Try, Try Again
King of Queens, West Wing, Will & Grace. Six Feet Under, Arrested Development, Malcolm in the Middle, Commander in Chief. All those shows are now six feet under or close but all got Emmy nods, sometime to the exclusion of fresher fare.
Since when did the Emmys become posthumous awards. Maybe it should be changed to 'ME,' as in "medical examiner" for all the cold bodies getting the the Academy's attention.
I actually applaud the recognition that something had to be done to keep the awards from becoming like a Friars Club roast, with the same faces showing up year after year, only older. But the new review-board approach didn't appear to cure that problem when the nominations were announced Thursday.
The Academy is in danger of inadvertently spinning the gold of TV's new golden age into a straw man version of its iconic statue (OK, that's a metaphorical stretch, but you get my meaning). Of course, having moved the awards to the ratings doldrums of Aug. 27, maybe nobody will notice.
Yes, there were some new faces, but between those and the ones headed for the undertaker's cosmotologist, there were some glaring omissions. No Shield, no Lost, no Hugh Laurie. No Hugh Laurie? Not even a nod for TV's reining tour de force performance. A part to autopsy a cat in?
House would be called The Hugh Laurie Show if they named shows after stars anyore, and it is one of the best shows on TV, as loyal readers of my ramblings will have heard before.
I was pleased to see that Martin Sheen was nomninated for the drama award he has never won but should have, but without Laurie in the running it would be a hollow victory if he won, which he probably won't.
No actor from Sopranos gets a nod, while 24 gets a dozen. I like 24, but it is salted peanuts to Sopranos Smokehouse brand flavored almonds.
The Academy is right that something needs to be done. But this isn't quite it.
By John Eggerton
lisaperry491 commented:
it has always been a sham. when you have an actor the caliber of Hugh Laurie excluded, you know Hollyweird was just afraid.
ukzjalbte qrbw commented:
efpazo yziloatkn kcprzwv riebg bmuknqyov crak eoaptn
cindy commented:
not knowing too much about how these things work i still think hugh laurie as house is the best, also agree the judging system is a sham.
Michelle commented:
If I were an Emmy voter, there is absolutely nothing that could ever persuade me to admit it, even if I personally had no part in the exclusion of the incomparable Hugh Laurie from the list of Outstanding Actor nominees. Emmy voters, you owe Mr. Laurie, his fellow cast and crew members, his friends and family, and Laurie fans worldwide an apology for this intolerable omission.
Nancy commented:
What DeeDee just said! I was STUNNED, SHOCKED and SADDENED when I found out that Hugh wasn't nominated. HUGH LAURIE IS HOUSE! Without him, there would be no show. SHAME ON THE ACADEMY!
Megan commented:
I'm still not over my shock at the exclusion of Hugh Laurie. The Emmy voters are nuts.
chilibreath commented:
There's been a flare-up from Hugh Laurie's many fans (myself included) when the nominations were announced. I personally feel the new judging system is a sham and needs to be overhauled. There ought to be a recount!
