Several reasons.
I was going to do it for my podcast but technical issues prevent me from posting it early tomorrow morning. And the whole point is writing and getting it out there as fast as possible so references are still fresh in people’s minds and if any of my jokes happen to be similar to jokes in other reviews you’ll know that's merely coincidental.
But that requires basically staying up all night writing (and then recording).
And I’ll be honest, after almost twenty years I’m just getting tired of doing that. And it’s less about the effort required and more about my diminishing interest in the award shows themselves.
Especially the Emmys.
There are now so many shows that blur the lines between categories that some of the nominations are absurd. There are a couple of series in the "Best Comedy" category that aren’t really comedies at all. Meanwhile, actual quality sitcoms that strive to make you laugh are not even nominated. So what’s the point?
As for the acting nominations, they’re based solely on who is on a hot show not who gave the most outstanding performance. And I understand that, especially since there are now so many series on so many platforms that it’s impossible for voters to see everything, but there are nominees who have no business being there while other extraordinary performers are shut out. I hate when I’m rooting for people to NOT win and that’s what this has become in certain instances. I much prefer to be excited and happy for deserving winners.
Here too it’s the blurring of lines. How are sketch performers who do a multitude of characters from SNL and sitcom actors who play the same character week after week in the same category? Why are certain actors just Academy darlings and get nominated every year no matter what they’re in? And yes, I’m looking at you Jeff Daniels.
What’s the difference between “Reality Competition” and “Structured Reality Program?” LIP SYNC BATTLE is nominated for “Structured.” But it has the word BATTLE right in the title? It’s not a competition? There’s only so much money the SHARK TANK sharks are going to invest. Aren’t the people trying to get that money essentially in competition with each other? Why is SHARK TANK is the “Structured” category.
Some of the nominees for “Best Short Form” are essentially promo pieces for current network shows. Is that in the spirit of the award? For “Outstanding Short Form Variety” these are three of the nominees: BETWEEN THE SCENES – THE DAILY SHOW, CREATING SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, and THE TONIGHT SHOW STARRING JIMMY FALLON – COVER ROOM. They’re trailers, people. They’re click bait. They’re not Emmy worthy.
Anyway, you get the idea. The last few years have been a slog to review the Emmys and it’s not like I’m getting paid. Tomorrow I may or may not do a brief overview depending on whether I have anything more to say and whether I don’t just turn off the show and watch MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL instead.
All that said, good luck tonight to the nominees… that are deserving.
I have to agree. And BTW, I have NO idea what some of the shows ARE if they're on Netflix or Amazon Prime or whatever.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I don't even watch the Emmys anymore and I was one who was anxiously anticipating them -- good or bad show -- every year.
ReplyDeleteI do remember the "good ol'" days when nominations were for shows which, let's face it, very few people watched and the prevailing thinking was to honor quality, not popularity.
Hope Lange won Emmys for The Ghost and Mrs. Muir which changed networks after only one season -- obviously not a ratings winner.
My World and Welcome To It won Emmys for Best Comedy Series and for its star, William Windom, and was gone by the following year.
The Emmys, even in their heyday, had lots of "huh?" moments - Lucille Ball winning two for the worst seasons of The Lucy Show and Don Knotts (a great comic actor) winning five, one for essentially a guest spot, on the Andy Griffith Show!
But Emmys used to stand for rewarding quality on television. But now, with reality shows (possibly the biggest lie in entertainment foisted on the American public since the 1950s quiz show scandals) having their own categories, that diminishes the Emmy-worthiness of winning one (much like the thankfully aborted "Most Popular" Oscar!).
One category proves the true oxymoron -- Outstanding Casting in a Reality Program. If it's a "real" show, how can you "cast" people?
I do take heart on one thing -- at least Ryan Seacrest did not get a nomination this year, as far as I can tell. I hope I'm right.
Are you kidding? Seahawks are on Monday Night Football!
ReplyDeleteMr. Levine:
ReplyDeleteI know I submitted a response already to your well-thought-out Emmy Awards posting, but this occurred to me after I wrote mine. Maybe it could be a Friday Question?
Would you consider doing podcast or a blog post where you name your own "jaw-dropping" Emmy moments? Including those shows and performers which were never winners but "shoulda" won? And not just "Tuesday Morning Quarterbacking," but also those moments you witnessed that stuck in your mind?
