I was upset about missing the Emmys last night but no problem, looks like I just missed a rerun.
Seriously, EVERY ONE of the major comedy and drama awards went to a previous winner. The one 'new' winner was Allison Janney for "Mom" (a terrible choice, btw, since that show is terrible that even the great Janney is just hammin' it up), and even Janney already has a shelf full of Emmys from her West Wing days.
This is what makes the Emmys a tough awards show to follow, even acknowledging that all awards shows are pointless. It's tough to see deserving talents lose year after year, yet it's also tough to say that none of the winners are good choices. In fact, I personally did pick Breaking Bad (last year's Best Drama) and Bryan Cranston (already a three-time Best Drama Actor winner) to pick up trophies again because this past season of BB was just that damned incredible. Still, as amazing as Cranston has been as Walter White, it just seems unfortunate that Jon Hamm still hasn't won in that category, or Hugh Laurie never won for playing House, or Michael C. Hall never won for Dexter before that show went off the rails.
My Emmy logic has always been that as long as a show or actor wins once, that's alright. Did 'Arrested Development' or 'Seinfeld,' for instance, deserve more than one Best Comedy Emmy? Sure, but I'm not complaining since at least they got on the board. I'm even fine with shows/actors winning multiple times if their work is clearly deserving. What bugs me if when an a "just fine" winner keeps inexplicably taking the Emmy year after year, a la Jim Parsons or Modern Family itself. Did you know that Modern Family's five straight Emmy wins is a record, tying it with Frasier? Modern Family, I enjoy you, I watch you every week, I like you quite a bit….but you, show, are no Frasier.
I'm reminded of years past when Candice Bergen and John Larroquette humbly stopped submitting themselves for Emmys since they realized that Emmy voters would keep awarding them in perpetuity, so they decided to share the wealth. The issue with that now, however, is that with the rise of cable shows dominating the Emmys, these awards are in some cases the best showcase that their programs get. 'Veep,' for instance, is a hilarious show that is beloved by critics and awards' groups yet barely makes a dent in the ratings. Its best advertisement is that it IS a "critically-acclaimed show" and Emmys are a big part of that, which is why Julia Louis-Dreyfus will keep nominating herself and probably winning every year, leaving deserving would-be winners like Amy Poehler in the dust. In a vacuum, frankly, JLD probably is just as good or better than Poehler every single season --- yet geez, can't Amy score just one? Just one measly Emmy?
Then again, if multiple winners weren't so sure they were going to win every year, they couldn't get together for pre-planned routines like this...
Seriously, EVERY ONE of the major comedy and drama awards went to a previous winner. The one 'new' winner was Allison Janney for "Mom" (a terrible choice, btw, since that show is terrible that even the great Janney is just hammin' it up), and even Janney already has a shelf full of Emmys from her West Wing days.
This is what makes the Emmys a tough awards show to follow, even acknowledging that all awards shows are pointless. It's tough to see deserving talents lose year after year, yet it's also tough to say that none of the winners are good choices. In fact, I personally did pick Breaking Bad (last year's Best Drama) and Bryan Cranston (already a three-time Best Drama Actor winner) to pick up trophies again because this past season of BB was just that damned incredible. Still, as amazing as Cranston has been as Walter White, it just seems unfortunate that Jon Hamm still hasn't won in that category, or Hugh Laurie never won for playing House, or Michael C. Hall never won for Dexter before that show went off the rails.
My Emmy logic has always been that as long as a show or actor wins once, that's alright. Did 'Arrested Development' or 'Seinfeld,' for instance, deserve more than one Best Comedy Emmy? Sure, but I'm not complaining since at least they got on the board. I'm even fine with shows/actors winning multiple times if their work is clearly deserving. What bugs me if when an a "just fine" winner keeps inexplicably taking the Emmy year after year, a la Jim Parsons or Modern Family itself. Did you know that Modern Family's five straight Emmy wins is a record, tying it with Frasier? Modern Family, I enjoy you, I watch you every week, I like you quite a bit….but you, show, are no Frasier.
I'm reminded of years past when Candice Bergen and John Larroquette humbly stopped submitting themselves for Emmys since they realized that Emmy voters would keep awarding them in perpetuity, so they decided to share the wealth. The issue with that now, however, is that with the rise of cable shows dominating the Emmys, these awards are in some cases the best showcase that their programs get. 'Veep,' for instance, is a hilarious show that is beloved by critics and awards' groups yet barely makes a dent in the ratings. Its best advertisement is that it IS a "critically-acclaimed show" and Emmys are a big part of that, which is why Julia Louis-Dreyfus will keep nominating herself and probably winning every year, leaving deserving would-be winners like Amy Poehler in the dust. In a vacuum, frankly, JLD probably is just as good or better than Poehler every single season --- yet geez, can't Amy score just one? Just one measly Emmy?
Then again, if multiple winners weren't so sure they were going to win every year, they couldn't get together for pre-planned routines like this...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment