Interesting yet - OK, I'll say it - odd piece over at the Los Angeles Times: Are the Emmys out of touch with what most TV viewers watch?
I would I think in some ways, yes, and thank God for that.
The main point of the article (titled "The TV Hit No One Watches") is that a show like Mad Men can garner 16 nominiations (a lot for any show but it's especially impressive for a new show, and a new show that's on cable) but still only average about one million viewers a week. And to this I say "so what?" If the Emmys just nominated/gave awards to American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, CSI: Miami, Two and a Half Men, and Grey's Anatomy, wouldn't we be a little ticked off? The fact that shows such as Mad Men, Damages, and Breaking Bad got so many awards is a very, very good thing, for the Emmy voters and viewers alike, because they also happen to be fantastic shows.
Aren't there many reasons why a show isn't watched even if it is great? The subject matter might not appeal to viewers, it might be on a network they don't get on their cable system, or a half dozen other reasons. I don't think that should stop Emmy voters from voting for the shows/actors. What a world that would be. Besides, what exactly does "out of touch" mean, anyway? I think it's weirder when James Spader wins Best Actor 27 years in a row or when The Wire isn't nominated for anything. Is that "out of touch?"
Hopefully, the Emmys will, ideally, nominate and honor shows and actors and writers and directors for their quality, whether they're number one in viewership or 106, network or cable. But if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick quality over ratings every single time.
P.S. Mad Men rocks!
 |
Need more Emmys scoop? Get reactions to the biggest Emmys snubs and surprises and see which celebrities sparkled on the Emmys red carpet last year. |
Six shows that I am watching pretty regularly this season
Five other TV shows where Sarah Palin should appear
Brought To You By ... - VIDEOS
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
7-18-2008 @ 3:21PM
Jake said...
I think Mad Men could have gotten more viewers if they weren't competing directly with Burn Notice. Also nobody would think to watch AMC for original programing so hopefully the good news about the show is spreading. I like both shows and picked them both up after their initial runs. Thankfully I have a DVR so I'll still be able to watch them both, and will watch Mad Men live to give it the ratings. It just sucks because there is so little good tv out there and AMC and USA are screwing viewers over if they keep them in the same time slot.
Reply
7-18-2008 @ 4:05PM
0megapart!cle said...
You do know that unless you have a Nielsen box attached to your television, or a diary that you send to Nielsen, your watching matters for shit in the ratings? Yes, it doesn't make sense, but that's how it is.
7-18-2008 @ 5:03PM
John Howard said...
Cable networks show their original programming at least a million times a week, so the time slot is pretty irrelevant.
7-18-2008 @ 3:21PM
MrMuggs said...
The Emmy's aren't out of touch...the American general audience are idiots. They would rather watch crap like American Idol than Mad Men. It's the same reason Americans are fat and love McDonald's. Why eat healthy and exercise when you can pick up a Big Mac and Coke for $4?
Reply
7-18-2008 @ 3:22PM
MrMuggs said...
The Emmy's aren't out of touch...the American general audience are idiots. They would rather watch crap like American Idol than Mad Men. It's the same reason Americans are fat and love McDonald's. Why eat healthy and exercise when you can pick up a Big Mac and Coke for $4?
Reply
7-18-2008 @ 3:23PM
JLM said...
Friday Night Lights was basically ignored by the academy. So, are they out of touch? YES!
Reply
7-18-2008 @ 3:32PM
Jimmy said...
Dear L.A. Times: Ever heard of the People's Choice Awards?
Reply
7-18-2008 @ 4:09PM
jkchicago said...
I think with shows like Mad Men, most people are catching up on that show through Netflix or by buying the DVDs. There's just too much to watch during the regular season.
To me, it comes down to what the purpose is for the Emmy's. It's an award for excellence in television, not ratings. If they want to reward shows just for being popular...well...that's what the People's Choice Awards are for. While I'm extremely upset that The Wire didn't score nominations for best drama or for acting, I'm thrilled Mad Men got nominated.
Reply
7-18-2008 @ 6:33PM
Jason said...
I completely agree with your 2nd paragraph. Popular≠high-quality in most cases. Look at Mad Men, The Wire, even BSG one the one hand. Awesome shows, but the viewership is terrible. American Idol, I'll catch 5 minutes and be reminded of why I despise it. But it gets a ton of viewers, so it stays around.
