Gold Derby

Tom O'Neil has the inside track on Oscars, Emmys, Grammys and all the award shows.

Category: August 2006

| Gold Derby Home |

Panic! Upset by Panic!

August 31, 2006 |  8:58 pm

Panicatthedisco1

Oh, how frustrating trying to follow the VMAs while in Los Angeles. That dang delayed broadcast! But I just heard word of the victory of Panic! at the Disco as video of the year. Hooray for the triumph of the best video in that lineup. And the best song. How shocking — especially considering the presumably ignorant masses did the voting for the first time ever.

Forgive me, oh, masses for underestimating you!

Let that be a lesson to us "pro" kudos crystal-ballers, all of whom failed to forecast Panic to prevail.

Hats off to our poster Professor Chaos, however, who proudly crowed in our message boards when the winner was announced, "Who ***in' called this travesty? I want mention on the GoldDerby frontpage!"

There it is, Chaos. Proud of you. You alone foresaw this one. You're right about that, but, wrong, amigo, about your appraisal of "I Write Sins Not Tragedies." In my opinion, it's a real winner music-wise, perf-wise and video-wise and, happily, voters recognized that. I surmised that the first few minutes I stumbled upon it one day while channel-surfing, catching it in mid-tune, thinking, "Wow! Who are these guys?!"

SIDE NOTE: Has anybody figured out what happened just before Panic! made their acceptance speech — when that whack job jumped up from the audience, took the mike from J.Lo and did some rant about never getting his own TV show? Wow! Real panic at the VMAs!

And real panic by this awards guru, who just did worse than he did trying to predict the Emmys! This time I got 100 percent wrong! (Note to self: next year — more than one category, you idiot!)

Photo: Panic isn't respected by snobbish music critics like other recent winners of video of the year Green Day, Eminem and Outkast. Will that finally change now that they've got the cool MTV stamp of approval, even if it was bestowed by internet voters?
(Decaydance)


I predict . . . Shakira will win top VMA award!

August 30, 2006 | 11:05 pm

Vma

After bombing so terribly at forecasting the Emmys, witness me — defiantly and shamelessly, no less — rise from my own ashes to predict who'll really win the video of the year prize at the MTV VMAs!

Another flame-out is surely possible, even probable according to my most fiery detractors (legions!), but, undaunted, I dare to take on the music "pros"!

As I note in my article here at The Envelope about leading media predix (CLICK HERE), Rolling Stone backs Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Dani California," Newsday cites Madonna's "Hung Up" and the New York Daily News wimps out and calls the race a tie between the Chilis and Christina Aguilera's "Ain't No Other Man."

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! — at least that part about the Chilis and Madonna.

It's quite obvious to me that those predix are penned by middle-aged white media guys oblivious to who's casting ballots. For the first time ever, voters are those gabillions of cyberkids who hang out at MTV.com and watch "TRL." In short, they're not graying music critics working at midtown Manhattan publications who thrill to watch Anthony Kiedis relive lost loves while dressing up like faded music icons. Rather, they're cyber-crazed boys and gum-snapping girls who care a lot more about Shakira's hips than the return of a California rock group they didn't know even had a heyday back when they were watching "Sesame Street."

Sure, there are enough nostalgic older chaps on line to get "Dani" seven nominations when there were scores of various videos in the running. But now the race is narrowed down to five contenders and lots of the geezer votes will stray off into Madonna's embrace.

And, sure, the kids will split between Christina and Shakira, but, remember, there's the music to consider, too. "Dani" is dull, unlistenable. That video is all about visual schtick. Christina's "Man" has a real shot to win, but "Hips" rules!

Photo: Count on Shakira winning MTV's video of the year award. Panic! at the Disco would get my vote, but that doesn't count at all. Just thought I'd let you know how much I luv that song!
(Sony-BMG/Decaydance)


Inevitable Oscar nominee Mirren in 'The Queen'

August 30, 2006 |  8:29 pm

Queenmirren4

Now that Helen Mirren just won an Emmy as Elizabeth I, all kudos eyes are on her as she advances toward the Oscar throne next as Elizabeth II in Stephen Frears' "The Queen." In it, she gives a tour-de-force perf times two. Hers is a nuanced role requiring Mirren to achieve "internal acting" we can see, in many colors, through that monarch's notorious gray reserve as she wrestles with her disdain for the recently deceased Princess Di while her peoples demand she join them in hysterical mourning. But it also requires Mirren to nail a perfect imitation of a well-known person. That's key to winning an Oscar, of course, considering voters' fondness for hailing famous folk who portray famous folk (think Jamie Foxx in "Ray"). Obviously, she pulls both off — check out the trailer: CLICK HERE!

