honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Sunday, September 21, 2003

Let's give those boring Emmys a makeover

By Tom Jicha
Gannett News Service

The Emmys have become a repetitive bore. The same people and shows win every year. It's the ultimate TV rerun.

This doesn't happen at the Oscars, Grammys or Tonys, because they honor only the best of the past year. There's a chance that when the Emmys are presented for the 55th time tonight on Fox, every one of last year's winners for comedy and drama series, plus lead and supporting acting categories, could take home another golden statue, some for the third or fourth time.

Even some stars realize the absurdity of the process. Candice Bergen and John Larroquette asked that they no longer be entered after Bergen won for the seventh straight time for "Murphy Brown" and Larroquette captured his fourth straight Emmy for "Night Court." Once Bergen graciously withdrew, Helen Hunt won four straight Emmys for "Mad About You."

Until 1973, the Emmys had an award for outstanding new series, which was distinct from the awards for ongoing shows. Why it was dropped is baffling. It should be restored and expanded to include performance categories. At least there would be something new and fresh on the Emmy telecast.

A possible explanation for why this has not been done is TV's inferiority complex, the paranoia that there aren't enough legitimate contenders each year to fill a field of five. In an era of a couple of hundred networks, this is an unfounded fear.

A compromise would be to combine comedies and dramas in one category for new series. There is precedent: Individual Emmys are presented to the outstanding movie and miniseries but the acting awards are lumped into one category. This would help keep the Emmy telecast from spilling into the wee hours of the morning, as the Oscars do, since there is an argument for also continuing to honor veteran series. They do present 22 or so new episodes every year.

There is also precedent to suggest that if the TV academy does make changes, it will do them badly. With reality the hottest genre in TV the past few years, the Emmy people created a catchall category, Outstanding Reality/Competition Program. The result is a field that includes "Survivor," "The Amazing Race" and "American Idol" — which makes sense — as well as the ridiculously placed "AFI's 100 Years 100 Passions: America's Greatest Love Stories" and "100 Years of Hope and Humor."

The Emmy telecast is already at a disadvantage. Not everyone sees every movie or play or has heard every song, but the Oscars and Tonys audiences at least know what is being judged. This is not the case with the series Emmys. Nominees submit only one or two episodes, to be judged by a panel. The folks at home have no idea which shows have been entered and often are mystified when a series that didn't have a strong year, such as "The West Wing" in 2001-2002, wins the Emmy on the basis of one or two powerful episodes.