An open letter to the Academy: CW shows deserve recognition
17 Dec 2011
Cancelled Shows SpoilerTV Article Supernatural Vampire Diaries
Dear The Academy (and other awards organizations),
As I am typing this, I have just finished another round of voting at the People's Choice Awards website, frantically hoping that some of my favorite shows get a chance at prestigious recognition. Most of the categories are closed, except for favorite new TV drama and comedy. Who did I vote for? Well, it's none of your business!
Okay, fine. I'll tell you. What can I say? You wore me down. I voted for Revenge and The Secret Circle. Yes, twice. I just couldn't decide which one I liked more at the moment. One is a Hamptons sudser about a girl who comes back to town to take revenge on the people who plotted her father's demise. The other is about a girl realizing she's a witch and having to take on the responsibility that comes with it — I only tell you this because it seems you don't have a clue what's on The CW at all!
You're right. I shouldn't have raised my voice. I apologize.
In the comedy categories, I was underwhelmed, if you must know. I think New Girl is funny, but sometimes a bit too intense and 2 Broke Girls goes for the jugular more than the gut at times… I even stopped watching Up All Night earlier this season, but not because I didn't like it, I just haven't found the time.
I fret you haven't found the time to enjoy some of The CW's greatest offerings, either. That seems to be the only explanation. …
Read the rest of my letter here!
*Starts clapping slowly...*
ReplyDeleteBrilliantly stated. While the CW may not be all great shows, most shows on CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC aren't really that much better at all. Time to spread the love a little bit.
so glad someone finally said it.. not ALL CW shows are TV gold, but it's time the network received some recognition for putting out some great ones
ReplyDelete*starts clapping faster* Like very much! I will admit that shows like 90210 and Top Model give CW a bad name, even GG (which I enjoy) is more of a guilty pleasure but Supernatural and Vampire Diaries are two of my favourite shows. Where else do you see two brothers saving people with the only reason being that its the right thing to do, to protect people and save America (and the world but we know their world is just The US) because no one else knows about the 'pest control' problem that exists? Not only that but they don't even want to prove to the world that monsters exist, they want to protect them from knowing that it's not safe in the dark.
ReplyDeleteVampire Diaries has a thing or two to teach other shows, their fast pace and complex story lines are amazing not to mention Somerhalder who makes us love a serial killer who at the end of the day is just a lost young adult who never got to grow up and get out of his impulsive phase. Paul Wesley has also been able to step up his game from the protective boyfriend to someone who should be feared because he too is capable of brutality. Nina Dobrev I enjoyed in season 1 but we really got to see her shine in season 2 as two characters who are so different yet so much the same. Katerina had to grow up too fast, she lost her baby and her family and has always been running with no home. She couldn't trust her own parents so she knows that the only one who can be there for her is herself. Elena lost her parents too young, has a little brother to take care of, found her biological parents only to lose them as well, and the only adult she has in her life is her pseudo- stepfather who has lost two women he loved to the supernatural.
Of course we could all go on (I already went on too long) but these shows are amazing. Yes they are supernatural, but there are so many real life dramas out there that aren't realistic, why not enjoy something that is so real yet so fictional? Yes I am a young adult and who knows if at 30 I will still feel the same (or at 50 which is probably the average age of the people deciding these awards) but is it so hard to give someone else a chance? Is it so hard to admit that a smaller network with small budgets and young casts can make good television?
Great letter!
ReplyDeleteA+ mate
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I understand why CW (or UPN before them) are not nominated for the most part.. and I agree for the most part.
