Let me start this by making one thing clear – this is an opinion piece. It’s not right or wrong and it’s supposed to spark debate. In fact, hearing other people’s thoughts in the comments is something I’m really looking forward to.
With the nominations for the Emmy awards, TV’s biggest and most ‘prestigious’ awards ceremony, to be announced next month, an all too familiar question has been brought to mind. Do the Emmys have ‘a type’? A type of show that will inevitably garner nominations whilst others, genre TV for example, are left unrewarded for their quality and effort?
One question in particular comes to mind: are the Emmy’s unfairly prejudiced against procedural shows? In particular I’m speaking of those considered a ‘Police Procedural’.
People don’t need awards to justify their enjoyment of their favourite shows, but I feel as though it would be exactly what those who work on some of these shows deserve. The teams of writers, directors and actors right down to the police consultants and caterer’s work incredibly hard to present a show runners vision and create a show that so many people watch and love. It seems entirely unjust for almost none of them to be appreciated with TV’s biggest ‘honour’ based on some sort of stigma.
Given the number of procedurals, admittedly not all good but a fair few of them certainly are, in comparison with the number of nominations they’ve received at the Emmy’s over the years (or lack of) that’s exactly what it is: a stigma, a pre set rule almost. There’s no other way to explain the complete lack of wins or even nominations when considering just how many great procedurals there is and has been in recent years.
Maybe that’s what it is. Now that network TV is so full of them, many of them being admittedly too formulaic, they’re all put under the same bracket and stereotyped as a result. This being a recent trend makes it all the more infuriating.
In decades gone by, many of TV’s greatest procedurals were awarded with Emmys. ‘Cagney & Lacey’ (1982-88) was nominated for Outstanding Drama five times (winning twice), ‘Columbo’ (1968-2003) five times, ‘Law & Order’ (1990-2010) nine times (winning once), ‘NYPD Blue’ (1993-2005) six times (winning once) and ‘CSI: Crime Scene Investigation’ (2000-) three times early in its run. What happened? Yes, there are more procedurals now than ever meaning plenty of duds, but should the quality examples suffer as a result?
Maybe we’re now living in a new age of TV. Are audiences now going against procedurals in favour of serialized cable dramas? Well, no. Audience has nothing to do with it. The People’s choice awards proves as such, the CBS hit ‘Person Of Interest’ (2011-) winning big last year along with other network procedurals such as ‘Castle’ (2009-) and ‘The Mentalist’ (2008-) in previous years. Awards aren’t chosen by what most of us consider ‘the audience’ or ‘the people’, so why should I as one of ‘the people’ be bothered about where these awards go?
Just why I care is clear for all to see in this piece. Anyway, those belonging to the academy will, for the foreseeable future, be in favor of the shows loved most by those who are paid to ‘care’, themselves and (to a lesser extent) the critics – and we all know what they think of procedurals.
Click “next” below to read part 2…
Want to write about the stuff you're passionate about and have your work read by an audience of over 10 million a month? Click here to become a contributor.
15 Comments
Your comment reeks of someone who, 1. Clearly didn’t read my post properly, 2. Thinks of themselves as somehow being ‘above’ others based simply on what you watch and 3. Someone who can’t express themselves without being insulting.
The 3rd is most unfortunate, why you couldn’t just express your differing opinion in a normal manner I don’t know…I was looking forward to a good debate. Ah well.
For the record, I’m not making a claim to which type of show is ‘better’ (as I said I watch both, and I actually watch GOT, Mad Men & Breaking Bad) but that It’s unfair for a show to be snubbed based on a preconception held by some – if that is in fact the case, I am speculating – especially when, whilst some are indeed ‘boring’, others are certainly not in my opinion and are fully deserving of awards recognition.
Anyway, thanks for reading. If you feel the need to post a snobby and dismissive message again I’m just going to ignore you and/or get it removed.
Cheers.
Great article, Conner! You’ve really managed to get at the crux of the issue here – blatant prejudice against “cop shows” – procedurals; anything with a tried and true genre. I really like your notes on POI busting out of the mould and Southland, The Wire and The Shield being *fantastic cable dramas. – It’s almost like the Academy refuses to even preview these shows. It’s mad. Great points about smaller shows (viewing-wise) *needing* the recognition to find new markets and keep their shows going. The prejudice is so obvious. So blatant. And it’s systemic; I think you’re right in connecting the media with the academy voters.
