I thought I would bring the Emmy discussion over here, since someone so kindly reminded me this thread existed:

From the GG in the Media thread:



It is definitely not a myth. As was mentioned, the larger awards lead to more recognition for the show in general, whereas the "minor" awards, for the most part, do not.

Take, for example, The Shield, over on measly little FX. If it had been nominated for only a minor Emmy (which, by the way, are proven minor by not even being shown on the telecast, thus reducing their profile even more), it might not have become the hit that is has. Sure, it still would have had its loyal viewers, but I know many people (including myself) who started watching after Michael Chiklis won the Golden Globe and was nominated for the Emmy.

It is a fact, well-reported in respected trade and consumer magazines, that some awards are more widely respected than others. Part of this is because the "major" awards are being voted on by everyone, while the minor (read: scientific and technical) awards are being voted on by a very small group of people in that specific field.

At any rate, I guess we could debate this all day, but I think the proof is out there that the "major" categories are more respected, more recognized, and do more for both the show and the network.

But I still stand by wallowing in my snobbery, knowing that I have discovered these television gems that the Academy is just not smart enough/with it enough/cultured enough to get. (Yes, I'd rather they win, but since they won't/haven't, I settle for the snobbery).

I'm wallowing right there with you, DMW_SFU. Look at Buffy: if it had won any of the major awards (writing, directing, acting, etc.) instead of just the technical awards, I wouldn't get "that look" when I say I am a hardcore (WB) Buffy fan. It's just too sad that shows like that and GG haven't been appreciated. And, no matter what the writers/directors/actors say ("Just doing great work is enough for me!"), it's gotta suck for them.

I agree with DMW SFU on this subject. I'm sure that the people who win these awards are proud, but winning these types of awards doesn't really garner any recognition on a large scale. After all, have you ever seen a commercial for a show that has only won technical Emmys saying with the voice-over guy saying, "Be sure to watch [fill in the blank], winner of the Emmy for best hair. It may not be recognized for acting, writing, or directing but those hair 'dos sure are bitchin'. Seriously, that is Emmy-calibur hair."

So, Lauren wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe herself, but was in a Golden Globe-nominated movie, as I just saw a commercial for Bad Santa saying that Billy Bob was nominated in the best actor in a musical or comedy category.

The Screen Actors Guild award nominations were announced this morning, and the Girls got nada.

It's depressing to see the same names over and over again. The nominees for actress in a comedy are Patricia Heaton, Lisa Kudrow, Debra Messing, Megan Mullally,and Doris Roberts.

The comedy cast nominations went to Everybody Loves Raymond, Frasier, Friends, Sex and the City, and Will & Grace. The good news is, this is the last season for three of those.

I think Gilmore Girls is probably hurt by the fact that it straddles comedy and drama. In its first couple of seasons, it was submitted as a drama, but I believe now it's going up for the comedy awards. And of course, being on the WB certainly doesn't win people any awards.

It would be nice to see this show and its actors get some recognition for what they're doing. Besides from the critics. And us.

While I do agree that it will be nice to not see Everybody Loves Raymond in the list ever again (hopefully this is the show's last season), I wanted to add that Lisa Kudrow hasn't been nominated for this award in a number of years. It's been Jennifer Aniston for the past few years. And Lisa, frankly, deserves it.

I don't watch Will & Grace regularly, but the comedic acting of that group is excellent, too.

Still, I think Lauren Graham deserves the nomination over Patricia Heaton and Doris Roberts. I'd normally say she deserves it over Debra Messing, but I'm sure Debra submitted the episode that won her the Emmy last year. It was some excellent acting. And I can't think of one episode Lauren could submit that would really showcase her as the amazing actress she is. She used to get SAG nominations, though, when GG was considered a drama.

The WB only got one nomination, for Treat Williams (he also was nominated last year). For the complete list, you can visit the SAG Awards site.

Lauren Graham has been nominated for two SAG awards and one Golden Globe for Gilmore Girls. Winning none. Treat has been nominated now twice for SAG awards, no Golden Globes, for Everwood. He didn't win the first time. But he's doing a hell of a job, as is the program overall. Never sell the competition short.

