Home Forums Television The new voting system- The Good and the Bad, what we learned

The new voting system- The Good and the Bad, what we learned

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
Created
1 year ago
Last Reply
1 year ago
17
( +1 hidden )
replies
786
views
6
users
8
5
1
  • montana82
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201925687

    As a vocal detractor of the new system, I was pleased to see some positive signs that may emerge with this new system. Perhaps getting rid of rankings and going strictly to popular vote was the reason for this. There are still several procedures the Academy MUST work out (IE. Guest stars must be in more than 10 mins of their episodes for a start) but I was happy to see the elimination of tapes lead to some inspired thinking by the voters.

    What we can now see as a result:

    1. Tapes absolutely do not matter. Anyone placing stock in them are barking up the wrong tree. There is no way a Maslany, Malek, McKinnon, Mendelson, Scolari, Poehler/Fey, Martindale or Anderson would have won in a tape system. And who knows if a Courtney B Vance or Sterling Brown triumpth with a smaller pool of voters. Voters ignored classic Emmy bait tapes from Emmy favs like Janney, Davis, and Burrell. Some examples last year being used as the tapes mattering like Regina King were proven false because King won again with a nothing tape proving they like her and nothing more.

    Ultimately I think this is a good thing. Makes voters spread the wealth and not fall trap to shows/nominees who seem to be tailor making episodes to check Emmy voter boxes.

    2. Go with the choice that would inspire the most passion in a popular vote. I predicted Maslany to win because I just didn’t see where the passion for a Wright, Danes, Davis, or Henson win would come from. Their shows are old news. I had Malek because I knew there was just no passion behind giving it to Spacey for that performance. Louie Anderson obviously another passion pick. And Dreyfuss and Tambor simply have no challenger with the right type of passion to take them down one on one.

    3. In categories with no strong front runner, side with a respected well liked actors actor. I am proud that I correctly predicted Ben Mendelson for his nothing season 2 performance when most had him as a non factor. I came to the conclusion he would win by eliminating all the so called front runners. None of them seemed right. No way was pretty boy Kit Harrington going to be seen as an acceptable choice by snobby voters. And even if he was, would he and the more respected 2 time winning co star Peter Dinkalage be able to avoid a vote split? No way. Than I ruled out Jon Voight knowing his pro Donald Trump views would never win him votes. Those looking to give House of Cards a win would have looked to Actor, Actress, or Guest not this one. So that left Banks/Mendelson. Support for both shows seems to be about the same and Mendelson just has that snobbish actors appeal to him.

    4. Being out there during voting can now help you like Oscar campaigning. Before it didn’t matter if you were present in the news during voting because the small panels voted simply on the tape. Did it hurt Peter Scolari that all the trades reported on him being a replacement nominee? Nope. Did Ghostbusters/Hilary Clinton help Kate McKinnon? Yup. Mr. Robot having its second season airing during voting could have helped Malek. I would recommend nominees campaign like the Oscars after nominations are announced. It can make the difference now. The Goldderby bump is real too!

    5. Being well liked also helps in an non front running category. Margo Martindale and Regina King repeated despite not being overly impressive in open categories and the fact they work on multiple shows and are well liked certainly doesn’t hurt.

    6. Never bet against Maggie Smith. Thankfully we won’t have to next year.

    7. Transformative performances were preferred. Louie Anderson, Tambor, Maslany, Malek

    And now the 2 big negatives I see with the system:

    1. Lesser known actors with superior tapes but not much buzz all lost to weaker more well known contenders- IE. Maura Tierney, Olivia Colman, Melora Hardin.

    2. Now that this new system is place, the nominees whose shows are losing passion are screwed and will likely have no chance to win (IE. House of Cards, Empire). You better win before your show loses it’s buzz or you never will.

    My suggestion-

    They need to do something about lesser seen voter categories like Guest or even some of the Supporting TV movie categories. Perhaps smaller panel voting systems so truly deserving winners can emerge there and a time limit for Guest stars to prevent these Martindale wins from happening.

    • This topic was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  montana82.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  montana82.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  montana82.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  montana82.
    Reply
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201925700

    You are one of the most thoughtful voters around here and truly know  how everything works. Shame that I can’t upvote.

    These were the best batch of acting winners in a while. Upsets happened. But most of the creative arts winners still sucked and skew towards popular. By definition, no system can give all the nominees(seen/unseen, popular/unpopular) an equal chance like tape system did. Because ”in theory” watching something before voting is the best option there is. But then, I look back at all the winners in lead actor/actress in drama categories in recent memory. And oh my god, almost all of them were above 45, doing typical Emmy bait. I know ”vote at home” system brought some younger voters in the play, but I suspect it still skewed older. I was actually always surprised by the fact that they were able to find all those volunteers year after year to watch those things and vote without any reward in return. We could never know what was going on behind the scenes, but maybe the amount of people who wanted to volunteer became so few or unreliable(due to always being the same voters) that they had to retire it.

