The idea of making actors/actresses ineligible for Emmys  for the same
part for three years after a win is a good idea, but I'd suggest that
not apply until the second, possibly even the third win. A lot of
shows only last a year a two, especially if I like them.
Jimmy Kimmel has some outtakes from his Emmys comedy bit. Nothing
great, but I'd pass it along.
https://twitter.com/jimmykimmel/status/778225861073920000
And speaking of Billy Crystal, he was on Marc Maron's podcast. He told
the story about being bumped from the first SNL again (Maron noted he
seemed to be reluctant to tell the story again). I had never heard the
story told like this before, though. He said he originally was going
to do five minutes. Lorne told him to cut it to 2 minutes and he was
going to appear last, which meant he was going to get bumped. His
managers, Jack Rollins and Charles Joffe, told him to walk, so he did.
Crystal said he was signed to do four SNL appearances and then be the
first non-celebrity host.
http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episode-740-billy-crystal
Why not get bumped and come back on a later show?


On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:54 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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