Lauren, in her interview in some magazine that put her in a prized interview place on the last page, admitted that she'd been a bit worn out last season, and said that a new exercise regimen and some thinking had made her happier with this season. Unfortunately, this season also coincided with the Era of Endless Exposition to get Rory integrated with Yale and Lorelai and Sookie and Michel moved to the new Inn, and the baby, and so forth. It's been a tough time; I applaud the Frog for picking up the Girls for next season before any other show (except for the two-year contract 7th Heaven got last year, yuck) on the netlet, and just hope that the cast and crew take that vote of confidence as something they should run with.

And then, perhaps next year, the awards will come.

Not this season. Or last season, for that matter.

I have to say that this is the first awards show season that I haven't been outraged that the Girls haven't been nominated for any major awards. Quite frankly, I don't think that the quality of this season warrants any awards. Not that the acting has slipped in any way, it's just that the writers are giving the actors very little to work with these days.

Amen, aidanspencer!

But I tend to think most awards shows look back further than the current season when handing out trophies. Shows past their prime win awards all the time, so I'd be OK with it if Gilmore Girls got some awards based on past merit. I don't think the Will and Grace actors are working with the best of scripts, and I know The West Wing's writing is slipping. And I don't get why Everybody Loves Raymond, because I've never been able to watch more than five minutes without throwing something at my TV.

Anyway, awards and recognition would be nice, but good Gilmore Girls scripts would be even better.

Since I don't think this year's scripts have been that bad I would be inclined to rephrase that to "scripts as good as Season One's were". That little quibble aside, I strongly endorse the sentiment.

If we were to get a return to that kind of quality the awards just might take care of themselves. Quoth the more optimistic side of my nature, while my more cynical side does silent eye rolls. :-)

Okay, where did I put my ability to proofread?

Bump.

The fourth season is now over and if there was any justice in the world, GG would finally be getting some Emmy nominations! Probably not going to happen seeing as A.) it's on the WB and B.) it's a dramedy and therefore hard to categorize, but let's pretend that this year Emmy voters will take this show seriously.

I could be wrong (please correct me if I am), but I think that for a show to be nominated, six episodes are submitted, and for an actor to be nominated, one episode is. What episodes would you pick? My top six are:

Luke Can See Her Face
Nag Hammadi Is Where They Found the Gnostic Gospels
A Family Matter
Last Week Fights, This Week Tights
Raincoats and Recipes
Scene In a Mall

As for actors, I think the three most deserving are Lauren Graham, Kelly Bishop, and Scott Patterson.

Lauren: Definitely "Raincoats and Recipes," although she has several great episodes. This is Lauren Graham at her finest. Lots of great interactionsn with other characters, and some great physical comedy, which is unusual on this show.

Kelly: Toss-up between "The Reigning Lorelai" and "Scene In a Mall." In the former, we have typical Emily followed by drunk-and-off-the-deep-end Emily, but in the latter we get a nice glimpse of the inner Emily. I'm not sure.

Scott: I think I'm going to have to go with "A Family Matter," because he's great both in the scenes with Liz and the one with Lorelai where he makes his spilled drink speech. Although he's also great with the self-help tape in "Luke Can See Her Face," and with his interactions with different characters in "Last Week Fights, This Week Tights."

Damn, that is a tough one. I guess it would have to depend on whether they are going for more of a comedy slant this awards show season, or if they are going back to drama. That's really the only determinant that there can be because she's so great in both episodes. I really wish that they would create a category for dramedies. They created a category for reality television, for fuck's sake, why not dramedies?! I'm sure they could scrape up enough shows to make a category for that. Or, they should at least be more liberal in their classification of shows. Especially in these days, where more and more shows are coming out that defy or push the limits of most contemporary genre labels, such as Scrubs and Arrested Development. It's high time they changed their ways.

Or another thing they could do is split up the comedy category into hour long comedies and half hour comedies. Hour long comedies tend to be significantly different from half hour comedies, which are usually more sitcomy.

Does anyone know officially which episodes were submitted? The entry deadline was several weeks ago (late April, I think).

