Six of one, half dozen of the ...
Hugh Laurie, House
Question: Six of one, half dozen of the other, huh? So much for the "improved"
Emmy nomination process. It seems that just as many glaring omissions were made this time around as before, just different ones. Now, rather than the overlooked performers from small shows getting shafted, the respected stars from equally respected shows got the pie in the face. How any panel of humans viewing televised programming could find five more deserving fellow Homo sapiens than
Hugh Laurie in the best-lead-actor category boggles the mind. Yes,
Denis Leary,
Gregory Itzin and
Jean Smart got welcome nods, but the rest? Sheesh! No
James Gandolfini or
Edie Falco, but
Martin Sheen and
Geena Davis? No
Jason Bateman or
Lauren Graham, but
Kevin James and
Stockard Channing (for
Out of Practice, no less!)? Just when you think Channing's rote nomination days for
The West Wing were over, the Emmys find another way. (Maybe we should get those people on the alternative-fuel issue, pronto.) I mean, just look at TV Guide's Dream Ballot choices. Fourteen out of 50 became reality, from my estimation, and just one per category in seven of the eight acting categories. Since the ballot was rightfully deemed a dream, were the nominations a nightmare? Save for a few minor aberrations, nothing really changed all that much in the "new" Emmys. Not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.
Answer: "Nightmare" is a pretty good word for it. Inexplicable nightmare, more like. For my own analysis of the Emmy nominations, check out
my Dispatch from last week. Todd sums it up pretty well when he describes a flawed process that didn't exactly improve itself under a new system. It's true: They just made different mistakes this time, affecting some of the players that we would have thought inviolable. I can say with confidence that on the day of the announcements, I didn't get a single piece of mail praising what had transpired on Thursday morning.