However, as you also conclude, there’s really not much that we, as viewers, seem to be able to do to sway opinion and make these unsung shows ‘hip’ in the eyes of the Academy voters. Maybe a new team of PR people will someday be able to get some network shows at least a bit of recognition. (You’d think The Mentalist would have built up enough buzz by now, after four insane season finales.) But I like your line, “Awards should showcase range and diversity in TV and that includes all different formulas that different people love to watch.” They should indeed! We can hope, right?
We can hope indeed!
I’m glad you enjoyed the piece and seemed to connect with most of the points I was trying to make. Needless to say I agree with everything you’ve said also.
Thanks so much for the comment.
Every time I tead an article on how the oscars abd emmys are snobby and dont go with popular films/tv shows i always think that the writer got the first part right, and the second part wrong. Yes they are snobby, but lets face it: CSI, CSI Miami, CSI: NCIS (wich I watch and like but would never even dream of having it win an emmy), and NCIS: LA are all the same show. Some are more emotional and serialized (NCIS) but even they cant ridk too many changes to setting and characters due to the risk of losing audiences. That’s why shows like 24 and The West Wing were so groundbreaking, they jad constantly changing characters and stories with unredictable endings.l and were not afraid of bad ratings
Also, you have some inconsistencies and innacuracies in your article. First, you argue that t he emmysalways follow the “critics choice”, something you consider to be snobby and elitist. You dont like critics because of their biases against procedural shows, then, a few paragraphs later you say rant that the academy ould have nominated The Wire arguing that it was a CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED SHOW. Suddenly, a critics opinion matters, it seems
Then, theres the question of inception. If there were only 5 nominees in 2010, its true toy story 3 wouldnt have gotten in, but inception most certainly would have. The “core 5″ of 2010 were The Social Network, The Kings Speech, The Fighter, Inception and Black Swan.
winters Bone, Toy Story 3, The Kids are Allrigt, 127 hours and Ato a lesser extent True Grit got in the other 5 slots. Amd this is another example of you accepting the critics opinions saying that inception and toy story were rightly praised”
Also, you have some inconsistencies and innacuracies in your article. First, you argue that the emmys always follow the “critics choice”, something you consider to be snobby and elitist. You dont like critics because of their bias agains “genre” shows, then, a few paragraphs later you rant that the academy should have nominated The Wire arguing that it was a CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED SHOW. Suddenly, a critics opinion matters, it seems.
Then, theres the question of inception. If there were only 5 nominees in 2010, its true toy story 3 wouldnt have gotten in, but inception most certainly would have. The “core 5″ of 2010 were The Social Network, The Kings Speech, The Fighter, Inception and Black Swan.
winters Bone, Toy Story 3, The Kids are Allrigt, 127 hours and to a lesser extent True Grit got in the other 5 slots. And this is another example of you accepting the critics opinions saying that inception and toy story were rightly praised” when just a few sentences earlier you slandered them for not liking the popular stuff. Just so you know, THE most critically acclaimed mvie of 2010 was none other than toy story 3. How’s that for being elitist? And to me it sounds downright hypocritical that instead of lauding the emmys for honoring so called “good cop shows” like the shield, you say in no uncertain terms that “they dont count”.
Also, you have some inconsistencies and innacuracies in your article. First, you argue that the emmys always follow the “critics choice”, something you consider to be snobby and elitist. You dont like critics because of their bias agains “genre” shows, then, a few paragraphs later you rant that the academy should have nominated The Wire arguing that it was a CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED SHOW. Suddenly, a critics opinion matters, it seems.
Then, theres the question of inception. If there were only 5 nominees in 2010, its true toy story 3 wouldnt have gotten in, but inception most certainly would have. The “core 5″ of 2010 were The Social Network, The Kings Speech, The Fighter, Inception and Black Swan.
winters Bone, Toy Story 3, The Kids are Allrigt, 127 hours and to a lesser extent True Grit got in the other 5 slots. And this is another example of you accepting the critics opinions saying that inception and toy story were rightly praised” when just a few sentences earlier you slandered them for not liking the popular stuff. Just so you know, THE most critically acclaimed mvie of 2010 was none other than toy story 3. How’s that for being elitist? And to me it sounds downright hypocritical that instead of lauding the emmys for honoring so called “good cop shows” like the shield, you say in no uncertain terms that “they dont count”.
And look at Homeland. it’s a thriller made by the creators of “24″ (which it self was a thriller which WON best drama series in 2006 being nominated 2002-2006) and it will get nominated this year for Drama Series, and might even win. The emmys are more diverse than they appear. they are snobby as hell, but when a great police show arrives, more often than not, they give it nominations. Wins is difficult, granted. But it’s always possible.
