Monday, September 2, 2013

EMMY CONUNDRUMS! SHOULD THE EMMYS BE REQUIRED TO SPREAD THE WEALTH AND HONOR DIFFERENT SHOWS/PEOPLE EVERY YEAR?



Bob Newhart, Jon Hamm, Michael C. Hall, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Jerry Seinfeld, John Goodman, Hugh Laurie, Amy Poehler, Mary-Louise Parker, Kim Cattral, Tim Allen, Ed O'Neill, Elisabeth Moss, Frances Conroy, Rachel Griffiths, Angela Lansbury, Neil Patrick Harris, Rainn Wilson, Peter Boyle, Jeffrey Tambor, Jason Alexander, Howard Hessman, Garry Shandling.... many others too.  None of these actors won Emmys for any of their most iconic television roles. The Primetime Emmys are coming up soon, and as always, I will soon be making my predictions and then later on, do post-analysis of the broadcast itself, my analysis of the nominations, or at least an abridged version of the one I posted here awhile back, will soon be posted on GuysNation.com, and I certainly have an affection for the Emmys, particularly the Primetime ones. We all, presumbably watch TV, and the best of television is usually on Primetime. (Often the worse to, but...) Anyway, unlike say the Oscars however, there are more natural problems with the Emmys, particularly the Primetime ones, that frankly, is a little unfair. This is discussed somewhat, in a rant article on goldderby.com, the website that's reknown for setting the odds on the major entertainment Awards shows, you can see the link below:

http://www.goldderby.com/news/4734/emmys-2013-amy-poehler-ed-oneill-anna-gunn-tv-news-13579086.html

Well, you see, there's this weird dilemma with the Emmys, that say the Oscars doesn't have. Essentially they're the equivalent of each other, they both honor the best in their fields, for that particular year, and it's the people who work in the industry who determine the best, and that works with the Oscars, 'cause while there's a few rule exceptions, basically, a film can only be released once, and if it's released in that particular year, it's eligible for that particular Oscar. Well, TV doesn't work like that, most shows, particularly shows that usually do win Awards, last multiple years, or in the parlance of television, seasons, and while it occasionally happens differently, usually a show that's of the highest of quality one year, is likely to also be a show of the highest quality the next year, and many years after that in fact. This is where the ultimate dilemma comes in, 'cause you want to honor the best shows, and the best of television. Now, when their only 3 or 4 channels, this wasn't the most difficult thing to comprehend or even discuss or debate. Of course, there were a lot of quality show back then too, but I think it's safe to say that, at the very top level of quality of television, there's a higher amount of shows, especially in certain categories, that you can really easily say, ten or twelve different people/shows can very easily be debated as worthy of the Award. You'd think, that since Hollywood likes to honor themselves so much (The biggest single myth about Hollywood you'll ever hear, btw) that, since they have more opportunities for many shows and stars of quality to win for their most iconic and famous roles, that the Emmys, would  try and spread the wealth around a bit. At least that's what we'd liked to see, maybe even prefer to see. In some cases that's actually happened. Every cast member of "Will & Grace" and "The Golden Girls" for instance, all won the Emmy at some point. However, just as often, if not moreso, the Emmys tend to decide to honor the same shows and performances over the years. You see, this is complicated, because, if they're job is to honor the best in television, well, sometimes it is the same frigging show and performance that's going to win, and many cases, maybe it should be honored every year. The latest of these, is Bryan Cranston for "Breaking Bad", winning three years straight for Lead Actor in a drama series, he lost last year and wasn't eligible the year before. Now I'm not gonna discuss or argue whether he should've won, but look at the nominees he was against. Jon Hamm, Hugh Laurie, Michael C. Hall, Kyle Chandler (Who won the year Cranston wasn't eligible) Matthew Fox, Simon Baker, Gabriel Byrne, not to mention, Timothy Olyphant and Steve Buscemi, who were nominated the year he wasn't eligible. I mean, it's great that he keeps winning, you can argue it's deserved, but many of these other actors have given us some iconic and memorable roles in some of the most important roles and best shows of our time. I mean, if TV shows, only lasted one year like the Oscars, well tough decision, but okay, at least the other were recognized, but since they don't and these people keep losing, it's kind of a shame. I mean, you'd like to see a few of these names win at some point for the great work they do, and it is great work, and even if you pass the award around, there might be some good logical reasons why some of them still might not win, but still.... Frankly, we don't want to always see the same people winning every year; no matter how good a show or a performance is, it's kinda like, the Yankees, you know, unless you're a fan you don't really want to see them win the World Series every year. (Sorry to Yankees fans there, but, 20+ titles, that's like once every 5-6 years, screw you.)