Just a thought! Enjoying your blog and your weekly podcasts very much.
Would the Television Academy institute an award for Best Multi-Camera Comedy? Or would David Bianculli and his fellow TV snobs raise holy hell?
ReplyDeleteAt least they don't have an "Outstanding popular series" category.
ReplyDeleteBefore I write anything else, I want to thank-you VERY much all for the years that you have posted the Emmy reviews. I don't use the word "guffaw" EVER, but that's exactly what you multiply-provided every year. Job well done!
ReplyDeleteI also feel a tinge of sadness at this revoltin'development, in that your posts helped an older geezer keep up on what was quality tv and what was not. I find the availability of the many streaming-tv providers/networks, with a concomitant gush of new programs (comedy or not), to be somewhat bewildering. I've been on the net since it was ARPANET, so it's not a too old to tek situation.
It's certainly related to my age-related tastes, but there is also an economic factor. One 90-minute film eats up a gig and a half, and you can do the math on 30-minute sitcoms. Even if your tv provider is a reasonable deal, we're also being charged for the ISP gig download.
Over the years, comedy has gotten very expensive. Your Emmy posts saved me money!!
;>)
(This also brings to mind the title of a great book on the subject by Vinnie Mosco back in 1989......"The Pay-Per Society".
Sadly prescient.)
Ken, I think you said it best a while back in one of your Emmy reviews when they ran a compilation of reality show clips. Three minutes of people yelling at each other and every other word being bleeped.
ReplyDelete"This is the excellence in television we're celebrating tonight."
Holy shit. Totally had no idea the Emmys were tonight. Also, I have no idea who is nominated and nor do I care. All televised awards shows are obsolete. Carry on.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing. There's Monday Night Football tonight. Go Bears!
ReplyDeleteI don't blame you, Ken. I stopped watching award shows a long time ago. You've seen one you've seen 'em all. As to your complaints, though, let's face it: It's always been about ratings. I remember the days when it was special to see a lifetime award recipient get up an make a speech, now those awards are given out previously in a "special ceremony." Mustn't let anything interfere with Madonna getting up there and dropping her pants.
ReplyDeleteOkay, seriously, didn't we just have Emmys this year? Like, three other times? I swear we did!
ReplyDeleteI believe it's time for the Emmys to add several new categories by dividing Best show, best actor, best writing, best comedy, etc. into: Best network show. Best Cable/streaming show, best network anchor, best cable/streaming actor, best network/streaming comey, etc. It is unfair to put a show that has to conform to strict guidelines to shows that are free to do anything. Invariably the freedom to say anything and show anything on cable/streaming when handled by top creators will (pardon the expression) trump their heavily censored and controlled network brethern. One side isforced to wears handcuffs while the other is given free rein to do anything. It is not a fair fight so dividing the categories seems fairer to both sides.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I am an avid Oscar awards follower, I don't much follow Emmys.
ReplyDeleteI do very much look forward to Oscar related topics and movie reviews.
Can you please review any movie that you feel was great this year :)
Or your take on the billion dollar blockbusters of this year, especially "Jurassic Park/World" movie franchise. Would love to hear your views on the way they keep continuing that series.
Or Bradley Cooper trying his hand at directing.
I don't know if others agree but, this year and last few years have been dull. There were a few big studio movies with superheroes and I don't have much interest in them. Other than that, no movie really stood out.
Jeff A.: "My World and Welcome To It won Emmys for Best Comedy Series and for its star, William Windom, and was gone by the following year" -- not exactly. The show was already canceled, having only lasted for the 1969-70 season (I was a preteen fan still mourning the demise of Star Trek).
ReplyDeletethe emmys are becoming just as much a joke as the oscars.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Reality Competition programs fall under the same regulations as game shows, while Structured Reality Program does not. Under federal law dating back to the scandals of the 1950s, game shows have to be contestants of chance or skill, and producers are not allowed to do anything to deliberately favor one contestant over another.
