Can 'Heroes' pummel 'Sopranos' in Emmys' drama-series fight?
Don't be Emmy-stupid. Don't make the assumption that "The Sopranos" will easily knock off rivals in the fight over the gold for best drama series.
Frankly, the odds say that "The Sopranos" — despite using every trick, brass knuckle, cement shoe and Colt 45 in the book — should just say "Fuggedaboutit!" That award has never been won by a regular drama series after it left the airwaves. Capice?
That's remarkable when you think about it, because that includes many classic Emmy faves like "Mission: Impossible," "Perry Mason," "I Spy," "The Rockford Files," "The Waltons," "L.A. Law," "Hill Street Blues," "NYPD Blue" and "The West Wing." Even "The Fugitive," which went off the air with much fanfare, like "Sopranos." Between 1967 and 1978, in fact, "The Fugitive's" finale remained the highest-rated TV episode in history — up until the "Who Shot J.R.?" bit on "Dallas."
So why should we automatically believe that "The Sopranos" — which exited amidst much griping — can pull off something those other titan TV shows couldn't? Just because some gushing TV critics say so? Frankly, have you ever looked at the accuracy rate of their past Emmy predix?
As sad as it may seem, the awful truth might just be the equivalent to Out-of-Sight-Out-of-Mind — Off-TV-Out-of-Emmys.
Ah, cruel Hollywood! But, wait. If any show can break this curse, it might be the mighty "Sopranos." However, let's be realistic and consider the other four rivals. Which one can prevail?
"Boston Legal"? Don't pooh-pooh its bid just because young hipsters do. Remember that its predecessor show, "The Practice," pulled off a jaw-dropping victory over "The Sopranos" in 1999, after the latter's blockbuster first season when lovestruck media like the New York Times were everywhere calling HBO's mobster hit the greatest TV show ever, period. And therefore an Emmy inevitability.
But Emmy's voting process was different back then. Winners were chosen by judges who checked off ballots immediately after viewing sample episodes during panel screenings. Sentimental shows had the edge. David E. Kelley, who created "The Practice," is a master of penning superb heart-tugging TV that, suddenly, when it's time to vote right after viewing one of his doozies, you forget all about how hip HBO's vicious, unhuggable mafia monsters are. Or the gritty cops on "NYPD Blue." The hoopla surrounding the launch of that show was so huge that it set a new record (which still stands today) for most series noms in one year (26). But, yikes, "NYPD Blue" actually lost best drama series in 1994 — to David E. Kelley's "Picket Fences."
By the way, side note: I saw that last Emmy upset coming a mile away. In fact, I predicted it in the pages of the L.A Times over the objections of TV editor Barbara Saltzman, who was really upset when she read the text of the article after I handed it in.
"I can't publish this!" she gasped. "It's crazy! If there's one guaranteed win it's 'NYPD Blue' for best drama series. It's impossible that it could lose!"
But I explained to Barbara why it was not only possible, but likely, and, hallelujah, she caved. I remember how happy she was later when I saw her at the Governors Ball after the ceremony. She ran up to me, threw her arms around me and announced to the world, "From now on you're in charge of writing the L.A. Times' Emmy predictions forever!"
Of course — because irony governs Hollywood — I was actually fired soon thereafter instead thanks to the famously grouchy L.A. Times TV critic Howard Rosenberg. A few years earlier he'd gotten so ticked off at the Emmys for never picking what he told them to that he refused to do predix ever again, so he harrumphed. Then I upstaged him for two or three years. He threw a hissy fit and demanded that I be offed and that he get his old gig back. Thereafter, he returned to making clueless, ridiculous Emmy forecasts because he was too lazy to look at what the actual judges did: specific episodes submitted by nominees as examples of their best work.
But I digress . . . Let's get back to this Emmy year when I'm back doing predix for the Times. (Rosenberg is retired.)
Specific Emmy episode submissions no longer matter as much as they used to. Voting is different now and thus, too, the accuracy rate of my Emmy predix, I'm afraid. Judges still look at sample episodes, but do that at home and they can vote days after the sentimental spell of watching one episode wears off. That benefits the more edgy, unsentimental TV series generally considered more cool.
So forget "Boston Legal." It might've had a shot under the old judging-panel process, but not now. Too uncool.
All three other contenders have a real chance: "Grey's Anatomy," "House" and "Heroes."
First, let's consider "Grey's" and "House." Emmy voters adore medical shows like past winners in this category "E.R." (under the new voting system) and "Marcus Welby, M.D." (under the old). Or "M*A*S*H" — a previous champ in the race for best comedy series.
It helps that "Grey's Anatomy" and "House" aren't brand new. Often voters make shows wait a year or two (or more) till they receive top honors — like "E.R.," which won after its second year. Heck, "24" finally won last year after its fifth season — just like "Sopranos"!
"Grey's Anatomy" and "House" are expertly written, directed and acted, but they're both medical shows. Will they split the vote?
If so, then "Heroes" could come out swinging, triumphant, which TV academy chiefs would love because it's the hot, highest-rated new drama series of the year. (Nielsen meters haven't yet discovered "Friday Night Lights.")
