After the brouhaha developed over CBS's decision to pre-tape some Emmy presentations in order to keep the broadcast moving, it only seemed like a matter of time before the network decided that the hassle wasn't worth it. So when, thanks to The Wrap's Josef Adalian, the news broke that the Eye Network and Emmy producers were abandoning the time-shifting plan, it wasn't a big surprise.No matter how many times producer Don Mischer explained the time shift to critics at the TCAs last week, it didn't seem that many people were convinced the ploy wasn't going to shortchange the people whose wins were among the edited group. It seemed especially galling to a lot of the writers and producers of the honored shows that whatever time was being given up was going to be used to "celebrate the best of TV" that year, whether it was nominated or not.
I was all for a broadcast that was more accessible. And, by the example Mischer gave of an edited award presentation, it wasn't like they were just going to show the winner lifting the award while background music played, like you see at the Grammys.
The only problem they were going to have was picking which categories to tape delay. And that was the crux of the problem. No matter how equitable they tried to be, some category of the industry -- showrunners, writers, supporting actors, directors -- was going to feel like they were getting screwed. And, according to Adalian, since no one network has rights to air the Emmys -- yet -- CBS didn't want to be the one sticking their necks out to make a change, no matter how much it was needed.
Like I said last week, I'll be watching the Giants-Cowboys game during that time, anyway; they could have tape-delayed the whole thing like the ESPYs and it wouldn't have mattered to me. I just find it funny that there's all this contention over an awards broadcast that people usually forget about five minutes after it airs.
Mike Henry and Daryl Hall on a Cleveland Show Thanksgiving
The TV Squad Podcast: The Prisoner, '80s TV, soap news and more
Let's talk about spoilers ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-13-2009 @ 12:03PM
RobynM said...
I'm glad the decision was reversed. Particularly with all the scuttlebutt floating about that it was proposed in the first place because the Nets were PO'd that Cable got the majority of nominations Again. Because of this, it was going to be the cable-heavy categories that got time-shifted.
Don Mischer's comments in the linked article would tend to bear the abovementioned allegations out. Especially those regarding last year's low ratings being attributable to "shows that mainstream audiences didn't know and weren't interested in", wanting to make the show about "broadcasting, not narrow casting" and that "of the twelve most-watched shows on American TV, two awards were given in prime time"
Personally, I'll be watching the show with friends semi-live - enough DVR backlog to skip commercials. I'm not a big sports fan, so the football game isn't a consideration.
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 12:12PM
miller980 said...
Like I needed another reason not to watch this overlong snoozefest. The ratings will continue to fall and ultimately it will wind up on a cable network, which will be no surprise, as increasingly that's where all the nominations go anyway.
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 4:45PM
nick said...
Well, the worst situation that could possible happen, happened. We're initially told the telecast would be shorter, and there was a glimmer of hope, but because some were up in arms about editing, the whole plan was scraped. This is NOT a good thing for anyone NOT in the industry that has to sit through the show. In fact, I suspect people will get bored or turned off and tune out.
As far as cable receiving most awards, it's the fault of broadcast networks programming less and less original programming in favor of news, reality, or game shows.
When was the last time any network carried a decent mini-series?
Speaking of, Harper's Island on CBS, which I did not watch, had to have had the worst advertising campaign in recent memory. It was dreary, annoying, played constantly, and didn't seem to feature anyone recognizable. It was a sure fire recipe for disaster.
Now that I think about it, I'd much rather watch an awards show on TV about the WORST on TV. There's so much to choose from and the networks would receive a lot of nominations.
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 6:57PM
Heather said...
Anyway, I see this as a bright side. However, I'm not too keen on how 8 out of 10 the nominations are to Mad Men and 30 Rock.
Reply