"I am among those who think the award to Tatiana Maslany is both deserved and over due."

Hear, hear.  *Well* overdue.  Although, despite the fact that I'm a huge Maslany fan, I'd argue that her work this past season wasn't as award-worthy due to some questionable directions Orphan Black is being taken in.  But, if only to make up for the massive snub she's endured over the last 3-4 years, I'm good with her finally getting a statue.  

Doug Fields
Tampa, FL

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [TV orNotTV] Emmy 2016
From: PGage <pga...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, September 19, 2016 1:54 pm
To: "tvornottv@googlegroups.com" <tvornottv@googlegroups.com>

I suppose letting the show pass without comment here would be in itself a profound comment, but I will make the obligatory post, for the hypothetical record.

Even within the well known limitations of awards shows, the Emmys have been problematic for a long time. As our old Chief AB pointed out years ago, allowing shows and actors that have won repeatedly to compete against new shows is inherently asymmetrical (I think "The Godfather" is the best film ever made, but it would be unsatisfying if it were awarded the Oscar for Best Picture every year). And often the tastes of Emmy voters seem safe and overly mainstream, so that it is more like "The Help" is winning for Best Picture every year. They still have the first problem (I love Veep and JLD, but maybe, in a modification of AB's solution, at least they should have a rule that you have to wait like three years to win again for the same role or show); however they are getting better at the second problem, and the winners last night were pretty interesting;  e.g. - I am among those who think the award to Tatiana Maslany is both deserved and over due.

(For a complete list of winners, see: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-emmys-2016-nominees-winners-list-20160714-snap-story.html)

I did not like the OJ Mini-Series nearly as much as most people seem to have, but at least they got the acting winners right (IMO) - especially Vance, who for my money owned and saved that show. However, Paulson's speech (and use of her Plus One) to try to rehabilitate Marcia Clark confirmed most of my suspicions about her performance and the show itself. OJ is most likely a double-murderer, and the trial made fools out of almost everyone who was touched by it, but any honest telling of that story has got to make the point that the central villains (in the trial) were the LAPD (and its incompetent crime scene technicians and corrupt detectives) and the County DA - especially Clark. Anyone who thinks there was more than enough evidence to convict OJ (and I am not at all sure this is true) has to also believe that the prosecutors bungled the job - and most of the key mistakes were Clark's. But Paulson did a good job portraying her, and I don't begrudge her the Emmy.

The Emmy Show itself was actually not that bad. The opening used an approach which was fresh when Billy Crystal first did it, but by now is as cliched and trite as the old song and dance numbers they used to do. But given that, it was fine. Kimmel's jokes were sharp, but he consistently referred to "We" and "Us", which I think helps the stars in the audience feel less like they are being attacked by an outsider. Even though the show ended pretty much on time, it felt like there was space for the speeches to be somewhat heartfelt and spontaneous. I do not like the continuing award show trend of pre-recording the names of the nominees, and showing photographs of them, not live shots from the audience.

I do wish my favorite show, "The Americans" and "Fargo" had gotten more love, but at least they were nominated.
--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to