"Emmy" TV Shows. Not Unlike "Oscar" Movies.

Sorry for the long absence. I'm a busy student/employee/television addict/etc.

But as I catch up on last night's television shows, I started to wonder to myself about "the Academy." See, lots of people complain, whine, and moan over both the Academy that decides the Emmys and the Oscars. The thing is, though, I haven't seen many people spend all year discussing the Emmys, declaring this show an Emmy show and that show not an Emmy show, whereas even everyday movie-goers will easily be talking about the Oscar chances for The Social Network or Toy Story 3.

At first glance, this might indicate that the selectivity for the Emmys is not so severe as it is for the Oscars. You'd think an Academy that would nominate True Blood might actually have its marbles in a way an Academy that shut out The Dark Knight doesn't. I think though that you'd be wrong. True Blood, for example, has certain things going for it, including an Academy Award-winning main actress, a respected premium cable channel, and a "message" (y'know, how vampire rights in the show parallel modern day LGBT rights).

Don't fool yourself; the Emmys like the same things the Oscars do. Pedigree isn't everything though, as former Academy Award nominees Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos will tell you, having worked for years on a never-nominated critically-acclaimed little series called Battlestar Galactica everyone who knows me knows that I adore. It takes a certain class that comes, especially these days, with being on a premium cable network, which is why even though I haven't seen an episode of Boardwalk Empire, I'm convinced it will land several nominations next year. Because it's on HBO, it's classy like Mad Men, and it takes itself seriously.

As I'm sure the Buffy fans have lamented for ages, taking yourself seriously can be a big thing. I feel like one of the more common complaints about Mad Men would be a sort of "stuffiness" about it, coming from its slow, melodious pace and seriously fragmented (and often disliked) characters.

But the comedy category, you declare! Comedic shows are appreciated for irony! Just look at Glee? Though I decry Glee and watch it, such a contradiction as I am, Glee is actually something of an interesting anomaly in my opinion. It's a high school show, it's a musical, its pedigree is really not that impressive (Matthew Morrison and Lea Michele are the main show there - I won't count Jane Lynch, despite loving her more, because an unfortunate amount of not-young people don't realize how much she did pre-Glee). Glee's popularity comes from a more modern High School Musical approach - but you didn't see High School Musical get nominated for Best TV Movie, did you? Despite whatever sucks about Glee, it is kind of impressive for it to have gotten the formal recognition it has.

Besides Glee, however, the comedy area remains pretty locked for sitcoms and serious premium cable comedies (i.e. Weeds, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm). And, to be honest, the only reason Glee might get nominated again next year is because the current freshmen sitcoms are rather slim pickings, so I'd be prepared for a full-on repeat in the comedy series category.

Sitcoms are cute and quaint. They're very old-fashioned. Even Modern Family, which I watch and like and is lauded for its advancement, follows your old-school format of following a family around and seeing all their funny, morally-inclined hi-jinks in a short half hour. If there was a movie equivalent to sitcoms, actually, which there really isn't anymore, I'd be surprised if it got nominated for the Oscars, actually, because that area is even too backwater for them. When people talk about potential Oscar comedies, they think of raucous shit like The Hangover, which is more of a premium cable type show than a typical network sitcom.

But back to the drama category, where this all started for me as I thought longingly of The Vampire Diaries, the shockingly good show I have fallen in love with despite not being a big vampire fan and aware enough of trends to usually not be susceptible without my consent. The Vampire Diaries is a good show, hands down. Interesting characters, good plots, amazing pacing, problems are rectified, everything is reasonable, and as a bonus, the cast is gorgeous (and, so far as I'm aware, come across as respectable and scandal-free). The problems? The show doesn't take itself so seriously. Not in the same way, say, my beloved Chuck does, becoming a little bit too much of a self-parody at times, but there is an air of fun and danger that comes from a show willing to take risks, kill off a main character pretty quickly, and do a lot of things most shows aren't really willing to do. Second, the show doesn't have pedigree. It's highest pedigree right now is probably Ian Somerhalder, best known otherwise for his season-long and small recurring bit as Boone on Lost. Nina Dobrev did Degrassi. Matt Davis might be most recognizable for Legally Blonde. Seriously, this is not your A-list cast. But they're not just pretty, they're good. And, finally, The Vampire Diaries is on The CW. The CW may technically be a network station, but it is essentially trash to the bigwigs. The CW is home of Smallville and Gossip Girl, not a show that's better than Emmy-nominated True Blood (sorry, TB fans, I'm with you, but did you see the third season compared to TVD? Just, no).

