Can 'Heroes' defy the Emmy odds?
It's rare that Hollywooders take thrillers or fantasies seriously at the Emmys or Oscars. Consider the Academy Awards: only one fantasy film has ever won best picture ("Lord of the Rings: Return of the King"). And that thriller pic "The Departed" claiming the top prize was a rare departure from academy history that occurred only because members knew they owed director Marty Scorsese big time.
Such anti-fantasy/thriller snobbery is typical of the Emmys, too, but a few recent vote outcomes give hope to "Heroes," which may seem doubly cursed otherwise, being a fantasy thriller. Surely, it's a major player, though, being the highest-rated new TV drama series and the one with the most buzz and heat.
But will it end up like "Battlestar Gallactica," which has been ignored by Emmy voters for the past few years even though TV critics say it's the best show on the tube? Or will it be like "The X-Files," which reaped gads of nominations and even won a few (mostly tech Emmys, but Gillian Anderson did pull off that shockeroo for best actress)? Or, best of all, could it be just like "Lost" and not only nab lots of noms after its first season, but win best drama series?!
Click on the "Comments" link below and tell us what YOU think!




I agree Gillian Anderson deserved every award she won. So there should be no "shockeroo" there . Of course she was robbed every year she didn't win ;)
Posted by: moofy | May 09, 2007 at 12:52 AM
It was a shockeroo because she wasn't expected to win...it's really not that hard of a concept.
Posted by: AJ | May 08, 2007 at 07:07 PM
I agree too bad Gillian didnt won for every year. She deserved..
Posted by: Mory | May 08, 2007 at 04:10 PM
How was Gillian Anderson's win for best actress a "shockeroo?" The shocker is that she did not win every year the show was on!
Posted by: Bean | May 08, 2007 at 01:43 PM