This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
What the...
Unfortunately, no. The category the Emmys had been using was the "Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety, Music or Comedy Series", which they also used for talk shows. Were we ranking Comedy Series instead of Variety Show, your argument would have merit. But they threw everything into one kettle of fish, and the category drafted for here was not that wide. In recent years the Emmys separated out talk shows and sketch comedies. Still doesn't make a comedy series that won emmys under the above title a variety series - they just share the award.
The category was Variety/Live show. To me that means that it did not have to necessarily be a variety show. That any live format was also in the category similar to the Horror/Supernatural category. Penalizing shows like Letterman and The Tonight Show because they weren't variety shows seems to miss the mark.
I am still confused since the category was "Variety/Live" show. It wasn't strictly a Varety Show Category.
I completely agree. And exactly 2 live shows were drafted - The Show of Shows and SNL, both of which scored in the top tier. How does that affect your argument?
And there are some people who think Tim Duncan isn't a center even though the NBA labels him as such. While those people are entitled to their opinions they probably shouldn't be judging the "best center" category if they're going to summarily discount a nomination solely because they disagree with the label given to the nomination by the most authorative body on the issue.
Yeah I haven't even gotten started on that ranking. Chappelle's Show ####### rules.
consensus has no intrinsic authority, something the alphabet gens seem to have trouble understanding.
And if the judge here had analyzed this similarly using reason, logic, and fact there'd be no issue. Instead, it's a mere "these don't fit the category."
I guess I would consider the Tonight Show and Letterman as live shows as they were filmed "live" and showed later similar to SNL.
I think it was established that it was a recorded show, so stance is that it wasn't either and thus a crap pick for the category.
Ah, gotcha. I suppose I should clarify then - If somebody had drafted a live non-variety show (say, Live with Regis and Kathy Lee, or American Idol), I would have tried to place it strictly on its own merits, not for any lack of variety elements. How, I dunno - dice? Ouiji board?
You wrote, “in no way does this fit.” I don’t know how to otherwise interpret it other than you summarily deciding it doesn’t fit the category.
But Last Week Tonight had basically crushed it in emmys since it started. It’s a great show. Not sure how much creamier it can be.
How is a talk show not a variety show? It has interviews, a host, comedy sketches, audience participation, musical acts, stand up sets....
The Carol Burnett Show had singing, dancing, and sketch comedy. The show was an hour long, but when it went into syndication it was heavily edited to 30 minutes, and that cut out most of the music. There was a musical guest weekly on the show, and a guest star. The show won 25 Emmys (that seems to matter in this draft). Basically, if you watched the show from '67 to '78 you saw the hour long show. If you watched repeats since that time, you saw the condensed 30 minute version. Just this past year, Carol and some people have revised 65 episodes back to their hour long original versions. It can be streamed on things like Roku. I watched that show every Saturday night as a kid. I loved it.
The problem with this category is there are lots of great shows selected. It’s like Dicky Vitale listing 10 March madness snubs without mentioning who he would take out of the selections.But Last Week Tonight had basically crushed it in emmys since it started. It’s a great show. Not sure how much creamier it can be.
I'm not sure Pippen would agree with you. But it's hard to tell when the main subject gets even a bit of control over the final product.
I probably didn't make myself all that clear. It's pretty hard to comment while people are still drafting. It does have some narrative, just not a strong one.
Am I remembering wrong that you said PE was included because of the climate change aspect through its series?
Sort of. Wild Kingdom doesn't document anything at all. It's a nature show trip to the zoo. PE attempts to show the interconnectedness of it's subjects and the changes in their environment over time. It doesn't do a lot of it, but it does do some.
I have, but that would have been a big problem. The first two series premiered on HBO- the third at a film festival as a movie. The fun we would have.
Still watching Tiger King. Too juicy to rush. Plus, I had seen a bunch of these. That helped.
