Academy Award for Best Actress nominations 2009-2013(Elimination Game), Saturday Night Live (Season 39) Thread, What is your favourite Best-Actress winning performance in last 8 years?, TO WONG FOO, THANKS FOR EVERYTHING! JULIE NEWMAR - Who would you nominate?, What were the Best Directed Comedy and Drama Episodes of this Season, 2013 Broadway Season and Tony Awards Discussion, Mad Men (SEASON 6) Thread, Academy Award for Best Actress Winners 1990-2013 (Elimination Game), 11th "An Irish Boy" Stage Awards, Goldderby Q&A Thread (Pt. 13)
Welcome - Make Your Predictions! Give Us Feedback!, Oscars, Golden Globes and Film Awards, Primetime Emmys, Daytime Emmys, Tony Awards, Grammys and Music Awards, General Discussion: All Non-Award Topics, Games! Games! Let's Play Games!, Report SPAM Here, Polls! Polls! Who Should Give Back Their Oscar? , Daytime Emmys Judging 2012, Daytime Emmys Judging - 2011
Advertisement
| May 26th 2012, 10:34 |
|
|
|
Our senior editor Andrew Pickett has written a thought-provoking article on modernday Emmy voting vs. the way they did things prior to the year 2000. What do YOU think the TV academy should do? Remember, ATAS leaders read our articles and follow this forum closely so your opinion will be heard -- READ: http://www.goldderby.com/television/news/2878/emmys-emmy-awards-voting-winners-tv-news-13579.html  |
| May 26th 2012, 10:48 |
|
|
|
Go back to the sequestered viewing panels. I've never like the home-juding panels. |
| May 26th 2012, 12:50 |
|
|
|
I have been encouraging the return to viewing panels since the tragedy of Felicity Huffman winning in 2005 and the failure that was the Emmys of 2007. It's obvious that voters have gradually stopped watching episodes over the years and voting based on names, reputation and big blockbuster movies instead of actual artistic merit. Tom, I hope you can use your industry cred to make this happen, or they might as well abolish the episode system altogether.
2013 Emmys FYC
Amy Poehler, Jane Krakowski, Matthew Perry, Martha Plimpton, Louis CK, Nick Offerman, Adam Scott, Garret Dillahunt |
| May 26th 2012, 13:02 |
|
|
Saying voters don't watch tapes anymore is pretty blanket and probably not true. There have been enough surprise winners these past few years to prove that many voters still watch. I prefer the pre-2000 system, but nothing is perfect. There were many unworthy victories before 2000. Melissa McCarthy type wins have been happening for decades. As long as they stay away from the "blue ribbon" shit I'm cool. |
|
| May 26th 2012, 13:03 |
|
|
|
I said they were gradually starting to not watch taes, it's obvious that some (probably most) still do, but I'm sure that pretty soon many voters will realize that they can get away without it.
2013 Emmys FYC
Amy Poehler, Jane Krakowski, Matthew Perry, Martha Plimpton, Louis CK, Nick Offerman, Adam Scott, Garret Dillahunt |
| May 26th 2012, 13:32 |
|
|
|
I know this tape system is in place because viewing entire seasons can be so time-consuming, but I like Mark Harris's nominations proposal in this article: Let the nominators do their best (and worst) — but create a separate panel of smart TV professionals (and, yes, maybe even critics and bloggers) with the power to add one or two nominees per category if they feel a worthy show or actor has been excluded. |
| May 26th 2012, 13:40 |
|
|
|
I completely agree with the notion that critics should be voting for Emmys (and Oscars, Tonys, etc), since they are paid to watch every episode of many shows on television. They are the ones that can can recognize a truly award-worthy performance.
