July 30, 2018 at 11:02 pm #1202599545
Well, this is interesting. It seems like the four remaining soaps are even more annoyed with some of the Daytime Emmys’ practices than we are, and they’re standing together with a few demands for changes to next year’s awards and threatening not to participate if those demands aren’t met.
This article in Deadline gives a good summary of what they’re asking for, and some of it is really eye-opening, both in terms of things that I’ve been somewhat irritated with and things that I would never have thought of or had no idea were issues. (My favorite example is the inherent conflict of interest in not having separation between administering the awards contest and producing the awards show, something that never occurred to me but does make sense.)July 30, 2018 at 11:10 pm #1202599549
This is cool, I heart DRAMAAA!!! 😀
I want a Limited Series soap about all the people behind each of the soaps banding together to achieve a common goal in boycotting the Daytime Emmys in order to get their shared demands met.
For your Goldderby Film Awards consideration: Isle of Dogs for every category, especially Music Score for Alexandre Desplat!July 31, 2018 at 4:51 am #1202599681
My hunch is this will all be resolved satisfactorily by next year’s Daytime Emmys. The part that puzzled me in the article I read was the part about there having been some problem in the supporting categories. I have followed the whole Patrika Darbo (and Jennifer Bassey) drama in the Guest Performer in a Digital Drama category closely.
Most of their suggestions make sense, I would only add that they fix the Guest Performer category to include anyone who has made less than 20 episodes in a calendar year and while they are at it prevent category fraud by having an episode quota for Lead Acting categories (so that Peggy McCay and Jess Walton would have been forced to submit correctly in the supporting category, etc.).
Very interesting. I do believe it will all be worked out though.July 31, 2018 at 9:34 am #1202599840
After receiving a game-changing joint letter from all four daytime soap operas demanding an overhaul of Daytime Emmy voting and accounting systems, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (NATAS) is retaining outside counsel to look into allegations made by top brass at the sudsers.
RELATED: All Four Soaps Threaten Daytime Emmy Boycott
“Today I received correspondence raising concerns about some elements of the 2018 Daytime Emmy Awards and concerns over its administration,” said NATAS Chairman Terry O’Reilly in a statement to Daytime Confidential. “We have great confidence in the integrity of our EMMY awards system, and believe it effectively honors the best work being done in Daytime Television today. That having been said, we always take concerns about our systems seriously…and out of an abundance of caution I have instructed that outside counsel be retained to evaluate these concerns and conduct an independent look at them.”
On Tuesday, Deadline published a bombshell letter from top executives at General Hospital, Days of Our Lives, The Young and the Restless and The Bold and the Beautiful threatening to boycott the Daytime Emmys unless major changes were made.July 31, 2018 at 5:38 pm #1202600181
One of the most interesting phrases from their letter was “transparency of the voting process.” How many times have we speculated about how some aspect of the competition works? I always assumed that the process, while shrouded in mystery to outsiders, was known to industry insiders. Evidently that is not the case.
Another interesting aspect is what I understand to be a call for the expansion of voters. Given the technological ease of viewing and voting, this seems like a manageable request. However, that does call into question whether voters would actually watch the reels — a question we already grappled with in a thread about the voting panel earlier this year. A Blue Ribbon panel seems much more serious to me, whereas open voting seems more casual. Kind of like the difference between serving as a judge on an episode “Dancing with the Stars” versus voting for your favorite couple on their Facebook page (ok maybe that’s a bit extreme, but you get the idea). However, my comparison is based on the idea of a shared screening for Blue Ribbon voters. Since the Blue Ribbon panel members watch on their own now, they might as well just open up the voting.
One especially shocking part of the letter reveals that “winners were known by many in advance.” Wow. How does that happen? As someone who grew up watching award shows, I find such a lapse almost unbelievable.
Overall, I feel like there is a lot going on behind the scenes that is not spelled out in the letter. I want to know more! But if all those execs were united in sending this letter, there probably are some major problems that need to be addressed.
Freeman: “I would only add that they fix the Guest Performer category to include anyone who has made less than 20 episodes in a calendar year and while they are at it prevent category fraud by having an episode quota for Lead Acting categories.” I soooooooo agree with this!August 1, 2018 at 8:52 am #1202600541
Yeah, the letter was very eye-opening for me. I’ve been thinking about the request to expand the voting. Like quite a few of us here, I like the idea that there’s a panel of voters watching the submitted reels and voting accordingly. But now that voters are pretty much openly admitting to not watching the reels, or at least not watching them in their entirety, it does feel like opening up the vote to all eligible voters could produce a more fair outcome. NATAS apparently also currently has restrictions in place so that there are a balanced number of voters from each show represented, though I wonder how that affects all of the actors who are either not on a show (and may be more included to watch more of the reels if they have the time) or who appear on more than one show in a year? Who knows. It feels more and more like the current voting system was a good effort but maybe doesn’t work as intended and needs to be overhauled. Based on the nominated reels, it does seem like most of the acting wins this year were valid (the exception being Younger Actor), but this also doesn’t account for the other five or six reels that prenominees submitted, for which NATAS refused to even release any information, much like how NATAS won’t even tell us who has or has not submitted in a given category. This goes to the point about transparency. It’s like they’re so determined to prove their system works that they don’t want anyone to know what material was on the reels that weren’t in the top five, or who was eligible to be prenominated, so they aren’t open to further criticism about performances that should have been nominated or performers should have been shortlisted.
I’m very eager to see where all of this goes.August 9, 2018 at 1:35 am #1202606082
People in the audience knew the winners in advance? I would love to see the proof. Wouldn’t it have been reported already if that was the case?
Aside from that, this is a long time coming. Where was this letter all of those years Days was purposely snubbed because of the colluding of the other networks? General Hospital and Y&R didn’t seem to mind when they were winning every year because of their voting bloc. Now that Days is winning they want to complain all of a sudden. Cry me a river.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.