|
EMMY NOMINATIONS
SURPRISE AND CONFOUND
July 22, 2005
Every year, it seems, Emmy voters get it just a little more right.
Oh, sure, the list of 2005 nominees, announced last week, still featured its share of boneheaded decisions, but many other nominations were not only surprising but quite deserving. Among those are:
-- Nods went to "Scrubs" and its brilliant star, Zach Braff, in the Outstanding Comedy Series and Lead Actor in a Comedy Series categories. "Scrubs" has been one of TV's funniest half-hours for four seasons now, and how did NBC thank it? By bouncing it around a half dozen different timeslots and then not even putting it on this fall's schedule. (The show is expected to return midseason.) Emmy voters must have decided that was shabby treatment for a network comedy that actually causes laughter - they're few and far between, you know - so they tossed the show and Braff some recognition. It's about time somebody did. Now if only NBC would premiere the show on time, stick it in a half-decent timeslot and give "Scrubs" a chance.
-- A Lead Actor in Drama Series nomination was awarded to Ian McShane, "Deadwood"'s machiavellian saloon owner. Of course this nomination should have been a gimme, but consider that it still dumbfounds the senses that McShane - who is the best actor working on the small screen right now, period, end of story - wasn't up for this award last year. Since then, he's won the Golden Globe, and season two of the HBO western only solidified McShane's status as TV's master thespian. If there's any justice, he won't just enjoy the nomination, he'll win this award.
-- If you've any doubt that Jeremy Piven deserved a nom for Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series, just flip on to HBO any Sunday night at 10 p.m. "Entourage" is now playing, and the show wouldn't be half as fun without Ari Gold, Piven's manic, foul-mouthed, self-obsessed Hollywood agent. The man's comic timing is more precise than an atomic clock. The Academy must have noticed.
-- You don't know the name David Fury. He's a writer, and he's been turning out great scripts for years now for an assortment of top-notch TV shows, including "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel." This year, he finally got his due, earning an Outstanding Writing nomination for his work on "Walkabout" - the stunning episode of "Lost" where we learned that Locke was paralyzed before the plane crashed. It was the year's best episode of "Lost," and it's nice to see a talented guy like Fury finally catch some notice. Of course, just because the Academy is finally offering up some legitimate choices doesn't mean they've fully stepped out into the sun. A complete look at this year's Emmy list reveals that the group continues to nominate some stunningly undeserving shows while ignoring consistent quality television. Among the head-scratching decisions:
-- "Will & Grace," the NBC comedy that was never better than average and is currently unwatchable, somehow received 15 nominations, tying "Desperate Housewives" for the most by any show. Are you kidding me?! I know comedies are thin, but couldn't the Academy find anything better to stand alongside "Arrested Development" and "Scrubs" (two that earned it), and "Housewives" and "Everybody Loves Raymond" (two that were shoo-ins)? How about "Entourage"? Heck, CBS' "Two and a Half Men" is fairly funny most weeks. It's time for "Will & Grace" to die, but 15 nominations is the kind of thing that can keep a bad show around for ever, which leads me to…
-- Somehow NBC's "The West Wing" is STILL getting nominated for Outstanding Drama, despite the fact that this show is now three years past its prime. It boggles the mind that the White House drama continues to draw an automatic nomination. Do Emmy voters even still watch "Wing"? Is there some kind of printing error on the ballots that automatically results in votes for the show? I demand an investigation. I'm thrilled by the nominations for "24," "Deadwood" and "Lost" in this primo category, and can live with the nod for fading favorite "Six Feet Under" just because it's in its final season. But how could "The West Wing" earn a nomination over…
-- "Veronica Mars?!" UPN's high-school whodunit wasn't just the best new series on TV this year; it was one of the best shows period. "Mars" deserves to be ranked among the elite, but even if you put that momentarily aside, how can the Academy not nominate Veronica herself, the charismatic and captivating Kristen Bell, in the Outstanding Actress in a Drama category? The snub is because the Academy routinely ignores any show airing on the WB or UPN. Joining Bell on that list of best actresses should also be Lauren Graham of the WB's "Gilmore Girls." These shows are exceptional. These performances are flawless. Unfortunately, the networks that broadcast them are neither. Why the Academy refuses to distinguish between those facts is a mystery perhaps not even Veronica could solve.
|
|