Especially when, there's clearly enough of quality in the category, that it's a really a shame that none of the others ever win. Occasionally there isn't. You go back far enough for instance, they don't even give out the Awards for Lead Actress in a Drama, 'cause they didn't have enough eligible for the category. That's not really an issue now, but that's the problem now, is that television is so widespread, it's not even limited to television anymore, as the internet is included in television now. There's more shows, more outlets for the highest level of quality to exist, and even bigger names and stars are now working in television. Look at the nominees this year, it is becoming the Oscars, and that's a good thing. But it's depressing to see the same people winning, especially when quality is so spread around. It used to be that after a certain time, when somebody would keep winning the same award, they started taking their names out of consideration. Jeremy Piven was the latest to do that, after multiple wins is a row for Supporting Actor for "Entourage". Candice Bergen, won so often for Murphy Brown, it was beginning to get ridiculous before she took her name out, and then Helen Hunt kept winning. John Larroquette won four straight Supporting Actor Emmys for "Night Court", and I believe he was the first to start taking his name out. It is a little obnoxious at a certain point. The most obnoxious right now is "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" ten-year winning streak, followed closely behind by "The Amazing Race"'s streak, of nine wins in ten years in the Reality-Competition category, or every year except one, that the category's existed. There's no denying the quality of the programs, especially Jon Stewart, who let's face, every other show in the category, they're also-rans, to the most important show, arguably in television history. "The Amazing Race", I think most would argue didn't deserve all their awards, although quality-wise it's understandable that they'd win. But this is the problem, should the "Best" shows or performances, win every year? Wouldn't it be a little better to try and honor all these quality programs in some way, or are some shows, that in other years would've swept the Emmys, just shit outta luck in this time, and are doomed to be Award anomolies that people will be looking up years from now, and dumbstruck by? Are we doomed to have more Susan Lucci's or Bill Maher's? (Maher holds the record btw, 29 nominations, never won.) Should there be?

I mean, as television continues to become a bigger and bigger haven for artists to put on work on the highest value and creative freedom,... What are the Emmys gonna do, what should they do? I don't know actually. My mind says, once you've been honored, see if there's somebody else who's just as worthy that year, and give it to the other one, but if somebody or some show really is that special.... I mean, that's the thing, I think mostly were talking actors here, because there's more of them, Awards and nominees, they're the more high-profile Awards, but should we do this, for Best Comedy, Best Drama as well. Sorry, "The West Wing", you won it already, next? Sorry, "Mad Men". Sorry "The Sopranos". Sorry "Homeland". Sorry "Modern Family", Sorry, "30 Rock". Sorry "Frasier"..... we're gonna give it to an inferior show now because you guys have already won? That doesn't sound quite right either, so do we only do this, passing the honor around, in the other categories? Should TV shows that keep winning again and again also start taking their name out. That's happened before too, Oprah Winfrey took her name and show out of Best Talk Show for the Daytime Emmys, a good decade or so+ before she retired, because it was getting ridiculous . It was the era of talk shows, she was the influential person alive, still is, she only loss one year to "The Rosie O'Donnell Show," one year to "Good Morning, America" for some reason, and twice before that streak of almost a decade in a row, she lost to "Sally Jesse Rafael" and to "Donahue". It was getting obscene awhile after that, there was no real reason to even have the category unless she took her name out, and they still tried to give her Humanitarian Awards and Vanguard Awards after that. Let's face it, she wasn't gonna lose, she knew it. Should there be a limit, "You've won four or five times for this, in a six-year span, go away, you're banned for three years? Well, that's like saying, "Here's the Mona Lisa, don't look at it." That doesn't make any sense either.

I don't know what to do in these cases. Emotionally, I'd rather see everybody who deserves to win it, win it at least once, so that at least he gets the recognition he deserves, a way of us saying "Thank you." for all your work and helping bring us these amazing pieces of television into our lives. On the other hand, I truly believe Jim Parsons job is a lot harder and more impressive than say, Johnny Galecki or Alec Baldwin's, or insert whatever names you want there. or if X's season was better or more impressive than Y's season, or whatever.... I guess that's what we're all just trying to determine anyway, and it's completely subjective either way, whether we agree disagree with the winners and nominees, whether we understand them or not either I guess. Emotionally, it's more satisfying  to see the Emmys passed around, it's much more cathartic and fair, and it makes you feel good to see them honor as many people as they possibly can, but that might not be best either.

So, we keep watching, we keep hoping to see worthy but different winners every year, hope the people who were sitting down, fake-clapping at their colleague last year, get to stand up and get the Honor next time. Not that they need it or want it in some cases, but it's the best way we have to say, we appreciate all the work that you do for us, and how much we appreciate how well you do it, and we're glad that you didn't become another Susan Lucci, or sad that you did. You know it's all trivial in the end, but yeah, it's this emotional conundrum, that actually make us care more about these awards then we probably should.

Post a Comment