not seeing any threads on it and reading this MSN
it sounds like anyone who watched the late NFL made the right choice …
Here’s the list of nominees and winners.
The usual gripe: John Oliver wins 2 Emmys for a show that is a half hour once a week (for a fraction of weeks of the year) against people like Colbert who actually have to put on an hour long show far more often. In the category of “Talk Show”. How often does Oliver have a guest on and do an interview?
The In Memoriam list gave me pause with Gloria Vanderbilt. What’s her contribution to television? A smattering of minor acting roles. Some interviews and documentaries. Being portrayed by others in TV movies doesn’t count.
NBC led the OTA networks with 2 wins, both for SNL. That’s two more than Fox, CBS, ABC, etc. got combined. (Unless you look at the winners for “Creative Arts” Emmys from last weekend.)
I don’t watch either show (apart from brief clips that get linked to from here and other websites I frequent), so maybe you can explain this gripe to me. I think it’s utterly unsurprising that a weekly half-hour show, being under fewer time constraints, would tend to have better material than a daily hour-long show. (There’s not as much of a rush to write new material, and of the material that does get written, they can actually produce only the best, rather than producing some of the less-than-stellar material to fill up the longer time slot.) So why not give the award to the better-written and better-produced show? If the other show wants more awards, maybe they shouldn’t have committed themselves to a production schedule that is not as conducive to consistency of high-quality material.
Also, what do guests and interviews have to do with anything? Do the Emmys define “talk show” in such a way that the show must feature interviews? If not, what’s wrong with a non-interview show winning?
My take-away from watching the last hour or so…
John Oliver is certainly clever, and he has some longer sections that allow him to meander around a bit before he finally pulls everything together with a flourish. It’s a sign of good writing. But then I wonder if Stephen Colbert could say “fuck” if he wouldn’t be as highly regarded. It’s also a sign of good writing that Colbert et al can come up with great (and sometimes only good) material night after night, week after week.
Meanwhile, the fragmentation of the media with so many streaming choices and networks is diluting the impact of the Emmys. I don’t have Amazon, so I don’t who this “Maisel” person from last year is, and I had to look up “Fleabag” to see where it’s originating from. People watch and root for their favorites, and get bummed out when their choices get beaten by unknowns (at least they’re unknown to most viewers). I can see a continued decline as more streaming options come out and there are more shows that many people don’t know about, even if they are really good.
That would be Anderson Cooper.
I got so bored with it, I actually switched over to Fear The Walking Dead.
This is it. The broadcast network TV model of seasons starting in the fall, one episode per week, ending in the spring doesn’t mesh at all with the streaming model of “release the whole series all at once whenever and let you binge it.” Add in the fact that not everyone has these streaming services, and even those that do don’t necessarily see everything available there, and we’ve completely lost the common shared experience of three (or four) networks being what the country could watch. I mean, I have cable, Netflix and Amazon Prime, but I’ve never seen “Fleabag,” or “Game of Thrones,” or “Barry,” or “Ozark” - who has time for all of that?
Quality TV is everywhere, that’s true - but the audience is so fragmented now that the Emmys are losing almost all relevance to the viewing public.
I thought the bit with Bob Newhart was funny (although he’s looking really gaunt). Turned it off after that.
To put it another way, except for the two SNL wins, everything went to a cable or streaming network.
Thomas Lennon’s narration and quips sucked, although he is funny on his own.
And yes, I don’t like the present fragmentation. Yes, there’s a lot of good TV (more than any of us can watch) but none of us have access to all of it.
And being Anderson Cooper’s mom.
I didn’t even know the Emmys were on last night, that’s how much I care about the program itself. As for who won what… I’m kind of bummed GoT won best dramatic series, but pleased that it at least lost the writing/directing awards. Because writing and directing were not it’s strong suit in the last season. I’m sure there’s already a thread on here about that, so I won’t go any further.
