69th (2017) Primetime Emmy Awards (1 Viewer)

[DaveHof3]

I disagree. The reason people of a certain age still remember Sacheen Littlefeather and Vanessa Redgrave and even Michael Moore is because their outbursts were a rarity within an evening devoted to honoring artistic excellence. In that era the Oscar and Emmy hosts, presenters and winners put partisan politics aside because that's not what the event was about. It's been trending away from that long before Trump, of course, but has now reached a level of stridency that is going to be off-putting to those with opposing views, even if they are interested in the nominees. I think you're right that there's less cache attached to award shows anyway, but the last thing producers need is to give viewers one more reason not to watch.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I'm not surprised.

They are showing it on Broadcast TV, but only a tiny percentage of broadcast shows are represented.

How are the numbers From last night correspond to the numbers of the nominated shows?

Maybe they should stream it, and count their numbers over a ten week 'season'

THAT'S IT!

Put next year's Emmy broadcast on Hulu. That's show 'em!

 

[Matt Hough]

With my snarky, cynical attitude, I'm still really enjoying Veep, it fits my personality. I hope it runs for a few more seasons.

Only one more. It's ending after one more season. That announcement came some weeks ago.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Premium cable shows would compete as a TV show because they're on TV. Probably every show can be seen on multiple platforms but the flagship for them is a TV channel. There's no TV channel that plays Stranger Things or The Handmaid's Tale. Once again, nothing against those streaming shows, I just think they're a different medium.

That's exactly what my response to that question was going to be.

Stranger Things, for example, is a different beast than any network show. They have the luxury of writing every episode before shooting a single one. They have the luxury of shooting everything as one giant film instead of returning to sets and locations week to week. If, in finishing the last episode, they realize that they needed to set things up better in the first episode for the ending to work, they can simply change the first episode since it hasn't been released yet. And with the audience having the option, and frankly being encouraged, to watch the entire season in a day or a week, they can write a complex story without having to concern themselves with whether an audience will still remember a first episode clue ten weeks later.

It's an entirely different format. The end result may look similar - one hour of content viewed on a television screen - but under the hood it's completely different. If the producers need more time, that's no issue since the premiere date doesn't get announced until after all the episodes have been delivered.

I think it's an enormous achievement to produce a 22 episode season where you are writing, shooting and editing all at once, and where you're getting feedback from an audience as you're still doing it. When you see a fantastic 22 episode season of something, you're watching the work of individuals who have completed an extraordinary task of creativity and endurance. When you see a great Netflix ten episode run, you're watching the work of people who got to go away and make a ten hour movie and then chopped it up into pieces. That's not to say that's not an art too - but it's not the same art.

I think good online shows should be rewarded, but I don't think the Emmy is the right award.

 

[Stan]

That's exactly what my response to that question was going to be.

Stranger Things, for example, is a different beast than any network show. They have the luxury of writing every episode before shooting a single one. They have the luxury of shooting everything as one giant film instead of returning to sets and locations week to week. If, in finishing the last episode, they realize that they needed to set things up better in the first episode for the ending to work, they can simply change the first episode since it hasn't been released yet. And with the audience having the option, and frankly being encouraged, to watch the entire season in a day or a week, they can write a complex story without having to concern themselves with whether an audience will still remember a first episode clue ten weeks later.

It's an entirely different format. The end result may look similar - one hour of content viewed on a television screen - but under the hood it's completely different. If the producers need more time, that's no issue since the premiere date doesn't get announced until after all the episodes have been delivered.

I think it's an enormous achievement to produce a 22 episode season where you are writing, shooting and editing all at once, and where you're getting feedback from an audience as you're still doing it. When you see a fantastic 22 episode season of something, you're watching the work of individuals who have completed an extraordinary task of creativity and endurance. When you see a great Netflix ten episode run, you're watching the work of people who got to go away and make a ten hour movie and then chopped it up into pieces. That's not to say that's not an art too - but it's not the same art.

I think good online shows should be rewarded, but I don't think the Emmy is the right award.

Somewhat related, but so many shows now are filmed a year or more before being shown.

When it's the middle of winter and they've got green grass and roses blooming, obviously major time shift. Sure with "Dr. Who" and the TARDIS they can get away with it. Standard network shows, not so much.

