By Dee-Dum
Edited by shrrshrr

One could argue that the Emmys are the most out-of-touch entertainment awards in the world, but that would overlook the fact that Paul McCartney was nominated for a Grammy for Album of the Year last month. Are there any Grammy voters under 60? Anyway, the Emmys have problems and, being a constructive kind of guy, I have tried to come up with solutions.

1) New categories. Emmy categories have been somewhat fluid, so maybe it’s time to rethink them. Back in the 1950’s there was a category for Best Western. Okay, reviving that category would be strange, but what about a category for fantasy/sci-fi? These shows rarely get any nominations (Lost being a major exception) and there are some deserving people associated with them in recent years, including Michael Rosenbaum on Smallville, Sarah Michelle Geller on Buffy, Ben Browder on Farscape. The problem is that genres come and go (quick, what was the Best Western of last season?) so the categories would have to be re-evaluated continuously. Also, could you justify giving The Gilmore Girls some nominations by creating a category for “dramadies”? And besides, the Emmy show is already too long; it doesn’t need to be longer.

2) More nominees. The format of five nominees per category was established when there were three networks. There are now four [sic] networks, two weblets, multiple free cable networks, and pay cable. Categories get log jammed with past nominees who get automatically re-nominated every year, which sometimes means that the only way someone can break through and get a nomination is if another show or performer dies. How can Kristen Bell or Lauren Graham even hope to snag a nomination for their low rated shows when Allison Janney, Jennifer Garner and Edie Falco get nominations year in and year out? The supporting actor/actress categories get especially crowded, with ensemble casts of shows like Lost, Alias and West Wing doing excellent work. Why is five the magic number? Why not just nominate all those deemed “worthy?”

3) Level the playing field. Just about anyone from a hit network show can get nominated; but actors can still do excellent work on shows that are ratings failures (or at least challenged). Kristen Bell on the little watched Veronica Mars has no hope of ever being nominated, mainly because she’s on a show on UPN and who watches that? No one from the WB ever gets nominated, despite excellent work from the entire cast of Gilmore Girls. And HBO always gets multiple nominations for series like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under, despite the fact these series have the advantage of a) starting whenever they want, b) producing as many episodes as they want, c) fewer hassles with standards and practices, and d) almost no concern about ratings compared to shows on broadcast networks. What if nominees were chosen by network? The nominees for Best Actress are Jennifer Garner for ABC, Kristen Bell for UPN, Lauren Graham for the WB...

4) Standardized categories. Currently, actors submit themselves for nominations in whatever category they like. This leads to questionable circumstances like supporting actress Allison Janney nominating herself for lead actress and submitting a tape of the one episode of West Wing that she starred in. It’s getting better - when Northern Exposure won for Best Drama, the producer accepting the award admitted in his acceptance speech that it was really a comedy. Since then several hour long shows have been able to compete in the comedy category (Ally McBeal, Desperate Housewives). Maybe dramadies like Gilmore Girls should be able to create their own category instead of choosing between comedy or drama.

None of these solutions are perfect. The idea of a longer Emmy Awards show makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Institutional inertia and industry politics will always trump common sense and popular opinion. But given how radically TV viewing has changed in the past 40 years, isn’t it time to at least consider shaking up the Emmys a little bit?