ReplyDeleteI think the main reason CW shows are not nominated is that they are sometimes better than the sum of their parts. Broken down into categories for best actor, writer, VFX etc they do not measure up as well to the most nominated shows that are usually on basic or premium cable. I just do not think they do, sorry.However, taken as a whole, as a series I think some of the shows come out at a higher grade. The entertainment value is pretty high on some of the CW series and for many fans that is the most important factor. When the various awards committees break it down they are not looking for "entertainment value" as one of the categories.The other issue that CW has is that so many of their series have young actors (sometimes VERY inexperienced) as their leads. Life experiences allow an actor t relate to a story or to a role better, to see things from a larger perspective. There are simply not as many good actors who are inexperienced as there are good actors that are experienced. There are some brilliant young actors, but be honest.... they are exceptions and not the norm.Other times I think it is because the shows on CW tend to cater to a niche audience. They are designed to hit a specific group and make them feel passionately about the series. Often times if you are not one of the target demographic, you just do not appreciate the series. The larger networks try to make their shows appeal to the widest audience possible and therefore usually have a larger audience week t week. (Personally I think designing a series to make it have wide appeal often times makes it a much, much weaker show overall.) The key to those wide demographic shows getting awards is for them to make a middle-of-the-road show at a high level. Those series get enjoyed by more committee members and therefore can win more awards.Cable series are a bit different though. They tend to be more character driven and serial in nature. If you tell a story over 10 or 12 hours you can get a lot more depth from it than the typical 45 minute episode of a non-serial show. They tend to move at a slower pace and allow the actors to give a deeper performance over more time. The depth of character and depth of story makes for a more subtle and detailed end product.Those layers of depth and nuance appeal to most critics just like layers of flavor appeal to foodies. That is why I think so many cable series have been winning awards in the last 5 to 10 years. I love many CW shows for their serial aspect, but the limited budgets and the need to push out more episodes at a faster pace makes for an inferior product when compared to cable (especially premium cable) serial shows in my eyes .Some of my favorite series have never been big awards winners or even nominated. That does not make me like them any less, but compared to the artistry of some of the big winners I can admit they just do not compere. Most award shows are about artistic achievement, being the absolute best in a given field. I think what some CW shows lack in artistry they make up for in style or the aforementioned entertainment value.However, that is not what awards show are about for the most part.... at least not the big name award shows.
No they don't.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't have worded it better, I think you have explained the difference very well. The only CW shows I watch are Ringer and SPN, but I'm not in the target audience by a long shot, and I don't feel passionate about the brothers or twins. It's just a bit of fluff TV for me, something I can watch with my mate and we have a giggle over or roll our eyes at. I can't begin to compare the writing, editing or camera work with something like Homeland or Sons of Anarchy (for example).
ReplyDeleteEntertainment Value. That's the words I was looking for that sums it up much better than the "Dream On" which was going through my head :P
ReplyDelete$
Great summary! Exactly my thoughts! :)
Your article centres around the peoples choice awards, and for that I agree, the CW may deserve some recognition.
ReplyDeleteNot for the Emmy's though, or the Golden Globes, or any other awards.
I can tell you that at 73, Supernatural a show about FAMILY that just so happens to save the world and fight monsters, and The Vampire Diaries that has awesome acting from all the cast, but Nina Dobrev is outstanding, are my favorite shows.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the article is about PCA other than the fact that WE, the fan, get a chance to vote in that one. I think it was to award shows like the Emmys or Oscars that don't even know CW is a network that has TV shows.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you on many fronts, did you just watch Jim Beaver in Death's Door or see Nina Dobrev playing her characters of Elena and Kat so well that I forget it is the same actress. Some of the writing on both these shows have been better than some that have won. Yes I know all this is subjective, but then so are any of the picks by the "experts". The problem is shows on CW don't even get a chance. Jensen Ackles does tears, pain, suffering and torment better than anyone I have seen on any show and I am 73 and have seen LOTS of shows. lol
ReplyDeleteJust because some "brilliant young actors" are on CW means they don't get noticed, just because it is CW. Most of what you say is true, but just because it is CW does not mean all the shows should be overlooked, because broken down in the parts some of the best TV I have seen has been on CW..acting, writing, directing..IMHO.
