AaronHernandez

I think it's more the fact tv viewership is so splintered their's only a small amount of shows in each category that get enough eyeballs where they can get enough broad support for a nomination. Like with White Lotus,Mike White had never Written/Directed a Series before that got into Drama/Comedy or Limited before,and of all the people on that show who have gotten acting nominations the vast majority are people who had never been nominated for any kind of major industry award. Unless I am mistaken Connie Britton,F. Murray Abrham and Michael Imperroli are the only 3 acting nominees on the show who had ever received an Emmy nomination prior to WL appearance. I don't think Industry Politics are pushing Mike White to have an Emmy Juggernaut,really it's just his show is on HBO which enabled it to get eyeballs and it was well liked/reviewed as well. That said I would love if Emmy's altered their rules that a show can have no more then 2 nominees in a category,it would easily solve the problem that has occured recently particularly in the supporting categories where the top 2-3 shows nudge everyone out.

Count Dooku

So, Grace and Frankie stars Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda. Only one can be nominated for Best Actress. Who picks which one?

And if your answer is that it would be determined by which one gets the most nominating votes, then your system IS TOTAL BULLSHIT! Because whoever gets the most nominating votes is exactly the system that is in place. The voters get to decide who should be nominated. The voters decide who wins. If they change the system to exclude certain potential nominees, in an effort to get more shows represented in the process, the whole point of the awards is negated, since it has to be an open competition. Plus, I guarantee there will be shows that remove themselves from the entire process in protest of something so fucking stupid. If the members of the TV academy think all the best performances came from two shows, then that's what they fucking think. That's the point of the whole enterprise, to collect the opinions of the voting members.

Let me ask you this. Would it be unfair for the Republican and Democratic candidates for POTUS to both be from the same state? After all, there are 50 states. Shouldn't more than one be represented in the election? So if Gavin Newsom announces his bid for the 2028 election, no other candidates form CA can run, even in the other party? Maybe we should mandate that both candidates cannot come from the same region of the country.

The whole point of the Emmys is that whatever is nominated is supposed to represent the best, however that plays out. If you manipulate the rules to exclude some people from consideration, you cannot say your slate of nominees represents the best. It's like baseball when it was white-only. The "best" are not really the best.

​​​​​​​Guess what! You don't have to watch it or care about it. Problem solved.

Draven

There are already plenty of rules the Emmys have instituted, ones that also interfere with nominating the true “best”. No reason they couldn’t add one more.

In your Grace and Frankie example, whichever one gets the most votes gets the one nomination from that category for that show. Simple.

As for not watching, one of the reasons I stopped was because the same shows started sweeping everything. And considering the historically low ratings, I wasn’t the only one who wasn’t interested in the festivities.

I thought I’d offer some suggestions that might make the show more interesting to watch. Eventually there is going to be a category where every nominee is from the same show. What a thrill ride!

Decker

In 1982, all 5 Best Supporting Actor in a Drama nominees were from Hill Street Blues. Somehow both the Emmys and prestige TV survived.

Draven

Yikes, that is ridiculous Though were far fewer options back then.

Count Dooku

Whatever the Emmys are, they are an honest representation of the opinions of the members of the TV Academy. When people are nominated or win, they know that the honor is coming form the collective opinion of their peers.

If the Academy manipulates the nominating process to exclude certain nominees, then the awards no longer represent anything meaningful to the honorees.

The changes you recommend would turn television's most esteemed honor into a MTV award.

Count Dooku

Yes, we must do everything possible to make sure the will of the voters is never expressed.

Draven

Considering the amount of content today vs. when Hill Street Blues was on the air, I think it's perfectly reasonable to take a few steps to make sure one or two shows don't dominate the awards. And there are already rules in place that restrict what can be nominated for what.

I took a look at the Emmy rules here.

Here's one, for example:

Not that I think it will win an Emmy, but Echo on Disney+ had only 5 episodes. So voters aren't allowed to nominate it or any of the actors for the series category, even if it's their "will" to do so. Apparently some rules are okay, even if they go against the "will of the voters".

Decker

Echo is a limited series and can compete in that category, the episode rule is for continuing series, not Limited.
The last season of Treme fell into that situation because it was so few episodes, and was in competition for Best Limited Series instead. Last season of The Big C as well. Not sure if they would still qualify under the newest rules for Limited Series though

Decker

I know they're just stupid awards, but I will never get completely over Bob Odenkirk and Rhea Seehorn never winning for BCS. They were both so good. And Bob almost died during the filming. That he recovered and gave us that amazing final season is truly remarkable. Not taking away anything from Kieran Caulkin (who was really good in the final season), but I didn't even consider that to be a Lead Actor performance when I watched it -- I don't know how it's determined but I don't think his part was any bigger than Matthew Macfayden's, and he certainly seemed like a supporting character compared to Jeremy Strong's Kendal.

Draven

I understand that but the point still stands - there are already Emmy rules that keep actors and other creators siloed and separated based on completely arbitrary criteria. So I don't understand why it would end Emmys forever if they also said there can only be one representative per show per category.

Mike86

Yeah, it’s pretty crazy that Better Call Saul received as many nominations as it did and didn’t win a single award. I’m only to season five but it’s such a great show.

Count Dooku

But just try to understand this, the change you are proposing NEGATES THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE.

The whole point of the Emmy awards is that they can say the nominations and winners reflect EXACTLY what the members of the academy, who are professionals who work in television, think are the best that television has to offer.

If 5 actors from Hill Street Blues or the entire cast of Succession gets nominated for acting awards, then that is exactly what the voters thought was the best.

If you start futzing around with excluding nominees due to someone's perception of unfairness or someone's desire to make it more interesting, then you can no longer claim that your nominees and winners represent exactly what the voters thought was the best, and again, that is the whole point of the awards existing.

If the interest is in having a diverse group of nominees that represent a lot of different shows, then they should just eliminate the nominating by vote process entirely and just have the nominees selected by a committee. And then they can bring other factors into play to make the award show more viewer-friendly. They can make sure the selected nominees are younger and prettier. Do people really want to see Margo Martindale or Christine Baranski accept an award when those hot babes on Riverdale are around?

The point is that it is an open process where the nominees and winners are the people that got the most votes. The most basic American concept that there is. That's the basic value that these awards represent to the winners and the people watching.

Draven

Do you think it's truly who they think was the best or is it who is most popular or on the most popular shows? Which might literally be the only ones they watch - we have no way of knowing. My suspicion is that one of the main reasons we get the entire cast and crew of a popular show nominated for ALL the awards is because that's one of the only shows the voters actually watched. I do not believe it's as pure of an exercise as you seem to be implying.

And I think this holds true for any election or vote - we don't vote the BEST people into office. We vote the people who ran the most effective campaign or said the right things at the right time to the right people.

Count Dooku

Each person gets to decide whether they want to submit as lead or supporting.

Because categories to place people in and EXCLUDING people from eligibility are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!

One is saying, if you want to compete, you have to go here. And the other is saying, you cannot compete.
Because it could no longer claim to be what it claims to be.

Also, I guarantee you that actors on shows like Succession or the Sopranos or West Wing or Hill Street Blues or Friends would refuse to participate at all, is everyone from the cast was not eligible to participate. The same would go for the writers and directors. The best shows with all those high quality performances and scripts would not play that game, and THAT WOULD end the Emmys.

Count Dooku

They claim what they are, and the process supports their ability to make that claim.

A politician who wins an election can claim a mandate based on the expressed will of the people . . . because that is what an election is, the expressed will of the people.

An Emmy winner can say they won a vote of what is the best because that is what was held. If you alter the voting rules and start excluding people, then they can no longer say they were honestly and fairly voted as the best.

Count Dooku

But truly, I now feel like I am talking to a wall. I understand the reasons why you want this change, but if you can't understand why they could never make this change, then you don't understand what the Emmy awards are and represent to the people who win them. You obviously think it is just a TV show, and all they should care about is making it more interesting. It's not a reality show. It's an honest recognition of excellence and achievement from one's peers. They can't fuck around with that,

Draven

I have actually appreciated the discussion, so I'm sorry you feel that way. But I also am still going to maintain that the Emmys have already laid down a set of rules that it can be argued prohibit competition in certain ways. We've just accepted those rules. As for casts revolting, I would hope that they would support their nominated cast member instead but maybe that's asking too much.

If the Emmys can't figure out where The Bear goes, it says that their rules aren't infallible and might be due for some adjustment.

Josh-da-man

Historically, a "comedy" was a half-hour program, filmed on a stage with three cameras in front of a studio audience, and had a laugh track.

A "drama" was an hour-long program, filmed on sets or on-location with a single camera.

Those lines became blurred in the past couple of decades, but even further back you had shows like M*A*S*H and Moonlighting that straddled the genres, though everyone would probably agree that M*A*S*H would be a comedy and Moonlighting was a drama.

Back when network tv was king, I think it was generally accepted that a thirty minute series was a comedy and an hour-long series was a drama.