My point is that I think to keep up with the times they really need to add more categories and more ways for people to win as a way of giving more shows a slice of the pie. Perhaps a mystery category and a scifi/fantasy category. Add an ensemble acting category. And so on. That will decrease people feeling alienated I bet and make the awards seem more relevant to viewers.

If not that then separating cable from broadcast as the poster above suggested would be better than no change at all.

And not to mention, HBO. Please? what quality? Nudity and profane language makes good TV? Anyhow, that could be deemed as subjective. The Emmy people need to stop being so biased. (I love NBC)

AS FAR AS THIS YEARS SHOW, THERE UP AGAINST SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL. GUESS WHO PLAYING. AMERICAS TEAM (DALLAS COWBOYS)AGAINST THE TEAM FROM THE NUMBER ONE TV MARKET IN THE NEW JERSEY….I MEAN NY GIANTS. SORRY!!! FOOTBALL: 17.1. THE EMMYS: 9.3.

P.S. HBO AND THE OTHER CABLE NEYWORKS HAVE NEW EPISODES OR SEASON PREMIRES OF THEIR SHOWS. GO LUCKY EMMYS!!!!

Just looking at it, I would say less, for the most part with a few exceptions.

I mean take the Amazing Race, its won its category every single time. Now can you honestly argue that the show doesn’t consistently keep high quality for that field?

If you have a great actor (and especially when they are in an equally great role) and they do put out consistently great work, why shouldn’t they continue to get nominated?

If HBO keeps putting out great material (and it hasn’t in the last few years) why shouldn’t they get rewarded for their hard work.

I also hate that the shows are based not a season’s work but on a single episodes work. Now I can certainly understand the writing and directing (and others of that nature) where different people are responsible for different episodes. But an actor is typically playing that same person week after week and as such should be judged based on their full performance for that season. Same for the show.

One of the other problems with this type of award show is that for the most part the voting members don’t watch a ton of TV. And as such they miss out on a ton of material (most of which is crap, but there are gems that never get noticed). At least with critics they are actually paid to watch tv (and a wide variety at that) throughout the full season.

Just because a show is highly watched do you honestly think they are the best programs? Because if you do then I seriously think your judgment is flawed.

Now I am not arguing that who gets nominate truly reflects the best on tv (not even close), but in general they are closer then just picking the 5 most successful shows in each of the respective categories.

I mean seriously people.

There was a lot more room for musical performances. The quality of the songs and the artists involved can be debated but there’s little argument watching musicians perform is more interesting than watching them offer bad oratory.

Even the Academy Awards hold their science and technical awards on a separate night. We know the Emmys tried to move a few of the most boring categories to a pre-telecast slot and members howled. The problem is, since they agree to put their show on television, it’s not for them anymore. It’s for the audience.

1. Make the show a LOT more entertainment than awards ( comedy bits, clips, and music )

2. Make a rule no one can get two Emmy in a row in the same category

First they are just plain boring. I’ve never found watching people I don’t know thanking other people I don’t know to be very entertaining.

Second, they are meaningless to me. I don’t base the shows I watch on the awards they win or for which they are nominated. I don’t let critics determine my viewing choices and I don’t see why I should let some anonymous academy members determine them either. The only thing that matters to me is whether or not I am entertained by a program.

Also, entertainment awards shows are inherently BORING. Winners stand up to thank associates and colleagues that few watching could possibly care about. There was a time long ago when those asides held fascination to a wide audience, but today, with a mountain of media piled up in front of everyone, and with anyone being able to achieve national fame with one cheap video on You Tube, the glamour of being a TV star has eroded to the commonplace.

also, do we have numbers on how well the “red carpet” shows have done over the same period of time? one might argue that those many interested in the glamour and ceremony of the evening might tune into one of those shows instead.

2) At least for me, the Emmys are completely irrelevant. They should be searching for the cutting edge in excellent television, the innovators. Instead, it’s a glorified industry popularity contest. Several shows that have ample popular and critical success have never got so much as a nod from the Emmys because the shows don’t fit into a traditional box (BtVS, the Wire and BSG are the most glaring ones I can come up with right now). A poster earlier up suggested some sort of composite Emmy voter/critic/audience vote to get the nominations and I think that’s an interesitng idea. It might expand the Emmy landscape and make the Emmys mean something again.

No they are biased towards HBO because the hbo logo is like the apple logo – it can make some think something okay is great. If most HBO shows aired on a broadcast network it’s unlikely they’d be so praised. True they’d be shorn of most nudity and bad language but if they were really good that wouldn’t matter.

And it sucks that they always nominate shows nobody’s watching, but if they started nominating shows based on popularity, Jerry’s right, it’d just be another People’s Choice Awards. And the People’s Choice Awards suck even more than the Emmys.

And with today’s internet, I can just click on the site and find out who has won. if they give a good speech, it’ll pop up on youtube.

and maybe the Emmys are “biased” towards HBO because they are about quality and not merely spin-off fever.

What puts me off is the fact that they seem rigged, I know that they are, but at least they should make it look like less obvious.

‘Till some years ago I used to watch the grammys. After 2-3 years I began to understand how all worked and the politics behind them. Yeah, the people winning them were good, but how many other good singers that year were there and more deserving?

The same can be said for the Oscar and the emmys. It’s more like “look at who are the most powerful/respected people in the tv business” rather than “look at how good that show/actor is”.

For example, I think Sally Field is a good actress. But the fact that she’s nominated once again (after having already won an emmy for that role), it’s a bit too much.

It’s not that last year she gave an outstanding performance in that role. Ok, she nailed that part, but how many other actresses did the same in their respective roles? But they don’t get nominated.
Sally Field gets nominated because she is Sally Field. They did the same with some shows.

And after a while it became tiring and uninteresting.
There isn’t the “curiosity” factor anymore.

Or maybe they should ride the vampire bandwagon and do something that will pull the vampire-lovin fans to watch haha.

As for the Emmy being about quality please…The Emmy is about making money, nothing else.

I think the Emmys should curb shows and people winning more than once or twice for the same awards to avoid repetition and as great as HBO is, I do think they dominate a bit too much and maybe it’s time to cut back on how many nominations they get per year to give other networks a chance.

From 1994-98, Frasier won every year, but in that same time period a different show won for drama each year. Then from 2000-2003 The West Wing took over the drama category and the best comedy changed each year, so at least audiences had a little surprise each year.

This year, it seems pretty obvious that Mad Men and 30 Rock are going to win every category the can.

And the winner is The Mentalist!