Home Forums Television So why did they eliminate the tapes and category panels?

So why did they eliminate the tapes and category panels?

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
Created
1 year ago
Last Reply
1 year ago
18
replies
768
views
9
users
6
3
2
  • RobertPius
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 22nd, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201904232

    What is the official explanation? I should know this by now but someone asked me and I couldn’t totally explain it.

    old news I know but give me a brief explanation so I’m prepared next time.

    Reply
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201904267

    Money was one thing. It costs less to throw up everything online than to send out thousands of DVDs and even facilitate balloting.

    Transparency was another. Emmys being decided by mere dozens of select voters was curious to some and unnecessarily secretive. So now everyone votes and everyone knows it, so nobody has any questions about how things are decided.

    The Emmys are always changing. The Television Academy is hyper aware of how it is being perceived and is on a endless quest to improve itself. Opening up voting was an extra significant change, but every year, categories are expanded, merged, voted on by different branches and so on. This change was specifically intended to combat the Emmys’ tendency to repeat their winners and award the wrong people. Not relying so much on tapes allows for external factors like those to play greater roles. Jon Hamm winning was exactly what they wanted from the new system. Ironically, this new system is probably more prone to repeats than the old system, so we will see further changes or maybe even a straight reversion in the next few years.

    Consider what happened with the stunt categories. Last year, they opened up voting to the acting branch and the nominees became more Emmy-mainstream than ever. The stunt branch must have revolted, so voting went back to just the stunt branch after only a year of them trying out the new system.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Someonelikeme
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201904289

    Are all acting nominees actually voters themselves?

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201904292

    I would assume so, as the Television Academy is more inclusive than its film equivalent.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Someonelikeme
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201904387

    That’s what I figured. Thanks Demonhog.

    ReplyCopy URL
    dsps84
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 18th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201904567

    They changed the system so Jon Hamm could finally win.

    I’m kidding, but seriously, I don’t think he would have won under the old system.

    ReplyCopy URL
    GusCruz
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 26th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201904581

    They changed the system so Jon Hamm could finally win.

    I’m kidding, but seriously, I don’t think he would have won under the old system.

    He did have a good tape — some even argued his was the best of the bunch. I do think he’d have won regardless of the system.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Lord Freddy Blackfyre
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201904585

    Jon Hamm didn’t have any competence, he’d won with any system

    ReplyCopy URL
    jjjmoss
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 2nd, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201904590

    I think he has tons of competence, actually.

    ReplyCopy URL
    RobertPius
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 22nd, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201907218

    Thanks Demonhog! Very informative.

    ReplyCopy URL
    helmetz
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    Nov 6th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201907546

    I totally understand why they eliminated the panel system, but God it was fun. And instructive. There’s nothing like seeing writing nominees back-to-back-to back to really get to the heart of what was the best written script in any given year.
    Yes, the demographics of the panel system skewed older. You had to give up one or two days cooped up in a hotel room to watch the nominees, and sometimes only retirees had the time to do that. And that demo did work against more “out there” scripts.
    I recall one year when “Family Guy” was in contention for Comedy Writing, and there was a horribly tasteless joke about John McCain that was nonetheless hilarious, and, when I laughed out loud, the glares I got from the AARP members around me were withering.
    But in a strange way, I miss that kind of experience.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201908143

    @helmetz, unrelated, but when you vote for the winners in the writing categories, does it list the names of the writers or is it like the nominating ballots that only have episode titles?

    ReplyCopy URL
    helmetz
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    Nov 6th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201908152

    Just episode titles. No writers names are listed on the ballot, but we see their names of course when we screen the episode.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201908155

    Ah, thanks very much. Very curious to see how this affects American Crime Story.

    ReplyCopy URL
    GusCruz
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 26th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201908268

    Mandel should’ve named “Kissing Your sister” the way he originally intended: “Doc”.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Dustin ... - Nov 22, 2017
Television
Hunter-ish - Nov 20, 2017
Television