Home Forums Television Are the Emmys DEAD?

Are the Emmys DEAD?

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
Created
2 years ago
Last Reply
2 years ago
25
replies
886
views
22
users
3
2
1
  • Tom O’Neil
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    May 13th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351109

    … by “dead” I mean the Emmys as we’ve known them for years … the one award where underdogs win because they had the best episode submission or at least an eppy that had the most impact/ range/ empathy.

    Now with the new Emmy voting, academy members will choose winners without getting DVDs of the sample episodes. Voters are asked to watch video streamed on line. How many voters will REALLY do that? Remember, it’s not as easy as watching Netflix. Everybody’s figured out how to get that service on their big TV screens, but how the hell do you get the Emmy nominees’ videos on your big TV? You need a long HDMI cable, etc. How many of the 17,000 academy members can handle that? Very few — let’s be honest. And if they must then be resigned to watch videos on their computer screens, how many will bother to do so before they vote?

    Personally, I don’t think many voters will really do all this. If that’s true, then we won’t see big upsets anymore by Jeff Daniels, Kyra Sedgwick, etc. Or the likes of Bryan Cranston that first year of Breaking Bad. Nobody even knew it was on TV back then, but Cranston pulled off a jawdropper. I think we can now presume that the most popular nominees will prevail.

    Goodbye, Golden Girl. Welcome to the People’s Choice Awards, y’all. Do YOU agree?
     

    Reply
    CanadianFan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 23rd, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351111

    It’s really too early to say. 

    After all, if they instituted this policy last year, how many people would have said that the voters just voted for the popular choice (and ignored the tapes) when awarding Parsons over Gervais, and giving Burrell Emmy #2?

    Hopefully we have some races with a buzzy frontrunner, but a clear underdog with the best tape to test out the system, OR a frontrunner who submits terribly (Robin Wright last year), and who loses because of it.

    I do fear the changes, but the integrity of the voters has not been put to the test yet…

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    Tyler The Awesome Guy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 19th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351112

    The People’s Choice Awards choose “popular” and not “best”, and hence it sucks.

    ReplyCopy URL
    BenitoDelicias
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351113

    I’m kind of 50/50 on this. I like to asume these people still watch tv, either the day it airs or later, so it’s not like they’re just suddenly going to vote Game of Thrones because it’s the most popular and make it a People’s Choice Awards copy, they still watched Mad Men, Saul, The Good Wife and others to know what they’re voting for. And they’re still Emmy voters, they just won’t turn into a sucky People’s Choice voter and click here and there just because. However those upsets will most likely be gone because some people will be more difficult to discover like say, Bobby Cannavale when the world was already over Boardwalk. Or Margo Martindale when nobody was really watching Justified.

    But you’re definitely right that the system must 100% S U C K for a huge part of the voting body. I personally wouldn’t go online, put the HDMI cable to watch an episode from whatever Emmy voting website on my tv. I would download it legally or illegaly, Netflix, Hulu, DVD, whatever or just try to remember the episode. The days of connecting a cable are over and I’m young, I own the cable and know perfectly well how to do it…But I don’t want to. Imagen those old members…

    ReplyCopy URL
    24Emmy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351114

    Goodbye, Golden Girl. Welcome to the People’s Choice Awards, y’all. Do YOU agree?

     

    The Emmys will need to start telling winners in advance if they want to reach the level of the People’s Choice Awards. You barely see two nominees show up there.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Cobalt Blue
    Member
    Joined:
    Aug 7th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351115

    Didn’t know this.  It’s concerning for sure.   I really want to believe that the tapes can speak.   Don’t like this change at all.

    ReplyCopy URL
    eastwest
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 6th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351116

    I’m with Benito & Canada on this. It’s definitely wait and see.

    ReplyCopy URL
    dsps84
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 18th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351117

    The problem with the old small panel system is that the same performances kept on winning over and over and OVER again. Did Jim Parsons need four Emmys? I don’t think so. Steve Carell for “Goodbye Michael” would have won if the new system had been in place then. He had all the buzz and a great tape. Jane Krakowski would have won in 2013, Martin Sheen and Hugh Laurie at least once, and so on. If this leads to Hamm, Poehler, Paulson, etc. winning, then I’m all for it.

    How big is the acting branch? Around 2,500? I’m glad that every actor in ATAS can now vote for tv’s biggest honor. They should have started this before. I’m also happy that non-actors can’t vote here – then it really would be a popularity contest.   

