Thursday, July 16, 2009

Just in case...

... you thought h-e-double hockey sticks had frozen over and Bones got an Emmy nod... You were wrong. On both accounts. See the shows and actors that did get some love at TVGuide.

Edit: actor lockout, but Art Direction earns a nod.

12 comments:

Shannon said...

Well, there was an art direction nod for Hero in the Hold. That's something!

Wendy said...

Oh very nice. Guess I should have picked a better source list! :)

See a better list here:

http://cdn.emmys.tv/downloads/2009/61stemmys_nomssum.pdf

jenny said...

TVGuide seems to mention only actors and acrtesses. The nomination Bones got was about art direction-I can't see any of the 'technical' categories in TV Guide. I don't know...Getting a nomination for ED or DB or HH or the series itself would be the best but...it's a start,right? I hope it's only the first of more to come!

The Badger said...

Bloody hell!! How much did Satan pay for his ice skates?

Stephanie said...

I had the same thought, Jenny. They've got to start somewhere. As much as I would've loved to see Emily nominated, one out of the four Bones submitted nominations for isn't bad, especially considering the categories get 40+ submissions and only 5 or 6 get nominated.

leeloo said...

zero nominations again??? who the **** is making the selections anyway?

Kate said...

The biggest problem in the Emmy game is the competition. Out of the shows nominated for best drama, only two of the seven are on networks (House and Lost), the rest are basic or premium cable shows. I think the limitations imposed by being on a network work against Bones. More corporate interference, most stress about ratings and demographics, more episodes per season, different censoring rules. Since Lost is its own thing, let's look at House. It's the same network, so we can assume it is made under similar conditions as Bones. What makes House more Emmy-worthy than Bones? I think a lot of it comes to down writing and genre. First, House's writing is always top-notch. Bones' faltered a bit in the last two seasons as a lot of new writers were ushered in. I think good writing covers a multitude of sins. The second difference is the more important of the two. House is a medical drama. There is always a medical mystery and it is always unraveled in the same way. The medical mystery is always the A story and the accompanying B story tends to be small in scope, usually because it's part of a greater season arc. But what is Bones? It's not a strict procedural. Yes, there is always a case in Bones, but frequently it takes a backseat to the characters. Occasionally, the episodes are straight-up comedy. Bones has never had a season-long arc of anything, the exception being Gormogon, but that experiment was abruptly ended (thanks, writers' strike!) and I think that's a real weakness in its writing when compared to the Emmy-nominated shows.

Sorry for the wall of text. In conclusion, Bones isn't nominated because it does exemplify its field--it doesn't fit well in as a dramatic procedural--and because it's hard for network shows to compete with cable.

Stephanie said...

I think that's the real problem. Bones isn't a dramatic procedural. Even Hart says it's a character-driven show, while procedural shows are strictly plot-driven. And I don't think that's a "weakness in the writing." It's just what the show is. It was never meant to be a case-driven procedural like House or CSI. It was always supposed to be more about the characters and their development and their relationships with each other. When Fox wanted Hart to develop a forensic show, he originally was very skeptical because he's a character kind of writer and the normal forensic/medical/crime procedurals don't allow for a lot of that.

Bones fits into the dramedy category. It's too comedic to fit with the medical/law/police procedural shows that get nominated as dramas, but it's also too dramatic to fit with the half-hour sitcoms that get nominated under the comedy category. And it's not the only one. A lot of shows recently whose stars or writers or whatever deserve Emmys are like this.

The Emmys need revamped. I've been saying for years they need dramaedy categories. Plus, I think they need some rules about frequency of nominations for the same roles. The Oscars are fine because movies change every year, but if you look at the Emmy lists from the past two or three years, they haven't changed much. The same people are nominated every year, which often leads to repeat winners, which doesn't leave room for anyone else to have a chance.

Anonymous said...

David should of got an Emmy nod for Con Man in the Meth Lab or Critic in the Cabernet

Anonymous said...

The Emmy did get a revamp this year. The noms was extended to 6 instead of 5 and it was the members that got the final vote, not by the panel in the finale choice.

There has always been dramedys - Gilmore Girls, Buffy etc.. and they never got a extra section just to accommodate them.

Good writing and acting will always stand out no matter the genre. It takes both to win the Emmy, with Bones the writing often fails the quality of the acting and the cast, who always make the best of a poorer episode.

Stephanie said...

Oh, I definitely don't think they should make new categories JUST to accommodate Bones. That would be ridiculous, and honestly, the only thing on Bones that I think deserves a nomination (that we're able to see, anyway. I'm no expert on art direction or whatever) is Emily, but there are so many shows that don't fit in either category, and that's where the problem lies. It's not just Bones. There's Ugly Betty, Desperate Housewives, Castle, Gilmore Girls (who jumped back and forth from submitting themselves as comedy or drama because even they couldn't figure out which category to be in,) Buffy, Pushing Daisies, Veronica Mars, Warehouse 13, and I'm sure there's even more. Those are just the ones I've watched or you mentioned. Do all of those deserve Emmys? No. But none of them fit into the traditional nominees for either category, and that's where the problem is because more and more shows like these are coming out. TV shows aren't so black and white or easily split into those categories anymore.

And the 6 nominee thing isn't new. Maybe it is for every single category, but they've always stretched their categories to accommodate however many nominees they want since so many people tie in the initial votes. If you look at this year's list, some categories have 7.

Anonymous said...

No offense but Bones didn't deserve an Emmy this year. The writing is off and Brennan's character was all over the place. Emily did the best she could with the lack of character consistency - Mayhem and Mask. And David/Booth was amazing in Hero, ConMan and Cabernet, particulary the hospital and tumor scenes

Add to Technorati Favorites