Everything that might make a series worthy of Emmy recognition is simply not in this show, which is probably derided by people who've never seen it as part of the Twilight craze, as a teen drama with lots of skimpy clothes and scandal. I'm sorry, but this is neither True Blood nor Gossip Girl; there are few if none unnecessary shenanigans. High school is a setting, not a defining characteristic of the show (especially as of late; Mystic Falls is more the setting anyway, one of the coolest, cult-like towns ever). Skimpy clothes? Are you kidding me? Besides the car wash episode, there have been so few scantily clad moments. I can remember all of one legitimate sex scene in the entirety of this series. There are some sexy flashbacks, but it is nothing compared to the wild orgies of True Blood season 2, or even the least sexy of True Blood episodes. Scandals? I bet there are about five thousand more scandals in a single episode of Desperate Housewives than a full season of The Vampire Diaries. Vampire Diaries is more concerned with drama and action and zigzagging plots and surprises than with the kind of ~drama that fuels shows like Gossip Girl or One Tree Hill or Gilmore Girls (which I loved, but was soapy as hell sometimes).

Essentially, every stigma that The Vampire Diaries would attract is false. But that's true about a lot of shows that would never qualify for an Emmy nomination. There is no "Blind Side" slot in the Emmy nominees. The Emmys are probably even more out of touch with popular culture than the Oscars. Sci-fi has been at the Oscars for ages, from Star Wars to Avatar (more of a crowd-pleaser than it's-all-about-the-analogy District 9). Battlestar Galactica, despite being declared by many as one of the best DRAMA television shows ever, or at least a very good one in general, never got more than a technical nod at the Emmys.

So we bitch and moan and complain a lot about the Oscars, about the Academy Awards being old and how certain great movies will never be Oscar movies, but the Emmys are no better, if they're not even worse, especially since they can repeat old favorites in place of strong up-comers. While movies year after year can emulate and imitate older films, keeping that certain "old Hollywood" or "period movie" place in the Best Picture nominee line-up, Emmys can literally keep the same show in the running, even past its prime (I mean really? House? That show has been good at best, horrendous at worst, and meh most of the time for a couple seasons now).

And yet, few shows are looked at, saying, "this show was made for the Emmys" when one could look at, say, The King's Speech, and declare immediately "it's an Oscar movie!" There isn't a lot different between what makes television and movies appeal for "bigwig" Academies. If anything, audience size and critics matter more for the Oscars - I doubt you'll find many champions of House's last season (praise the mental institute episode all you want, there are over twenty other episodes in the season), but even The Blind Side was well-received by many, though certainly not everyone. House's audience has dwindled (and it was probably the most-watched series nominated for Best Comedy/Drama last year; remember, Glee's audience was pretty modest for most of the first season), but Avatar, District 9, The Blind Side, and Up were huge money-makers.

My point has been made clear by this point. Just like with the Oscars and movies, there will be brilliant shows that will never win an Emmy, that never won an Emmy, and probably were never seen by those who vote on the Emmys. And that's disappointing, sure, but that's life, and tastes change, though slowly, and one day all the types of shows we champion now will be detested by future generations as backwards and unworthy of admiration and we'll be clinging on.

Pride and... Ooh, shiny!

Is my taste in movies suddenly bad? Did I acquire ADD recently or something? My prior concern about not being able to pay attention during adult dramas/slow-moving movies reared its ugly head yet again as I sit down to watch Pride and Glory. By sort of paying attention, I gleaned that it wasn't a bad movie, boasting albeit not a strikingly original or amazingly interesting plot but still something good and moving (the theme of loyalty is always an interesting one in crime dramas; although it's definitely been done better, the double bonds of family and police are interesting to watch). But once again, I just couldn't focus. Even after Colin Farrell's character threatens to iron a baby's face I still couldn't pay full attention. I did a little laugh toward the end as Edward Norton confronted Colin Farrell in a bar called Irish Eyes, however.

And the ending in its entirety was good. Getting there was a bit boring at times, but overall the movie was decent, the acting good, and my attention span coming and going. How bad was my attention span? I started twittering in the middle of the movie (they were some interesting tweets though, if I may say so myself). And I played a bunch of Solitaire and Scrabble during the movie too.

Granted, it's always harder to pay attention to DVDs than in movie theatres, and with a laptop right next to me... the temptation to check "hmmmm so how many times DOES the word fuck appear in this movie anyhow?" is difficult to resist (291 times for those interested to know). This is a recurring problem lately and I'm not sure if it's me, summer, or the movies. I'm going to have to find some sort of undeniably brilliant and captivating drama to experiment with this. Recommendations?

Stealing From My Livejournal Part XXXI

As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.



From May 13, 2009:

"I think one of my favourite things about Entertainment Weekly's PopWatch blog is probably the tags. Sure, there are the ordinary tags like "American Idol 2009" and "The Biggest Loser" and whatever, but then there are the glorious tags such as "deals" (as in big deal, even though the rest of the world seems to have taken a cue from me and dropped the "big" part of that phrase... or maybe I'm just in tune with the world. WHO KNOWS?) and "Waiting" (doesn't it suck to get awesomely interesting information about upcoming projects and then... realize that the film/tv show/video game/book/etc. doesn't come out for weeks, months, or maybe even years?) and other more interesting tags such as "Things That Are Awesome!" and "Hello to the no!" and "I'm Just a Geek" and "The Bad Man Scares Me!" and "Cute Cat Videos!" (which was actually the subject of an entire post).

