June 17, 2014 at 6:44 am #319630
I vote for the Critics Choice Award. Over the past week Gold Derby has done a lot of in-depth examination of the TCA Award …
and found shocking things. Like this year how it snubbed Silicon Valley and Masters of Sex — two shows with sky-high scores at Metacritic — but gave a Program of the Year nom to “Sleepy Hollow,” (64 score). Meantime, “Silicon” and “MofS” got multiple CC bids.June 17, 2014 at 7:11 am #319632
Tom you’re not helping yourself by keeping this “war” going, and you’re proving Fienberg right, which I wish you wouldn’t since I don’t like Fienberg. First off, stop going by Metacritic scores. Critics only get the first few episodes of cable shows which represent those Metacritic scores. The scores don’t represent the entire seasons of a show. For broadcast shows they usually only get the pilot, which that 64 represents for “Sleepy Hollow.” Furthermore, “Sleepy Hollow” is nominated for New Program of the Year, not Program of the Year. But I agree that the New Program of the Year category is a mess considering both “True Detective” and “Fargo” are in there even though the TCA considers them mini-series, and the “Sleepy Hollow” nomination is a head scratcher.June 17, 2014 at 7:20 am #319633
Masters of Sex or Silicon Valley got multiple CCTA nominations, but not TCA, just because there are so many more categories at the former. Michael Sheen and Allison Janney are terrific and should be competitive for the wins in their categories, but were either among my five favourite performances on television this season? No, hence why they got Best Actor and Guest Performer in a Drama Series nominations, but not Individual Achievement in Drama.
I vote TCA. It is a lot harder to fault their nominees or say that they have missed someone. The CCTA go out of their way to be weird.June 17, 2014 at 7:30 am #319634
The TCAs, though the CCTAs have honored some worthy contenders that got little notice elsewhere (John Noble, Anna Torv, Busy Phillips). And I don’t know the whole story, but it’s best to just get over the Fienberg shade.June 17, 2014 at 7:36 am #319635
I go with TCA. 20 years in the game with an honorable set of past winners can’t be wrong. Yes, they are secretive and enigmatic, but that doesn’t make them bad and irrellevant .
Not every award show (or award voting body) has to submit to everyones tastes and their predetermined notions of who deserves what and how THEIR awards should be handed out. (I mean, stay out of my Vi-jay-jay).
Like i said all year last year with the Film awards season, people like different things. Diiferent people have different tastes.
The Critics Choice Awards are so random, in both their nominations and award winners. Not to take anything away from them, but they go out of their way to be different. I don’t know whether their goal is to somehow “influence” other awards bodies with their choices or they just want to be different. Don’t get me started with that National Critics Society Awards. Wink.
Sounds contradictory yes, but …
So yah, TCA it is.June 17, 2014 at 7:55 am #319636
I disagree with this thought that honoring a select few rather than opening up to all the different categories. I cite the TCA and their lack of celebrating female performers, the program of the year category, is also BS.
What is random about the Critics Choice, they pretty much match the thoughts of what critcs have said throughout the year about most of the shows good and bad. Sure there are some anamolies, but overall they were a solid list, do they match my nominees, No, but I think they did a good job.
Here is the thing, I get your point Riley, why separate the acting of men and women, but the reson that is done because of inherent misogyny from critics, most of whom are male, and seem to honor male performers. I have to echo Sasha Stone on this one.
In the past 20 years of the TCA Awards, since the TCA honored performances here are the stats:
Comedy 27 of the 85 nominees were women, that’s about 23 percent (if I did my math right).
Jane Kaczmerack has won twice, Tina Fey won once, and Jane Lynch won once. While the number of female nominees has increased the number of winners has not. My money is on Louis C.K. winning again this year.
Drama: 29 of 86 nominees were women, mostly Edie Falco, that’s closer to 25 percent of the nominees since 1996
Edie Falco, Julianna Marguilies (Good Wife), Claire Danes, and Tatiana Maslany have won this award. There are four wins, here too, but by by four different winners.
They will probably pick Cranston or McConaughey this year.
Am I saying my predicted winners are wrong for this year, no, but this group over the years while improving has slighted female performances more than honoring them. I will argue this until I am blue in the face. I am sorry this fact alone is why I pick the Critics Choice.
The Heritage Award is dumb too.June 17, 2014 at 8:13 am #319637
In the last three years, half of the winners and more than half of the nominees have been women. If this trend continues, do you still believe that the categories should be segregated or is past “inherent misogyny from critics” your only issue with the Individual Achievement and TCA Awards?June 17, 2014 at 9:45 am #319638
Anyway historically men get better roles largely due to the fact that most TV creators/producers are men and write what they know. The fact that as Riley points out it’s pretty even now is a good sign of things on TV being increasingly even and TCA doing a good job with noting and celebrating that.June 17, 2014 at 9:52 am #319639
CCTA, and not because of the Fienberg stuff (because I honestly had zero clue who he was until just a week or so ago).