I agree with this!
ReplyDeleteWell said. Couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Most of the CW is junk--either guilty pleasure junk or worthless junk. However, there are a couple shows on the network that deserve to either transcend in the Academy's collective mind or deserve to be on a major network. "Supernatural" and "The Vampire Diaries" are certainly as well-made as anything on ABC, CBS, and NBC.
ReplyDeleteA ridiculous article. There's a reason that CW shows are not nominated. Because they're bad. This is not a defense of the powers that be that decide the nominations because they often get a lot wrong too. GLEE and BIG BANG THEORY for example should be no where on the nomination lists when shows like Community and Fringe are not; but there you have it. Such is life. People should just accept their shows for the types that they are. If you find yourself more concerned about who is "shipping" who than the actual plot then well do I need to go on?
ReplyDeleteWell done!!!!
ReplyDeleteTHANKYOU!!
ReplyDeleteone of the best comments on this site! (except the Fringe part :P)
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The acting in the Vampire Diaries constantly impresses me more than, say, Glee (although I admit don't regularly watch either). And it's a shame Supernatural never got any recognition in previous years, because in my opinion this season has been less than stellar. And in terms of comedies that highly deserve recognition....Community and It's Always Sunny are both brilliant and hilarious.
ReplyDeleteThere are some great performances by writers and actors on CW, but the series on CW are not "actor's series". They just are not designed the same way as the great drama series that tend to win. That is not a bad thing necessarily. They are just created and shaped differently and it just does not appeal to the critics as much.
ReplyDeleteIf the CW created a show that did the same kinds of things as say Mad Men and Breaking Bad (as example 2 of the best series on TV and two multiple award winners) they would be noticed. Anyone pretending that EVERY show on the CW is overlooked just because it is on CW is in denial.
I felt dirt and needed a shower just reading "Shipping" in your comment.
ReplyDeleteI swear whoever created that term and the whole idea of caring more about relationships (that often times not even there) more than the plot should have their hands cut off so they cannot type and influence anyone ever again!
Are they as well made as anything on AMC, HBO and Showtime?
ReplyDeleteThe major networks don't win nearly as much as they used to because even they are not nearly as good as Cable.
You are certainly much more knowledgeable than me about all things television, but apart from the educational or cultural programmes, I always believed that the tv's primary duty was to entertain.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are saying is that the various Awards do not get assigned for their entertainment value but on other criteria
I believed that when a network ordered a show it did so with the hope that it "entertained" enough to keep large amounts of viewers sitting in front of their sets, in order to be able to charge higher fees for the ad insertionists.
I would think this is true for all networks big or small, cable or not.
I'm sure Breaking Bad, Dexter, Game of Thrones and all the other more "critically acclaimed" shows of the moment are looking for big viewing numbers just like the "lesser" shows.
How do these critics judge a show then, if not for the entertainment value? Do they judge the content?
Why am I supposed to like Dexter? Am I supposed to look up a serial killer as a hero? At least the Winchesters kill monsters not humans!
Am I supposed to like the Borgias with all the gratituous sex, more than Supernatural, which is practically sex-free.
Am I supposed to like all the Award shows because the actors are older?
Can one not be a good actor just because one is young?
At what age can we start nominating actors for awards? When they're forty, or maybe forty-three is better.
Obviously the critics would never give awards to shows like Supernatural or Vamipire Diaries because that would mean justifying the choices of the "common people" and the "rabid uncouth fans " who watch and enjoy those shows, and a "serious highly-qualified critic" would never do that!
As far as I am concerned 99% of Awards, from the Oscars down, aren't given for merit at all, but for a multitude of other reasons, probably because the critics want to keep in with the people that count in the show-business world.
Sorry, if I am a bit skeptical of all the award criteria, but in the end their opinion is no better than mine or anyone else's.
For me the only true awards are The PCA's because it's the viewers that vote for their favourite shows and actors, and that's how it should be.
Another reason TVD is amazing: Jenna and John's funeral scene still gets me every time.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLr2PtMnoIk
Completely agree with the first part of your comment. (Not the bit about me knowing more. I may watch more, but I only know what I know and I don't assume or pretend to know more than anyone else.) Shows are made to entertain and I think ratings often reflect entertainment value.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that award shows should be based on that though. They were created to highlight artistic achievement. That is their very reason for existing.
Awards are not about what people like or which show gets more ratings. It's not about which actor has hit their peak age or who is too young. My point was not that young actors cannot win or do not deserve awards. It was a general comment based the data. You can argue all the data is based on these subjective award shows and you are right, but the fact is that award shows have every right to say what they want to reward actors and series for. It's their show. If you do not agree, don't watch or don't value them.
I honestly do not think it is an elitist thing. It's not about the common people are wrong and critics wanting job security..
The funny thing is that if you ask most actors (or anyone inside the industry) who deserves awards, their lists will resemble the Emmy Awards or Oscars much more closely than People's Choice or fan chosen award shows. That is also why so many of the awards committees seem have similar nominees, many of the committees are made up of former actors. Whatever that's worth who knows, In my mind it shows that the people inside the industry have different standards than many fans. They look at from the artistic side since their job is the artistic side.
I do think that some critic's opinion is worth more than most fans. Their job is watching TV or movies. They watch more than even most avid TV fans watch on a regular basis. They have a wider perspective and can more accurately compare shows for any given category.That does not mean I think they are right all the time or that anyone else has to agree with them ever. It just means to say critics' opinions do not matter because everyone's opinion is subjective is a bit silly.
I tend to trust people who are knowledgeable in their field, they are not always right, nor are they definitively the best at their job, but generally they know their job.
You said this so much better than I did, thanks. Of course sex sells which is why it is on the pay channels. lol
ReplyDeleteA lot of people find Jersey Shore very entertaining. That doesn't mean it should be sweeping the Emmies.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that some shows on the CW are worthy of recognition. I don't understand why the awards committees refuse to even acknowledge they exist.
ReplyDeleteForgot to add...
ReplyDeleteI feel the exact opposite about the People's Choice Awards. They very,very little... to me or the industry. If I want to know who will win a PCA I can look at ratings, top box office sales and who s is trending on Twitter. That should not be criteria for awards shows...artistic achievement should.
Any show that has Twilight Eclipse and Kristen Stewart as recent winners for Best Movie and Best Actress is laughable!
In all fairness, a lot of shows are really more about the relationships (not just romantic but family and friends) and how those relationships change the characters than about the plot. It was a big debate after Lost ended whether the show was really about the character journeys and the relationships of the Losties or about the island mysteries. The finale suggested it was the relationships.
ReplyDeleteIt's the extreme fans who just spew hatred who give it all a bad name.
LOL, I can agree with you about Twilight & Kristen, when I want a laugh I pop one of my DVDs in, bad acting and even worse CG.
ReplyDeleteI don't say CW shows should win, but dang it would be nice to have a pat on the head once in a while. ;)
Here,Here! :D
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness my comment was not about shows... not even the ones about relationships. It was about people that see relationships where there are none and never will be.
ReplyDeleteRelationships can be great tools to highlight character aspects and advance storylines! Sex and romance, and relationships in general are part of the human condition and the drive the makes us who and what we are. To erase relationships from a series is to erase a vital part of the humanity of a series.
That stated, not every series is about the personal relationships of the lead characters since those relationships are irrelevant to the foundation of the series. Cop shows in particular.
I just loathe when an episode may have the most critical plotline of the season and the first comment is a something about "shipping" two characters that had little or nothing to do with each other or the actually episode events.
Need to shower again.. Enjoy your holidays!
I think we're defining shipping differently. Some people focus more on the relationships and others on the plot/mythology. I count shippers as the ones more focused on relationships (both romantic and non). While there can be shipping for nonexistent relationships, with most cases that I see, there is some basis for a relationship in the story. You seem to be talking just about slash or other nonexistent relationships.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, enjoy your shower!
Possibly not as good as what's generally available on HBO and Showtime, but "Supernatural" and "Vampire Diaries" could probably be considered the equal of what AMC comes up with.
ReplyDeleteYes, i agree .... just because CW markets young adults...does not mean that its not quality television ... and on that subject ... how has John Noble not won an Emmy or a Golden Globe for his work on Fringe!
ReplyDeleteGoes to show that all these so called awards that keep going to Mad Men all the time ... may be because of bias and favouritism!
Frankly I am so anti the S-word that I have no idea what the difference is between slash and normal S-worders.. XD
ReplyDeleteSo I lump them both together in one giant pol of dislike I guess....
I prefer the emmy quality acting of Jensen Ackles, Jared Padalekci, Jim Beaver, and Misha Collins from Supernatural. They always have the finest guest stars around. Why go to antoher network when the best is right on the CW
ReplyDeleteDitto, but would add Nina Dobrev from The Vampire Diaries, I watch more shows on CW than any other network, cable I go to USA, BBCA & Syfy.
ReplyDeleteIt's certain that the critics have every right to chose the shows they prefer and one can agree or disgree with their picks but I sort of get the feeling that they don't even watch the "lesser" shows, and at the start of a new season already know what horses they are going to back.
ReplyDeleteI feel they should be more open-minded, that's all.
I have to disagree about the elitist thing because it exists in all walks of life and so it can't not exist in the tv and film industry.
Hollywood and the actors and actresses who make up the various juries are an elite and they give the awards to those in their circle who then return the favour on another occasion. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
That's obviously why it's so difficult for the CW actors, and not only, to get any recognition, they're not part of the people that count. Then these shows are filmed in the "backwoods" of Vancouver which makes it even worse.
I wonder if Supernatural for example, would be better considered if some big star like Jeremy Irons decided he wanterd to be the new big bad for the next season on the show.
Would that up it's chances of an award. Who knows? Maybe.
Then as far as the viewers choices are concerned, they watch what the tv serves them up.
Jersey Shore, a so called reality show couldn't be any more vulgar or stupid but the viewers didn't ask for it.The network commissioned it because nowadays you have to shock and continue to escalate that to get new people watching.
We all have a part of us that is drawn to that sort of thing just as we have a part which stands in admiration before a painting of Leonardo and the Tv should give us more Leonardo and less Jersey Shore.:-)
I totally agree. CW have great actors/actresses that deserve a acknowledgment, like Nina Dobrev, Leighton Meester, Jensen Ackles, Misha Collins,etc.
ReplyDeleteBRAVO TV WATCHER........that beautiful black Impala that is driven by 2 handsome hunters has more talent than most of the nominees. Oh yes and KUDOS to John Noble from Fringe I ADORE HIM and he is a true talent............WALTER and WALTERNATE!!!! Ahhhhh
ReplyDelete"together in one giant pol of dislike"
ReplyDeleteWell then, you're doing just like those people in award juries : taking some things for a generality ; don't taking a channel seriously at all, because of SOME crap on it.
And it's sad.
Also, all the "shippers", "slashers" or whatever, are definitively NOT only focused on the relashionship side of a show.
I still can't believe that I disregarded Supernatural for years myself, because of that stupid image the crazy fans AND the promotional poster and so that both give to it. Not seing it as the super original, sometimes deep sometimes funny, full of very good guest stars and leads etc as it is...
Equal to Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and the Walking Dead? Umm, no.
ReplyDeletehells yeah these cw shows should be appreciated more!!! ;)
ReplyDelete:::shrug:::To each his/her own, I guess, right? I'd gladly put "Supernatural" above any of those three. Apparently you disagree.
ReplyDelete