The 'CSI' franchise might be it's own worst enemy at Emmy time.

"I'm sure it's a puzzlement to many as to why these shows don't do better at the Emmys," Matt Roush, TV Guide critic, told Variety. He said that "[i]t's not a reflection of quality" when they aren't nominated because "[t]hey're all really well produced." Instead, it has to do with the franchise itself. For both CSI and Law and Order, having spinoff shows causes any individual show in the franchise to lose votes at Emmy time.

"There may be a sense that they seem ordinary because there are so many of them -- even when they do extraordinary work," Roush said. He also pointed out that other shows can take away from a procedural franchise like CSI. Emmy voters, he said, tend to go with shows that create "watercooler buzz ... the shows that made you cry," and that he didn't know if "procedurals really do that." Eva LaRue (CSI: Miami's Natalia Boa Vista) pointed out that a long-running show like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation might also lose votes simply because "it's been on for so long." The voters, she said, might not pay attention because they assume that "it's the same work they've always been doing."

Roush said that having three series in the CSI franchise "can result in making each of those shows seem less special, because they do all blur together." He suggested that the network might consider marketing a single series more heavily for Emmy consideration. "It would be hard to play favorites, but if you see something that stands out of the pack -- like 'CSI's' knockout 'miniature serial killer' storyline -- you could emphasize that," he said. "Those episodes were amazing."

The original article is from Variety.com's Award Central.

Discuss this news item at Talk CSI!
 Add CSI Files RSS feed to your news reader or My Yahoo!
Also a Desperate Housewives fan? Then visit GetDesperate.com!