Okay, Here’s How the Reviews are Gonna Work

1) Pretty much the only show that I’m guaranteeing to write a review for every episode this season is Gilmore Girls. 

2) Any absence of a review for any given show is not to be taken as any indication of what I think of it.  Like you, I’m just watching a lot of TV shows and there’s just not enough time in the day to cover them all even IF I stopped watch CSI, CSI: Miami, Law & Order and SVU.  BTW, Mariska Hargitay sure looked purty up there onstage getting her Emmy last night, but she sure didn’t deserve the Emmy for that episode (the terribly-acted, terribly-directed, blatantly obvious and blatantly obviously Emmy-bait-ish “911.”)  But I digress . . .

3) My reviews may be full reviews with letter grades or they may be general commentary about the gist and/or general direction of the show.  Yes, IMO, the graded reviews should be considered to carry more weight.  Conversely, ungraded commentary will almost always be intended to voice concerns abot the show that I am hoping that its creators address in the near future and such concerns will then likely be the focus of at least one fully graded review of a given episode *when I feel like it.*  Or, sometimes, all you might get is ungraded commentary.

3a) If given enough lead time, I do take requests, but only about scripted fiction.  No reality shows, no nature documentaries, no gory real-life hospital stories on Discovery Health.  I’m all about the stories.

4) I’ll admit it now:  I’m a screener whore.  Hint, hint. 

Edited to change a LOT of typos and clarify a phrase or three.  I didn’t sleep much last night.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Okay, Here’s How the Reviews are Gonna Work”

  1. John Says:

    RE: Mariska Hargitay – sort of.

    You said she didn’t deserve an Emmy of the submitted episode. However for non-guest stars, aren’t the Emmy’s for the season’s work and the episode is only an example?

    Some have blamed LG for the choice of her episode and Lost for the choice if its episode. It seems to me, the award should consider the whole season.

    I know the voters don’t see whole seasons (it often seems they never watch anything), but maybe that is part of whats wrong with the Emmys.

  2. shutuprob Says:

    Yes, Lead Actor Emmys are based on viewing of one episode (for one-hour shows) or up-to-two for half-hour shows (they get a little extra consideration if it’s a two-parter). Lauren’s episode, the season finale, Partings, was the *only* one she should have considered IMO and there’s a great history of Comedy Lead Actresses getting Emmy awards for non-comedic storylines (Felicity Huffman, regardless of whatever episode of DH she submitted last year, nailed her Emmy for Comedy Lead Actress with Lynette’s Ritalin-addled meltdown on a soccer field). The thing to keep in mind is that the category is Outstanding Lead Performance by an Actress in a Comedy and NOT Outstanding Lead *COMEDIC* Performance by an Actress in a Comedy. The Emmys phrased the award that way on purpose.

    And I know that a certain segment of Gg fans want to blame the events of Partings for her not making it past the semi-finalist stage of the Emmy voting process, but the reality is simply this: The Emmy voters are too fucking old as a group and they quite snobbily feel that anything and everything that has ever aired on the WB or UPN is unworthy of their time. It’s really that simple, IMO: Had the Emmy voting panels not been irredeemably bigoted in their ageist ways, Lauren not only would have been nominated, she would have won.

    And according to some reports, even studio heads have been voicing that it was unconscionable that Graham, Cross and Hatcher didn’t get nominated. All three turned in better performances throughout the year than anything any of the nominated actresses turned in. In that context, both Julia Louis-Dreyfus’ “Best of the Worst” win and the wins of Shalhoub, Danner and Alda over *much* better performers cheapened *all* of the awards and their winners last night. When the choices are *that* bad and that inherently, manifestly embarrassing to all involved, everything about the process has to be discarded and rebuilt from the ground up — and they know it.

    That said, Lauren confirmed to Ausiello at Entertainment Weekly’s pre-awards party on Saturday night that Gg willl be submitted in the Drama track of categories next year. I think this necessitates spinning off all the zillions of cop/forensics/legal shows into their own Police Procedural track of awards at the ceremony next year. I can already see the old fogeys turning down yet another stunning performance by Lauren because SVU did some unoriginal storyline about a monstrous criminal played by a Big Shot Guest Star.

  3. John Says:

    I was not addressing whether LG deserved an Emmy or even if Partings was her best choice.

    My point was (or at least I wanted it to be) that it shouldn’t be just one episode used to decide an award for a non-guest star. It should be the whole season’s work. One great episode in a season of marginal work should not get you an Emmy.

  4. shutuprob Says:

    Well, that’s a very significant part of the problem, too — and the Academy knows it. The Academy, even the old fogeys who are the problem, are all working professionals in the industry and when you’re working 12 and sometimes 16-hour days, you’re not going to have much time to watch even the shows that you *like,* much less familarize yourself with the rest of the primetime schedule. Simply put: it’s physically impossible for the Emmy voters to watch every episode of everything submitted — there’s just too much of it.

    As a result, the fogeys are able to openly manipulate the system of voting in the favor of their friends by allowing actors to submit a single episode, the one that they usuallythink is the best or the most Emmy-bait-ish (and one *can* be one without being the other) and thus, the fogeys at the Academy generally vote according to non-representative and quite often uninformed opinions of the work of the series as a whole. This is the reason that you get four lead actresses whose shows just got cancelled *because their work sucked to at least the point of being unable to sustain general viewer interest* vying with a fifth who lucked out into being on a show that was returning. I’m sure that after the afterglow has subsided, Julia Louis-Dreyfus is going to be thinking that she’d rather have lost to the best performers and performances in her category — Graham, Cross, Hatcher, Chalke — than to have won against the four worst also-rans. Wow! What a backhanded compliment for Dreyfus to get from the Academy that its voters were too chickenshit and too set in their ways with their lack of taste to nominate anyone but their closest friends!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: