The Network Emmys Wouldn't Stop Giving Awards to Cable Shows, Would They?
Tired of seeing Matthew Weiner make Emmy acceptance speeches for Mad Men? Well, if the major television networks have their way, you might not have to worry about that anymore. Oh sure, the networks are only talking to the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences about creating a second Emmy telecast that would banish the cable-heavy categories (mini-series and TV movie) to cable. But that slippery slope could lead to one possibly game-changing destination: The CableACE Awards.
Despite the good-time nature of the Emmy Awards on Sunday night, ratings were only up a smidgen from last year. Part of the problem can easily be laid at the feet of the HBO-dominated portion of the telecast, which found the stars of Temple Grandin, The Pacific and You Don't Know Jack leading a conga-line up to the stage like the Emmys were some Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce Christmas party.
On the face of it, offloading these particular awards to a cable outlet -- which, apparently, would be offered free for the evening to cable subscribers -- does seem like the best course of action. It would open the telecast up for other awards people might actually care about (Outstanding Guest Actor and Actress, for instance), while keeping the focus on the networks. This would please network executives as well: In "off-the-record conversations" with THR, they have complained about airing an awards show "that is mostly a huge promotional postcard for HBO and cable."
Of course, therein lies the rub: The Emmys themselves have become a "huge promotional postcard for HBO and cable." This year, four of the eight main acting trophies were given to cable stars, while Mad Men won Best Drama for a third straight year. Toss in the writing award for Matthew Weiner, the directing award bestowed upon Dexter and even Top Chef's selection as top reality program, and you've got a ceremony that was dominated by cable. If network executives are worried about the middle portion of the show being a commercial for their cable competitors, why aren't they worried about the other parts, too? Well, they probably are -- they're just not saying so.
For now though, let's just take everyone at their word. An additional Emmy broadcast on cable would allow for both better network ratings (a specious argument at best, but sure) and higher revenues for the ATAS. Everyone wins! Because of that, expect this to happen eventually. When season four of Mad Men gets ghettoized to the "Cable Emmys," however, just don't say I didn't warn you.
· Will Emmys split into two shows next year? [THR]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
I think the entire Emmy telecast should just be on HBO. That way: swearing, nudity, a bigger budget, and no commercials.
Why should the Emmys stop doing that? The idea is to promote the best in TV, not the best in network TV. I'd like to see them roll the international Emmys into this as far as I'm concerned. If the networks feel they're getting slighted then the solution is easy -- MAKE BETTER SHOWS. For example, except for the fact network standards probably would make the smoking forbidden, there's relatively little in Mad Men that could not be shown in a post-Family Hour timeslot on a regular network. NBC could have bought the show and be reaping the rewards. Now if there is proof of bias among the voters - for example, someone saying that they wouldn't have voted for Mad Men if it were on a regular network - then there's dirty pool afoot. Personally, it's been several years since any shows I care about have received major nominations, so the Emmys have lost a lot of their relevance with me anyway.
OR, maybe the networks could COMPETE with cable by offering better and bigger programming! What a novel concept!
I hardly watch TV anymore. Regular shows are just that, regular. I have the most basic cable programming possible because there are so many channels nowadays and yet so few decent shows to watch, so why spend the extra $$$ ? Mad Men I get from my local library as soon as the finished season is released on DVD. What is my point? Television needs to go back to its roots -- network TV that is. Star making better shows that are written well: sitcoms that are written for thinking people, not for droids who will laugh at anything. Dramas that are also well-crafted one looks forward to the next episode. Stop with the police dramas, Emergency room dramas, and the like. I am sick of those. Why not look back at the TV of the past, when shows were good because the writing and the acting was good, without resorting to extreme gore and violence, profanity and over-dramatic overtures which executives think it is what we want. WE DO NOT !
I thought the whole idea behind the start of the CableACE Awards was that regular TV did not recognize the cable outlets. Also if you have to pay extra for them (HBO, Showtime) aren't they just the movie theater in your (Where ever you have your TV.)? But is regular TV any better for having CSI, NCIS, and Law&Order franchises almost every night? I guess the war dramas and westerns are too unsophicated for these TV execs nowadays. Cops, lawyers, and the people to bandage them up are alternated with people who got out of the house to be on the tube as if that is reality. Maybe Jay Leno @ 10 was to early or not real enough.
Man, talk about capitulating. Networks can't compete with cable, so cable needs their own awards show to not upstage the networks. Ridiculous. Cable does run a different schedule. They can have 13 or 14 episodes and rerun them at different times all they want. That means tighter story telling which attracts better writers, etc. But, EW and Movieline have encouraged me to watch that stuff on USA. Know what? A full season order of Burn Notice at 10 Thursdays on NBC would be great. It's funny, different and clever. Much better than "Jimmy Smits project No. 7". Instead of "franchises" the networks need to be looking to new ideas and the world around them. Modern Family was ABC's first comedy Emmy since 1988 (the Wonder Years). That says a lot.
If networks want awards they need to offer up something equal in quality to Mad Men, Breaking Bad, or The Tudors instead of getting squeamish and giving us endless CSI clones, or lazy & cheap "reality" shows. LOST was okay but ultimately shied away from being an interesting sci-fi and turned into some bogus religious thing. They also don't give shows with potential to gain audience much of a chance to take off - half the time they yank stuff off the air before it can gain a following, or they mess around with the timeslots so you don't even know when a show is on.
Honestly, you don't get a prize just for showing up to the race, you have to actually deserve to win. Cable shows that win awards generally don't treat the audience like children or idiots, they are often demanding, thoughtful, well-developed, and have excellent production values. They work with writers instead of oversanitizing and censoring to the point of lunacy. Believe it or not, some of us at home appreciate that a lot. Off the top of my head, I can't even think of a single network show I regularly watch.
I don't agree with commenter Mackie that profanity/violence is part of the problem (uglier things are seen on the news every night, get over it), but indeed networks would do well to consider some shows of the past and learn from them. The Twilight Zone is a perfect example of what can be accomplished with good, intelligent writing and great acting on a small budget with limited tools. Twin Peaks, The X-Files, Firefly - all good network shows, all employing talented writers, actors, and production staff. And they didn't talk down to their audiences. Bring that back and you might not be crying into your spilt milk so much.