For nearly two decades, the art form known as television has only grown, in wild, excellent neglect, as if touched by a terraforming agent from “Doctor Who. “The old networks changed shape and new ones emerged, filling each and every screen with constantly updated stories of each and every size, shape, and shade.
And all of them wanted Emmys. Nothing offered proof of concept better than lots and lots of Emmys, and studios would do anything — including offering gas at the 1950s prices of “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” and snarling traffic on the Santa Monica Freeway for hours in the process — to get them.
But endless expansion is not sustainable; At some point, the myth has to give way to the broader need for sustainability. If last year’s 191-day writers’ and actors’ strike, with all the acrimonious exchanges between creatives and managers, hasn’t convinced you that The TV Upheaval is officially over, the 75th Emmys might.
Even if Monday’s showing hadn’t been delayed four months due to strikes, wait, were we meant to think about the Oscars now? – the list of nominees is, in most cases, so narrow and predictable that it is difficult to generate genuine enthusiasm about who will win.
Spoilers: HBO.
I’m not saying that HBO hasn’t had a wonderful year, or that the performances of each and every actor in “Succession,” “The White Lotus” and “The Last of Us” haven’t been wonderful. I’m just saying that there have been some pretty excellent performances in other major series, many of which don’t appear on HBO, and it would have been wonderful if the dramatic acting categories had identified that.
The “Succession” came to an end in 2023, and many voters were no doubt moved by the fact that this would be the last to appear on the show. But what about “White Lotus’s” five nominations in the supporting actress category?I know the electorate saw “Bad Sisters” and “Yellowjackets” because they named the female leads. But no one else?
Sorry, sorry, this is the time to discuss options. The Emmy electorate only reflects the biggest challenge facing television.
Like visitors entering their third hour at the Louvre, Disneyland, or Costco, we go from open-mouthed wonder to a state of persistent stimulus overload.
Even with decent marketing campaigns, many new and ongoing series struggle to be seen; long gone are the days when the cultural conversation revolved around a handful of shows that were breaking the traditional borders of television. Yes, people talk about “Succession,” “The White Lotus,” “The Last of Us” and even “The Crown,” but not the way they once obsessed over “Mad Men,” “Breaking Bad,” “Downton Abbey,” “Homeland,” “House of Cards” and “Game of Thrones.”
As many other people have said over the years, “Has it peaked after all?”There’s so much to watch on TV that it’s hard to know where to watch. And streaming makes any kind of verbal exchange difficult: it’s very likely that we’ll see the same screen as all our friends, but who knows when that will be. Case? Probably not in time for the Emmys, that’s for sure.
This is unfortunate, and only for the TV networks that present the broadcast. For a brief, glittering moment (get together now, kids), the Emmys played a huge role in the flourishing of trendy television.
First by helping to lure actors from the big screen to the small — ”Hey, you’ll definitely get an Emmy.” Then, after “Mad Men” jump-started a revolution by proving that even a cable channel once devoted to old movies could produce award-winning original content, by offering golden validation.
Following the style established by AMC in 2007, any network or, later, streaming platform that got into the original content business inevitably got away with a big “prestige” drama. With each of the participants, they must still be well earned by critics and build nomination lists.
Suddenly, an Emmy isn’t just icing on the cake. It’s proof that AMC, Netflix, History Channel, Hulu, Amazon and others were officially on board.
Faced with a new festival and a growing appreciation and demand for quality television, HBO, Showtime, and FX have also explored new territory, bringing in top-notch actors, writers, and directors, as well as excruciatingly gory violence, particular sex scenes, and even more. nudes. woman.
And as each and every network and platform sought its call to be among the most sensible on the nomination list, the race for the Emmys, once a bit of a flashy affair in its hometown, went nuclear, with replete crusading methods rivaling the lavish screenings. hugely artistic pop-up events, massive classifieds: Emmy FYC has made “awards season” a year-round phenomenon.
As the ever-expanding television landscape divided audiences into smaller segments, the Emmys grew in value. Let the TV networks worry about ratings; Cable and streaming would be based on “excellence,” take all the statues, and upload “award-winning” to their algorithms.
It worked, as far as possible. Twenty years ago, four of the five nominated drama series (adding “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation”) were broadcast shows (the fifth, “The Sopranos,” won), as were three of the five nominated comedy series (Fox’s “Arrested Development”). “). cattle). Then, exhibitions limited by censorship and dependent on high ratings began to slowly disappear from the Emmy lists, adding perennial exhibitions such as “House,” “The West Wing,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Boston Legal” and “Lost. “
Since major streaming platforms were included in the original programming game, only one broadcast series (“This Is Us”) has been nominated for Best Fiction. The last to win, “24,” did so while George W. Bush was still in the White House. This time, the telecast has no drama nominees and only one comedy, “Abbott Elementary,” in the running.
Certainly, the Emmys have helped and reflected the audience’s transition from broadcast to cable to streaming. It wasn’t an accident; first pushing “House of Cards” and then “The Crown” with the ferocity of a “Toddlers” mother
While HBO’s 127 nominations this year — 24 more than Netflix and nearly double Hulu’s third-place finish — would likely allay fears about the premium cable network’s decline after “Game of Thrones,” they nonetheless mark the end of an era for the Emmys.
As the movements have obviously demonstrated, television, with all its bureaucracy, has nevertheless reached its peak, in quantity if not quality. After years of lavish spending, the flutist, writers and actors will have to be paid. It is now the call of the game as CEOs realize that you can’t live on height alone. All that new platform bureaucracy they’ve created with pomp and high-profile Emmy campaigns wants to make a profit, which is all the television networks have known forever. .
With a double strike and delayed TV broadcasts, it was highly unlikely that this year’s applicants would participate in the kind of frenzied campaigns seen before 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic brought everything to a standstill. I think we’re going to see a return to this kind of attention, spending and fury in the near future.
New platforms no longer want to chase Emmy Awards for identification, though it would have been great for Peacock to get a nod to a comedy series for “Poker Face,” if only because, God willing, there won’t be any more new platforms.
Likewise, the expensive period/fantasy drama, built like a (say it with me now) 10- (or eight- or six-) hour movie, may be the first casualty of the new world order. By searching for larger audiences that remain engaged for longer periods (“Suits,” anyone?), the industry is already leaning away from niche and toward a more traditional series model, with more episodes and broader appeal.
“Better Call Saul,” the last living descendant of TV’s High Elder days, technically still has a chance at a few long-overdue Emmys, which would bring AMC back into the picture it helped redefine. But according to my colleague Glenn Whipp, who is annoyingly accurate about these things, it will be HBO’s year.
Some things never change. But on television, many, the Emmys, are about to do it. Drastically.
Subscribe for unlimited accessSite Map
Follow
MORE FROM THE L. A. TIMES