The 2012 Emmys were announced this morning in Los Angeles. I'm indifferent about the Emmys. I dislike all award shows actually. Since I write about TV alot in the blog, I figure I'd offer some brief thoughts about which shows the Emmys recognized in their nominations.
-Mad Men leads all nominations with 17, which is disappointing. Mad Men had a terrific season and all, but the Emmys need to get their heads out the tunnel and recognize other shows. Most egregious is the Outstanding Writing Category in which Mad Men received three nominations for three separate episodes. The show boasts terrific writing. Come on though, Academy, more shows deserved recognition for writing. Nominate Mad Men for one writing award. One nomination tells people that the show has quality writing. Homeland and Downton Abbey are the other shows recognized for Outstanding Writing. It's foolish to expect the Emmys to accurately represent all of TV in their show. They can still ignore network shows and nominate two other shows besides Mad Men.
-On Twitter, someone opined that the category for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series should've been the category for Outstanding Comedy Series, or something like that. I don't understand how the Academy differentiates between the two. TV is a writer's medium. Why nominate two Parks & Rec writers and not the entire show? How is excellent writing not rewarded with an Outstanding Comedy Series nomination? HBO's Veep earned an Outstanding Comedy Series nomination but failed to be nominated for writing. I don't get it. The Academy recognized Community with nominating Chris McKenna for writing "Remedial Chaos Theory." What prevented Community from receiving an Outstanding Comedy series nomination?
-The nomination process is full of flaws anyway. TV shows submit one episode of 12 or 13 or 22. The judges evaluate the show on the one episode. Veep probably sent a better episode of their show than Parks & Rec for Comedy Series. How is a show evaluated by one episode alone? I watched an episode of Eureka and got slammed for judging it by one episode. I suppose the submitted episode is representative of the show as a whole. I have no idea. A whole season of a show should be watched and assessed and then nominated.
-I look for the nominees of writing and directing first and also editing, cinematogaphry. I'm indifferent towards the acting awards. Popular culture values actors and actresses way too much. I'd like to see Larry David or Louis C.K. win, though. I'm confused about Kathy Bates' nomination. I assume she could submit a tape of her watering a garden and the Academy would nominate her on name alone. Harry's Law is a rote procedural. Many actresses could portray her character well and be ignored because that actress wouldn't be Kathy Bates.
-The gist of this is the Emmys are a bunch of bullshit--that won't shock anyone. I perused the nominees for outstanding guest actor or actress in a series, and they're all 'name' actors. The Emmys will never recognize a Mary Jon Nelson or anyone who isn't Jon Hamm or Joan Cusack.
-That is all. I hope no one watches the broadcast.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About The Foot
- Chris Monigle
- Originally, I titled the blog Jacob's Foot after the giant foot that Jacob inhabited in LOST. That ended. It became TV With The Foot in 2010. I wrote about a lot of TV.
1 comment:
agreed all around. boring trivial affair where the shows i like rarely get recognized and critics fall all over themselves to reward the same things over and over. yaawn
Post a Comment