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.

Isn’t this exactly the problem the Academy is trying to fix? Fewer and fewer people are watching the award show.

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. 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?

OK, then I won’t watch. But still, thanks for the info.

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.

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.