TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: 2012 Emmy nominations Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Sep 25th, 2012 08:03 PM
Javi
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roookie View Post
74 Metacritic Also far from "trashed by the critics".
Yep, it's true as well.
I guess my perception was conditionated by the opinions of many people I usually rely.
Anyway, There is a real consensus over the great performance by Julianne Moore. I'm so happy, she is one of my favorite actresses ever and she is kind of "always the bridesmaid, never the bride" when it comes to awards.
Sep 25th, 2012 03:30 PM
Roookie
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Javi. View Post
I've rechecked the reviews and though they are mostly good there's some division. For an instance, 63% in Rotten Tomatoes is far from "Excellent".
74 Metacritic Also far from "trashed by the critics".
Sep 25th, 2012 02:38 PM
pov
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

I wanted to find out more about how the Emmys "work."
Quote:
The academy has an Awards Committee that handles the Emmys every year. The awards for prime time programs are presented in August or September, and to be eligible, shows had to be aired on broadcast or cable television during prime time (6 p.m. to 2 a.m.) between June1 and May 31. Also, they had to be seen in markets representing at least 51 percent of the television viewers in the United States. People who worked on eligible shows can nominate themselves for awards. Teams of people can enter in more than one category as long as each entry is for a different program. The entrants have to pay a fee, the amount of which is based on whether the nomination is commercial, individual or for a program, and the size of the team for team entries. Entrants can mail or fax in their entries.

Television producers often advertise in the trade press before the Emmy nominations are turned in, trying to get voters to notice their shows. And, of course, after the nominations are announced, more ads go out as the producers promote their shows' nominations.
Quote:
he academy asks for volunteers among the members to judge the nominees and choose the best in each category. The volunteer judges are grouped by peers, too, and the number of voters in each category varies. But again, everyone votes in the outstanding program categories. In years past, judging panels met in Los Angeles and watched all of the nominated shows and performances in a two-day marathon. Rod Serling, the prolific writer behind the "Twilight Zone" series, devised the judging panel idea in the 1960s, when he was president of the academy. He and others wanted to make sure that the judges actually watched the nominees, rather than just voting for their favorites.

Judging rules can change based on changes in the industry and the needs of the voting body. For example, in 2000, the academy decided to allow members to volunteer to watch tapes of the nominees in their own homes and on their own schedules. This meant that more people could vote in the final process; television critics and others had criticized the former voting procedure, saying that only older people with more time on their hands (that is, not active performers, directors, technicians) would volunteer to participate in an inconvenient, time-consuming judging process. The critics said that the old voting procedure led to some of the best and most daring shows going unrecognized, because the judging panels were older and more conservative. But opponents of the new, more relaxed judging process say that there is no guarantee that the voters will watch the tapes. Essentially, the members are on the honor system.

The article => http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/emmy2.htm
Sep 25th, 2012 09:37 AM
Javi
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beat View Post
over-reaction? we just like to discuss things that are close to our hearts, because this is, like, you know, a message board, where people do this kind of thing.

if it bothers you so much that people dare to do this, maybe it's better you close your account again after 69 posts.
Exactly. To give our opinion about the winners is not overreacting.
Because, in a thread about Emmys we are supposed to give our point of view about Emmys
Sep 25th, 2012 06:49 AM
Beat
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukneecorn View Post
You've got to love the over-reaction to some award show by some people in this thread. Not everyone is going to agree with the winners chosen by the academy but guess what ? not everyone is going to agree with your choice either. Life isn't fair then why do you expect an awards show to be ?
over-reaction? we just like to discuss things that are close to our hearts, because this is, like, you know, a message board, where people do this kind of thing.

if it bothers you so much that people dare to do this, maybe it's better you close your account again after 69 posts.
Sep 25th, 2012 04:36 AM
Hurley
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Because you're very much incorrect - she was awful, mind-numbingly terrible, in "Christine Whatever." That's why the Emmy voters' brainless checking off of her name every time, no matter what, is an example of their ineptitude, and why I cannot take this win seriously.

Which is what I said the first time, J.D. :-P
Sep 25th, 2012 03:22 AM
Ryan
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurley View Post
Just, the Emmys are boring. It's just bizarre to me how I've been following them for 20 years now, you'd think NATAS would have lots of turnover in the membership, and yet they have always glommed onto people and keep rewarding them over and over and over and over again.

I am the LAST person in the world to talk shit about Maggie Smith, but, really, she won for the same role last year, a role she could do in her sleep, and Christina Hendricks will never win. I also believe Julie Bowen and Eric Stonestreet are very good comedians but...they have won before, and you're rewarding them again? Why bother having 6 (or 7) actors nominated in these categories if the same people are going to win every time?

Like...Julia Louis-Dreyfus doesn't even need to be in the same SHOW to repeat multiple times. They see her name and they pick her. It doesn't even matter. She could win for a remake of "Triumph of the Will." I just don't understand how 20 years ago she could win for "Seinfeld," 10 years ago for her execrable "Christine" show (which she was awful in), and now again for a show which admittedly I have not seen but can't be any better than "Parks & Rec" and Amy Poehler's work within it. These can't be all the same voters! I'm just...aghast.

LOL. I don't GET IT.

This just shows how much you suck. JLD is one of the best comedic actresses of the last 25 years. She's great in everything she does, why does it matter if its for different shows? She plays different people/styles on each one, and Veep is great.
Sep 25th, 2012 03:17 AM
King Wally.
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Homeland deserved every award it won and then some. It is fucking spectacular!
Sep 25th, 2012 12:47 AM
Tennis Fool
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Morgan View Post
I'm still appalled by how Fringe has not gotten any love from the Emmys yet. Such incredible acting and writing and yet nothing to show for it.
That's because Fringe is a joke.
Sep 24th, 2012 11:13 PM
ukneecorn
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

OMG some other bitter person wrote an article about the "boring" Emmy's ? Who cares there are 100 other articles celebrating the show and all the award winners ? Because it doesn't fit my agenda I guess we can choose to ignore them.
Sep 24th, 2012 11:03 PM
Hurley
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

For those who can't read: http://www.tennisforum.com/13-non-tennis/468702-unforgivable-boringness-years-emmy-awards-article.html

So, might not help.
Sep 24th, 2012 10:42 PM
ukneecorn
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Or maybe when I am a totally bitter jaded old hag like you ?
Sep 24th, 2012 10:36 PM
Hurley
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukneecorn View Post
You've got to love the over-reaction to some award show by some people in this thread. Not everyone is going to agree with the winners chosen by the academy but guess what ? not everyone is going to agree with your choice either. Life isn't fair then why do you expect an awards show to be ?
One day, when you're on your 9th or 10th username, you'll learn to read.
Sep 24th, 2012 10:31 PM
Morning Morgan
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

I'm still appalled by how Fringe has not gotten any love from the Emmys yet. Such incredible acting and writing and yet nothing to show for it.
Sep 24th, 2012 10:17 PM
Javi
Re: 2012 Emmy nominations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roookie View Post
Game Change had excelent reviews by prestigious critics from New York Times and Rolling Stone. To me the movie was AWESOME and it should have been released in theathers.
I've rechecked the reviews and though they are mostly good there's some division. For an instance, 63% in Rotten Tomatoes is far from "Excellent".
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome