Angel

Question: I am hoping you can shine some light on this question for me, because it has been bothering me for the entire summer. Why is it that everyone keeps saying Buffy was cancelled? I mean, even on your own website there is a picture of Buffy and then the words "See how well you remember the shows that got cancelled in 2002-2003" for your Trivia game. I wouldn’t get so frustrated had Buffy actually been cancelled. However, it wasn’t. It bowed out when they thought the time was right. It irritates me to no end. Would people write that Friends was cancelled next year? No. Why do they keep doing it with Buffy? - Bobbi

Matt: Good point. These references can probably be blamed on industry and journalistic shorthand, especially when the show is being discussed with others that left the air at the same time. But you’re right. Buffy wasn’t cancelled. It died the most natural and satisfying of deaths, playing out just long enough so there could be a fitting end to an epic story. Any other analysis of the situation is wrong.

Question: I just heard that Spike (James Marsters) is coming "back" to Angel as a ghost. What an interesting choice. He can finally piss off Angel and not get his butt kicked. Do you think that this means that he will only have a small part on Angel, or do you think they will find a way to bring him back from the spirit world? Better yet, will they even want to? I loved the character of Spike on Buffy, and I just want them to do him justice. I have watched Angel from the beginning and they kind of got off the track a little last season. I am looking forward to this "reinvention" they have been talking about. But not at the sacrifice of one of my favorites (Spike)! - Betty M.

Matt: I won’t comment on the nature of Spike’s re-emergence on Angel except to say that, by all accounts, he’ll be a major part of the show this season. Why else resurrect him?

Question: Please explain something to me. Why do people have such an obsession with the Emmys? I don’t see why people are so concerned about an Emmy validating their favorite shows or actors, considering the Emmys have proven to be beyond lame. I enjoy shows for their entertainment value and the talent I see displayed on screen, not because it can win an award. I can understand why it matters to people in the industry, but why do those who truly love TV really care? I know I don’t. - Dara

Matt: It’s a paradox. Like you, I can live with the fact that shows like Buffy, Gilmore Girls, Alias, etc, are unlikely to win, or in many cases get nominated, for major awards. It doesn’t affect my feelings for the show one way or another. Yet when a surprise happens and they do manage to get into the race, I can’t help but get excited. I think for many people, a competition or awards ceremony or even a "best of" list can be an enjoyable way to celebrate, acknowledge, argue about - and, yes, obsess over - the best of a medium. It comes with the territory.

But because the Emmy has such a long history, much like the Oscar, it only makes sense that those who love and care about TV at least pretend to have a rooting interest in who wins or gets nominated. The Emmy nomination process is inherently flawed, because of the overwhelming volume of TV shows and the fact that smaller networks and less popular shows are less likely to get represented regardless of quality. So it’s inevitable that fans will get agitated when good work is so often ignored in favor of higher-profile shows with splashier promotional campaigns or an institutional bias for what has been nominated before. It’s easy to take these awards shows way too seriously, and that would be wrong. Believe me, the year that The Practice won best drama over The Sopranos in its premiere season, no one was confused as to which was really the best show that year. The Emmys are the awards you often love to hate - except when they get something right.