When September rolls around, there are plenty of things to get excited about: We’re that much closer to Halloween; you can sleep with your window open at night; you can finally explore the larger chunk of your wardrobe, and everything starts to smell like burning wood and cinnamon.
Oh, and there’s also the Emmy Awards.
I love the Emmys. As a reader-turned-massive-television-viewer (I’m still a psychotic reader, my friends), this is one of my favorite nights. It’s the night solely devoted to the spectrum of networks and genres spread across our television, computer and mobile screens.
It’s a time for some of the finest works of art to get their dues...except not all of the shows or actors/actresses get their due.
This year’s telecast was hosted by digital short extraordinaire and “Everything is Awesome” lyricist, Andy Samberg. There were wins for Amazon series "Transparent." "Veep" swept up at yet another awards show, and the most illegally downloaded show, "Game of Thrones," made history by collecting 12 trophies for one of their most talked-about seasons.
Don’t get me wrong; I love "Game of Thrones," and I’m incredibly happy they won. "Mad Men" was a powerhouse, and Jon Hamm more than deserved the Best Actor in a Drama Series.
But does that mean everyone deserving was nominated? Absolutely not.
Take, for instance, BBC America’s original science fiction drama, "Orphan Black." Sure, the astounding Tatiana Maslany was finally nominated for playing the numerous clones on that series, but it took until season three for them to even notice her monstrous talent.
And they weren’t nominated for writing or Best Drama Series, nor was anyone else noticed in the acting categories. For a show that has a rabid fan base and a unique story to tell, they seem to have overlooked it entirely, which is disappointing.
Similarly, the Academy fawns over PBS darling, "Downton Abbey," and its limited series, "Wolf Hall," but it fails to recognize the incredible work of other shows on that network, like "Poldark." In this period piece, Aidan Turner (Kili from the "The Hobbit" films) gives a gripping performance, making us both hate and love him all at once.
It has won so many awards elsewhere. And, yet, we seem to have shrugged it off.
And while it was shown in the In Memoriam, for shows that took their final bow in the last television year, my beloved "Sons of Anarchy" was still overlooked. The gritty biker drama created (and shattered) their own viewer and ratings records during their seven-year ride.
It was one of the most popular shows, with easily one of the most devoted fan bases. Yet, it was constantly overlooked. Yes, it was In Memoriam. But that doesn’t fix what you didn’t do, Emmys.
However, these are just a few examples. Other shows with wonderful stories or fantastic acting, such as "Arrow," "Vikings," "It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia," "Shameless," "The Knick," "Hannibal" and "The Mindy Project" also didn’t make the cut.
What does that mean?
Does it mean the Academy values popularity and HBO over lesser-viewed shows and FX? Do they look at what the Internet is eating up, rather than what’s good? Is it more important to award actors and actresses who are household names, rather than those who are lesser-known?
What is it about these shows and their amazing casts that has the "powers that be" pushing them to the side?
It makes me sad the awards show has become predictable, and it nominates the same series and actors every year. It makes me sad that incredible talent, both on-screen and behind the scenes, get the shaft because they’re not on HBO, or aren’t fronted by Oscar nominees/winners.
The award show seems to look at a very small pool of series, TV movies and limited series, and fails to notice some of the best work out there.
I hope you do better next year, Emmys. Give us a little bit more variety instead of making us see the same nominees year after year.
And bring back Jimmy Fallon. We all know he was the best host.