    Maybe they should put up a rule that says every single voter must  participate in voting for the second round in every five year or so, otherwise their membership would expire. It may sound harsh, but it’s actually a perfect way to eliminate the disinterested voters who don’t watch TV/don’t care enough to  vote every year but only vote when their friends are in contention. Would really make sure that every single voters voice is heard when winners are chosen. And it’d be only 6 hours from their lives. No big deal.

    Also don’t see a reason why plurality vote can’t be adapted to the tape system. Because ranking the nominees was probably the main reason that prevented inspiring things happen and almost always made the ”consensus/palatable” choices like Ty Burrell or Jim Parsons prevail.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Roney Moore.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Roney Moore.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Roney Moore.
    ReplyCopy URL
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201925705

    On another note, I’m glad that we can put that SAG/Emmy correlation to bed(to some extent). I always wanted to believe that Emmy voters aren’t as terrible as those sheep group, but last year really left me hopeless. But now we know even when the conditions are same(vote for one person as winner) they can go completely different ways. (Maslany wasn’t even a nominee at SAG.)

    Making inspiring things happen under pure popularity vote is more impressive and promising than making them happen under the tape system, because no matter what happens; those voters will be the ones that are in charge of everything and learn that they are not as clueless as we’d thought is good news.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Roney Moore.
    ReplyCopy URL
    GusCruz
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 26th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201925789

    It worked, let’s all agree on that. I do think the new voting could, in some spots, show a distortion in actual preference when vote-splitting is real. I don’t think it’s as obvious in the acting categories as it is in the technical and writing/directing categories. But the results we got on Sunday were exciting, which is all we can ask for.

    With regards to rules, I do think they need to stop the two-actors-winning-as-one crap from EVER happening again. It’s not fair and it’s stupid. I also think the qualifying rule for the guest categories is flawed — arguing that Peter MacNicol wasn’t a guest on the last season of Veep goes against common sense. They need to rethink that.

    Other than that, I’m ready for the new surprises next year will bring us already.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201935822

    Wrote this as a response in another thread, but it fits better here and it echoes some conclusions by montana82:

    I think that people like Ellen Burstyn and Kathy Bates are doomed under the current system. Kevin Spacey is largely as well. These are people who are well-liked by everyone and are always great, but everyone knows that. I would compare how it took Meryl Streep so long to win again and the assumption was that voters assumed that she had won more often than she had. Everything is going to have to line up just right for these people to win again. For Kevin Spacey, that will be the final season of House of Cards if the show is still relevant then and if an unstoppable performance is not in the way and if Netflix properly campaigns him.

    Maggie Smith should be in this category, but I think that this rule happened to be negated by other factors, specifically that she was the only acting nominee for the final season of Downton Abbey, so all of that show’s support pooled here. Roney mentions Game of Thrones winning writing, but I think that it is important to distinguish the acting categories from all of the others. Writers only had one branch category where they could vote Game of Thrones, as did costumers, sound mixers and what have you. I think that if we had several writing categories, maybe for season/episode/scene/dialogue, then I would not expect Game of Thrones to sweep them. Conversely, if we did not have supporting actor/supporting actress/guest actor, but just had a general best acting category, I would predict Game of Thrones to win that.

    So I think that lightweight performances riding the coattails of their series to acting wins is over (and was just a 2015 thing as a result of that one-time system). Tony Hale will never win again; Anna Chlumsky and Michael Kelly will never win; Max von Sydow never could have won.

    Just like with the tapes, I do not think that there are any rules with this system that are going to pay off every time, but I think there are certain types of performances that are going to win more often than others.

    The flip-side of Bates and Spacey losing is that the actors’ branch is partial to recognizing under-appreciated character actors. Regina King, Margo Martindale and Ben Mendelsohn are prime examples. And this also brings me to another “rule” in my convoluted thought process, which is that the Emmys no longer care what year it is exactly; they only care what the general time period is or what the role is. The thing about King, Martindale and Mendelsohn is that even though they have been working forever, they are recent discoveries in terms of awards, which distinguishes them from the likes of Ellen Burstyn. Mendelsohn and Tatiana Maslany are key to this theory. Nobody think that this was their best season, but I think that the Emmys are voting for their roles, so I expect both to repeat next year and think that both would have won in 2015 if we had the current system then.

    I am less sure about Kate McKinnon having won in 2015 because there are good reasons to think that she surged between 2015 and 2016.