Are you sure the deadline is that early? Does that mean that the finale of every show is not up for selection for the Emmy process? That would suck, and there would be no chance of GG getting a nod if they had only the first half of the season to select from.

Don't fret, pathwatch: according to the Emmy's official website, the eligibility period is between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2004, so R&R can definitely be a contender. The first deadline was on March 26th, pertaining to programs that aired between June 1 and March 26. The second deadline was on April 23, and it includes all programs that aired up until May 31. So, sure, the deadline was before the episode even aired, but it is still eligible.

Oh, and the deadline to place a "For Your Consideration" ad in the Emmy mag was April 21st. I wonder if anyone placed any GG ads, because that would be awesome.

Ah, that is true. Here's the calendar. I'm not exactly sure how this all works. Maybe someone else has some insight?

ETA that wounded answered the question!

Whew! Thank God. ASP (for writing and/or directing) and LG (for acting) so completely deserve an Emmy. Not just a nod, but the win.

Amen to that.

If the governing fossils would just alter the rules to accommodate either a "dramady" (dramedy? comedrama?) category, or a "Shows For Viewers With High I.Q.s" category, then everybody associated with Gilmore Girls would be snuggling up to gold-plated statuettes, dammit.

I swear I read somewhere not too long ago that the Academy changed the nomination rules so that shows such as GG (they actually mentioned GG) would have a better chance at being nominated. Did I just dream that?

ETA: I answered my own question. I didn't dream it!

Gaaah, caltrask55! I have no eonline membership, so can you please be a doll and share what it says? Thanks.

Hey, wounded, here's the gist:

Oh, that is good news. Gracias, aidanspencer!

This is good news for GG! *crosses fingers*. I think this year they may have a shot. Wishful thinking? Perhaps, then again, they should have been nominated every year. If they aren't, then I go with the "it's just an award" stance.

I would love for this show to get any noms, particularly for Lauren Graham or Kelly Bishop (which I think would be a Judi Dench winning an Oscar for Shakespeare in Love or Paul Newman in The Color of Money type of recognition) or Scott Patterson or for the writers. However, I'm an awards show fiend--as I'm sure many TWoPpers are--and I'm cynical about the show's chances because Emmy voters are notoriously conservative. I almost died when Michael Chiklis won in 2002 (I think) for The Shield because it was a basic cable show. They love the HBO, but they don't tend to love the basic cable nets or the smaller nets like the WB (hello, no win for Joss Whedon, EVER?). They get confused by shows like GG, I think, because of its genre and sensibility. Though I'm thinking that because most of the network dramas that have been staples in the past have sucked so hard for so long and there are so many knock offs of knock offs that perhaps smaller and quirkier shows might have a better chance, I'm still not giving the academy voters much credit. GG will always have a better chance at a show like the Globes.

While I too, have my doubts, I think it's still a point in the right direction in terms of GG getting some Nominations.

This is what I figures...

When a voter could only summit 5 choices they went for the shows they liked that they really felt had a chance. In terms of comedies, it was Raymond, Friends, Will and Grace, SATC, and the toss up fifth spot which usually goes to Fraiser or Curb your enthusiasum, I think. GG is a critical darling so it's odd that people don't vote for it, but the other shows that do get nominated are ones that get the ratings or on HBO (the bastard child of the emmy's). With ten spots, hopefully, people will go toward nominating the ten best shows they feel on tv. I think GG has a really shot this year. Then again, there's a lot of buzz over Arrested Development.

Friends and SATC are pobably a given because it was their last year.
I would say Arrested Delevopment has a shot at it.
Same with Curb...
Will and Grace wasn't that great this year, but they get nods every year so it's a toss up.
Fraiser may get the sympathy vote (but I doubt it)
Raymond, pobably, since it gets a lot of casting nods.
GG, I hope. Since the fans and critics all like it. But again, wishful thinking, maybe.

Don't get me started on acting nominations.

Ugh. The requisite Aniston-Parker-Heaton-Messing-Kazmarek list...

