If half the awards presented during the annual Emmy telecast bore you to tears, you’re not alone: The Big Four networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox) are keenly aware of that fact and are always eager to make the ceremony more viewer-friendly. The trouble is, their need to increase the ratings—the show hasn’t exceeded 20 million viewers since 2000—doesn’t always coincide with the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences’ mission to reward excellence, including honoring a bunch of writers, directors, and pay-TV movies that most viewers have never heard of. The requirement to air all 27 categories— more than any other awards show—will certainly dominate the discussion this week when the networks begin talking with the TV Academy about the future of the Emmy telecast, and how much they’re willing to pay to keep it on broadcast. The current contract expires after the Aug. 29 show, hosted by Jimmy Fallon on NBC, and the Big Four are itching to shake things up—even if that means allowing the Emmys to move to cable. Gripes one Big Four suit, “How can we be expected to pony up more money for what continues to be, with few exceptions, a show that celebrates cable TV?” (The TV Academy declined to comment.)
In the short term, Emmy producer Don Mischer has his work cut out for him come Aug. 29: Though the show is slotted for three hours, he has only two hours and six minutes to hand out all those Emmys and pay tribute to a great year of TV (the rest of the time goes to ads and NBC promos). “So many great shows said goodbye this year…Lost, 24, Law & Order, Monk,” says Mischer. “You could make a really wonderful package of film on shows that said goodbye, but that kind of thing takes time. It really depends on how we pace the show.” Meanwhile, Mischer and the TV Academy have already raised the ire of the unscripted community by taking the relatively new category of Best Reality Show host and relegating it to the Creative Arts Emmys on Aug. 21. A spokesman for the TV Academy explains that it was never a requirement for the category to be included in the prime time show, which will feature the Bob Hope Humanitarian Award on Aug. 29 for the first time in six years. The recipient is George Clooney, who could be a bigger draw than reality show nominees like two-time winner Jeff Probst (Survivor), Tom Bergeron (Dancing with the Stars), Heidi Klum (Project Runway), Ryan Seacrest (American Idol) and Phil Keoghan (The Amazing Race).
The reality host category made it into the prime time show last year because CBS allowed the show to run five minutes over – which opened up more time in the broadcast, the spokesman said. This year, NBC wants to end the telecast on time. The category for Outstanding Reality Competition Series, however, will remain in the prime time show: This year’s nominees are Project Runway, Top Chef, The Amazing Race, Dancing with the Stars and American Idol. (For information on the rest of the Emmy nominations, click here).
As for the decision to eliminate the hosting category, Probst is trying to stay positive. “While it’s disappointing, it doesn’t take away from the honor of being nominated,” Probst told EW. “I’m still thrilled to have our work acknowledged. I’m trying to change our Survivor shooting schedule so I can attend.” - With additional reporting from Dalton Ross
I have not been watching Emmy for the past 5 years.
I don’t plan to watch this year either.
They should just announce the winners through a webcast! Period
Why so anti-Emmys? I like the shows. They’re fun.
Less than 20% of my favorite shows are being nominated! That’s the reason! I don’t care about who win for shows I don’t care!
I like the webcast idea. There is a part of me that loves the Emmys but I would much prefer to be able to watch them at my leisure on a webcast.
@Liz – you should try live blogging while watching live – it’s a blast! (and the EW live blog is always a hoot)
Gripes one Big Four suit, “How can we be expected to pony up more money for what continues to be, with few exceptions, a show that celebrates cable TV?”
Here’s my idea… start making better shows than cable, and then there’s no issue, now is there?
And please, “with few exceptions?” Probably half of the nominees are on broadcast.
Thank you Brigid! Stop whining and make some award worthy television.
But, maybe they should move it to cable. That’s where most people watch good TV anyway.
They do make award worthy television–then promptly cancel it after 1 or 2 seasons and keep garbage on the air.
I watched last year just to be deeply disappointed in the winners. The guy from 2.5 men over NPH? Seriously? Jim Parsons did not win but Boring Baldwin did? For real Emmy voters?
For real!
The award show could be very entertaining if the network didn’t try to stretch the show out for ratings. Have a dramatic & comedy actor/actress go up together and announce the winner for both comedy/drama actor/actress either supporting/lead & then do same with actor/actress in tv movie, etc. Skip the awards people really don’t care to see (editing, writing, directing, etc – put them all at the creative awards or do like the Grammies and give them out prior to tv) & then end with the award for Best Shows (comedy, drama, mini-series, etc). Skip the special awards (sorry Clooney) and all the other BS very few viewers care about. Make the Emmys about the awards given to the people in front of the camera who the viewers tune in to see. The show could be done in 90 minutes with commercials. Otherwise, I will watch the stars arrive & then read about the winners on-line.
See, I’m tired of awards show cutting out awards. I hate when you tune in and see like 5 awards handed out.
Cut mini-series/TV movies. So boring.
Really? I watch it for the editing, writing and directing awards. We don’t really get to hear about them outside of the awards show, so I very much enjoy seeing them get their time to shine, as they’re the reasons the we have any TV at all.
I might watch the show this year but the nominations and winners are so predictable and the selections so terrible, it’s a wonder why I would.
I think the best part of the Emmy’s last year was Neil Patrick Harris hosted. I’m not sure if I will watch this year because he did a great job hosting and I am not the biggest fan of Jimmy Fallon.
The thing I love about the emmys is that they DO show all the categories. This is why I hate the Grammy’s. They have over 100 categories and only show 10 in a 3 hour show. What the heck.
I used to be addicted to awards shows… but that was before youtube. Now instead of sitting through all the boring stuff, tributes, musical numbers, etc., I just click on the highlights the next day.
This year, I watched the whole Oscar ceremony in about 15 minutes!
I hope they do a tribute to the shows that ended this year…..especially LOST.
I think what award shows need are fewer awards and more photo montages. Okay, I’m actually serious, but I’m a litte Marshall Eriksen like that. I can’t resist any opportunity for a photo montage.
Cut the writing and directing for specials and movies. Or no speeches for all the writing/directing ones! Just take a bow, and give speech in press room.
Show clips of the actors nominated, no singing for ‘memorial’!
Here’s how you bring the Emmys in on time; relocate miniseries/TV movie and all its categories to the Creative Arts show. You eliminate almost 45 minutes of show right there and a 2-hour Emmycast is possible. Nobody cares about miniseries/TV movies outside of those who made them for quite some time now. Maybe not since Angels in America.
The sky is blue, the grass is green & The Amazing Race will win.
(unfortunately)
I have to disagree with Paul on the eliminating of the tv movie/miniseries, at least the acting parts (all writing, directing, etc can be done off tv) but the actors/actresses in these films give incrediable performances and are often some of the biggest stars in hollywood, etc. The reason most people, myself included, turn in for the awards are to see the actors/actresses. As I said, get rid of the special awards & Academy President speeches & give awards to the actors/actresses – it would make the show quicker & I would bet the audience a lot happier or follow Tony’s suggestion & watch it all on You-tube the next day (I usually look up the winners on-line):)
Perhaps someone could enlighten me. What I find most unsettling with the EMMY Awards is the fact that we have sooo many good tv programs especially on cable at least on most occasions they seem to give the show a chance to find an audience…….. but anyway why in some categories such as writing have nominations from all the same show. There are 5 nominations or so per category and many times 3 out of 5 of them are from the same show. Now I realize that it is different writers or even directors per episode but come on, what about nominating the best in each category therefore giving other shows etc more of a chance..ok sorry for the ramble..