Mirren lost two bids in the supporting race at Oscars past: "Gosford Park" (2001 — bowing to Jennifer Connelly in "A Beautiful Mind") and "The Madness of King George" (1994 — she lost to Dianne Wiest in "Bullets Over Broadway"). In the latter she portrayed another real queen — Charlotte, spouse to George III, but not one we recognize today. Certainly, Mirren will be nommed in the lead race next January. Can she win? Considering the shameful Babe Factor (women over age 40 rarely do), the 61-year-old dame faces tough odds, but there are so many older gals prominent in that race already (Judi Dench in "Notes on a Scandal," Annette Bening in "Running with Scissors," Meryl Streep in "The Devil Wears Prada,"Julie Walters in "Driving Lessons," Julianne Moore in "Children of Men," Fernanda Montenegro, "House of Sand") that it's possible they could bump out the babes altogether. Take that, you Oscar-grabbing babes!

Mirren's ascendancy toward an Oscar nomination will become official in the next few days when "The Queen" debuts at the Venice Film Festival.

Photos: From all angles, Mirren bears a striking resemblance to Princess Di's sour foe.
(Miramax)


Worst Emmy predix ever! What happened?

August 30, 2006 | 11:39 am

Emmyqcallout

The Emmy, by far, is the most difficult showbiz award to predict. Since the Oscar, Grammy, Tony and Golden Globe are determined by a popular vote, a prognosticator can sometimes just follow the winds of popular sentiment and trip over the right answers. But that darn Emmy — she makes you fall flat on your face over the wrong answer too often. Like this year — the worst one ever!

Normally, about three-quarters of the winners line up with the oomph of the sample episodes submitted to jurors viewing them at home (watching two per nominee for best series and supporting acting and one for lead acting). Normally. But not this year.

Denis Leary ("Rescue Me") and Christopher Meloni ("Law & Order: Special Victims Unit") gave far more dynamic performances on their screeners than Kiefer Sutherland ("24"), winner of best drama actor. Megan Mullally gave one of the weakest perfs among the five gals up for best supporting comedy actress (she handed in the finale of "Will & Grace"), clobbering the one contender whose performance on her Emmy reel towered over all rivals: Jaime Pressly ("My Name Is Earl").

The vast majority of pundits, "pro" and amateur, I know who watched the comedy-actress screeners thought the race was a tight one between Lisa Kudrow ("The Comeback") and Jane Kaczmarek ("Malcolm in the Middle"). Winner Julia Louis-Dreyfus' submission was OK, but not impressive in performance terms, not packed with the emotional grandstanding that usually wins Emmys.

Several notable Emmy seers predicted "24" to prevail as best drama series — I know, I know — but I didn't take it seriously because Hollywood voters don't usually take TV shows or films in the thriller genre seriously.

So what the heck happened? Look at the lousy prediction score I had (3 out of 12 categories) and how poorly our racetrack odds did (2 out of 12). Out of the 8 "pro" pundits we had forecasting the Emmys, the highest score was 5. How sad, eh? None of us foresaw the victories by Sutherland, best drama actress Marika Hargitay ("Law & Order: Special Victims Unit") or best actor in a TV film/mini Andre Braugher ("Thief"). All of our pundits were shrewd Emmy gurus who watched the episode submissions. How could we have been so far off?

This year we witnessed a drastic and jarring disconnect between Emmy winners and episodes, two elements that are supposed to be related and usually do line up. That turned out fine for the TV academy because winners were worthy rivals with high Cool Quotients like Kiefer and Julia. But these results aren't consistent with past Emmy wins. That scares the bee's wax about of "pro" predictors like me, forcing us to wonder: What does this tell us about trying to predict future Emmys?

