How long did the judging panels last? Weren't they held over a weekend?
Yes, they were held over a weekend at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills. Some panels were easier than others. Comedy Series was a breeze. You watch 5 22-minute episodes. You laugh, you vote, you leave. Drama took twice as long (5 48-minute episodes, so it was a full day). I was the dunce. For several years, I judged Writing for a TV Movie or Miniseries. So if one writer wrote the entire mini-series, you had to watch THE WHOLE THING. That usually took the entire weekend. Still, I'd do it again if it meant getting rid of the at-home system.
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.
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.
Eh. The nominees and winners would definitely look better if "journalists" were invited into the mix. Maybe not much better, but definitely better. Neither 'Buffy' nor 'Galatica' ever really deserved series wins (maybe 'Galatica' for its first season). They deserved the nods alone, and the critics gave them that. The Wire didn't get its "best show ever" tag until some time after it was off the air. Critics sometimes have to play catch-up like everybody. They gave nods to Lauren Graham and let in FNL long before voters took notice. So, they deserve some props. Many of them are just as sheepish as academy members, but at least we know they actually watch TV. Still, TV critics don't belong in the academy. It's not their place.
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?
I agree with this; at home viewing seems to be way too leisurely. What is to prevent a voter from being distract while watching an episode of a screener? I know when I am watching things on my computer there are moments of distraction where I completely miss ten minutes or so of action.
How easy people forget that viewing panels led to some of the most abhorrent nominees and winners in its heydays. Which was why the system was changed to begin with. The winners are still in some ways questionable but these days, not quite as uninspired.
1999 was quite possibly the tip of the iceberg - I remember the number of TV fans up in arms over the winners list. John Lithgow and Kristen Johnston won even though 3rd Rock was way past its due date. Dennis Franz winning for the 4th time over James Gandolfini over a similarly subpar season of NYPD Blue. The Practice winning over The Sopranos. Holland Taylor winning over Nancy Marchand.
It was embarrassing. Dont relive the same mistakes.
You dont want to swap ok for worse. Or, if you think it's bad enough right now, worse for worst. The old jobless folks who make up the majority of the viewing panels dont represent the Emmys voting demographic, and cant possibly represent the viewing public as the arbiter of quality and good taste.
Holland's tape was leagues above Marchand. She deserved her win. And if you put both Franz's and Smits' tapes together, Franz was destined to win that award.
I disagree. I thought they were both very good in very different roles. The only thing that bothers me about Holland Taylor's victory is that she was only in about six episodes of that 23 episode season.
I think watching 6 (or sometimes 7) hour-ish-long episodes to vote in one category is enough; doubling that would kind of make it an annoying chore. I like that they switched to one episode for each actor a few years ago.
I do think that watchin it back to back and with other people might generate a different reaction. What I really want though for them to do the top lists again and do the 50-50 thingy. It might help some of the lower ranked shows and actors who have awesome submission. We could some "Community" love if it was this format hopefully.
I kind of hated the 50/50 system and I really doubt Community would have received any nominations if it were still in place. There were many good, under-the-radar shows and performers that would get shortlisted, sure, but most of the time they ended up losing out to popular and inferior series/performers when nominations were announced.
One thing I liked about those panels, though: thesnub for Lost's weak second season in 2006. Too bad the shows they nominated in its place weren't much better.
I thought that really helped Cranston get his first nom at Breaking Bad. We weren't sure he was gonna get in but with that fantastic episode, I don't think panels had any doubt about ranking him high during the panel voting. We had Minnie Driver nominated for The Riches, whom I am not sure might have got in through popular vote. Zeljko Ivanek probably also increased his chances by panel voting. Maybe even Lee Pace. I was pleasantly surprised he was nominated for the first season. I kinda prefer the 50-50 than by just nominated based on panels which gives us the totally surprising nominees including Lost's second season snub.
Ultimately, I'm not sure whether it might have made more an impact now seeing the Emmys do at times churn out unexpected nominees. But I really prefer the viewing panels as it made voters have less time to get other factors to sway their votes.