As for the 1st paragraph, I don't see why it would be so hard to watch a show that starts in the summer. The networks are mostly in reruns, so that leaves plenty of time to shift to cable. The real problem is, AMC didn't promote it very much. If I weren't reading TV Squad, I wouldn't have known Mad Men was even in existence last summer. But the DVD catch-up concept is likely true for some curious viewers.
The added press, both for the Emmy nods and the high critical reception, may get more new viewers to check it out as well. I know the show is on the iTunes Store and VOD (Comcast's anyway), but AMC/Lionsgate should put the first season (or at least the pilot) out for streaming on Hulu and elsewhere help sell the show to even more viewers.
7-19-2008 @ 5:58PM
jkchicago said...
I should have been more clear in the first paragraph; I didn't mean Mad Men specifically, but shows of that (or better) quality that run during the amazingly crowded regular season.
7-18-2008 @ 4:32PM
Elf said...
"Popular" does not equal "Best" (or even "Good" for that matter). These qualities rarely intersect. The rewards for the "Popular" shows are money, notoriety and continued employment. The only reward for "Best" is a fancy trophy.
Reply
7-18-2008 @ 5:24PM
Allison Solow said...
The People's Choice Award exists for the popular favorites. That's why Dick Clark came up with the idea.
I think there is something amiss in the Emmy system because shows can be nominated when they have one or two episodes, rather than judging a complete season. I realize that it's virtually impossible to ask a Blue Ribbon panel to watch all 22 episodes of a single nominee, but that would be a more accurate way to judge if a series is worthy of being the most outstanding. Instead, a particular episode represents an entire season. That bothers be more than whether Mad Men is watched by 1 million or 10 million -- but that's just me.
As for why some shows are continually shut out (The Wire) while others are overpraised (Boston Legal), that seems to have something to do with popularity within the Hollywood/showbiz community. Kind of like the way the inside the Beltway media treat McCain like a good friend instead of judging him as a politician running for office.
Reply
7-18-2008 @ 6:10PM
Fran said...
They definitely are. There should be a limit as to how many times an actor is nominated so that other actors can get a chance to win an Emmy. Seems like it is more of a personality thing. For example, NCIS has been on so long, but people are just noticing how great the show is. I have watched NCIS since the beginning, and I have yet to see an episode that was not good. Same goes for Cold Case. How many shows can you say that about? Not many.
Reply
7-18-2008 @ 10:53PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Every episode of Cold Case is bad. My wife has that crap on quite often when she goes to bed. It takes every bit of self restraint not to hurl a book at the bedroom TV just so I can stop the pain caused by overacting and simplistic writing.
7-18-2008 @ 10:51PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Yes plenty of truly awful TV got nominations too. Two and a Half Men? Grey's Anatomy? CSI? That stuff is empty-headed crap - popcorn TV with little substance and nothing even approaching solid writing/acting/directing.
Reply
7-19-2008 @ 4:35AM
R said...
Why the crap comment about James Spader? Don't be an sarcastic ass and say he doesn't deserve it, just because your "favorite" wasn't nominated or picked in the Best Actor category. The article made sense until the last couple of paragraphs. James Spader is a fabulous actor. I'm not saying the system isn't flawed, from the dumb Nielson boxes to critics who play favorites, and to those who don't recognize David E. Kelly's brilliance and give him an Emmy for writing......It ALL needs to be looked at
Reply
7-19-2008 @ 2:35PM
StillBash said...
You have to understand Bob. Studio 60 wasn't nominated AT ALL this year.
7-19-2008 @ 2:16PM
Joe said...
I am so sick of hearing all of this hyperbole about Mad Men. The show is just a boring look at the dull world in the 60's. It's exploitation television for the baby-boomers that watch AMC and make up the voters for these sorts of awards. I've seen the first three episodes and I could not physically watch another episode. The show deserves maybe some set dressing emmy nominations, but that's it!
Best show and best actor? I think Dexter deserves the nod for best show this year even though it wasn't as good as the first season and as much as it pains me, I think Bryan Cranston's 7-episode stint as Walt White would have to just beat Michael C. Hall's work. Hopefully Hugh Laurie can use the inevitable House vs. Wilson saga to finally get the win he deserves next year, but the key point is that Mad Men shouldn't win a thing.
Reply
7-21-2008 @ 7:07AM
Jimmy said...
Mad Men will do just fine without you, Joe. Enjoy Dexter.
7-24-2008 @ 11:40PM
CAL said...
The Emmys, like all award shows, are a popularity contest decided by a select few who are overly influenced by publicists. We'd all do better to ignore all of this nonsense or at least view them for what they are.
Reply