Sometimes new series do win after their first season, like "The West Wing." Or a better example: "Lost," which is a sexy, hot, serialized drama, too, like "Heroes."
One thing is clear about this new voting system, introduced in 2000. Series with enough buzz and a high Cool Quotient can win, sometimes, just based on those factors.
Hmmmmm . . . does "Heroes" have enough of each? Does "Sopranos" have enough left over?
(Photo: HBO / NBC)
I once had a professor advise me to make "wacky" predictions once in a while (I don't remember why were talking about this), mainly because eventually you're bound to get one of them right. You can tout that apparent talent for prognostication when you're right. And when you're wrong, it's hardly remembered.
Kudos, then, for picking "Picket Fences" back in 1994. That was definitely a shockeroo.
But I'm reminded of when I drank your Kool Aid and picked "Moulin Rouge" for Best Picture, since your logic that its partisans were ultra-devoted, while "A Beautiful Mind" and "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" would split votes, sounded pretty darn good.
I'll be interested to see if you actually pick "Heroes," but at this point, I'd put it in the category of "wacky" prognostication. The only show that stands a shot at beating "Sopranos" is "Grey's Anatomy," but a critical nosedive (frankly, IMHO, I don't understand how critics can say a show that was always pretty crappy is now even crappier) and tons of controversy involving the cast will kill its chances.
As for the fact that no drama series has won after it's gone into Rerun Heaven, that may be the case, but it's not unheard of for comedies. But mainly I have to take issue with the implicit suggestion that it's the fact that the show's off the air that hurts its Emmy chances. I'd argue, instead, that it's mainly factors that LEAD to a show going off the air that harm its Emmy chances.
One has to take into consideration that few shows go off the air at the height of both their critical acclaim and popularity. In fact, it's usually the fact that the show is just a shadow of its former self that usually causes people involved to finally decide it's time to wrap things up. (There's this sense that "Seinfeld" went out on top, and it may have, ratings-wise, but its last season was abysmal.) When you have one or more of those elements at play--lower ratings or critical negative buzz--winning the Best Series Emmy is going to be pretty darn tough. So it's not the fact that the show is off the air so much that hurts it, but that last seasons just tend to either be less-than-stellar or low-rated. (Heck, the VAST majority of shows, even of long-time Emmy darlings, like "NYPD Blue" and "Frasier," don't even get nominated for their last season.)
So "The Sopranos" went out to a general sense that it wasn't at the top of its game. However, there was such gushing over the show in numerous critics' eulogies--some calling it perhaps the best show that had ever been on television(!)--that I think it still has the critical cache to bring it over the finish line. Combine that with stellar ratings for the finale and frankly pretty weak competition, and you have a pretty done deal.
The comedy categories are where the real action will be this year...
Posted by: GelEGuy | August 04, 2007 at 11:06 AM
jesus tom. obviously, it was a slow news day, but what was the real point of this article? i hardly remember your emmy speculation because it was so overshadowed by your own unsolicited horn-tooting and bitterness. all the dramatically-stated personal biases detract from your factual journalism, which is generally fascinating. you have nothing to prove to us.
Posted by: richard | August 04, 2007 at 01:45 AM
The problem is that people think THE SOPRANOS is going to win, because it deserves it. And it doesn't. I'm a huge fan of the show and I loved its previous seasons, but this last season sucked. It isn't good enough for the win. Just look at the episodes, nominated for writing and directing. These aren't College or Long Term Perking or Whitecaps or the Pilot or Meadowlands or Employee of the Month. There's no heart in there, no real emotion, no pain, no great character development, no great dilemmas. And that, combined with its fierce humour, made The Sopranos great. The real problem is that the competition is as weak as possible. Boston Legal?! Really... That's probably the worst David Kelly show. It's such a cliche, its characters are never appealing and the stories rarely compelling. It's like a shadow of what Ally McBeal used to be in its first two seasons. And it's much worse than Ally in its next seasons... and I just don't get what people love about James Spader and William Shatner. But a Drama Series nomination over LOST (!), DEXTER (!) and especially FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS (!) is too much... Needless to say that Michael C. Hall deserved this bid as best actor in a drama. Anyway, about the Drama Series competition. Really, HEROES is probably going to win because it's fresh, it has tones of buzz, it has strong episodes (though not really worthy) and it has NBC on its side.
Posted by: Ross | August 04, 2007 at 01:08 AM
Tom O'Neil,
When you're wrong (like your anti-masculinity tirades against The Departed, Entourage & Lost in Translation), you sound like a self-obsessed maniac overindulging on having high profile blog.
That said, when you're right, such as your science about how and why voters choose, you're the best in the business.
The fact that you predicted that Picket Fences upset (I still can't get over that one), and your reminders of classic dramas whose swan songs went unawarded, proves how on top of the game you are. I wonder if the past wins for Lost & 24 are too hip for a Heroes victory, but you've clearly mapped out how it can happen. Plus, that TCA victory shows the support IS out there.
Tom, you're insane and a little squirrelly but that's why you're the expert.
Posted by: Jack Sparrow | August 04, 2007 at 12:08 AM