ReplyDeleteShark Tank contestants may theoretically be competing for prizes, but the decisions are made by employees of the show who are being coached by the producers. (For Last Comic Standing, in many cases, the "judges" were being told by the producers precisely whom they should pick, whether or not they actually preferred that comedian.) If you tried that in something that billed itself as a competition program, you could end up in prison.
You pretty much nailed it, Ken. I used to love watching the Emmys, now I forgo t they were on until this article. It's sad, really. And now we'll get the bonus of tons of unwanted political "jokes."
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Friday Question, or you can answer it on a Wednesday if you want; What are your thoughts on the Linda Bloodworth-Thomason article in The Hollywood Reporter? Do you have any history with her? Are you surprised at her claims that Les basically came in and shut her down?
Of all the awards shows, Emmy is usually my favorite because I watch TV, don't go to the movies, and don't live in NY to see Broadway shows. But for the last ten or so years I find myself constantly saying "That's a show? Never heard of it." or "Who in the world is that actor?" And when they started including computer sites such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. and calling them television, the Emmys lost their identity. It's as if the Oscars would include YouTube in their categories. With those reasons, the fact the hosts have absolutely no appeal to me, and the fact that the Cardinals and Braves will be playing tonight, I will miss the Emmys tonight for the first time in nearly thirty years.
ReplyDeleteI was so discouraged by what we nominated as Best Comedy this year that I couldn't vote in that category. I like most of the shows, but they are not comedies. And I was a big fan of "Atlanta" last year. Also, Jeff Daniels as Atticus Finch on Broadway? You'd have to pay me to see that.
ReplyDeleteKen, I think your lack of enthusiasm about the Emmys--considering you are a past Emmy winner yourself--speaks volumes about the current state of the awards.
ReplyDeleteAs a guy with only an antenna on the roof, the Emmys deserted me years ago. However, this year the only thing that even remotely interests me is how hosts Michael Che and Colin Jost will do. But, I think I already know the answer. More than likely it will be like an extended "Weekend Update." With three-plus hours of Trump/Republican bashing. Throw in a few Kavanaugh jokes. And since the Emmys are on NBC the year I imagine they'll tear Les Moonves a new one as well. As I've said many times before, I don't mind a good Donald Trump joke as long as its clever or insightful. But what passes for political humor these days is just a lot of whining. I suppose that's because most of these guys (and gals) are "preaching to the choir." Maybe instead of reviewing the whole show you could just comment on the best jokes of the night.
ReplyDeleteM.B.
I understand how you feel, and I only plan to watch the opening monologue, than pop in a DVD: "Fifty Shades Freed."
ReplyDeleteCouldn't you AT LEAST considering reviewing the pre-show with Jessica Holmes and Sam Rubin?
I know how much you enjoy that!
I guess I thought that the Emmys were already, since it was mentioned here a week ago that "An Emmy for Megan" didn't quite become true. More than one ceremony, I guess.
ReplyDeleteBut then, I haven't watched hardly any new TV since Crusade and Enterprise went off the air. (My wife made me watch GLOW - it is good - and Game of Thrones seasons wait on delay until the DVDs come out. Wait, I did see The Orville on Amazon. Star Trek: Discovery I haven't quite managed to figure out the economics of yet, annoying paywall.) So I guess I'm not the target audience.
Bears-Seahawks already was my viewing pick for tonight.
ReplyDeleteGrammys, Emmys and Oscars use to mean something. Growing up I use to root for some of the nominees like I did my sport teams. Somewhere along the way, and I could pinpoint the exact moment for each, I stopped caring. And that applies to my sports teams as well.
ReplyDeleteJeff A: I think you are 100% wrong about reality tv casting. Casting is everything in reality tv and it's inclusion as a category was long overdue.An interesting premise, a good host,beautful sets etc. mean nothing if the audience has no stake in the contestants in a competition show. American Idol fades as a footnote like any number of short lived singing competitions if a casting Director never found someone with the talent,charisma and girl next door quality of a Kelly Clarkson. And unlike a scripted drama or comedy you need to find 20-30 new contestants every year. Screening through thousands of applicants every year trying to find people who are either relatable,larger then life charecters and motivated in often times very niche fields is no easy task. Especially as even though some shows relish people who want to get famous by any means necessary,the better reality shows try to screen out these contestants.
ReplyDeleteMore power to ya, sport. I'm following your lead.
