until the likes of Lost and Heroes that genre shows started getting more critical acclaim.

Also network genre shows still have an uphill battle. Production value is higher on the cable genre shows typically and the stories are tighter (less episodes). Also, OUAT is great sometimes, and Jane's episodes are among the best of the show, but I don't think its Emmy worthy (at least right now).

 

[Robb Stark]

I don't think so. I don't find Jane Espenson as particularly talented, at all, so it doesn't surprise me that her work hasn't won Emmy recognition. BTVS is an amazing show, one of the best I've ever seen, but it's not a show that wins Emmy's. It didn't air on the right network, it didn't target the right audience and it didn't have the production values of shows like LOST or Game of Thrones, which in part allowed them to break through the genre-show glass ceiling.

And, Buffy is a show designed to evoke sentiment and emotion. There are "better" shows than it. It makes you feel, but if you examine it, as the Emmy's do, there are continuity issues.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Very tongue-in-cheek title, and I'm a huge fan of Jane's work. But why do you think Espenson's popular shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Once Upon a Time never received recognition from the more prestigious primetime Emmy Awards categories, where other genre shows like "True Blood," and "Game of Thrones" have been put up for the biggest awards at the Emmy Awards?

Hmm, I don't think so. Jane has also worked on really well-respected shows, like Battlestar Galactica and Torchwood. she also wrote an episode for Game of Thrones.

Also, don't forget that CWDP, which she wrote, won a Hugo Award.

True Blood is crap compared to Buffy, anyway.

 

[zobothehobo]

I mean... No. Once Upon a Time is not going to be up for an Emmy because it's not... it doesn't push boundaries enough. To be Emmy material, the show has to push some sort of artistic boundary. May it be in the way it's told, or the story itself, or a particularly controversial character... but they have to push boundaries. Also... Buffy and Once Upon a Time were/are targeted towards women... and more than that, young women. Emmy nominated shows have a certain kind of fan base... and that is not young women/girls. If a show's primary fanbase (not viewership, fanbase) is teenage/20's women/girls, it is deemed "less than," despite it's possible artistic merits. And actually, that's most things. If a thing is mostly loved by teenage or young women, it is thrown out as not worthy. Even things targeted towards older women are thrown out as not worthy of discussion... or at least, the same level of discussion male directed shows are. Add this to the list of "I need feminism because" things...

Also, Jane is my hero and my favorite and she's tied with Ben Edlund for my favorite TV writer of all time. But Once's 2nd season was kinda... And if they go where I think they're going to go with Neverland... Like you can't destroy the story of Peter Pan the way it looks like they're destroying it. And if they actually do make Peter some sort of villain... I am going to have some words with her on the twitter. Not mean angry words but more like "I'm so hurt because Peter is such a part of my soul and how could you destroy his story like this?" And Wendy's scared of Peter... Oh I cringe when I think about what they're doing to Peter Pan... DARK DOES NOT MEAN BETTER! but of course, they're trying to make the show look more "serious" by taking it to a darker note.. They think that maybe making it darker will get it recognition. But it won't. Because it's still targeted towards women. And that makes it less than.

 

[Buffyverse Fan]

I mean... No. Once Upon a Time is not going to be up for an Emmy because it's not... it doesn't push boundaries enough. To be Emmy material, the show has to push some sort of artistic boundary. May it be in the way it's told, or the story itself, or a particularly controversial character... but they have to push boundaries.

I wouldn't say Law & Order pushed much of a boundary in 1992 when it was first nominated for a Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Drama. It wasn't even a new concept, though in my personal opinion, it had some very fine cast members over the years...

L&O pushed even less boundaries when it was nominated in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

I mean... No. Once Upon a Time is not going to be up for an Emmy because it's not... it doesn't push boundaries enough. To be Emmy material, the show has to push some sort of artistic boundary. May it be in the way it's told, or the story itself, or a particularly controversial character... but they have to push boundaries.

"Hush"
"The Body"
"Once More With Feeling"

I mean... No. Once Upon a Time is not going to be up for an Emmy because it's not... it doesn't push boundaries enough. To be Emmy material, the show has to push some sort of artistic boundary. May it be in the way it's told, or the story itself, or a particularly controversial character... but they have to push boundaries.

First mainstream non-stereotypical lesbian main character: Willow Rosenberg.

Also... Buffy and Once Upon a Time were/are targeted towards women... and more than that, young women. Emmy nominated shows have a certain kind of fan base... and that is not young women/girls.

Joan of Arcadia. Nominated its first year.

 

[zobothehobo]

I wouldn't say Law & Order pushed much of a boundary in 1992 when it was first nominated for a Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Drama. It wasn't even a new concept, though in my personal opinion, it had some very fine cast members over the years...

