Originally posted by BuffyMars: I wish HBO would push Flight Of the Conchords for Emmy consideration, as well as The Wire.
They may push both, but it is really hard to get an emmy nomination now. The system is so weird. It is a combination of popular votes + tapes, and the popular vote is basically people voting for those they know and stars and series they watch. If not many people know of the cast of the shows, or watch it, it will rank low on the popular vote. Then...they would need to rank extremely high on the viewing vote to get the nomination. Not to easy.
I think that is where so many shows last season missed out on nominations. Friday Night Lights is a good example. Rumor has it that it did quite well on the viewing portion of the voting (voters watch the episodes and ranked it high), but it was nearly dead last on the popular vote. So..once those votes added in, NO nomination.
Yep, that's why I think once you get a list of the top 10 based on popular vote, they should start fresh and take just the top 5 or 6 from the tapes. This should be about best performance, not who gets in with a crappy performance because they are popular. They've tinkered with the system the last few years, hopefully they tinker again to get the best nominees possible. I mean, you could have the best tape by a mile, but be so low in popularity you have no shot to make it in. That just isn't a fair system.
Posts: 200 | Location: Florida | Registered: 18 December 2006
Originally posted by BuffyMars: I wish HBO would push Flight Of the Conchords for Emmy consideration, as well as The Wire.
They may push both, but it is really hard to get an emmy nomination now. The system is so weird. It is a combination of popular votes + tapes, and the popular vote is basically people voting for those they know and stars and series they watch. If not many people know of the cast of the shows, or watch it, it will rank low on the popular vote. Then...they would need to rank extremely high on the viewing vote to get the nomination. Not to easy.
I think that is where so many shows last season missed out on nominations. Friday Night Lights is a good example. Rumor has it that it did quite well on the viewing portion of the voting (voters watch the episodes and ranked it high), but it was nearly dead last on the popular vote. So..once those votes added in, NO nomination.
Yep, that's why I think once you get a list of the top 10 based on popular vote, they should start fresh and take just the top 5 or 6 from the tapes. This should be about best performance, not who gets in with a crappy performance because they are popular. They've tinkered with the system the last few years, hopefully they tinker again to get the best nominees possible. I mean, you could have the best tape by a mile, but be so low in popularity you have no shot to make it in. That just isn't a fair system.
Your idea sounds good. I always thought they should do something like this (but it would take too much time and I doubt those judges would actually spend this much time viewing these tapes):
they should have a popular ballot of say, 20 names (for each category, and 20 names of shows for comedy/drama). each name and show has to then send (2) episodes for consideration, and that will narrow it down from 20 to 10. Then, a second panel watches those 10 and decides upon the five/six nominees. But...again...like they are actually going to sit down and watch that much programming.
It is much easier to check off the name of the guy you probably had lunch with last friday and then watch the tape later.
Originally posted by robert: Moonlight skews very old for the type of show it wants to be. CBS wanted to bring younger viewers to their friday lineup. Mission failed.
I don't know how Moonlight can be considered 'skewing' old when it tied Friday Night Lights in the 18-49 demo. I haven't seen anyone specifically quote the 18-34 demo, but it looks like Moonlight is succeeding in bringing in the younger demo that CBS wants, unless there was something I missed?
I say if they don't want to take the time to watch the nominees, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Something needs to be done about the lazy Emmy voters. It's a privilege to vote in these things, they should treat it as such and take the time and effort to make sure that who they vote for is who they truly feels deserves it.
Posts: 200 | Location: Florida | Registered: 18 December 2006
Anyone else seen the Pushing Daisies promo that is running..
"last week 27 Million viewers were touched"
say what?
That's the total number of people who watched for 5 minutes or more or something like that.
There's alot of controversy with that.
I hate when the networks do that. And they all do it.
I think PD got about 12 million viewers or something, which is great, but surprising as 'quirky, romantic comedy' isn't necessarily main stream. Hopefully they can keep it up since I really enjoyed the Pie-lette.
I thought this past emmy ceremony had some good winners (James Spader and Sally Field submitted incredible tapes to win)...but some very odd choices (Jaime Pressly is fantastic, but..her tape had about 4 minutes of screentime). Now, I realize she is supporting, but 4 minutes of work (which was good, not great) deserves an emmy over say Jenna Fishers 11 minutes from The Office episode where her and Jim finally got together.
I thought this past emmy ceremony had some good winners (James Spader and Sally Field submitted incredible tapes to win)...but some very odd choices (Jaime Pressly is fantastic, but..her tape had about 4 minutes of screentime). Now, I realize she is supporting, but 4 minutes of work (which was good, not great) deserves an emmy over say Jenna Fishers 11 minutes from The Office episode where her and Jim finally got together.
Some good choices, some odd choices.
so goes the emmys.....
I will say the nominees and winners were better than last year, which was the worst I'd ever seen.
Posts: 200 | Location: Florida | Registered: 18 December 2006
FNL - undoubtedly exceeded NBC expectations. And I've loved it from the start. But a little perspective: holding onto the small aud it had last year is a faint win, even allowing for reduced fri nite HUT. Also, CBS sinking makes these numbers look better.
VEGAS - More alarming is that it was solid through all 2 hrs last week, ending at 9.43mm 1030-11pm. And it can't blame FNL low TA, because last week DOND only did 7.45mm, 1.8 and VEGAS managed. Also, if there was a DVR effect on VEGAS, where was it last week? Is anybody suggesting that VEGAS when DVR is added did something like 10.5mm last week?
GW - while this show has had a pattern of spiking up as year goes on, I wouldn't be surprised if CBS is thinking more about this show than MOONLIGHT. The latter, probably low expectations. GW, the anchor that has reached well over 3 demo and is only in its 3rd year.
Posts: 2829 | Location: Western Pennsylvania | Registered: 13 December 2006
The message CBS should've got was that Close to Home was drawing 3 million more viewers in the timeslot. Is anyone else thinking that Close to Home's fans may have simply left the night altogether for CBS?
quote:
Originally posted by Pam:
quote:
Originally posted by robert: Moonlight skews very old for the type of show it wants to be. CBS wanted to bring younger viewers to their friday lineup. Mission failed.
Hardly a failure .. CBS may want younger viewers but the shows bringing in the ratings/demos are mature viewers and by now CBS should get the message .. Not only young people watch television and many older people are watching too and are loyal viewers ..