How many hour-long shows have been nominated in the comedy category? I remember when Northern Exposure won in the drama category, in the acceptance speech, they said something like, "I hate to tell everyone now, but this show is a comedy." It seems like one hour programming is continually treated as drama even if it's more funny than dramatic.

I know Ally McBeal was nominated and won at least once. Shame, shame. But still.

Ditto on the Ugh!

Okay, here's my take on Best Actress...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Debra Messing won't get a Nom, since she won last year, and for the fact the W/G just wasn't all that great this year. Not to meantion Grace is the most annoying character on the show.

Aniston and Parker - total givens, although I feel that Lisa Kudrow is the best actress on Friends, but whatever.

Kazmarek is a good actress, but I don't know anyone who cares about MITM anymore. She's the Susan Lucci of this catagory.

Heaton, most likely, although she has two and compared to Lauren Graham just doesn't hold a candle.

Although, none of these talented ladies (and Debra Messing) hold a candle to Lauren Graham.

I think you're on the money, enchantress, and I think that Messing's non-appearance most of the season is against her as well. I think Jennifer Aniston gets more recognition than Lisa Kudrow because they give Rachel so much more to do--they never really connect many of Pheobe's storylines to the other friends the way they do Rachel's (or, past tense, anyway) and they ran out of stuff to give her a long time ago, I think. I also think the fact that there were so few good comedies on the air this year ups GG's chances, if they decide to enter themselves that way. Heaton and Kazmarek I think have run their course, since both shows are pretty much running on steam at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised with a nom for either (well, more for JK than PH). Nothing that I can think of in the ABC lineup, which has the most comedies I can think of off the top of my head, has merited noms, but I think SJP's a safe bet, and the woman whose name I can't remember on Curb Your Enthusiasm, as well as the women from Arrested Development might appear on the ballot as well. And Lauren Graham is at least as visible as those women (and I fully admit to never having seen either show, but know that critics lurve them and I probably should watch them) and kicks the most ass. She's totally overlooked. She should come here and see how much we love her.

Edited to add: I just jumped to video archivist! I love summer!

Oh, Cheryl Hines! Was she nominated last year. I concider her more supporting. Ditto on the ladies from AD. Although, they could all pull an Allison Janney and decide they are leads.

Hilarious, enchantress. Fucking hilarious.

I wonder if they'd be better off going for drama. Unfortunately The Sopranos tends to dominate those nominations (and before Sopranos fans start throwing things, I'm sure it deserves them- I don't get HBO so I wouldn't know). I hear The West Wing hasn't been as good as usual this season. I know CSI hasn't been (still good, not as good as usual IMO).

As for the comedies, one show I really hope does get recognized is Monk. Love that show! Totally deserves nominations for the show, Tony Shalhoub, Bitty Schram, the writing, and more.

If they went up for drama it would be too hard to say. West Wing, no matter how bad it gets always seems to get nominated (and win). CSI is the number one of the highest rated shows and that holds a lot of power. Even if it was nominated (and I love CSI) it won't win. The drama category is way more competive and GG probably wouldn't have a chance. Although, if they did summit as a drama, I do think Lauren Graham would have a better chance of getting a nod because there are so little main drama roles on tv for women (with the exception of a few)

Sopranos are a given (although, when I had HBO I couldn't sit through an entire episode)
Law and Order somehow seems to get nominated out of the blue sometimes (though, probably not this year.
Sex Feet Under will get a nomination, if only because it's better than the Sopranos.
Drama's I'd say. TWW, CSI, Sopranos, 6FU, and the last spot is a toss up between L&O, Alias (wishful thinking), and maybe the Shield since they have a soft spot for Michael Chiklis. NYPD Blue and ER have run their course. Without A Trace, I've never seen. Everwood and Angel don't have a shot (although, they are better than just about all the other shows listed for Drama)

The funny thing is, GG's first year they summited for drama, but the second year summited for comedy because they thought they would have a better chance. I feel like GG should have a better shot at comedy if only because the comedies out there are so weak, and really GG (and Friends, because I'm a tool and will always love Friends) are the best comedies out there. Arrested Development is good too. I've seen little of Monk but Tony S. is great, so maybe them too.