L&O pushed even less boundaries when it was nominated in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.


"Hush"
"The Body"
"Once More With Feeling"


First mainstream non-stereotypical lesbian main character: Willow Rosenberg.


Joan of Arcadia. Nominated its first year.

This is all "in general." Obviously not everything is going to fit this... but this is a general explanation of things.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a show targeted at teenage girls that is the television continuation of a really bad camp movie from the early 90's. It was on a really teenage network. Then it moved to another really teenage network. It was not going to be an Emmy award winning show, regardless of how good it is. I'm sorry, but it's just not.

I don't know anything about Law and Order, to be honest with you... so I don't feel compelled to speak on that subject. I will say not every show that wins an Emmy or is nominated for an Emmy has every one of the qualities mentioned, and not every show that has the qualities mentioned wins or is nominated for an Emmy. However, shows that don't push any sort of boundaries, are targeted towards women, and especially targeted at young women are more likely to be looked over when it comes time to get some Emmy nominations rolling.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I think a show has to be the exact opposite of pushing boundaries to win Emmys, I think it has to be mainstream but hint at pushing boundaries without actually pushing them, like Modern Family, I enjoy the show, but it doesn't really push boundaries I've never seen why it's been the awards darling it's been painted as, like their boundary pushing gay couple took like 3 seasons to kiss.

I really like Jane, if you've ever seen interviews with her she's really passionate about TV and the projects she's involved in and she's been involved with some amazing TV like Battlestar.

 

[Kean]

The most Emmy deserving show Jane Esponson has been involved with is Battlestar Galactica. When it was on it was arguably the best drama on TV. I'd be much more up in arms about Ronald D. Moore and David Eick not being recognised or Edward James Olmos and Katee Sackhoff not getting acting nods than I would in the Buffyverse.

 

[Wesley Pryce]

Truth is Buffy did an ep here and an ep there that was really amazing,but over all it was more of a campy fun type show. ATS on the other hand was a highly intelligent and "boundary pushing" dark show that should have at least been once nominated if for nothing else to recognize its true brilliance as a truly different series. Thing is that Angel was ALSO on the WB,a teen network so that hurt it as well. 😉

 

[Ethan Reigns]

I understand "Hush" was nominated for an Emmy but didn't win, but there is an interesting comment on the commentary section of the DVD's: even though "The Body" was one of the best episodes on TV, nobody bothered to file the paperwork to ask that it be considered as a contender for an Emmy. It sounds like you have to apply for a specific episode to be considered. Now this may be Joss' enormous ego making that statement as an excuse, so I don't necessarily take it at face value but it would be interesting to see if anyone can confirm that.

Also, I don't see Buffy as a show aimed at females. The preponderance of hot females and the relative dearth of hot males tends to make this a male / lesbian audience. Certainly when it was on, there was no lack of interest among males talking about it around the watercooler at work. Now I just know I am going to draw some flak from people saying there was a lot of beefcake there, but men don't notice other men nearly as much as women notice other women and I have some trouble thinking a girl is going to tune in because she want to see all those girls that look, on average, so much better than her.

 

[Robb Stark]

I understand "Hush" was nominated for an Emmy but didn't win, but there is an interesting comment on the commentary section of the DVD's: even though "The Body" was one of the best episodes on TV, nobody bothered to file the paperwork to ask that it be considered as a contender for an Emmy. It sounds like you have to apply for a specific episode to be considered. Now this may be Joss' enormous ego making that statement as an excuse, so I don't necessarily take it at face value but it would be interesting to see if anyone can confirm that.

Also, I don't see Buffy as a show aimed at females. The preponderance of hot females and the relative dearth of hot males tends to make this a male / lesbian audience. Certainly when it was on, there was no lack of interest among males talking about it around the watercooler at work. Now I just know I am going to draw some flak from people saying there was a lot of beefcake there, but men don't notice other men nearly as much as women notice other women and I have some trouble thinking a girl is going to tune in because she want to see all those girls that look, on average, so much better than her.

Maybe it starts out that way in S1, but as a very-comfortable heterosexual male, I can see pretty plainly that Angel, Spike and Xander are all very good-looking guys.

 

[VisionGirl]

True Blood was nominated for an Emmy?! Ugh. Game of Thrones I can see, although I don't believe that it's brilliant all the time. I watch Once, but I don't think it's Emmy-worthy. I am barely hanging on this season.

But when you think about the shows nominated for Emmys as a whole, sci-fi/genre shows are quote often overlooked. Battlestar should have most definitely won some Emmys. Another brilliant, over-looked show: Fringe (or at least John Noble's performances).

L&O was considered ground-breaking at the time, and there are some good actors on there, I just get bored with straight-up procedural over a length of time.