Digital Distinction

This year's crop of Emmy nominees were announced yesterday and, just like with last year's awards, the main thing they proved is that the people who vote for such things and I do not see eye-to-eye as to what counts as great television. I didn't find any nominations for "Sons of Anarchy" or "Justified", which in my mind means the entire system is flawed. In fact, outside of "The Daily Show" none of the programs I watch religiously were nominated in a single category. The good news is that I don't take this as too much of an insult because many of the shows up for awards are now cancelled, so how good can they really be? I know popular doesn't automatically equal good (radio proves that on a 4-hour loop), but the entire award ceremony smacks of people who are using their votes to go against the grain and appear like they know something other people don't rather than just voting for the shows they may actually enjoy. Seriously, if this were a Presidential election all the Emmy voters would support the Libertarian party. What's even sadder is that this doesn't even make them original because this year's nominees features a lot of the usual suspects from the past couple of Emmys, so I can't help but wonder if some of these voters have begun to fill out their ballots like coaches do in pre-season polls - just pencil in the usual suspects and hope someone else is paying enough attention to come up with a list that doesn't look exactly like last year's.

The other thing I noticed that is just like last year - the nominations are dominated by HBO. The premium cable network has 108 nominations, more than double the next highest total (CBS and NBC had 53 each). I've said this a couple times before, but I can't help but wonder if HBO has an unfair competitive advantage. First off, they clearly don't have the restrictions that basic network shows have in that HBO can swear and show as much nudity as they want. But more importantly than they they can take their time and space out when a season actually starts and ends, which gives the show writers more time to polish and refine their scripts. People forget this, but "The Sopranos" was the first show to break up its final season and air it over two years. Could you imagine if a network show tried to pull that maneuver? The producer would be fired before he finished pitching the idea. On top of that their seasons are only have half as many episodes as your normal network show, which means they don't have to have the random dud episodes in the middle which seem to plague every show on the major networks. Lastly, they don't have to worry about ratings because HBO already has its money from subscribers, so it doesn't need to appease advertisers. That means they can take more risks, which is always going to get you notice come award season. I'm not saying the system is rigged, but it certainly appears to be slanted.

That is why I was fascinated to learn that two shows from Netflix, the online streaming service, had managed to get nominated for Emmys. I know award ceremonies have all sorts of funky categories which are handed out in advance and never get mentioned during the broadcast but I always assumed that to win an award for television excellence you had to, you know, be on television. Apparently this is a new rule in place for this year because Netflix has only been producing original content for a short while, but actors from both "House of Cards" and the resurrected "Arrested Development" garnered nominations, the first time shows which have never been broadcast anywhere are up for TV's most prestigious award. This has the potential to be a huge game-changer because if you thought HBO was working with the odds in their favor since they don't have to deal with Standards & Practices, you haven't seen anything yet. One of the best and worst things about the internet is it's lack of censors and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. These executives are going to be able to do whatever they want and make the shows exactly they have always dreamed up but have never been able to get approved. And just like with HBO, I can totally imagine a scenario in which a person writes a show specifically for the web (which already happens) but the difference is that they would have the backing and budget from a major production studio. This could really alter the way television shows are made.

Of course, there is always resistance to change so there will obviously be people who complain and never allow television to be pushed too far over the edge or across certain lines as they try and keep up. (I can see the Congressional hearings now.) This means unless something drastically changes to put the genie back in the bottle, the deck will always be stacked in favor of online or premium cable shows. On top of that if there is one thing Hollywood hates it is when one person is getting all the love, even if they deserve it. (I'm honestly convince that the reason we have so many award shows which essentially honor the same concepts is that so there are enough awards to go around for everyone.) That is why I figure it is only a matter of time before we see the Emmys split up even more. We already have the Daytime versus the Primetime Emmys, so why not add the Cable and Internet Emmys? Seriously, is anyone going to argue against another award show, especially if the new one contains all the best shows out there? (Not like I am watching any of them.) Fortunately we aren't there quite yet, so for now I will be satisfied to sit back and see how this little experiment ends. After all, it is one thing to get nominated for an award, it is an entirely different matter to win one and I don't see the voters anxious to reward the new kids on the block just yet. Besides, at this point I'm not even sure half of them even know which shows are on their ballots.