    ReplyCopy URL
    Atypical
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 1st, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351118

    There needs to be a test case year of seeing how the voters actually
    perform under the new system. I’m hoping that the mass voting will lead
    to some great winners and not the usual repetitive ones. And gasp, watching these nominees on laptops and
    mobiles isn’t the end of the world. I’m going to give the voters a bit more than credit than they probably deserve.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Robert Russaw
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 6th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351119

    Hopefully there will not be a big change.   For all we know, some members may secretly tire of the same individuals winning over and over again, and at times it does get tedious.    However, if the right episode is submitted, then that individual does deserve to win.   I think it’s a question if that actor is winning for the same type of episode each time, i.e. Jim Parsons for a “drunk” performance.    Time will tell if this system works, but I feel like Tom is right; many of them won’t watch the episodes with the new system.

    ReplyCopy URL
    AviChristiaans
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 26th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351120

    Since the rule change was primarily made to encourage/include more members to participate in the voting process (just like the film academy is doing yearly), i doubt the Emmys are “dead”. The only difference now is that there is a larger voting pool to determine the winners. And yes, just like the SAG Awards, actors (who are the majority) will now have a bigger say in who wins.

    I wonder what the “critics” of the Emmys will say when shows like Downton Abbey, The Big Bang Theory and Texas Rising win the Top awards because of the rule change. Popular and all. Imagine what they will have to say then!

    And it’s not like the same people voted for Jim Parsons and Modern Family to win every year. It was a different panel of voters every year. Different people. So just what will happen if repeat winners like Jim Parsons and Modern Family continue to rule the Emmys?

     Just imagine the contradictory remarks these “critics” will come up with.

    I’m glad the rule change happened. This way more people will have a say, and thus lead to a more diverse set of winners. Popular shows and not just niche, critical darlings. Now at least shows like Empire, The Big Bang Theory, Downton Abbey and Game of Throwns have a fighting chance.

    With the film awards, critics are up in arms that popular blockbusters, box office smashes arent represented at the Oscars, yet when it comes to the television side of things, they sideline the popular shows in favor of niche driven fair. To hell with popular shows because we don’t like them, because it is cool not to like them, we want to see the “indies’ of television rule the Emmys.

    What a shocker,

    ReplyCopy URL
    bondzzz
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 27th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351121

    what i love about the emmys is the ability for them to give us surprising winners, whether be it a repeat or a totally one we think not have a high chance of winning. and this is mainly due to the “tapes” system of sitting down and watching it. i’m not sure exactly if it will be really dead but i guess we have to give it at least 3 years to see the trend and just hope we won’t get the usual same expected winners we see in other award shows.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Hidden Pearl
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 31st, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351122

    I’ve asked this once and I’m gonna ask again.

    I don’t think voters were that kind of lazy. I think they could have spent their 6 hours for an event that occurs only one in a year but with this new rule “all categories” means 6 tapes from Drama Actor, 6 from Comedy Actor, 6 from Supporting Actor-Mini, 6 from Guest Actor Comedy and goes on and on. If you will add the “Series” tapes in it, there are 120 TAPES all voters should watch!! And thats probably equal to 100 hours.(Add the miniseries’ like AHS in the mix which is a 13-hour long!)

    Yea, thats not gonna happen. Not even one person can do that. And you can’t blame them for lying.

    I know in the past years they divide the tapes so one voter only have to watch one categories’ tapes. But if things will work this way from now on it’s a mess and welcome SAG awards.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but this sounds like a stupid idea in the first place.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Halo_Insider
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351123

    I’m glad the rule change happened. This way more people will have a say, and thus lead to a more diverse set of winners. Popular shows and not just niche, critical darlings. Now at least shows like Empire, The Big Bang Theory, Downton Abbey and Game of Throwns have a fighting chance.

    Heh, because critics hate Game of Thrones…

    ReplyCopy URL
    Kevin Jacobsen
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #351124

    I wonder how last year’s awards would’ve been affected if this was instituted last year. Would the hot, new buzzed about show Orange Is the New Black have beaten Modern Family? Either way I think this will benefit the more buzzy nominees overall, so someone like Taraji P. Henson or Jeffrey Tambor will have more of an advantage. I also imagine Jon Hamm will benefit from this. I think people will complain regardless but it could lead to some deserving winners.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
Reply To: Are the Emmys DEAD?

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
Denis - Oct 22, 2017
Television
Luca Gi... - Oct 21, 2017
Television