Apparently, adding more hosts to the Emmys does not add more viewers. This year’s telecast, presided over by Ryan Seacrest, Heidi Klum, Tom Bergeron, Howie Mandel, and Jeff Probst, only managed to reach 12.2 million viewers, down 6 percent from last year’s 13 million. Not helping the snooze fest — I mean — elegant awards program was competition from NBC’s Sunday Night Football, which scored a solid 16 million viewers.
ABC didn’t have much luck earlier in the evening either with Jimmy Kimmel’s Big Night of Stars. The funnyman’s special only saw a paltry 4.7 million viewers; Stars actually had less viewers in its first half-hour (4.6) than a rerun of American Dad on Fox (4.7 mil). But Kimmel’s main opponent was the old fogies at 60 Minutes who dominated the 7-8 p.m. hour with 17.2 million viewers. Maybe Andy Rooney should host next year’s Emmys?
That show was terrible. The banter was horribly awkward; the Laugh-In schtick was painful; and having Brian Cranston win for a show no one has ever heard of over Hugh Laurie was a travesty. I’ll stick to the Golden Globes from now on.
Three words…BORING, BORING, BORING. Nuff Said.
the emmys arent that entertaining anymore, what i wanted to know was why this girl didnt get an emmy bc she is one heck of an actress trying to make everyone believe shes so innocent
http://www.yournobody.com/2008/09/11/nobody-thinks-youre-a-virgin/
I didn’t even know the emmys were on last night until I saw the listings for the evening while looking for another show.
Ryan Seacrest is to blame. Last year’s Emmy show had the lowest ratings since 1990! 1990! I’m not surprised that his return appearance lowered the bar even further. Did the producers learn nothing from last year’s debacle? Once ratings start to slide, it’s hard to reverse direction.
Most of the awards shows have become a way for Hollywood “in crowds” to pat each other on the backs. It has nothing to do with the acting, writing, or popularity among viewers. Personally, I didn’t watch it because I knew it would just be used as a major platform for “intelligent” Hollywooders to rant and rave against the Republicans. Stick to entertainment discussions, and it would be much more interesting or entertaining.
They also happened to be on opposite the final game to ever be played at Yankee Stadium. That probably stole some viewers, too. That and the certainty of, say, Jeremy Piven winning.
Of course few people watched. They open with that blow hard Oprah, speaking to a room full of left wing liberals wearing expensive clothes given to the wealthy who complain about lack of care for the poor. Sounds fun to me.
THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO SEE MORE OF CLASSIC CLIPS FROM SHOWS LIKE MASH. THEY HAD A WEBSITE THAT YOU COULD CHOOSE WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS THE BEST MOMENTS IN TV COMEDY AND DRAMA. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO SHOW THE RESULTS. WHAT HAPPENED?
Sunday Night Football was on. And it was a lot more exciting than the Emmys.
Isn’t “Deal or No Deal” a GAME SHOW?
It’s not a reality show! They could have gone without one extra host.
Um, “less viewers”? Don’t you mean “fewer”?
Besides the sports games and future presidents, the Emmys keep nominating the same shows every year (30 Rock), and stuff nobody watches (Mad Men).
It was a nice try by the Academy to include the Reality TV Hosts (since their shows grab big ratings), but the stigma is Reality TV is ruining regular TV, so there’s an undercurrent of resentment from everyone in the audience, and everybody watching at home.
And yes, Deal or No Deal is a gameshow. (why are they calling it reality competition?) Doesn’t that make Alex Trebeck eligible for Jeopardy? Vanna White?
Boo to yesterday.
There’s your proof that the Emmy voters are out of touch with the viewing public. Two and a Half men, really!? Jeremy Piven, AGAIN!? Come on [/Gob]
I heard it was the least watched Emmys ever. I tuned in to the football game. The Emmys are like the Oscars…the right picks rarely win. Oh, one last comment…Michael Emerson and Lost were robbed!