Home Forums Television Old Tape System VS. New Tape System

Old Tape System VS. New Tape System

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
Created
9 months ago
Last Reply
9 months ago
7
replies
766
views
6
users
Riley Chow
2
mooreda
1
jacob121
1
  • Profile picture
    mooreda
    Joined:
    Jul 22nd, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203427023

    New to the forums and trying to learn lingo and terminology.
    In many posts there are references to “old tape system”. As a new person coming to understand how these awards work, can someone explain the differences between the two systems.
    What is the process? How does it work? Why is one better than the other? Ect.?

    Reply
    Profile picture
    Riley Chow
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203427100

    Through 2008: Nominations in major categories and all winners are decided by panels. Each category has different groups of dozens of volunteers for nominating and awarding. The panels receive episode submissions that they rank. These “tapes” level the playing field for standout contenders in shows that are not as popular. The downside is that the volunteer judges tend to be retirees, so their taste is not trendy. Also, only looking at single episodes favours the overt, so slapstick rules comedy and histrionics rule drama acting categories.

    2009 to 2014: Winners continue to be decided by volunteer judging panels, but nominations are now just unranked popular votes of the entire relevant branch. There is a greater correlation between campaigning and nominations. Nominations become more mainstream and the academy compensates by adding more nomination slots.

    2015: Winners are now also popular votes of the entire relevant branch, which might be thousands. Upsets by standout tapes are unheard of because nobody is watching the tapes, although they are still technically submitted. Winners are trendier than under the previous tape system, but also boring because campaigning for a win is now possible and the winners are just the big names. Also, deserving fringe contenders who get nominated stand no chance at a win because they get ranked last by people who have never seen or heard of them.

    2016: Nominees are no longer ranked in the winners phase; the branch just votes for a single favourite. Winners become really trendy and the nomination becomes the greater hurdle than the win for breakthrough performances with buzz.

    2017: Voters can now vote for as many as they want per category on their nominating ballots as opposed to being restricted to the number of nomination slots. Passion still drives the winners phase per above, but nominations become more about visibility.

    There were many more tweaks along the way, but these are the main things to which people refer when they talk about old and new systems.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    mooreda
    Joined:
    Jul 22nd, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203427172

    Thank you!

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    jacob121
    Joined:
    Mar 2nd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203427181

    I can’t remember exactly when it was – maybe around 2005? We actually had top ten lists in some top categories for a few years and it was amazing. Would kill for that kind of intel again.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Emmyfan
    Joined:
    Nov 26th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203427290

    I think there was a change in 2006 in which there was a panel that watched the submissions for top 10 vote getters for series, lead actor and lead actress for comedy and drama. Then the actual nominees were based on a blend of their popular vote ranking and the ranking from watching the submissions.

    I also think in 2007, they had the panel in place for series, lead and supporting actor and actress for comedy and drama. The panel watched these submissions and did there rankings. Then the actual nominees were based on a blend of their popular vote ranking and the ranking from watching the submissions.

    2008 was the last year in which they had submissions from the top 10 or top 15 vote getters that were watched and ranked by a panel and were combined by the ranking of their popular vote to determine the actual nominees.

    This is all from memory and I might have a few things mixed up.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    RobertPius
    Joined:
    Nov 22nd, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203427345

    The old tape system definitely made for a more suspenseful show. Winners would just seemingly come out of the blue. Nowadays the winners are more in line with what is popular and acclaimed.

    Back then it could be frustrating. You’d have the whole world talking about Calista Flockhart in Ally McBeal or Ellen Degeneris in her coming out episode and then the winner would be Helen Hunt AGAIN. (lots of repeat winners under that tape system. Candace Bergen famously stopped submitting after she won 5 and felt that was enough.)

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Carlo
    Joined:
    Oct 6th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203427398

    To predict the Emmy based on tapes was great but in the end I prefer popular votes…c’mon all those Emmys to the same people over and over again made no sense.
    Many great performers never won due to the ensemble nature of their shows and writers not giving them a big baity episode each season…

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Riley Chow
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203427417

    One big thing that I forgot to mention is that vote-splitting has only been a factor since they got rid of preferential balloting in 2016.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
wolfali - Jan 14, 2021
Television
Gabarnes43 - Jan 14, 2021
Television
ENGLAND - Jan 13, 2021
Television