I didn’t say critics opinions ‘don’t count’, everyones opinions ‘counts’ at the end of the day – I simply stated that their opinion – which, whilst not in every case, does tend to be against the cop show trend – is one of the biggest factors in deciding where awards are handed out. Everything that came after that (actually taking into consideration their opinions) was not contradictory at all, but in fact a deliberate reconsideration to what I’d written before hand. It’s good to question yourself, because nothing is set in stone with a debate like this. My examples of critically praised cop shows especially – that was me exploring the possibility that this may not in fact be a critic thing, but simply a preconception within the industry and the academy. Once again, that’s ‘a possibility’, one of many.
Saying ‘lets face it, they don’t have a chance of winning an Emmy’ and that all the CSI’s/NCIS are ‘the same show’ misses the point. 1. They SHOULD have a chance and 2. Like I said, many of them are too similar, but I strongly believe there are unique and well written examples of brilliant cop shows that deserve recognition. Examples that won’t get as such based simply on the basis that they are a ‘cop show’ like those boring, formulaic others.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the ‘Inception’ debate, because I firmly believe it wouldn’t have been nominated in the Best Picture category if it was only 5 nominees. We can’t prove it either way, so that’s that.
Also, whilst I (sort of) used the word snobbery, I didn’t want to out right say it and I certainly wouldn’t use the word ‘elitist’. As I said, I do watch the sort of shows Emmys award with gongs along with my procedural or cop dramas.
I adore Homeland, but I don’t think it’s a good example to use as contrary to my argument. I’m talking of shows that follow the procedural format/formula in some way (which Homeland does not at all) and (whilst considering cable examples in part) mostly network shows. I actually think Homeland is a perfect Emmy show, I thought that from the moment the pilot aired. Yes, it’s a thriller, but the Emmys have never displayed any sort of prejudice towards shows considered ‘thriller’ (not for the most part – as you said yourself, ’24′ won outstanding drama) and Homeland isn’t a rip roaring thriller with non stop action. It has plenty – but it’s a slow burning, thoughtful thriller on a cable network. I’d just like to reiterate, I LOVE Homeland. It was actually my favourite new show of last season along with ‘Person Of Interest’.
Thanks for your comment.
Mad Men was on Hiatus for 18 months. The scripts for ALL THREE Lord of The Rings movies took less time. A show like Game of Thrones COULDN’T EXIST on a normal network because the FCC would chop it to bits. Networks like HBO and Showtime get to channel a ton of money into a few shows and they’re done. A network has a week of shows to come up with, and their shows can’t just decide to take a year off while the showrunners figure out what the heck to write next.
I’m not sure if a category for procedural drama would solve the issue though. Maybe if they also did one for dramedy. (Which is just as likely.) If you look at many of your examples of award winning procedurals they won before cable was allowed to compete directly against network shows.
This is from a piece I wrote on a fan forum:
“There is an art to a broadcast network drama that doesn’t exist on cable. Making people care about characters who can only say or do but so much before the FCC, or Procter & Gamble say “absolutely not” isn’t easy. Shows like NCIS, House, or Castle make viewers: fear criminals who never curse, and feel the horror of a murder without going through a visual step by step process, care whether a character they’ve met less than an hour ago lives or dies. Broadcast shows even make viewers root for couples that they know they’ll never get to see naked – because it’s NOT cable. The restrictions for Broadcast TV also could very well be why the “dramedy” a splice of comedy and drama writing, has become a mainstain on broadcast networks. Dramedy allows a show to tackle sensitive issues and intense situations, but adds a lighter touch that gets by FCC regulations and pacifies advertisers that fear offending their consumers. Naturally, the Emmy’s (and basically all the tv award shows) refuse to acknowledge the dramedy’s existence, although everyone who works in television clearly knows what it is. I haven’t even gotten into production time constraints for a network show that cable doesn’t have to worry about. Cable shows have shorter seasons and often much bigger budgets. Plus, if filming is taking longer or something comes up a cable show just pushes back when the series is going to start up again (Damages, Homeland.)
I am aware that the discussion about cable shows vs. broadcast networks is hardly a new one. Over the last several years it has been pointed out numerous times that cable shows and broadcast network shows are apples & oranges. However, my point is that in light of these differences, cable shows shouldn’t be competing against broadcast network shows. Emmy itself has set a precedent for allowing this kind of seperation. While cable and broadcast network shows are all lumped together, Emmy has recently made seperate catagories for reality television. The reason is obvious: there is no way a reality show can compete with a scripted show. Those genres are also apples & oranges. Because the Emmys wanted to recognize a level of quality in the genre of reality TV, in part to secure the genre as a legitimate form in the television world, they have a separate category. This same logic should also be used when it comes to cable and network broadcast shows. ”
Here’s a link to the whole piece if you’re interested: http://castlesoldhaunt.forumotion.com/t217-why-the-emmy-s-need-adjusting
I basically think that judging broadcast & network by the same criteria is illogical. Unlike the Oscars, where the content presentation is completely up to the individual production, (as are cable shows) network shows are restricted by the FCC, by sponsors, and the very structure of the broadcast network. They should be judged based on the restrictions they operate under.
Connor,
A well written and thought out opinion piece. There is a type that the awards seem to be going for and like everything else certain people always get nominated. (How can one have his best work five years in a row?) In my local Time Out tv circular I always read what celebrities are watching. Nine times out of ten the celeb (whether a jock, actor or singer) will say either Mad Men, Dexter, Homeland or Breaking Bad. Now while, yes, the celeb in question may actually watch and love these shows I find it curious that no one ever says NCIS, Person of Interest or Castle. Never. Everyone wants to associate with the flashy, “cool” show.
I would love to see the best series award to be spilt between cable and network shows. One category- “The Best Cable Drama”, another category- “The Best Network Drama.” It is not the fault of the hard working crew, writers and production team that they got chosen for the “uncool” team. But their accomplisments can be just as “Emmy worthy.”
Thanks, Connor, for letting me ramble.
The idea of having a separate ‘network’ and ‘cable’ drama award is a really interesting one, I can’t believe it never occurred to me. Not only could that give deserving procedurals a fighting chance of some (deserved) awards love, but it gives network shows as a whole a chance.
No problem Jordan, thanks for your rambling comment and for reading my own rambling article.
Cheers.
LOL! I should read through the comments before I post. I totally agree with you to the point that I wrote a whole article on it. :D
The Good Wife has been nominated for drama series two years in row, and that’s a procedural. In recent years procedurals have gotten worse, while (cable) serial drama have elevated the game. BTW, you didn’t even mention the best procedural on TV, which is Fringe.
The Good Wife is a network example that’s been awarded, it’s true, but as I said in the piece – there are examples that buck the trend, but they’re still largely ignored on the whole. I don’t put it down to them getting ‘worse’ either, I just think there’s more of them than ever now. The more that are made (some of them admittedly being carbon copies) the more duds there will be along with the good stuff.
Fringe is my favourite Science-Fiction show of all time. It’s just by chance that I didn’t mention it. In spite of a lot of people being in agreement on Fringe being well deserving of awards love, the odds have never been in its favour. It’s a procedural/serialized science-fiction hybrid, and at least two of those don’t work in favour of being nominated or winning.
Connor, I realize this piece is several months old, so you may be the only person who reads my comment (if you even do.) Very thought provoking piece. First, I am against the idea of separate categories for network and cable. The reason is that awards should honor only the best of the best. Some network shows do compete successfully with cable for awards, so I don’t want to reward the ones that aren’t as good by giving them a separate category which excludes some of the strongest competition. But then, I’m also against giving every kid that plays little league a trophy…I think only the winners should get one. So I may seem mean and heartless to some.
I watch both cable (Mad Men & GOT included) and procedurals such as the Good Wife and the Mentalist (in fact, I found this after browsing through your other posts after reading your latest Mentalist review, so I am really a fan of the show.) I think that the reason that the Good Wife bucks the trend is that it is just better than other procedurals.
I love the Mentalist, but in my opinion, it does not deserve a best drama award. In many episodes, there are little plot holes or developments in which you just need to suspend your disbelief and remind yourself it is just a TV show in order to enjoy it. The writers seem to leave a lot of loose ends. I don’t see that happening as much with the Good Wife, Mad Men or GOT. (I refer to these shows since I actually watch them. I don’t watch Person of Interest and some of the others you mention.) Also the Mentalist can be absolutely fantastic one week, and very disappointing the next. The consistency just is not there (again this is just my opinion.) The Good Wife, while a procedural, is always tightly written. It honestly doesn’t feel like a procedural.
I think the problem the Mentalist, and probably many other procedurals, have is that since the serialized story usually isn’t as big a factor, there sometimes seems to be a disconnect from one week to the next. Procedurals are more likely to drop story arcs abruptly. It is like a group of people decided to write a book and somebody else writes each chapter and doesn’t read what the previously writers wrote closely enough. In serialized shows, it usually seems as if the entire season is written in one voice. This is all just my opinion. I’m not bashing procedurals, but IN GENERAL I do find the story telling much more consistent on non procedural dramas. Just my 2 cents.