I’m glad Chernobyl was wel-recognized, though. Now that was some solid writing—even managed to sneak some science in as part of the dramatic moments.
Diluting the impact, perhaps, but there is a reason people have been using “Golden Age of Television” to refer to this era. Because the streaming and cable networks let shows do interesting things that broadcast networks simply did not want them to do (The Good Place being a notable exception). Marvelous Mrs. Maisal (Amazon), Fleabag (Amazon), Veep (HBO), Barry (HBO) were simply far better than the broadcast network alternatives.
But there’s a lot of big names in TV whose mom’s will never get an In Memoriam mention.
I don’t know the definitions they use but John Oliver was in a “variety/talk” category on the lists I saw.
I typically only watch awards shows through the opening monologue and the hostless awards have killed that.
Joey King of The Act was robbed by Michelle Williams of Fosse/Verdon!
That’s the thing; I’ve never even heard of The Act. Googling, I find that it was an eight-part series on Hulu but as I don’t have Hulu, I never heard of it. Now some of the shows on streaming platforms or cable channels get enough attention that some of us who don’t subscribe at least hear of them and consider subscribing (or watching them via other means best not discussed here).
I have no idea how the Emmy voters do it, given the number of shows that the nominees came from. Are they able or required to watch all of these shows?
Well, if the “decline” of the Emmy Awards is the price I have to pay for the unbelievable amount of quality programming available right now, then that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make. Especially considering that I never watched the awards shows even when they were (allegedly) good.
I’d be willing to bet that plenty of them don’t watch all of the shows. The voters are probably no less liable to suasion or favoritism than anyone else, and the industry spends a lot of time and money lobbying for the Emmys, just like they do for the Oscars.
And sometimes they clearly give out awards based not on the current season, but on the overall history of the show. There’s no other way to explain the Games of Thrones victory in the drama series category. I loved the show, but the final season was a rushed, poorly-written mess.
Food for thought! I had Hulu for a little while, and I saw The Act all through its 8 parts, and I thought that Joey and Patricia were absolutely superb as Gypsy Rose and her mother Dee Dee respectively (at least Patricia Arquette took supporting for The Act).
Nonetheless, at least Joey was nominated for it, and for her to get that far is a pretty good prize in and of itself.
The voting procedure has changed in recent years.
For a long time, each branch (e.g. actors, writers, directors, musicians) would select a subset of its membership to be a “blue ribbon judging panel” that would meet over a weekend somewhere (usually at the Beverly Wiltshire Hotel) and select the winners in that branch from the nominees. You didn’t have to have seen all of the shows; each nominee was (and still is) required to submit a number of episodes (anywhere from one to six, depending on the category) for the panel to watch.
A few years ago, the panels no longer got together; each member would “vote from home,” with the Academy sending them tapes/DVDs of the nominated shows. (Note that, for categories like Drama Series and Comedy Series, even though six episodes per series were submitted, each voter got only two episodes per series sent to them.) However, there was no way of making sure that the voting would be based only on the submitted episodes.
Now, every Academy member in the corresponding branch - or every member, period, for things like Drama Series - votes, and I doubt they bother sending out the DVDs any more, considering how many they would need.
Here’s something that I think should be done for the 2020 Emmys and Oscars (and beyond that): have the future combined category of Best Lead and Supporter together (BL&S Comedy, BL&S Drama, BL&S Limited, all by series; or for films, just Comedy and Drama and all related categories); no more of this lead winning and supporter not, or supporter winning and lead not.
I mean, let’s face it, Patricia Arquette on The Act did not under any circumstances support Michelle Williams on Fosse/Verdon; she supported Joey King on The Act.
In essence, whether it’s a male lead/supporter, female lead/supporter, male lead/female supporter, or female lead/male supporter, the lead and supporter on any series/film in the future ought to be considered together in the voting as one unit; like I said, no more of this nonsense where a lead wins and a supporter is snubbed, or a supporter wins and a lead is snubbed!
Do you think that would be fairer?