I know with special effects and CGI for some shows, it takes time but it's really getting ridiculous.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think almost all shows, with few exceptions, benefit from being made as weekly installments. You learn about your show when you see what's working with an audience and what's not, and what things they're getting and what things aren't translating well. Some of the best television of all time got to be that way because of that "dialogue" between the people making the show and the people watching it.

If you write, shoot and edit every episode before you air a single one, if something's not right at the start, it's a problem in every single episode that doesn't get fixed.

I think about the original series for Star Trek. Watch the first couple episodes that were broadcast, and then watch ones from halfway through the first season. It's a different show. When the show premiered, the network was insisting on a reduced role for Spock, and Gene Roddenberry wanted more formal crew relationships without humor or familiarity. But the broadcast audience quickly took a liking to Spock, and the writers quickly learned that the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationship was both the heart of the show and a fertile ground for humor. Once those adjustments were made, the show became the thing that has inspired more than 50 years of sequels and continuations and reboots. Had the show been made in the Netflix model of writing every episode before shooting anything, and then shooting and editing everything before anything aired, the Star Trek we know and love wouldn't have come into existence. More likely, it would have been canceled after a season of episodes in which some people enjoyed the science but most people couldn't get past characters that had no personality. Spock certainly wouldn't have been allowed to shine, nor McCoy. It would be remembered as an interesting relic of the 1960s, if it was remembered at all.

I'm not opposed to new ways of making shows, but I am opposed to this idea that the old way was terrible and that nothing good ever came out of it. I find it very hard to get started with shows on Netflix and the like where all episodes are dumped out at once. Rather than having something to look forward to each week, the dumping all episodes at once method just feels like an obligation that I don't want.

Even for the rare exception when writing and shooting together paid off (as it did with Twin Peaks: The Return), I think the show benefitted enormously being released one week at a time. As an audience member, I was better served by this traditional method of release.

 

[Stan]

Only one more. It's ending after one more season. That announcement came some weeks ago.

Great. Kind of like "The Middle", one of my favorite shows, just one more season. Then again, it's good that they leave on a high note, not gradually go downhill and keep trying to hang on, destroying the series.

"The Walking Dead" is failing. The whole "Negan" thing has ruined it, yet they're trying again.

 

[DaveF]

I'm not opposed to new ways of making shows, but I am opposed to this idea that the old way was terrible and that nothing good ever came out of it. I find it very hard to get started with shows on Netflix and the like where all episodes are dumped out at once. Rather than having something to look forward to each week, the dumping all episodes at once method just feels like an obligation that I don't want.

This is not a streaming problem.

Due to tivoing and my chronic backlog, there's little difference between a streamed show and a "tv" show. I've got all of The Expanse S2 on the TiVo, unwatched. I have The Defenders on Netflix unwatched. The limiting factor is my time to watch a show.

If it helps just think of streaming as having access to DVD box sets

 

[DaveF]

That's exactly what my response to that question was going to be.

Stranger Things, for example, is a different beast than any network show. They have the luxury of writing every episode before shooting a single one. They have the luxury of shooting everything as one giant film instead of returning to sets and locations week to week. If, in finishing the last episode, they realize that they needed to set things up better in the first episode for the ending to work, they can simply change the first episode since it hasn't been released yet. And with the audience having the option, and frankly being encouraged, to watch the entire season in a day or a week, they can write a complex story without having to concern themselves with whether an audience will still remember a first episode clue ten weeks later.

It's an entirely different format. The end result may look similar - one hour of content viewed on a television screen - but under the hood it's completely different. If the producers need more time, that's no issue since the premiere date doesn't get announced until after all the episodes have been delivered.

I think it's an enormous achievement to produce a 22 episode season where you are writing, shooting and editing all at once, and where you're getting feedback from an audience as you're still doing it. When you see a fantastic 22 episode season of something, you're watching the work of individuals who have completed an extraordinary task of creativity and endurance. When you see a great Netflix ten episode run, you're watching the work of people who got to go away and make a ten hour movie and then chopped it up into pieces. That's not to say that's not an art too - but it's not the same art.

I think good online shows should be rewarded, but I don't think the Emmy is the right award.

