Zap2it has the results up. It looks like BtVS came up empty. 24 won Best Show, CCH Pounder of The Shield won Best Lead Actress, Victor Garber of Alias won Supporting actor and Sarah Clarke of 24 won Supporting Actress

figures.

I'm not surprized in the least actually.The sheer stupidity of those Award Show voters & presenters never fails to amaze me. Great work guys!!!! Your total incompetence shines through again.... You should feel so proud for never letting us down....

well that sucks

That freaking pisses the hell out of me. Everyone agree that award shows and the critics that run them suck? .

WHAT A SURPRISE!!
What else could we expect? Buffy is always overlooked award-wise...

This was it's first time nominated, so be happy it was even nominated. Also, there are other shows that critics like besides Buffy, even though it is a good show, and deserves some awards, it has gotten some, it doesn't have to win everything.

But thats the thing...other shows like "The West Wing" win everything...Buffy barely ever gets nominated.

The West Wing...is so boring, course I only watched like 10 minutes of it.

Well, at least it was nominated.
Award Shows & Critics r usually old, stuffy people who don't get Buffy.
U have to be in a Kool State of mind to get Buffy. Like us. We know it deserves Best Show, Best Actress, Best Everything; ect......

West Wing=boring old stuffy people (thats what i get from the promos at least, never watched)

I think it's a "snub" in itself, when Buffy gets nominated, because it always gets screwed over.

I partially agree a lot of award commitees are made up of old stuffy people and alot of critics are also stuffy people but there is also a flip side. Take the Golden Globes for example, I personally think they go out of their way to be hip. Plenty of young performers and young hip shows get nominated for those, Sarah was nominated a while back, Frankie Muniz was nominated and both Keri Russell and Jennifer Garner were nominated and won. So some award shows are willing to give young performers and young hip shows a chance. Buffy has always been a big hit with the critics, it even got nominated for a Critics choice award and it does well in the less prestigious but audience voted shows like the Teen Choice Awards (At least Sarah does well in that, the others havent been as lucky).

I guess my point is, while Buffy is deserving there are other good shows out there and because you don't watch them doesn't mean they are less good than Buffy. Quite frankly I'm glad Victor Garber won Best Supporting Actor I felt he deserved it more than JM, the other winners I can't speak for because I don't watch 24 or The Shield, I don't know how their actors stack up against the BtVS cast. While I will say that the very talented cast of Buffy has been snobbed by both the Emmys and the Golden Globes in the past I am willing to concede that this award season I can't really argue BtVS being shut out, not because the acting wasn't any good but because there were shows with much stronger seasons than BtVS. Uusally there is always a huge outcry by critics when Buffy doesn't get nominated this year they have been pretty quiet and I think its because there wasn't any standout award moments like "The Body" and "OM,WF" there wasn't any of those "wow thats Emmy worthy performance" moments, what there was, was consistently great acting. Unfortunately award shows doesn't reward consistency it rewards the "big Emmy moments". Thats why the people who always win are the ones with the big rape scenes or the big speech at the death bed.

And while I agree that award shows don't get Buffy, I just want to point out that there are a lot of talented actors out there and just because we don't know who they are because we don't watch their show, doesn't mean they are not out there. If it was up to me Sarah would win the best actress Golden Satellite but I can't say she was robbed because I have ever seen CCH Pounder in action. I'd have given the supporting award to Lena Olin and as brilliant as I think she is I have never seen Sarah Clarke in action so I can't say Lena was robbed. Don't get me wrong, its okay to feel that way and I sure like saying "Buffy wuz robbed" but I guess I'm just trying to see the other side of it. In any case awards or no awards Buffy has already won, simply by not only being on the air for years but for remaining a critically accalimed show for all those years. I can't think of any other show that was able to maintain that. I remember when Dawsons Creek began the critics absolutely love it now it's just another silly teen soap. Buffy doesn't need awards it has already secured a place in television history and you know there are a billion award shows but not many shows get there own little niche in the history books.

WOW, u make alot of good points. Not judging any others actors. I'm sure the ones who won were good. Just wanting some Buffy regognition thats all.

Here's the thing though, how do you nominate them? Buffy for Best Actress in a dramatic series...but then again...Nick Brendon should be best supporting actor in a dramedy/comedy. Because let's face it. Buffy itself doesn't belong to one category only. It's everything and can't be classified as just one type of show.

Anyway, I've officially not care about any award shows anymore exact the oscars. Because to me, Buffy is amazing whether it gets awards or not.

Big surprise there..



Who wants some pie? Pie's so good.. I can eat pie all day long..

yup, good for the soul I say.

I was just thinking, how could James Marsters not have won? I mean Victor Garber is a great actor, I am a fan of Alias as well. But at the end of 7x02, I was pretty much convinced, that Marsters must win SOME kind of award. Damn.

The Buffy The Vampire Slayer Curse
it goes pretty much like this. as long as there are inferior shows to BtVS, BtVS shall never win a award.

Were you saying inferior or superior?

inferior, show that are not as good as buffy buffy will never win.
trying to say it's not going win is all and a bad attempt at being cute

even if they did win it would not get reported anyway

I like how you use "cute". .

I think that you make a good point. One of the best things about BtVS ironically is one of the reasons it can't win, it can't even get nominated.
I've seen "Alias" and its a very entertaining show, with a good mix of drama, humor and action included in its episodes. But as exciting as it is, its premise of secret agents is still easier to grasp than a Vampire Slayer.

Or maybe Victor Garber is a great actor and the scene he submitted may have been better than the scene JM submitted? Its not like he lost to an inferior actor and VG isn't from an inferior show. VG has roots in theater, his been around for awhile, he is a brilliant actor. BtVS is a brilliant show and I will be the first one to defend it but this award season covers the period from the end of season 6 to currently. I know season 6 has its fans but really I wouldn't say it was a superior award deserving season.

This isn't a reflection of Buffy as a whole(because theres just no contest Buffy on a whole blows away a lot of shows "as a whole"). Its one season of Buffy and it wasn't Buffy's best. I know we Buffy fans love saying even Buffy at its worst is better than most shows on television and I generally agree, but there are some damn great shows out there with damn great actors.

I think a lot of people are under the assumptution that award panels award an actors body of work. This has always been one thing that bothered me about award shows, these people who choose the winners usually just watch the tapes that are submitted to them, which usually contains two scenes or an episode at most. And some excellent actors do submit subpar work. I remember after Susan Lucci finally won her Emmy several experts said out of her gazillions Emmy reels that was the first good reel she ever submitted (not that I'm saying Susan Lucci is a marginally good actress, shes just the first example that comes to mind). So sometimes it just depends on the reel the person submitted.



Its ironic you would mention that because just recently I came across an article about Alias being above viewers head and the suits at ABC basically asking JJ Abrams to dumb down the show so that it would attract new viewers. I think its a shame that executives think viewers are so dense that they don't get intelligent shows like Buffy and Alias. then again when shows like Joe Millionaire and The Bachelorette are rating so much higher than the more creative smarter shows, maybe they are on to something. Maybe the American tv vieweing public prefer mindless television. It certainly would explain the rise of exploitative reality shows.

I think they do.. lol.. I'm sorry but.. it's not very far from the truth. Intellectualism.. isn't something that many people in America appreciate.

Yep. I can't understand that one myself. I also don't understand how they're reality shows when everything is staged and planned.

I like brain dead tv alot. I love good thought provoking TV much more, but I love crap also thats why I watch dawsons and watched saved by the bell.