THR is reporting that the plans to time-shift eight out of the 28 awards during the airing of the 61st Primetime Emmy Awards has been scrapped. The awards that would’ve been time-shifted will now be presented live. (Update: much more detail at The Wrap)
It was obvious that the plan was going to upset some writers, producers, etc., of scripted content. And it did. And they squeaked, and the squeaky wheel again prevailed.
I’m not sure whether cooler heads prevailed though. I’m also not sure if the greater good was served though I’m not sure that it wasn’t. I simply don’t know enough.
I don’t know how much the broadcast networks pay the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences to air the awards. This year, they will be aired by CBS. But I assume it’s a good chunk of change.
I don’t know what the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences does with the money the broadcast networks pay it. But I assume it does some good with it.
I don’t know if everyone involved with the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences believes that it’s better to please everyone on the creative front, even if it ultimately means far fewer people are watching the awards, and that by extension, the networks are paying less for the award show.
You could please all the creative types and have a four hour award show on AMC. But it’s not going to make very much money and hardly anyone will watch. If I were a member of the academy, even on the creative side, I would want a compromise that balances rewarding talent while generating maximum revenue and exposure. I’d rather have a show 1.5 million people watch on cable with the chance to be in front of 20 million viewers on broadcast, than get exposed to 5 million on a cable outlet. But that’s just me.
I’m in no way suggesting that the Academy’s plans were the right path, but the reason they went down that path was to solve a problem. It’s pretty obvious the Academy wants to boost ratings and exposure and maximize revenue, but in this case it apparently didn’t balance that well enough with rewarding talent. I’m not sure that’s really the case either. It seems more a case where the changes were not communicated effectively. And worse, communicated in a way as to enrage some of the creative talent.
That’s not hindsight being 20-20 since pretty much everyone said that after the changes were communicated.
The Academy can cross its fingers and hope that even with the time shifting plans scrapped that the ratings go up from last years record lows. It could be that last year was hampered by the WGA Writer’s strike, but the ratings trend doesn’t really suggest that’s the case, though critics seemed to universally ding the production of last year’s show.
It seems likely the Academy will have to revisit changes to the Emmy Awards show, but perhaps it was best for now to scrap the plans, start from scratch, and more involving the writers, directors and producers of television shows in the process.
There was an article somewhere about time-shifting the whole show to even the playing field. Personally, I would much prefer to watch that show, but I can understand not doing it. If they have to time-shift the whole thing, the awards will be announced several hours before the broadcast, and then it’ll be close to a Teen Choice Awards situation. Why bother watching if you know the winners? Unless they can put on a really great show.
But the thing that no one seems to be addressing is that the reason they have to consider these changes is because of problems the creative types themselves have caused. If they could just self police, or actually pay attention to the clock counting them down, we wouldn’t be in this situation. But, no, everyone feels that they deserve to the right to spend longer than everyone else because they just have so many people to thank. A whole list of names that no one cares about but that person. The guilds should offer a solution like fining anyone who goes over time, and offering bonuses to anyone who keeps it under a certain time. If they can fix the problem themselves, everyone will be happy.
Do we already know who’s hosting the Emmys this year?
Neil Patrick Harris
I’m glad they aren’t doing this.
It seems that a lot of the writers and directors never get enough credit in TV (and sometimes Movies). But if it weren’t for them, there would be nothing for the actors to act in.
“Neil Patrick Harris”
OK, then I won’t watch. But still, thanks for the info.
How about putting on an entertaining show AND giving the awards to the deserving. And why give awards if the winners can’t talk? The worst part of the Daytime Emmys has always been that the best show award is given at the end and they rush the end of the show and don’t let the winners talk. One year they cut off the producer in midsentence and she was sitting so far back that she barely had time to say thank you and they cut the mike. I am tired of hearing music being played over the winner’s “Thank You” moment. Gosh, this might be the only award they ever get.
If you don’t want to watch something that runs long, don’t watch. Otherwise let them be. How about giving the awards people are waiting for a half hour before the end of prime time. There is no law that says you have to give the big award at the very end.
Awards shows are not watched in the same way as decades past because you can see the performers almost twenty-four seven. There is no mystery any more. The tabloid shows, the tabloids, the Internet, they all give us “star” overload. It is no longer an event to see someone on the TV.
Last year the “hosts” of the Emmy show were a joke. It was demeaning to them, the nominees, and the audience in the theater and at home.
I wonder if the same people who came up with that idiotic hosting idea were the same ones who wanted to “shorten” the show this year. Gosh, these people supposedly entertain for a living can’t they use their imaginations and devise a show that is entertaining and fulfills the purpose of the show?
What about simply having a rule that no winner can thank any specific person. This would eliminate the laundry list that winners read off AND gives them an excuse to not do laundry lists. I think many winners name off so many people because if they don’t, they think the important ones they don’t name will feel offended … and the important ones probably will feel that way. If a winner ignores this rule, the band music starts up and they’re fined $100,000 per name.
What I would like to see is some commentary on why the nominees were nominees. Some perspective. A decent guess by a real TV critic. Rattling off nominees without any reason why they’re nominees is as bad as the winners rattling off their laundry lists of names.
“If you don’t want to watch something that runs long, don’t watch.”
Isn’t this exactly the problem the Academy is trying to fix? Fewer and fewer people are watching the award show.
Scott, Variety has had some good coverage of all the nominees. If you start here and go through each category it gives you a breakdown of each one. They also have reasons why they may or may not win.
In fairness, the ratings are almost certain to go up from last year, b/c of the Writers’ Strike. Also, nothing could possibly be worse than the reality hosts.
dsm hit the nail on the head. Last year’s decision to have reality show hosts run the show (and minus any scripted bits, at that) proved to be a disaster, and the ratings reflected that decision. The host is a big draw for a lot of people when it comes to awards shows, and most people want a big damn star of some kind, so I would imagine that the show lost a lot of viewers long before it even aired when people heard who was hosting the thing. For those who did not hear ahead of time and tuned in to the opening “skit,” well, they got a reason to tune right out right away, because it was so bad that it was painful to watch.
So they didn’t even try to put on a good show, and then they blanched and blamed length for why people tuned out. That is some knee-jerk, it-ain’t-our-fault ass covering right there, and that alone should tell you a lot about the people making these decisions. Truth is, people will watch anything if it is entertaining, whether its 2 hours or 4. No one watches the whole show anyway, except a few crazies like me.
And another truth just might be that the proliferation of awards shows has had an inevitable affect on the ratings that some people up top are refusing to acknowledge, which would not be a big surprise. People up top often refuse to acknowledge the obvious. That’s how you end up with an NBC.
And while I hate to sound like a hippy retread (and am too young to actually be one), running your organization’s awards show solely as a money making enterprise is so sleazy as to be beyond defense. Either you are there to honor, or you are just jerking off. But if you really are there to honor, all other concerns should be secondary. If you can make a buck, great, but perverting it to make a bigger buck isn’t something I have a lot of sympathy for.
When does it air in illinois?