Why Is Sci-Fi TV Still Not Considered A Serious Art?

I had a look at the history of the Emmy Awards and I found out that exept for the 1997 Award For Lead Drama Actress given to Gillian Anderson there are no other Sci-Fi TV shows with an Emmy Award for acting.The Sci-Fi productions recieve Emmys only for visual effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Primetime_Emmy_Award_winners

I wonder what the reason for this might be.Maybe the critics don't take seriously shows where half of the actors are hidden behind masks, although it's much more difficult to play someone who's not human.Or they think that Sci-Fi is only space battles and no real actor performance.

If I had that chance I would give Emmys to at least half of B5's cast, but that's me.

Truth_Seeker said:

.Maybe the critics don't take seriously shows where half of the actors are hidden behind masks,

Click to expand...

Maybe we need to have more ancient Greeks voting...

Minor quibble- I don't think you can just say that it's harder to play a non-human. There are really a lot more factors that go into a role.

But as for "serious art"- no TV is considered that, nor should it be. Maybe some boring crap on public television or something, but it's disposable popular entertainment.

As for why sci-fi actors may not win more awards- it's a genre thing, a niche market, like soap operas. What's the most popular sci-fi show on TV now- Battlestar Galactica. And it's on a basic cable channel on a Friday night, of all times. Of course you're not going to see Tricia Helfer win over someone on Grey's Anatomy or some such.

Also, look at who is in the voting block for those things. I'd guess (but I admit I don't know for a fact) that it's mostly "traditional drama" people in the business. And from what I've heard of anime, it's another area where some might deserve awards but it'll be a long time coming before you see any of them get one.

One thing that I'd think might turn that around are the number of respected actors doing sci-fi work. Or if half the academy were made up of people who work on science fiction. But let's face it, those award shows are pretty much like patting the backs of like.

science fiction is still a curse word in tv circles, in spite of its success

Truth_Seeker said:

If I had that chance I would give Emmys to at least half of B5's cast, but that's me.

Click to expand...

Half? Think that is a big much don't you?

* Peter
* Andreas
* Mira

Those are the only three that I can think put on real consistent top performances. Bruce had a few good ones....but thats about it IMO.

Recoil said:

Half? Think that is a big much don't you?

* Peter
* Andreas
* Mira

Those are the only three that I can think put on real consistent top performances. Bruce had a few good ones....but thats about it IMO.

Click to expand...

One of my nauseating repetitive mantras on this board and any B5 discussion is that Bruce Boxleitner was every bit as good as the three you mentioned. Consistently energetic, passionate, captivating. It was the most complex, quickly evolving role in the whole series, and Bruce delivered better than anyone could have.

So from where I'm sitting, that's 4 members of the regular cast that were great.
Now to get real dorky, and ruin everything by introducing math: looking at seasons 2-5, which had all 4 of the above actors, I count 7 core characters, adding the XO, Garibaldi, and the telepath. Characters like Zach and Bester and Markas are recurring characters and thus wouldn't be eligible for any awards.

4/7 of the cast, then, are awesome. That's a sick ratio- and more than half.
More importantly, compare it to other sci-fi shows. TNG had two great actors (and I'm not slamming anyone else, I'm just talking about "great" as in above-and-beyond), the other new Treks had none, Farscape and Firefly had none, etc.

Then compare it to non sci-fi shows. Does Grey's Anatomy have 4 great actors? I'm gonna say no.

The only shows I can think of that have a higher concentration of acting brilliance are on HBO, which I think shouldn't even be compared to basic cable and network TV because they have such an edge in budget (or used to, at least) and freedom. By far the greatest acting on TV ever had to have been on The Sopranos, Rome, Deadwood, The Wire, Oz, and Carnival.

Yes obviously IMHO, etc blah blah. Also, I do believe that apparent acting performance is as much a result of directing and writing as talent. Bruce Boxleitner may not have been "great" on Voyager. This is actually the 2nd biggest reason I think these awards shows are f'n stupid anyway.

Also, look at who is in the voting block for those things. I'd guess (but I admit I don't know for a fact) that it's mostly "traditional drama" people in the business.

Click to expand...

I don't know dick about how it works on the Emmys, but for some reason I remember learning that the Academy of Motion Pictures voters are at least in part made up of previous Oscar winners. But the funny thing is that these people aren't limited to voting for their own category. The example I heard to illustrate this silliness is that, say, Celine Dion (Oscar winner for Titanic song) may get to vote for Best Director.

I think any more details are obscured from the public.

But if you were implying, hyp, that the votes are culturally and politically biased- well, yes, yes they are. Reason #3 why award shows are f'n stupid.

It's a common complaint among genre fans (and among Whedonites). The Emmys and Oscars never go to our favorites. This is why I pay no great attention to the Oscars but respect the Hugos highly. There B5 did pretty well: in 1996, B5 won for The Coming of Shadows -- beating Apollo 13 and 12 Monkeys, no less -- and then won again in '97 for Severed Dreams, beating out Star Trek: First Contact. (Sleeping in Light lost to The Truman Show.) BSG has also been nominated repeatedly for the "Short Form" Hugo, along with three Firefly episodes.

Then there are the Saturn Awards, given out by the Academy of Scienc Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror films, created in direct response to all the snubbing done by the Oscars and Emmys.

But let's face it folks, we're a niche. And personally I kind of like it.

GKarsEye said:

But the funny thing is that these people aren't limited to voting for their own category. The example I heard to illustrate this silliness is that, say, Celine Dion (Oscar winner for Titanic song) may get to vote for Best Director.

Click to expand...

You see... everything you need to know is in that little snippet.

In a world where Celine Dion won for that awful quasi-romantic saccharine "song", it isn't too hard to see that clearly the people voting are for the most part insane.... and just occasionally have flashes of common sense.

I'd question whether Dion should be allowed any kind of vote at all... let alone just for the Oscars!:devil:

In truth I think there is also an element of media sexism involved. Sci Fi is perceived as largely a male dominated interest (I'm not necessarily agreeing with the principle... I'm just pointing out it is there).

Male culture is largely being sidelined on television... most things that interest your typical male in the UK are shown in funny time slots and minority channels. Soaps, quizzes, reality TV and chat shows all swamp daytime and primetime on the main channels....or are apparently bought by Sky.

It seems that the channel "Dave" is our best hope.

You have a tv channel named "Dave"?

Male culture is largely being sidelined on television... most things that interest your typical male in the UK are shown in funny time slots and minority channels

Click to expand...

Well I can't comment on UK TV, but in the states, it's quite the opposite. Since most TV broadcast companies earn revenue via marketing, and they consider young-ish men to be the best marketing demo (higher earning power, getting married later and later and thus having more disposable income), it is women-oriented programming that is cast off into the denizens of basic cable like Lifetime or daytime soap operas and talk shows for housewives.

However, I do believe that some network shows, like Heroes, House and Lost, are transcending gender. Anecdotal observation tells me these shows are popular amongst both genders, hence their success. Also note that two of those shows do have some light sci-fi elements.

vacantlook said:

You have a tv channel named "Dave"?

Click to expand...

We do indeed. Cute isn't it?

GKarsEye said:

it is women-oriented programming that is cast off into the denizens of basic cable like Lifetime or daytime soap operas and talk shows for housewives.

Click to expand...

Please gift wrap that philosophy and send it to us... long may it thrive!:devil:

However, I do believe that some network shows, like Heroes, House and Lost, are transcending gender. Anecdotal observation tells me these shows are popular amongst both genders, hence their success. Also note that two of those shows do have some light sci-fi elements.

Click to expand...

Yes those are shows that buck the trend here too. (Well, Heroes and Lost anyway). However, this is because these shows either make good use of their "hot male leads" or run the risk of ruining the plot by introducing romantic quadrangles that get talked about ad infinitum by ladies in offices (believe me... I've seen it).

I don't mind romance at all, I'm totally up for it... in Lost, the Desmond/Penny saga had me hook, line and sinker. I just like romance plots to be meaningful and go somewhere... not jump around like a pinball machine.

Doctor Who also bucks the trend, but again that is because the show is cleverly marketed as "family entertainment" and people are getting smitten by the leads.

Yes the big four Bruce, Mira, Peter and Andreas are world class actors and deserve some recognition from the TV community.In fact we can say that there are no bad actors in B5's main cast and it had some of the 90's best TV actors as a recurring cast.The scene Sheridan vs. Kosh in "Interludes And Examinations" is the definition of good dramatic performance.The same thing applies to scenes like Delenn before the Grey Council in "Severed Dreams", Londo observing the bombardment of the Narn homeworld in "The Long Twighlight Struggle" or G'Kar's revelation in "Dust To Dust".Jerry Doyle and Stephen Furst are exactly for the Supporting Comedy Actor category.

What's interesting about Peter Jurasik is that I'm not sure whether he belongs to the Drama or to the Comedy category.That shows how well written Londo actually is.

Galahad said:

We do indeed. Cute isn't it?

Click to expand...

my name is dave, and when i first saw it i (just for a split second though) though "holy shit is (insert name here) on someone else's TV, moronic i know, but it only flashed through my head for the faintest of seconds, and the channel is mostly awesome.

GKarsEye said:

TNG had two great actors (and I'm not slamming anyone else, I'm just talking about "great" as in above-and-beyond), the other new Treks had none, Farscape and Firefly had none, etc.

Click to expand...

I gotta ask, GKE. I am assuming one is Patrick Stewart. Who is the other?

I'd guess Brent Spiner, but yes, someone get GKE's attention, and ask him that question. Now I'm curious.

I, too, have a guess, but wanted to hear from GKE first.

vacantlook said:

You have a tv channel named "Dave"?

Click to expand...

Yes. Dave is part of the family of networks that call themselves "UK". The "UK" networks carry adverts and are half owned by the BBC. Dave repeats may BBC programmes from a few years ago.

The Virgin1 network carries a lot of science fiction, mostly Star Trek.

Dave is pretty good. Virgin 1 is also getting a lot better, and great for Trek.

As for the OP's point, its been summed up well here, mostly by KF. We are a niche, and one that has its own rules and views. IMHO, long may that continue.

Its exactly the same with Science Fiction literature and its mainstream counterparts, the two rarely mix and have their own awards, labels, creators and publishers. When something that is clearly sci-fi or fantasy jumps into the mainstream, (Potter, Huxley, Orwell) its roots are largely ignored in an attempt to bring it into the mainstream fold. Sometimes, this is even done by the writer (looking straight at you Rowling, its got giants, dragons and wizards, its about as fantasy as you can get..).

Truely amazing writers such as George R.R. Martin are largely ignored by the mainstream as a result. But as Koshfan said, we are a niche and I too kind of like it.