To probe possible answers to these befuddling mysteries, I turned to this website's most trusty Emmy expert: our forums moderator "Boomer" (Chris Beachum). Listen to our podcast chat — CLICK HERE! I think you'll be intrigued. We come up with some interesting theories about how, for example, the "cool" contender for comedy actress won (Julia), but not the "cooler than cool" nominee for comedy actor (Steve Carell, "The Office"). Our conclusion: while Julia's episode wasn't a barn-burner, it was still quite good. By comparison, Steve's was lame in every respect (he burns his foot on his George Foreman grill). We don't even hear a yelp. He's so laid back that it's hard to see any performance. Even more important perhaps: Julia's character was endearingly sympathetic, even empathetic. Steve portrays a beastly office boss and succeeds at making TV viewers — and Emmy voters, unfortunately — loathe him as much as his employees.


Trouble in Toronto? 'Bobby' still 'unfinished'

August 29, 2006 |  4:03 pm

Bobby5

Uh-oh. A secret source within Harvey Weinstein's inner circle just confirmed this rumor: yes, The Happy Oscar Warrior plans to take his precious "Bobby" to Toronto "unfinished. "

Visions of "Elizabethtown" disaster loom! Last year we Oscarwatchers were told that Cameron Crowe had such complete confidence in his Orlando Bloom/ Kirsten Dunst heart-tugger that he didn't mind showing it in rough form to industryites at the Toronto Film Festival. The audience was not impressed with the result and even though Crowe fine-tuned the pic later on, cutting out some of the dull, drag-on parts, bad word of mouth doomed its debut back in the U.S.

Are we right to be leery of "Bobby"?

Nope, says the (rather biased) source. Harvey's just fussing with issues like how much voiceover we should hear from old tapes of Robert Kennedy. Initially, there was additional voiceover recorded by Martin and Charlie Sheen (father and brother of director/writer Emilio Estevez), but Harvey had that yanked.

"Also there are a couple of tech issues still being worked out," says the source. "And a song. It's being written by a huge, huge music star specifically for the film, but even I don't know who Harvey's got up his sleeve. He's being really secretive about that and it won't be added to the film until after Toronto."

Photo: Harvey hopes that 'Bobby' will be his first best picture contender since he and brother Bob broke away from Miramax to form their own shingle.
(Weinstein Co.)


Mystery solved: Why so much Emmy hate?

August 29, 2006 |  3:00 pm

Emmyheds

Hip, hip hooray for the Emmys picking such hip award results like "24," Kiefer Sutherland and Mariska Hargitay in the drama races and "The Office" and Julia Louis-Dreyfus in the comedy contests. (Sorry, Tony Shalhoub. You're no longer "hip" as a two-time past champ.) Imagine how much more ferocious the Emmy bashing from TV critics would be right now if these nominees had prevailed instead — all real possibilities: "The West Wing," Christopher Meloni, Allison Janney, "Two and a Half Men," Stockard Channing and, well, Shalhoub. Those poison-veined, foul-spirited TV critics (about 60% of the total) are pummeling TV's Golden Girl currently, like they always do post-Emmys regardless of the outcome. But they'd be forming lynch mobs, hoisting torches and marching on the TV academy today if the award results had been much different. That's one consolation.

But where does all of this core hate come from? What's behind it?

Two theories: 1.) TV insiders' self-loathing and/or 2.) the Emmys aren't the Oscars and must be punished for it.

While compiling my book on the Emmys, I've observed media coverage spanning roughly 60 years of diverse winners chosen by various voting methods. TV critics have never ceased attacking the Emmys with scorn, hatchets, paper wads, mockery, bazookas, spit, cheap beer, contempt, venom, flamethrowers and lots of incendiary language that proved that they really don't know what they're screaming about.

Consider this: the Emmys are an award chosen by specific episode entries. Less than 3 percent of America's TV critics (and I'm being generous here) have ever requested copies of the Emmy screeners so they can see the races through voters' eyes. Refusing to watch them would be like covering the Oscars and never bothering to see the films in the race. Can you imagine movie journalists doing that and not being fired by their editors? Why isn't there industrywide outrage over this? Why aren't they fired? Why does anyone take their criticism seriously?

