Submitted by unitedfan6191 t3_11zq18j in television


Hope you’re doing well.

I personally don’t value them higher than they need to be valued because I can understand the elation for the people involved if you win or are nominated, but there are only so many categories and nominees and only one winner and I can imagine maybe some politics and bias being involved in who wins or is nominated.

Plus, I don’t personally rate shows (or even base my opinion around) by how many Emmys they’ve won or not won because I like to assess the quality of a show myself, but I can imagine and know a lot of casual people who don’t watch many shows being convinced a show is great because it’s billed as an Emmy winner, so it at least serves a purpose.

Shows like The Wire, The Brady Bunch, The Good Place, Better Call Saul, New Girl, Good Times and Parks and Recreation never won an Emmy and I’m fine with that as I like many of these shows regardless.

What do you think?



You must log in or register to comment.

eekamuse t1_jddida1 wrote

No importance. Except it makes me sad when people who deserve it don't win.


unitedfan6191 OP t1_jddjcmq wrote

That opens up a whole new can of worms when you start using words like “deserve.”

We all have our own interpretations of what that means and even if the performance you’re thinking “deserves” to win an award and most people agree with your sentiment, there are usually at least a few other performances on a similar level competing so I think it can be a tricky business deciding who most “deserves” an award because I feel their performance would still be out of this world whether they win an award or not.

But I think I get where you’re coming from and an award can be good validation and if it means a lot to the actor/writer/whatever then I will root for them.


admiralvic t1_jdedgk1 wrote

While I get your point, I disagree with the interpretation.

> do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment).

This is what deserve means, which I think is fair to say. What you're talking about is more so saying someone should have won instead.


Volcano_Tequila t1_jddtz7r wrote

I guess I take a contrarian perspective. For many years, TV took a backseat to film, and the acme of success was when an actor or director or writer who started in TV and learned the ropes, elevated themselves into film work. There are countless examples. Emmy, by recognizing TV work as having real worth, helped balance the equation a tad, rewarding noteworthy efforts on the small screen.

Now, actors, writers and directors move back and forth, and TV frequently surpasses film from a quality perspective. An Emmy award nomination, if not the win, can bolster a career, and keep talented people actively engaged within the medium. So for me, it's no harm, no foul.


unitedfan6191 OP t1_jdedvy9 wrote

On the flip side of awards nominations and wins keeping talented people engaged, would you say it’s the opposite effect for many talented people who just miss out or just completely snubbed? By not getting nominations and wins, do you think many talented people will be more inclined to try film because they feel they’re not getting enough recognition in awards season?


SaxifrageRussel t1_jdgox45 wrote

To me it depends on what they want. If you want to make money, being a lead/main in a long running network show is by far the most lucrative path

If you want fame, hit movies are watched by way way more people than any TV show

If you want recognition, an Oscar is a much bigger deal than an Emmy. Like Billy Porter and Kyle Chandler both won best actor and I couldn’t pick them out of a 2 person lineup


willtag70 t1_jddk3o6 wrote

I value them at zero. The entire concept to me is silly and meaningless. There is no one best performance, any more than there's one best painting or song or most beautiful person. These awards only exist as self-promotion advertisements, and there's a huge amount of money and politics that goes on behind the scenes to influence the voting because of the extra revenue the winners generate. It's all a pretense. But if people enjoy it there's little harm.


Latter_Feeling2656 t1_jddk5k2 wrote

It can provide some historic context. From what's written today, you'd think it a complete aberration that Hogan's Heroes made it on the air, but it was nominated for best comedy Emmy three times, Bob Crane for best actor twice, Werner Klemperer for best supporting actor five straight years, winning twice. That level of recognition argues strongly that it was a very mainstream show, and that the show itself should be looked at instead of dismissed because of an uncomfortable concept.


u2sunnyday t1_jddx1xo wrote

A military dramedy in same vein of Hogan's or MASH is #1 on my most wanted list.


darthjoey91 t1_jdej6yv wrote

The writers on those shows had been in the military and fought in wars. Most writers nowadays do not have experience in the military, and it shows when they try to write a military show. Like Space Force was trying to just be The Office, but in the military, and it didn’t really work.


x6ftundx t1_jddim9j wrote

remember all of these award shows are run by the people who are awarding the shows.

It's just a publicity contest and drama is scripted... Leonardo DiCaprio, never won before but up seven times blah blah blah

this is why I never watch or care for them. Oscars... really, you think a bunch of people actually tell who the winner is? COME ON MAN...


elister t1_jddl2eo wrote

Its like watching a playoff sports game. You want your team (movie or show) to win, you want to cheer them on and boo the nominees.


Fuzzikopf t1_jddo19x wrote

Like pretty much everyone else in this thread has already said: They mean absolutely nothing to me.


staedtler2018 t1_jdeao3r wrote

The issue with Emmys is that the nature of television (shows run for many years) allows them to be dominated by a few heavyweights.


[deleted] t1_jddj9k1 wrote



ZippidieDooDah t1_jddn6bp wrote

That decent drama barometer nominated (not even awarded) the Wire only twice for writing in 2005 and 2008. I get the Sopranos and Six Feet Under aired through the Wire’s run and both are deserving of Outstanding Drama Series noms.

But Greys Anatomy, 24, House…over the Wire???


Archamasse t1_jddshcl wrote

I don't use them as a measure of much but I enjoy watching them and the way they serve as a diving board for chatter about the year's media.


urgasmic t1_jdduw1x wrote

I find it just a fun thing to cap off a great or bad year of television, and whoever is or isnt nominated


anasui1 t1_jde7j83 wrote

zero, it goes back to when Casino was completely snubbed by the Oscars; I then realised awards are a pathetic joke


Scotsmania t1_jddrkry wrote

I've never used them as a measure of anything for TV shows as places like this sub has me covered and have read it daily for I don't know how long, over a decade? but I used to use the Oscars as a prompt to try some movies. I don't watch many movies so I assumed the Oscar nominees were the creme de la creme, reality was that although some would be really good most were clearly just made with the Oscars in mind.

I see the whole awards scene as them all just patting each other in the back, it has little to do with us the viewers.


[deleted] t1_jddtui7 wrote

Awards have never been indicative of quality to my mind. Rather they just tell you that in a particular group of (probably somewhat insular) people, most of them, for any number of reasons (some of which may have nothing to do with quality), believed the show/actor/etc. should win. They have no meaning for me and I don't watch them or even follow up afterwards to see who won.


jogoso2014 t1_jde5ep2 wrote

I value them for the show itself.

I’m not terribly concerned with who wins unless I’m already watching them.

I basically hear the nominations and decide which one I think should win.