August 9, 2015 at 5:20 am #357299
”In the Oscars voters are asked to list up to five names, ranked in order of preference. The Academy instructs voters to ‘follow their hearts’ because the voting process doesn’t penalize for picking eccentric choices
A magic number is devised for each award category. This number is calculated by taking the total number of ballots received for that category and dividing it by the number of possible nominees plus one.
The magic number is important because as soon as a potential nominee reaches that number they automatically become an official nominee. And so, the counting begins…”
If you’re not familiar with Oscar voting system you can read more about the process in here;
Now, let’s get to the Emmys.
I think this change could be an answer to our requests and can save the Emmys from perennial nominees from same shows who actually does nothing worthy in that particular season, but keeps getting nominated as long as the show goes on. Because let’s admit it, no voter does watch enough of TV to actually fill his/her list to 6 names in every category. I believe even some people in here would find that task to hard.(Some posters in here admitted that they name-checked some celebs they love in small categories at the GoldDerby Awards because they couldn’t find enough names to fill that category, even though we could only vote for 3 name in every category.) After some point, they need to include some names they’re familiar with even though they haven’t watched their show, or one or two random choices. Of course they don’t have to vote for exact 6 person, but you know, after you’ve given someone a privilege, you can’t blame them to use it to the last.
For example, I don’t think Jim Carter, Don Cheadle were anybodys #1 choices on their ballot this year, maybe they were at like 4 or 5 in a filler position, solely because there weren’t many recognizable names in that category for every voter. But both got nominated because apperantly they have collected enough of those filler votes.
And remember, Emmys have double more voters in acting branch then the Oscars. So if some voters tend to place their friends in high places that wouldn’t change anything important in the big picture.
Actually maybe that was the reason why so many child actors and/or new faces have became an Oscar nominee sometimes even after their first work. But it’s so much harder in the Emmys because you need to be on so many peoples radar to became an Emmy nominee.
What do you all think? Do you think if system would have been made this year, would we still see Jeff Daniels, Mayim Bialik or Edie Falco among the nominees or could have they replaced by someone like Ellie Kemper or Gina Rodriguez?August 9, 2015 at 4:35 pm #357301
It’s an interesting question.
Chris has said that the GD nominations are much better when we can only select three people to nominate because only the nominees with passion get in.
In theory, a ranked ballot would kill some of the perennial name-check nominees.August 9, 2015 at 4:53 pm #357302
I dunno, we have no idea really who does have passionate fans, except (probably) if they win multiple times.
Maybe secretly there are tons of voters who would still rank Daniels/Bialik/Falco super highly and they would have gotten in every year that they did.August 9, 2015 at 6:01 pm #357303
How would that prevent the perennial nominees? And, in TV world, why are perennial nominees so bad? The Emmys are meant to reward the best seasons of television per year, and if something or someone are that good that often they should get mulitple nominations/wins.August 9, 2015 at 7:08 pm #357304
I’m speaking of perennial nominees in the sense that they are just name-checked. The idea is that they would place near the bottom of a ranked ballot because they don’t have the passion, allowing them to get snubbed, and fresher contenders could break through.
Believe me — you don’t have to explain to me the merits of awarding someone over and over if they’re the best in their category. Bryan Cranston won my personal award five times, and JLD has won four.August 11, 2015 at 11:48 am #357305
That’d be awesome.
It would definitely increase the chances of child actors and talented no-names who have made a splash in the previous year.
I mean people like Kiernan Shipka and Maisie Williams gave more memorable, hard-working performances over the years than Abigail Breslin, Quwenzhane Wallis etc and these girls are from shows which are seriously on the Emmys radar.
It’s hard to believe but despite of dozens of extra categories in nearly every category, it’s so much harder to snag an Emmy nom. than an Oscar nom. and that is the main reason why.
But Emmys are improving nonetheless. Yes, they still have some issues to fix but a few years ago we wouldn’t have seen names like Finn Wittrock, Richard Cabral, Tatiana Maslany, Niecy Nash in the nomination list. Academy President said that with the new online voting system; participation to this year has increased to double digits, and that is a good start.August 13, 2015 at 9:02 pm #357306
How would that prevent the perennial nominees? And, in TV world, why are perennial nominees so bad? The Emmys are meant to reward the best seasons of television per year, and if something or someone are that good that often they should get mulitple nominations/wins.
I 100% agree with you. It’s almost like some members here (two in particular who complain about this all the time) do not understand that TV is a serial format where the same cast and crew are going to be doing their jobs over multiple seasons and episodes, as opposed to 90 minutes or 2 hours, like a movie. And these same members seem to think the Emmy’s should be like the Oscars where someone can only be awarded/nominated once for their work and that is it. I do not understand that mindset at all.
I do not think perennial nominees are all that bad at all. Yes, there are a couple of nominees who may be nominated multiple times and may not be worthy of various nominations, but for the most part mutiple nominees are nominated/rewarded because they deserve it. I know it is a shocking concept to some, but if someone is the best in their craft over multiple years, then they should be nominated over the course of multiple years for their work.
The Emmy’s are not perfect by any means, but I think they get it right more times than not. And with the staggering amount of content across various platforms these days, not everyone we like or want is going to be nominated. That is just the nature of the beast.
And some of these people also tend to forget or ignore the fact that character actors get nominated all the time, especially in the supporting categories and guest categories. Making a statement that the likes of Fin Wittrock, Niecy Nash, Richard Cabral, or Tatiana Maslany would not have been nominated years ago is just plain wrong. 100% wrong actually.
Yes, A list actors do earn nominations and wins, but several character actors have also. And unlike some here, I have no problem with worthy perennial nominees. If they are the best at what they do, then why should they not be nominated multiple times for their work? I do not get why that is a bad thing.August 14, 2015 at 7:56 am #357307
Oh, come on. We’re talking about people like Don Cheadle and Jim Carter who does particularly nothing and keeps getting nominated year after year .No one is referring to JLD or Cranston.How could they have been snubbed with any system while their shows are academys favourite and they continously giving great performances that all media talking about. Perennial nominess are good thing as long as they’re deserving. And the chances of character actors that you mentioned would increase if this system would be invented, you know. It’s not so hard to understand. Only the people with passion will get nominated. And we all know that NO ONE name-checked Richard Cabral, he got nominated miraculously because voters have watched and liked him on the show. And Maslany would have gotten nominated earlier if this system would have been made a few years ago.
I really don’t understand why anyone would vote for “No, that’d be awful.”
To be honest, it is idiotic to even make a poll about it. How come ranking the names from most deserving to not-that-much deserving could be a bad thing for anyone?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.