Fishbowlwithwords

Every year the TV academy makes copies of the screeners available to top journos and I'm always prodding members of the Television Critics Association (of which I'm an associate member) to take advantage of that. But they don't. Because they don't care. Can't be bothered. However, that doesn't stop them from mounting nuclear attacks against the Emmys for not choosing the nominees and winners that meet with their approval. Often Emmy voters have only limited control over who makes the cut due to candidates screwing up their episode selections (the Susan Lucci Syndrome), but they still get blamed. If journalists actually bothered to look at what the voters do, they'd see how and why things happen. Then their criticism would be informed and valid. Even welcome. Even by me! But they don't. Because the Emmys aren't cool. Saying sympathetic things about them just gets you slammed — like I got nailed yesterday by Fishbowl LA at Mediabistro. (CLICK HERE!) Did anyone over there look at the Emmy episodes this year? Ever? I think you can guess the answer.

No other showbiz award has taken such a beating — and consistently so, historically, decade after decade. I've written books about all of the major ones and thus have studied their histories, voting patterns and media reps. Knowing all of the awards as intimately as I do, I have unabashed admiration and affection for only one: the Emmy. That's because it's the only award that takes its job seriously, guaranteeing all nominees that their work will be seen by all voters. I'm talking about its at-home voting process and those judging panels.

Emmy's big problem is on the nomination side, which still employs a popular ballot (thus the Ellen Burstyn 14-second nom problem). Emmy chiefs are experimenting with new ways to fix that — essentially by applying the rule of careful scrutiny via a new judging process, just like they use to pick winners. But TV critics aren't paying attention to the changes, don't understand them, don't want to, and refuse to be patient while further experimentation continues. Of course, it's much more fun to attack and run, giggling like bully schoolkids eager to flee the reach of their firecrackers.

I think I know where the hate comes from.

CLICK HERE to Continue Reading!

Photo: TV's poor "Little Orphan Emmy" has been under media attack throughout her history, dating back to 1948.
(Variety/ Mediabistro.com)

Continue reading »

Emmy is Barry's good luck charm

August 29, 2006 |  2:36 pm

Emmys1a_1

When Barry Manilow won the Emmy for best performer in a variety special for his PBS special PBS special "Barry Manilow: Music and Passion," he promised to bring the award with him into the operating room the next day when he underwent arthroscopic surgery to repair torn cartilage in his hips.

Apparently, it worked. His rep said that the "Copacabana" crooner pulled through the operation "swimmingly" and is now at his Palm Springs home where he'll recuperate over the next two months. Manilow had postponed the surgery so he could be present at the Emmys for that award category and to participate in the special Dick Clark salute.


Emmy rebuttal to Paul Brownfield & Scott Collins

August 28, 2006 |  3:28 am

24vsgrey3_1

In the spirit of fair Emmy play, permit me to offer counterpoints to the Emmy disappointments of my L.A. Times colleagues Paul Brownfield and Scott Collins. To read their full articles, CLICK HERE for Brownfield, CLICK HERE for Collins.

Let's take these issues comment by comment:

Brownfield: "The Emmy telecast was . . . a horrible showcase for the series that make TV a hot medium — 'Lost,' 'Grey's Anatomy,' 'The Sopranos,' 'American Idol.'"

Rebuttal: Yes, the shut-out of "Grey's Anatomy" was sad, but it lost best drama series to an acclaimed show cheered by TV critics for just having had its best season ever ("24"). "Grey's" dual defeats in the writing race went to the best episode of a show you also bemoan not doing better ("The Sopranos"). Should "Sopranos" have won best drama? Most critics say it didn't have a superior season, at least not better than "24." Sandra Oh and Chandra Wilson lost to a worthy, gifted rival and one of showbiz's grandest acting dames, Blythe Danner. "American Idol" keeps losing for two reasons: 1.) the thrill of that show has more to do with its competition than what we actually see on the tube and 2.) it deserves to lose based upon its episode submissions. One TV academy member who judged that race told me he was "really disappointed" in the episode sample entered by producers, a complaint I've heard year after year. "Lost" got shut out of the drama series race because it failed to pay attention to how the Emmy game is played, by giving the nomination-panel judges an episode ("Man of Science, Man of Faith") that was full of dangling plot lines that made little sense to judges who aren't regular viewers of the show. That doesn't mean that those judges don't ever watch the show, just not all of them continuously, which was necessary to understand what was going on. Frankly, I didn't think much was going on plot-wise in that "Lost" episode, period: we see a bunch of islanders fretting on and on about opening a hatch they find in the jungle floor, we see glimpses of a mysterious man down below in a bunker pad and meantime, back up above, other islanders chase after a dog into the jungle at night. That's Emmy-worthy? Why didn't the producers of "Lost" submit what TV Guide called its best episode last season? Had they given judges the Tailies episode, it might have done a better job grabbing voters and, egads, it even might've made sense: it had a story line with a beginning, middle and an end. I strongly suspect that if the producers had entered their best work, like they were supposed to do, their show would've been nommed. Do you criticize the Olympics for failing to give a gold medal to a competitor who fails to compete smartly?