First: who's stopping ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC from doing this besides themselves? There's no law that says they have to do 22-ep seasons with production done just-in-time for airing? They could dump money into a short run season and produce it wholly in advance of airing.

Second: I don't watch award shows anymore. I lost interest 15-some years ago for cynical reasons.

But if I'm going to give awards for best "TV" then what I care about is the best TV. I don't care about whether it's done with an artificially imposed 22-ep procedural run written on the fly or 10 episodes crafted as a single experience. I'm awarding the *best* so why grade on a curve unless you're just a trade organization trying to hide the fact that the old guard are getting their lunch eaten by the upstarts?

Maybe -- if I watched award shows -- I'd argue that both the Emmys and Oscars should be shut down and and new unified award be created. I'll call them the Daveys. And they would be divided into Best Shorts, Best 2 hrs, Best 10 hrs, and Best 20 hrs, and Best 100 hrs.

Because we've now got Shorts, Conventional Movies, New Movies (Stranger Things, GLOW), Conventional TV season, and Best Finished Series.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Im just saying that I agree with some others here when I say that, to me, a Netflix show isn't a "TV" show and should get its own thing to compete in.

If a new series was released exclusively to DVD but never aired on a TV station, it wouldn't be eligible for the Emmys. I'm not sure why it's not the same with streaming.

A direct-to-streaming feature length movie isn't eligible for an Oscar. I don't see why a direct-to-streaming show is eligible for an Emmy.

It's not about them not being worthy of recognition, merely that I don't think they deserve the exact same form of recognition.

 

[DaveF]

What about a show like Legion? It's like Stranger Things in structure. But it's a "tv" show.

Are you arguing for a new genre, as comedies are separated from dramas, so should 10-hr shows be separated from 20-hr shows?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm arguing more for things that air on linear TV to be separated from things that don't.

But a 10 episode vs 20 episode category split might not be the worst idea ever. Best Short Form Series and Best Long Form Series. Why not?

 

[Josh Dial]

Under the official rules, eligibility requirements include the following:

[p]rograms (and individual achievements within them) are eligible for nomination if they were originally aired or originally transmitted during the eligibility year in any prime time period (6:00 PM-2:00 AM) (i) by broadcast to at least 50% of the total potential U.S.television audience or, (ii) by pay/basic cable transmissions (including by way of example so-called basic cable, pay cable, pay television,interactive cable and broadband) to markets representing at least 50% or more of U.S. households.​

A key element is "aired or originally transmitted," with "transmissions" including broadband delivery.

According to the rules, this has been the case since 2002.

It appears that the Board of Governors has turned its mind to streaming services, and since the awards are theirs to hand out, I guess they can set he criteria.

Personally, I think the division is fine. You have the three main delivery methods: large screen (Oscars), small screen [including computers, tablets, and phones] (Emmys), and stage (Tonys). Yes, I'm ignoring the Golden Globes. Any more granular and you are artificially separating out the programs which directly compete for viewership. There are only so many hours in the day. If I choose to watch The Handmaid's Tale (and I did), I may do so to the exclusion of NCIS. The awards are separated based on what programs are competing with each other for eyeballs. Netflix competes with network television for roughly the same audience. A viewer isn't likely to choose between watching either Dunkirk or Ken Burns' The Vietnam War. A viewer may be likely to choose between watching Atlanta and Veep.

 

[TravisR]

Under the official rules, eligibility requirements include the following:

[p]rograms (and individual achievements within them) are eligible for nomination if they were originally aired or originally transmitted during the eligibility year in any prime time period (6:00 PM-2:00 AM) (i) by broadcast to at least 50% of the total potential U.S.television audience or, (ii) by pay/basic cable transmissions (including by way of example so-called basic cable, pay cable, pay television,interactive cable and broadband) to markets representing at least 50% or more of U.S. households.​

A key element is "aired or originally transmitted," with "transmissions" including broadband delivery.

According to the rules, this has been the case since 2002.

I know the rules allow for those shows but I think they're wrong for doing that. And while I don't like it, I do have to give credit to the Emmys for learning from the mistakes of the music and embracing the internet.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

At the risk of turning into a broken record... I don't think internet shows and linear-distributed shows should be judged against each other. They're different formats, made under different conditions, with different considerations. Both varieties of production can yield quality entertainment; that's not the question.