    Also, I have not fully formulated my thoughts on this, but I think that people like Jonathan Banks and Tituss Burgess are occupying some weird middle ground where they are giving performances that should theoretically generate passion, but they happen to be giving them on shows that the Emmy voters like enough to use to fill out their ballots, but are not passionate about. So I think that Banks and Burgess are being lumped in with their shows that are good-not-great in the eyes of voters and would be better off if their shows were just complete not-factors like Bloodline and Baskets.

    I think that Rami Malek is among the most vulnerable of this year’s winners going forward because he is not a character actor. He is not a character actor for whom the industry is finally getting the proper venue to pay their respects. And unlike Tatiana Maslany, a fellow fresh face that the academy got to discover, his popularity is somewhat tied to his series. If Mr. Robot goes down, it might drag him with it. I am wary of that coinciding with a final-season surge for Kyle Chandler, who better fits the bill of this year’s winners anyway and most closely matches Margo Martindale as a long-working character actor that is still in the honeymoon period at the Emmys, even though he is in a different role than for which he won.

    I think that Jeffrey Tambor and Julia Louis-Dreyfus are just too big. Louis-Dreyfus is her series in a way that Peter Dinklage is not. And you could sooner say that Transparent is riding Tambor’s coattails than the other way around.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Teridax
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 12th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201935846

    Wrote this as a response in another thread, but it fits better here and it echoes some conclusions by montana82:

    I think that Rami Malek is among the most vulnerable of this year’s winners going forward because he is not a character actor. He is not a character actor for whom the industry is finally getting the proper venue to pay their respects. And unlike Tatiana Maslany, a fellow fresh face that the academy got to discover, his popularity is somewhat tied to his series. If Mr. Robot goes down, it might drag him with it. I am wary of that coinciding with a final-season surge for Kyle Chandler, who better fits the bill of this year’s winners anyway and most closely matches Margo Martindale as a long-working character actor that is still in the honeymoon period at the Emmys, even though he is in a different role than for which he won.

    I think that Jeffrey Tambor and Julia Louis-Dreyfus are just too big. Louis-Dreyfus is her series in a way that Peter Dinklage is not. And you could sooner say that Transparent is riding Tambor’s coattails than the other way around.

    I don’t think Rami will win again next year, although depending how Designated Survivor (and the clout 24 previous winner Kiefer Sutherland has) is received by the TV Academy, he could even be snubbed entirely! I think Kyle Chandler or Liev Schrieber are the 2 safest bets, for now.

    I love how you called out Transparent riding the coattails of Jeffrey Tambor! Is it any coincidence that the episode Jill Soloway won her 2nd Directing Emmy for “Man on the Land” was also the episode Tambor won for as well?! I still think Tambor will win next year, for the bottle episode ONLY about Maura called “Elizah.” Don’t forget that Maura is also the shows ONLY likable character, which definitely helps Tambor with Emmy voters, you can be certain. 😉

    ReplyCopy URL
    moviefan61794
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 17th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201935864

    Maura is not likeable, but that’s why I like the character and Tambor’s portrayal so much.

    These are really insightful thoughts above. Even if I didn’t agree with all of this year’s winners, I was genuinely excited and shocked in a positive way for the first time in a long time, so while there are still a few kinks in the system, I think the Emmys are on the right path.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201936062

    Maggie Smith should be in this category, but I think that this rule happened to be negated by other factors, specifically that she was the only acting nominee for the final season of Downton Abbey, so all of that show’s support pooled here. Roney mentions Game of Thrones winning writing, but I think that it is important to distinguish the acting categories from all of the others. Writers only had one branch category where they could vote Game of Thrones, as did costumers, sound mixers and what have you. I think that if we had several writing categories, maybe for season/episode/scene/dialogue, then I would not expect Game of Thrones to sweep them. Conversely, if we did not have supporting actor/supporting actress/guest actor, but just had a general best acting category, I would predict Game of Thrones to win that.  

    But if we’re still at the ”That was the only place they could award the show they like” standard, where did the passion factor go? There were so many shows that got multiple noms yet shut out in all races this year, that DA being one of them wouldn’t have surprised anyone. That was also the only category that actors could have rewarded The Affair and UnReal, granted those do not have not as much viewers but if they made it this far, besting 170 other actresses on the ballot, they must have been watched by a decent amount of voters. And both of them fit the criteria of character actors who are new to this game.

    Even if the writers can’t get behind The Americans or Mr.Robot, who can? Even if they preferred GoT as the overall achievement, that one branch category was the only other drama category they were allowed to vote and the one where they could have made a difference. No reason to check off the same thing twice unless that is the only thing you watch among the nominees or you feel too passionate about it. They knew the same guys who are the head producers also wrote that episode anyway.