Brownfield: "It's not so much that 'Lost' deserved to be nominated, it's that none of the series are being judged in their totality."

Rebuttal: A juried award system can't do that. We can't realistically expect jurors to watch two dozen episodes of all five nominated series and then pick a winner. That's why nominee wannabes must submit a sample of their best work for the nominating process, and, if nommed, then six samples in the final round to decide a winner. Unfortunately, this year, when the Emmys experimented with a new nominating system, there was an epidemic outbreak of the Susan Lucci Disease, which doesn't happen often, but "Lost," "Desperate Housewives" and even Lauren Graham ("The Gilmore Girls") all came down with delirious fevers (or something) that caused them to hand in lousy sample episodes. Granted, the Emmys shouldn't decide anything based solely upon one episode and I think they know that now and will field more episodes from contenders next year.

Brownfield: "So you sit there and watch Megan Mullally win for 'Will & Grace,' a show living in syndication, and Blythe Danner for 'Huff,' a canceled Showtime series watched by less than the population of Palm Springs, and Tony Shalhoub for 'Monk.' Already, you could sense the demo leaving the room — and that was before Barry Manilow won the award for outstanding individual performance in a variety or music program."

Rebuttal: It would be outrageously unfair if the Emmys penalized a TV show for leaving the airwaves after airing episodes during the same eligibility period as ongoing programs. Why shouldn't they all be judged equally? What if a show had its best year as its last? It should be dismissed by voters whose job is to critique quality? It would be equally bad if voters punished a program for low ratings. If Emmy voters did that over decades past, it's a good bet that some of TV's greatest series — including "Cheers," "Hill Street Blues," "Cagney and Lacey" and/or "All in the Family" — would've been canceled without the Emmy wins that saved them. Is Tony Shalhoub undeserving? Did you watch the episodes submitted by the five contenders for comedy actor? What's wrong with Barry Manilow? He should be shuttled because he's old news like "Will & Grace"? He's widely regarded as one of the greatest music artists of this era.

Brownfield: " By the end of the evening, I had lost total faith in the idea of an Emmy."

Rebuttal: By the end of the evening, my faith in the Emmy was greatly enhanced.

Arresteddevelopment2

Collins: "Wow, NBC's 'The Office' won the Emmy for outstanding comedy Sunday night. This means ... well, something. Right? Certainly it tosses some welcome creative validation to writer-producer Greg Daniels, lead actor Steve Carell and colleagues, who've bravely soldiered on with their loony satire of corporate life, even in the face of anemic ratings. 'The Office' is indeed one of the best comedies on TV, although when the Emmy competition includes 'Two and a Half Men,' it's safe to say that our epoch is not to the sitcom what the Restoration was to stage comedy."

Rebuttal: There are some esteemed TV critics who disagree with you. Robert Bianco of USA Today is among those who believe that "Two and a Half Men" is not only underrated because it suffers from the reputation of its genre, being a sitcom, but that it's one of the best shows on the tube. Indeed, I think one of the nicest surprises that resulted from the new Emmy nominating panels was that oft-dismissed genres like sitcoms ("Two and a Half Men," "King of Queens") and procedural crime dramas ("Law & Order: Special Victims Unit") suddenly got hiked respect from TV professionals (those Emmy judges) when viewed up close during panel inspection. Later, when I watched those episode samples submitted to jurors, I agreed that they were good, even worthy of Emmy consideration — and one win (Mariska Hargitay).