Did I mention that, aside from filmmaking, writing for Entertainment Weekly is essentially my dream job? Essentially, if I could just write about "and this is why Heroes was once awesome but now sucks" and about how I'll be very disappointed if Sherlock Holmes does not have a cocaine addiction in the upcoming movie mostly because a) the House wikipedia article told me he had one and b) because Guy Ritchie is directing it and therefore I expect some underworldly ongoings. I would also probably write about how I still have nightmares about Diablo Cody's get-up to the Oscars when she won for Juno but since she's a writer for EW I don't think they'd like that very much. And I need to work out a bit more before I can beat her in a fight.

So I totally think I have to start an entertainment themed blog this summer or else I'll die. Molly and Shellie and I will hopefully do it together because it won't work if I do it alone (how did "what claudia wore" get so popular anyway? I mean, it's wonderful, but many wonderful things remain undiscovered on the internet) and because Molly and Shellie are also wonderfully entertainment-friendly people with whom I hope to write many a review for the Bard Free Press next semester. :D

Anyway, I just thought I'd share my joy of EW's wonderful tags with you all. Also insert a couple flails over the House season finale (flailflailflail). Now to go back to reading about how violent video games are badbadbad."

Stealing From My Livejournal Part XXIX

As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.




(**note: my opinions about Watchmen have shifted since this post. I liked it less the more I thought about it. Now I'd label it "okay, I sort of liked it, but not really that much.")

From March 8, 2009:

"Finally got to see it and just got back from the theatre.

The verdict?

I liked it. I really did like it. It is nowhere near as good or as resonating or as astounding as the graphic novel (not to build up the novel too much, despite my love for it), but it is certainly enjoyable. It's incredibly difficult, imo, to compress Watchmen into an under three hour film, but I think they managed pretty well. And, to be frank, it's kind of nice that I don't want to watch all the little things. They add so much into the graphic novels, all the smaller supporting characters, but when you're watching a movie, they're just distracting, so it is kind of nice that they were reduced... although I am a bit disappointed by the shortening of Rorschach's history. I thought the casting was all really good (Nixon's nose was really distracting though), the script was incredibly faithful to the novel, and I liked that the costumes were updated (I'm sorry, Ozymandias' costume, for one, would have been SO campy on screen... as would had everyone else's really). The music was generally cool but some of it was a bit weird. "Hallelujah" playing when Laurie and Dan get it on in Archie was really bizarre to me. But, overall, I thought it was good.

Of course, this is coming from the perspective of someone who has read the novel. I totally understand if people who have not read the novel, or who go in expecting it to be on par with the novel, don't like it, or even hate it. I saw it with two other people who had read the novel and two who haven't. Rachel, who hasn't read the graphic novel, hated it, for instance. There were a lot of little things that weren't really explained (Bubastis, for one) and just too much that couldn't be put on screen in a single movie that made it hard for non-fan viewers to really relate to it.

In the end, I think that, for fans who want a nice little complement to the graphic novel, who would like to see a film version that, while not as good, is still good enough to watch, Watchmen is the perfect creation. However, if you wanted to make a film that made the story more accessible to people who haven't read it, this isn't the best example (although it does a better job than, say, some of the Harry Potter films for explaining most things). If anything, I hope this prompts all fans who see it with their non-fan friends to say, like Jen insisted to Rachel, "well, read the graphic novel. It's better explained and just better overall."

I enjoyed it. I might not bother seeing it again in theatres, but I'll probably buy it when it comes out on DVD. I think it would be nice to watch when I'm just not feeling up to committing to rereading the graphic novel (it's like why I own the Harry Potter films... only, I like Watchmen the film better than the Harry Potter movies)."

Stealing From My Livejournal Part XX

As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.




From January 7, 2009:

"The acting in Doubt was all kickass. But I found the movie to be, overall, kind of boring and monotonous. If there hadn't been such a fabulous cast, I would have been bored senseless and hated the movie, I'm sure. But all four actors were fabulous (and honestly, I think Amy Adams did a better turn than Viola Davis, but the latter is getting all the praise leaving Amy Adams to get shafted on occasion... not that Viola Davis wasn't excellent, but Amy Adams was my favourite part). Anyway, my point is that it deserves all the acting attention it has been getting but aside from showcasing some great talent, it was nothing fabulous.


Also rented and saw Kung Fu Panda. Absolutely adorable, but I keep hearing how fabulous it is and, well, it's good but not that good."