2013 Emmys FYC
Amy Poehler, Jane Krakowski, Matthew Perry, Martha Plimpton, Louis CK, Nick Offerman, Adam Scott, Garret Dillahunt |
| May 26th 2012, 16:01 |
|
|
|
sorry, sorcery, but that's crazy. That defeats the whole definition of the Emmys. Being a journalst, I can freelay say "screw the journalists!" They have no place judging an industry peer-group award. Look how they **** up their own awards. In years past, TV critics whined, fumed and harrumphed about the Emmys failing to recognize "The Wire" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," then they snubbed them too. TCA members never gave those shows real prizes — just handed them that bullshit "Heritage Award" after they went off the air and failed to win best drama series or program of the year. "Battlestar Galactica" didn't win a significate TCA Award until it soared OFF THE AIR. So it's ludicrous to let the TV critics screw up the Emmys too. The Emmys are already screwed up. |
| May 26th 2012, 16:07 |
|
|
|
^ I agree with Tommy. |
| May 26th 2012, 16:34 |
|
|
|
I would keep at home judging, as it allows voters to watch episodes at their leisure and lets them have the time to weigh their options before voting. However, I would increase the number of episodes for acting categories from 1 to 3. Anyone can have one good showcase. Having 3 is more representative of an entire seasson's work, which is what the Emmy should ultimately represent.
Emmy 2013 FYC: Jonathan Banks, Breaking Bad; Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Game of Thrones; Jennifer Carpenter, Dexter; Katheryn Winnick, Vikings |
| May 26th 2012, 18:33 |
|
|
|
I'd keep the at-home judging system intact. There's no guarantee that going back to sequestered voting will produce the "right" nominees. Is this just to choose the winners? Would the popular vote still choose the nominees? Or top ten lists again? In those cases, shows like "Community," "Sons of Anarchy," and "Southland" might not even make it to the stage where voters can acknowledge them. And this system produced "Emmy nominee Kevin James" now and for always, so I'm skeptical of its overall effectiveness. Subjective voting will never please everyone, but I think that most dilligent voters still watch the tapes and try to make informed decisions. If they can do this on their own schedules, I'd keep things as they are. If a significant pattern emerges where awful wins like Melissa McCarthy's become the norm, then it might be time to consider some rule changes.
|
| May 26th 2012, 21:22 |
|
|
|
Interesting article. A few yrs. ago I would've blindly said CHANGE!, but since 2010, the voters have shown they are aware of what's happening on TV and TRY to make an effort to infuse new blood from time to time. So I don't have an issue w/the nomination process now like I did before tht year. As for the winners, it is honestly 50/50. You either get wins like Melissa McCarthy or Kyra Sedgwick, so I agree w/you that the acting races there isn't the perfect way to get consistency. As for series, it's pretty much like the Oscars w/those. I don't think we'll see the alternative get a turn at the win, unless the collective voting body aren't over the series of the now ("Mad Men" and "Modern Family"). |
| May 26th 2012, 23:19 |
|
|
|
Please God, go back to the viewing panels. I've voted in both systems, and there's no comparison. Yes, the at-home voting is convenient, but it's also at the mercy of your schedule. You have an hour free, so you pop in an episode of "Mad Men." Then you might not have another hour free for a few days and then you pop in an episode of "Breaking Bad." Then you may be busy for a week before you can pop in an episode of "Homeland." And you think -- what was that episode of "Mad Men" about again? It sounds perverse, but there's nothing like sitting/trapped in a room of your peers, watching all comedy series nominees back-to-back, aware of the audience laughter (or lack thereof) around you while gauging your own response. I recall one year when an episode of "Family Guy" absolutely killed in the room, thanks in part to the audience response, a kind of experience that you could never get at home. In addition, the comparisons are so much easier when the nominees are so fresh in your mind. Please bring the panels back. |
| May 27th 2012, 08:23 |
|
|
|
How long did the judging panels last? Weren't they held over a weekend? How would the Drama Series panel sit through 36 hours of shows? I think Billy West once described the panels as "basically an open bar and a bunch of half-watched tapes." |
| May 27th 2012, 13:13 |
|
|
|
Hasn't it been years since the truly last huge surprise winner? Even Sedgewick, although episode choice helped, it was a case where vote splitting between so many strong nominees might have helped a lot.You could say outside factors helped just as much episode that year. Cranston is the last nominee/winner to come out of nowhere, and since then, he became a three time winner, so even in his case you have to wonder how much external influence helped (Tom even predicted him). I agree that if they bring the panels back it should really be more than one episode, at least two, in case three each takes too long. The "Community" and "Parks And Recreation" fans should see how much this would've helped their shows, at least in writing and acting categories. |
Facebook Timeline