Collins: "But, more important in the calculus of Hollywood, does this mean that 'The Office' will finally turn into the slow-roasting hit that, say, Fox's spy drama '24' has become? Here's an answer in two words: 'Arrested Development.' You may recall that Fox's low-rated, critically acclaimed comedy about a loony Orange County clan won the Emmy for best comedy in 2004. The producers held hands with the network suits and waited for the surging influx of viewers who watched 'Arrested's' Emmy triumph. Two seasons later, they were still waiting. 'Arrested' had its swan song Sunday, losing out to 'The Office' in the comedy category. The show was canceled earlier this year."

Rebuttal: One more time — the Emmys, if they do their job right, shouldn't care a hoot about Nielsens or even whether or show is alive or dead. Only with how good it is. When "Arrested Development" won best comedy two years ago, its victory was widely hailed by America's TV critics as one of the best Emmy wins ever. As a result, the Fox network gave the show an extra year or two of life that can now be enjoyed by the TV fans on DVD for generations. TV's Golden Girl, Emmy, did her job brilliantly, and nobly, as she has done so often in the past by bravely embracing a deserving, low-rated show with a top win. She shouldn't be condemned now because mass viewers failed to follow. As you say, Emmy voters got best comedy right this year — "The Office." Why do you turn that into a damning negative?

Oh, yeah, two more things: Conan O'Brien performed brilliantly as host, especially that irreverent "River City" slam at his employer and the Emmy telecaster. That took guts and he pulled it off with panache and a deft soft shoe. His opening montage should not have been nixed because a plane went down in Kentucky.


Emmy ratings down only 12 percent

August 28, 2006 |  3:13 am

Entourage

Preliminary Nielsen numbers show that the Emmys pulled a 13.1 rating/ 20 share, which is down 12 percent from last year's 14.9 rating/ 22 share. But that's actually good news considering:

* TV ratings at the end of August are usually down 10 percent or more anyway

* The Emmys were on CBS last year, a network with higher Nielsens than NBC

* All of the counter-programming that other networks dared to run against it (usually a no-no on the night of TV's Oscars): ABC aired "Pirates of the Caribbean," CBS telecast a new episode of "Big Brother: All Stars," HBO unveiled the season finales of "Deadwood," "Entourage" and "Lucky Louie," USA network aired the season finales of "The 4400" and "The Dead Zone" and Fox showed "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones."

Photo: Those frisky "Entourage" dudes squared off against frisky Conan O'Brien in primetime on Emmy night in the battle for eyeballs.
(HBO)


3 pundits tie as our best Emmy seers

August 28, 2006 |  1:41 am

Punditwinners

Congrats to Hal Boedeker (Orlando Sentinel), Ray Richmond (Hollywood Reporter) and David Zurawik (Baltimore Sun) for scoring the highest tally when forecasting 12 Emmy races here at The Envelope: all nailed 5 correct predix.

The most confounding Emmys ever resulted in the lowest score ever for GoldDerby's racetrack odds: only 2 out of 12.

Below is our score breakdown among pundits. Note none of us foresaw the Emmy victories by best drama actor Kiefer Sutherland ("24"), best drama actress Marika Hargitay ("Law & Order: Special Victims Unit") or best actor in a TV film/mini Andre Braugher ("Thief"). Christopher Lisotta (TV Week) also participated in our panel, but only forecasted three races, all incorrectly, alas. (Memo to Chris: If it's any consolation, please note that most of us got those wrong, too.)

FIVE CORRECT
Hal Boedeker, Orlando Sentinel
Ray Richmond, Hollywood Reporter
David Zurawik, Baltimore Sun

FOUR CORRECT
Robert Bianco, USA Today

THREE CORRECT
Tom O'Neil, GoldDerby, TheEnvelope.com
Maureen Ryan, Chicago Tribune

TWO CORRECT
Matt Roush, TV Guide
Diane Werts, Newsday

Photo: The Envelope's holy trinity of pundit champs (from left) Boedeker, Zurawik, Richmond.




Stay Connected:


Advertisement

About the Blogger


The Dish Rag
Pop & Hiss
Notes on a Season
The Circuit: Awards and Festivals News



Categories


Archives