If I ruled the (Emmys) world
|
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Add This
Feeds
Arts and Exhibits
Article Rating
If I ruled the world, a lot of things would be different. Ice cream would become a food group, getting up before 8 a.m. would be outlawed, and many of this year’s Emmy nominees would not be.
I’m thrilled that the Television Academy of Arts & Sciences, also known as Those Who Do Not Acknowledge the CW, threw a bunch of nominations at FX’s “Damages” and AMC’s “Mad Men,” two new basic cable shows that deserve the attention.
It’s great that they recognized Showtime’s excellent drama “Dexter” and lead actor Michael C. Hall, who can make my skin crawl simply by fixing breakfast on screen. And it’s tremendous that “Lost” has regained its rightful spot as a best drama nominee (though it will be tremendous-er if it actually wins).
But I have some Texas longhorn-sized beefs with the rest of the nominations, and they start with the tired parade of stars who seem to get a nod simply because of name recognition.
I believe there are many Emmy voters who don’t actually watch the screeners but instead just check off the names they’re used to voting for. Hey, Candice Bergen – I remember her from “Murphy Brown.” Bet she’s still great!
Voila, Bergen snags a supporting actress nod for “Boston Legal.”
Does Tony Shalhoub, who’s terrific in “Monk” but has already won like 500 best comedic actor Emmys, really need to be recognized again? Why not give that slot to a young up-and-comer, like one of the nerds on “The Big Bang Theory?” (Sorry, academy voters, I don’t know his name, either.)
Likewise, all the leads in “Boston Legal” should be taken out of the running. Their quirky, often one-note performances were cute … the first season. Now the show has run itself into the ground (how many times has ABC Entertainment President Steve McPherson mentioned that this is “Boston’s” very last season?).
If I ran the Emmy world, there would be a one-and-done rule, as in, you win once for your show and you’re out of the running. That would give new shows a better chance at winning and also help lift perennial also-rans, like “House’s” deserving Hugh Laurie or “Grey’s Anatomy’s” awesome Chandra Wilson, to Emmy wins that have unfairly eluded them.
This would also make the Emmy ceremony more fun and more interesting to watch. It’s nice that the richy-rich Hollywood actors get a chance to get dressed up and accept trophies and pat each other on the back.
But really, the Emmys should be about the viewers. We’re the ones who support these shows, we’re the ones who tune in on our TV sets. We should at least get to enjoy the spectacle, which means the shows we want to win should be nominated and should take home some awards.
That’s why the Emmys’ odd elitism makes no sense. Why nominate “In Treatment,” which 8 people watched regularly on HBO, instead of “CSI,” which 18 million watch? Why, in the name of Lauren Graham, ignore a network (the CW) year after year after year, despite the quality performances being turned in there?
And why continue to insist that Charlie Sheen can act? He’s mostly just squinting.
Part of the fun of the Emmys has always been debating what they got wrong – the big snubs, the silly nominations, the HBO love that oddly never extended to “The Wire.”
And people will complain no matter what. But if I ruled the world, there’d definitely be some changes.
And there’d be more shots of Drs. McDreamy and McSteamy during the broadcast. You know, just because I ruled the world.
Toni Fitzgerald has covered the TV industry for www.medialifemagazine.com for the past five years. Her e-mail address is tonifitz@yahoo.com