It's more a matter of, there's a difference between a good diner and a fancy steakhouse. I like both types of restaurant, and I wouldn't want to live in a world without diners, nor would I want to live in a world without steakhouses. But if you go to a diner and order a steak, it's going to be very different from what you get when you go to a fancy steakhouse. And that's totally fine. My expectations are different for each establishment. But if you decide that they're both the same because they're both "steak on a plate", that's really a false equivalency. If someone asked you how the steak at the diner was, it wouldn't really be a fair assessment to judge it only in context of the steakhouse steak. Meanwhile, the opposite also wouldn't be fair. If you judged a steakhouse steak solely against the diner steak, that wouldn't really tell you much about how that steakhouse compared to other steakhouses. Ultimately, both things are "steak" (just the way both linear and internet shows are both viewed on a "television"), but judging them against each other doesn't really tell you much about either, and ends up being a disservice to both things. Everything about how those two steaks reach your plate is different, so how is it fair to judge them the same? The Oscars understand this, and that's why made-for-TV movies and direct-to-video movies aren't eligible for Oscars.

The way the Emmys are right now, they say both of those things are the same. So we have Emmy voters being told that the food at the diner is the same as the food in the steakhouse, and then they're reacting with surprise when the diner steak isn't the same as the $100 Waygu strip from the steakhouse, and penalizing the diner. It's not realistic to expect the diner's $11.99 regular menu item to be exactly the same as the $100 steakhouse special, but according to the Emmys, they're the same.

It's this weird denial of reality that I have difficulty getting on board with.

By all means, let's honor quality work produced for non-linear online distribution. But let's not say Netflix's eight episode "season" that they spent 18 months making is exactly the same thing as 22-episode CBS procedural completed in eight months.

 

[Stan]

OMG, you guys are ruining my TV viewing time, writing pages and pages of stuff. How can I ever keep up with the DVR with you posting so much?

 

[DaveF]

Personally, I think the division is fine. You have the three main delivery methods: large screen (Oscars), small screen [including computers, tablets, and phones] (Emmys), and stage (Tonys). Yes, I'm ignoring the Golden Globes. Any more granular and you are artificially separating out the programs which directly compete for viewership. There are only so many hours in the day. If I choose to watch The Handmaid's Tale (and I did), I may do so to the exclusion of NCIS. The awards are separated based on what programs are competing with each other for eyeballs. Netflix competes with network television for roughly the same audience. A viewer isn't likely to choose between watching either Dunkirk or Ken Burns' The Vietnam War. A viewer may be likely to choose between watching Atlanta and Veep.

To try and ride Josh's dead horse, I think these distinctions are dying. People watch "big screen" on their phones; I watch TV on my big screen (120"). Netflix competes with the theater: it's all time and money.

I think I end up in the same place as Josh, albeit for different reasons. The only thing that matters is the time investment: two hours versus 5 hours versus 20 hours. And I keep finding that 10 hours of a show like Legion is more satisfying than most two hour movies.

This is all internet beard stroking, sure. But how else do we keep Stan from catching up on his DVR backlog?

 

[MishaLauenstein]

OMG, you guys are ruining my TV viewing time, writing pages and pages of stuff. How can I ever keep up with the DVR with you posting so much?

I finally finished Caprica over the past few days, having had the last 10 episodes on my DVR since fall of 2010. Now the oldest show left on my DVR is four unwatched episodes of Dead Set, the earliest from October 10, 2010.

 

[DaveF]

I finally finished Caprica over the past few days, having had the last 10 episodes on my DVR since fall of 2010. Now the oldest show left on my DVR is four unwatched episodes of Dead Set, the earliest from October 10, 2010.

I thought I had a backlog. But I sit at the feet of a true DVR Jedi. The Queue is strong in this one!

 

[Stan]

I'm pretty brutal with the delete key. My oldest shows now are episodes of "Shooter" and the James Bond "Spectre" going back to mid-July . DISH Network, haven't upgraded to the "Hopper" so have to watch how much space I'm using on the DVR.

Unless I really, really like something, it might get zapped. Haven't started the latest "The Last Ship" season, but not going to lose that one.