Comedy nominations should be: Gilmore Girls, Arrested Development, Friends, Curb, and an open spot for whatever. Because, quality comedies just are being given to us.

But should be is different then will be.

Emmy voters are tools!

That last spot will go to SATC--I wouldn't be surprised if Frasier got a last-season Hail Mary nom too.

And I echo: stupid Emmy voters. They never get it right. Listen, give me the ballots and ultimate control, and I'll take care of it. And if I can't do it alone, the TWoPpers are much better equipped than all those academy members. We actually watch TV and not just award reels.

Word Lula! Word!

It's hard to respect an academy that looks over the best shows on tv and gives awards to the same old tired shows. I'm still very bitter over the lack of Buffy love, too.

So. Fucking. True. Any academy that routinely gives awards to Everybody Loves Raymond has nothing to talk to me about.

They lost me when they gave Helen Hunt the award for best actress in a comedy the same year she won her Oscar. Holy Obvious Choice, Batman! And I don't give them much credit for giving awards to HBO shows--yeah, they're good, but just because they're on cable and they have swearing in them doesn't necessarily qualify them as the "best."

I have fears of nominations for things like "Hope and Faith" and "Two and a Half Men." And "Everybody Loves Raymond." Where's the justice?

No, I don't take these things too seriously.

*sob* My two favoritest shows always get robbed.

Victor Garber, Jennifer Garner and Lauren Graham all deserve Emmys. I could go on, but won't.

That would be the sign of the the end of the world.

Announcer Guy: And the nominations for best comedy are: Hope and Faith, Good Morning Miami, Yes Dear, Two and a Half Men, and one of those half hour shows on the WB that all have the same plots, and suck.

I think I would kick my tv in!



Word! Word! and Word!

SpyDaddy Rocks!

Add Kelly Bishop to that list!

Lauren Graham's great and all, but Kelly Bishop is divine. If she doesn't submit "The Reigning Lorelai", I'll go and submit it for her.

I'll see your "Reigning Lorelai" and raise you "Scene in a Mall". KB completely deserves it on the strength of these two eps alone.

I agree on KB and I think she actually will have a better shot next year when the SATC women aren't in the running. They love nominating SATC. Hopefully KB will get some more episodes on par with "The Reigning Lorelai" in season five.

The drunk scene in "The Reigning Lorelai" is a classic. "Scene in a Mall" was the best eppy overall for KB.

SP should get nominated for "Luke Can See Her Face." He owned that episode! and not just because the characters name is in the title.

LG for "Raincoats and Recipes", although she always does great work in everything.

I thought Milo was great in LWFTWT. For guest actor, I would nominate him.

I'm petty enough to wish that doesn't happen, not because of MV, but because of the black hatred I have for Jess.

Total word. Though I love Six Feet Under. It's impossibly weird and soap-operatic, but the actors are great.

I've seen my share of SATC and The Sopranos. But I've never been terribly fond of either show, and I don't see why anyone would ever want to give SJP any kind of award. I also don't get some of the love for other acclaimed media darlings, such as Maura Tierney of ER.

Lauren is way overdue. For that matter, so is Kelly. I think a problem may be that a lot of people still think of GG as a "teen" show due to what station it's on. I've seen people cosntantly make sardonic comments about tiring of shows like CSI or ER and saying "Well, now I'll go watch Gilmore Girls!" They've never seen the show, but they assume it is merely about teenagers.

ITA. Because it's on the WB. As much as the WB ticks me off with some of it programming and keeping bad shows and cancelling good shows ("Buffy", anyone? "Angel"? Hell I'll say it, I liked "Popular"), some of the shows are quality (i.e. GG and Everwood) and some well (IMHO) are not (i.e. 7th Heaven, and forgive me, I really don't like Smallville, but the guy that plays Lex is hot *ahem*).

They stereotype and it's not right. But what can you do. As long as we know it's good, they don't need no stinkin' emmy's.

But it would be nice.

Um, yeah, because Season 1 of Popular was completely awesome. Season 2, not so much. I've always wished that they would create a spinoff for Mary Cherry, Mama Cherry, and Nicole Julian.