    These were the types of wins that made me wary that people like Spacey and Wright were still more closer to the finish line than we want to believe (def top 3.) and will always be a threat to win.

    Like you said, there will probably never be a typical formula that we could use in every year. I am not gonna predict every young acclaimed newcomer just because Maslany and Malek won as both had distinguished factors going for them so many others won’t have. But I’m also not gonna predict every Oscar winner who is in a baity project. So what we’ll get is something between Globes and SAG which is probably the best we could hope for from Emmys in acting categories I guess. Panels are probably still the best and only way to judge tech categories though. They can’t just look at their titles and decide which has the better sound editing.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Roney Moore.
    ReplyCopy URL
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201936069

    Yeah. Writers just try to uncover the worst about every character in Transparent. Not sure if it’s always a good idea, but Maura is no exception.

    I love how you called out Transparent riding the coattails of Jeffrey Tambor! Is it any coincidence that the episode Jill Soloway won her 2nd Directing Emmy for “Man on the Land” was also the episode Tambor won for as well?

    I think it was a coincidence and what he meant was probably him playing that character was what grabbed people’s interest about that show in the first place and his continuous acclaim always brings more interest to the show itself.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Roney Moore.
    ReplyCopy URL
    M
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 5th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201936077

    I think that people like Ellen Burstyn and Kathy Bates are doomed under the current system. Kevin Spacey is largely as well. These are people who are well-liked by everyone and are always great, but everyone knows that. I would compare how it took Meryl Streep so long to win again and the assumption was that voters assumed that she had won more often than she had. Everything is going to have to line up just right for these people to win again.

    I easily predict Bates missing out in her category of Limited Series Supporting Actress for a nomination next year for Horror Story. Hoping Disjointed is enough to get her in Comedy Series Lead Actress. I do believe she has at least one more Emmy before their done awarding her if not done ever nominating her.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201936295

    Why would Kathy Bates miss out on a nomination? My point was that people like her will always make the nomination when people have to check six names, but I do not expect her ever to generate the passion to get people to mark her as the one winner.

    But if we’re still at the ”That was the only place they could award the show they like” standard, where did the passion factor go? There were so many shows that got multiple noms yet shut out in all races this year, that DA being one of them wouldn’t have surprised anyone. That was also the only category that actors could have rewarded The Affair and UnReal, granted those do not have not as much viewers but if they made it this far, besting 170 other actresses on the ballot, they must have been watched by a decent amount of voters.

    I think that Downton Abbey doing so poorly in the acting nominations was something of a fluke as a result of the show being old and off the air. But nostalgia kicked in when it came time to vote for the winners and reignited the passion that previously got this show as many as six performances nominated at a time and three SAG ensemble wins to date.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201936526

    Why would it be older news than Homeland, HoC or even Bloodline? It had more heat than the previous two years it was nominated for and they had been campaigning hard for the final season just before the voting began(which paid off in other categories) and June was closer to show’s final date than August. And the same argument could have been used for The Good Wife as the perennial acting favorite in its final season, but weird things happen.

    Both of last years SAG TV Ensemble winners resulted with a total of one acting nomination the following year. That is probably a record.

    Although that win in particular might have backfired in a way that actors growing tired of the show and not feel passionate enough to nominate its actors again. But after the category had been shaped the way it was; people who do not care for GoT and do not know what UnReal and The Affair is about had no choice but go for a performance most familiar to them. Which promises trouble for the future.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Roney Moore.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Roney Moore.
    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201936529

    Why would it be older news than Homeland, HoC or even Bloodline?

    Because it was older 😉

    The Good Wife was snubbed in supporting and was not a SAG favourite.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Roney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 7th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201936848

    Those two sentences do not sit well together. If it was older, why was it a SAG favorite? Did it get older in six months?

    And since we’ve been discussing this for a quite a while and our posts are quite long, we forgot the thing that started the conversation. So we agree that people who win at the guilds, the most populist choices will still have the upperhand over lower seen shows in this system and they will always be in the top two-three at worst? This Maggie Smith argument seems like something we’d have said before the ceremony about Spacey’s situation. Actors’ favorite show+2 time SAG winning role+Emmyless. Not so much changed then. And he’d suddenly be a threat again once Malek buzz ends. Not Rhys, Chandler or any other.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Roney Moore.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Roney Moore.
    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1201936913

    Those two sentences do not sit well together. If it was older, why was it a SAG favorite? Did it get older in six months?

    Yes, but it is a factor how people vote differently when they are choosing nominees versus winners.

    I am a little confused by the second part of your post, but I would say that Kyle Chandler is ahead of Kevin Spacey. I think that Maggie Smith was just a special case for reasons stated.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Hunter-ish - Nov 23, 2017
Television
Dustin ... - Nov 22, 2017
Television