TCA had several chances to reward Buffy and failed. All they handed it was a few nominations and a bullsh*t “Heritage” win. I will give them credit for recently awarding Tatiana Maslany and all the Breaking Bad love, but CCTA has nominated and awarded those as well as other deseving folks like Eden Sher, Emmy Rossum, Garrett Dillahunt, Martha Plimpton, and many more. Also, I have no doubt that they’d have awarded Buffy/Gellar if they had handed out these awards back in the day – so maybe actually CCTA by a landslide.June 17, 2014 at 10:52 am #319640
– I love that the critics choice think outside the box and reward, or at least nominate, people/shows that wouldn´t appear at the bigger awards, even though that sometimes ends up with a Busy Phillips (seriously?).
– I love that the tca combine men, women and supporting into a field called individual achievement. That´s just great because it speaks for the best uhm achievement ha, no matter the popularity and/or screentime. Its also great that they do the program of the year.
I guess my answer is that I respect the tca a little more for reducing everything into the “most deserving”, period. However, I like the critics choice because its always fun to have more categories and nominees per.
—Btw, tca totally screwed up this year by ignoring Masters of Sex in best drama and best new show. I don´t care if they nominated sleepy hollow, I donñt even care to figure put what that is, but MoS DESERVED better.—June 17, 2014 at 10:54 am #319641
TCA has improved because they were called out on it, something Tom pioneered, so their complaining about us folks at goldderby as “morons” or Fienberg do that makes me think they do not respect the input you all have put forth.
I agree they have improved, and won’t slight them for that, but the question Tom posed was TCA or Critics Choice, and that misogyny is part of my reponse, that is their history, and while its in the past it still defines their prganization for many years.
If you want me to go more in depth I will dump on them both for their winners, by going more mainstream. TCA nominated Buffy, and The Wire, but did they ever win drama, no. CCA have been mainstream with drama wins too, but they did pick Community as a winner.
I think both have pros and cons, but if say you like them because “they are different” with one category, they are and they aren’t. SAG lumps lead and supporting together, and the supporting players get snubbed usually (same with TCA). The Globes lump all the TV supporting players into one, and comedic performers usually get snubbed. You know the one category thing is “their thing,” but I am not a fan.June 17, 2014 at 11:05 am #319642
There are more high profile, widely acclaimed female performances now than ten years ago. The lack of female wins hardly proves misogyny. It more so reflects the current nature of TV. People forget that The Wire was not nearly as acclaimed now as it was back then. And it certainly was never popular enough in its day even among critics to win big at the TCAs. There were things like The Sopranos and Lost and The West Wing. It not winning makes sense. And when was ‘Buffy’ ever worthy of winning POY or achievement in drama beyond maybe its second season? TCAs are flawed like every other organization, but the hate is unfounded.June 17, 2014 at 11:17 am #319643
Furthermore, have you looked at the members of the CCA? There’s maybe 6 good critics on that list.June 17, 2014 at 11:17 am #319644
Not even remotely true, Icky!
Helen Hunt, or Julia Louis Dreyfusnever warranted a nomination in 96-97? Hell Seinfeld even got a nomination in 97-98, come on
None of the women from Sex and the City deserved nominations?
Lisa Kudrow, and Jennifer Anniston were not better than Matt LeBlanc?
Patricia Heaton or Doris Roberts over Ray Ramano
Jessica Walter over Jeffrey Tambor?
(to name a few)
I will honestly give their drama nominees more credit, they seemed to hit all the marks, and you are correct their were fewer “acclaimed” women on dramas long ago.
I guess the only one I would cite would be Sandra Oh, for Grey’s Anatomy, but that’s not their cup of tea. Maybe more than one nomination for Lauren Graham, althought that got lost in category confusion.June 17, 2014 at 11:26 am #319645
It’s all up to personal views. I never would have nominated anyone from SatC maybe Nixon. I’m cool with LeBlac over Aniston or Kudrow, because by that time I preferred his performance over those two. I never cared for Hunt on MAY. Tambor was an Emmy contender and a well known vet. None of this proves misosyny. But even if that were the case back then it’s not worth harping about now, especially since there’s been many new members since the late 90’s. In general they’ve done in the performance categories in recent years no matter the gender. But there will always be unfortunate snubs.