ReplyDeleteI don't watch the shows so it follows I won't watch the award presentations for those shows. Go Seahawks, even though I won't be watching them, either.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteJeff Alexander said: "But now, with reality shows (possibly the biggest lie in entertainment foisted on the American public since the 1950s quiz show scandals)..."
Amen. When I think about the quiz show scandals and the shows that now are billed as "reality," it calls to mind Neil Young's song, "Payola Blues."
This one's for you Alan Freed
Wherever you go, whatever you do
Because the things they're doing today
Will make a saint out of you
I used to love the Emmys. For me they were special. I even remember when they used to be in the spring. I loved them when Johnny Carson used to host them.For me he was he best. Now I don't know half the shows, actors, presenters or hosts. It's not that I don't watch TV. I just don't watch the stuff that makes it to the Emmys. I can't honestly say if they're good or bad. What I do know is that I will be watching my Blue Jays tonight and not the Emmys.
ReplyDeleteI just found out The Fonz-Henry Winkler-won his first Emmy, 44 years after he first appeared as his iconic character. Who'd a thunk it!
ReplyDeleteI'm watching it now, during the commercial breaks on an exceptionally absorbing Rachel Maddow Show. You aren't missing anything. The writing is awful, and they've actually found a way to make it more excruciating: The nominees are presented with clips (you have to read their names off the screen), the presenters make small talk while the nominees squirm, and then they announce the winner. It just feels...off. Oh, and In Memoriam -- I think I heard booing for Hugh Hefner from the seriously "woke" audience. I don't know why they chose to conclude it with John McCain. Yes, he was on television a lot, but so was Barbara Bush. (Maybe just a more subtle version of DeNiro's shout-out at the Tonys.)
ReplyDeleteSo, what's the score?
"Woke." Lord, I hate that term.
Delete@Joe Feldman: You make a good point. I try to separate my own opinion of a TV show into two categories: Do I like it, and is it well-made (on its own terms)? I have no interest in Game of Thrones because I don't like fantasy or costume dramas, but I would never call it a "bad show," because it is obviously very well-crafted. Similarly, I don't care for reality shows, but I appreciate the immense amount of work and talent it takes to make one that is compelling to a receptive audience.
ReplyDeleteOn "In Memoriam": I did like hearing Aretha Franklin's voice singing "Amazing Grace" nearly throughout the whole thing with the exception of when they showed a clip of Rose Maria singing a song of her own on "The Dick Van Dyke Show". When they showed Burt Reynolds, they showed his Emmy win for "Evening Shade" and I think a clip from that show. They could have probably have shown him in "Gunsmoke" as well...
ReplyDeleteEmmys? Couldn't possibly care less. In fact, I can't imagine a person with functioning brain cells who would want to watch, unless they were a nominee -- or related to one.
ReplyDeleteKen's Emmy review? Yeah, I'll miss *that*. (But I completely understand not subjecting yourself to it, Ken!)
Reading your precisely searing day-after commentary has been my only reason for even watching the Emmys in the past decade. I just wasted two and a half hours.
ReplyDeleteAnd John McCain gets included at the end of the "In Memoriam" segment in recognition for his television portrayals in, um, well, uh, was it "The John McCain Variety Show"? It made sense to include a politician when Ronald Reagan died, since he was an actual TV host in the 1960s, but that "In Memoriam" segment is supposed to be for television industry people, isn't it?
ReplyDelete(Ken: Hope you can share some thoughts about Thad Mumford. Didn't know he died until I saw him included in the "In Memoriam" piece.)
Television is something we all have, but we don’t all share…not in the way we used to.
ReplyDeleteSo many shows, so many actors – niches everywhere.
Politics can act as the unifying force. But if your political viewpoint is not in vogue, then politics serves to push people farther apart.
Anyone know who won the Beard award for Chef of the Year? Name the architect who designed the Building of the Year? These awards are relevant to the people in their respective fields but not to the public at large.
So long as television continues to narrowcast, then these awards shows should have smaller platforms more befitting of their intended audience.
FWIW, I don't think Betty White seemed drunk. I think she seemed overwhelmed by the standing ovation and the audience response to her appearance. The jokes she made on her own were sharp enough.
ReplyDeletewg