April 16, 2016 at 1:29 pm #1201746639
I can’t believe no changes or tweaks were made to a system we know for a fact did not work.
If any good came from it I guess it was that Jon Hamm was finally able to win. So because Mad Men’s monotone sleepy acting style was being goose egged at the Emmys due to the tape system, they changed the rules and got their boy his Emmy. He probably would have lost again up against louder tapes from Chandler, Odenkirk, and Spacey.
But now that Mad Men is off the air is there really a need for this change. No other shows have the problem Mad Men had with their acting styles being hurt by the old system.
Don’t we have ample evidence that the new system is a disaster in the making by Margo Martindale’s 2 minute scene winning alone? That win alone showed the new system failed because it means the voters watched nothing. Everyone ranked her performance in 6th place. She was shocked herself she won. They simply voted for who or what they like meaning the Emmys became the dreaded Oscars! A popularity contest where people have their hired help or bratty kids fill out their ballots.
And I don’t need to go through the list but there were PLENTY of other very shady wins last year besides Martindale. (Cathey, Dinkalage over Banks, Hale over Burgess, etc).
Everything we HATE about the Oscars will now be coming to the Emmys. And no one cares. Sad! Where are you Goldderby journalisters?? We need you!April 16, 2016 at 1:44 pm #1201746643
I would say it’s just a popularity contest, but Veep doesn’t have the biggest audience compared to some of its competitors. Nor does Tranpsarent. Both were dominant of the Comedy categories last year.April 16, 2016 at 2:13 pm #1201746653
Completely agree with this reminder. The old system, whilst with its own flaws, was far better. And also the build up to Emmy night was far more exciting when submissions meant something as well.April 16, 2016 at 7:14 pm #1201746724
I completely agree, they should go back to the tape system. But since they probably won’t, I thing it’s good that they got rid of preferential ballots, which will eliminate most name checking.April 17, 2016 at 9:47 pm #1201746913
Banks losing to Dinklage was the biggest case of a TV actor geting robbed last year . Sad because I don’t think he can win this year.April 17, 2016 at 9:53 pm #1201746914
Does anyone think that they will ever go back to the old system?April 17, 2016 at 11:06 pm #1201746920
Banks losing to Dinklage was the biggest case of a TV actor geting robbed last year . Sad because I don’t think he can win this year.
I think Johnathan Banks can win if he submits “Gloves Off.”
I think they definitely watched SOME of the tapes, like Uzo’s, Jon Hamm’s quietly devastating finale, and Jeffrey Tambor’s wonderful showcase in his episode “The Letting Go.” But refuse to believe any human being could have watched Margo’s 2-minute Americans cameo, and decide that that was better than Cicely Tyson or Rachel Brosnahan’s magnificent work.April 18, 2016 at 4:43 am #1201818177
Luckily for the TV academy, the voting changes just happened to coincide with overdue wins that were largely praised — Hamm, ‘Game of Thrones’, ‘Veep’…April 18, 2016 at 7:33 am #1201818195
Everything we HATE about the Oscars will now be
coming to the Emmys. And no one cares. Sad! Where are you Goldderby
journalisters?? We need you!
I pitched two articles related to this topic (in September and February) and both were rejected.
I would say it’s just a popularity contest, but Veep
doesn’t have the biggest audience compared to some of its competitors.
Nor does Tranpsarent. Both were dominant of the Comedy categories last
It is a popularity of the Television Academy, not the
I thing it’s good that they got rid of preferential
ballots, which will eliminate most name checking.
What makes you
say that? At least the preferential ballot had a guilt factor, as
voters had to rank all nominees in a category and consciously make
judgements about things that they had not seen (and maybe skip the odd
category as a result). Nobody will pay any attention to nominees that
they had not heard of now.
Does anyone think that they will ever go back to the
They make major voting changes every few years, so it
would be a shame if this is where they settle.
I think they definitely watched SOME of the tapes, like Uzo’s, Jon Hamm’s quietly devastating finale, and Jeffrey Tambor’s wonderful showcase in his episode “The Letting Go.”
http://www.goldderby.com/forum/topics/view/14147#post_530312April 18, 2016 at 8:28 am #1201818198
I believe whoever comes after Rosenblum will change this to a different style of voting, probably will make the panels bigger or something.April 18, 2016 at 10:20 am #1201818221
I would say it’s just a popularity contest, but Veep doesn’t have the biggest audience compared to some of its competitors. Nor does Tranpsarent. Both were dominant of the Comedy categories last year.
Of course it was never gonna be like People’s Choice.
There are around 17.000 Emmy voters (and who knows how many of them bother to vote every year in each and every single category since just like Oscars, voting privelege is for life. I’d guess it’s little more than half. ) so ”in theory” even something like HBO’s Looking which only drew 0.1 m per week when it’s on the air (one of the least seen shows in big networks) could have stood a chance if it was seen by right people.
By popularity contest, it means that we will mostly see the similar results as we saw at guilds, just like Oscars. There will hardly be any surprises. Big ratings wouldn’t hurt-unless a voter wants to be edgy and especially avoids to vote for a commercial success- but they have never been the sole factor.
April 18, 2016 at 10:31 am #1201818222
Banks, the poster boy of this kind of whining, shouldn’t had been nominated in the first place for what it is a one guest performance in one episode out an entire season.April 18, 2016 at 10:34 am #1201818224
And while I agree with montana about this all topic, I don’t think Jon Hamm was the ONLY reason why they opted to change the system, therefore I’m not sure how much affect him being gone would have.
With the old system, them watching the tapes, Jeffrey Tambor’s chances would be… what less than %5? He literally did nothing in his overly dramatic submitted episode where he only had 4 minute screentime aside from the obvious woman clothes gimmick.(I don’t know if Emmys ever awarded something this dramatic in comedy category in their history) and of course more and more criticisim from media would be on their way for not awarding his ”career-defining work” and going with something broader like Anthony Anderson’s performance. And Viola Davis? It wasn’t the best in the bunch, but tape system produced weirder things, so it could have happened either way. But no one in Academy’s board regret their decision because of her win, since it gave them the story of the year. And that’s what everyone cares.
They even used panels to determine the nominees between 2006-2009 and I remember reading an article about explaining why they chickened out and stepped back from that where they said ”It’s just easier to explain”
And that’s the truth. No matter what happens, throwing the ball to everyone and not a bunch of mysterious people voting from their home, makes easier for them to get away with the results.
People will start winning because of their health issues, marriage difficulties, stories and they will give good speeches in front of millions, too. And social media will be kept happy.