Considering I woke up this morning and spent about 20 minutes thinking it was Friday (don't ask), I'll admit, it wasn't until I popped Twitter open this morning and saw mentions here and there regarding Emmy nods for Neil Patrick Harris (grats) and Mythbusters (grats as well) that I realized what this morning was.
I've known the noms were upcoming and, I've been hoping that this year would be different.
I was hoping that, after 3 years of bypassing some of the best acting and direction on television, the Emmy voters would give Battlestar Galactica its due.
Yeah -- not so much.
Hey, Emmy voters? Question.
Maybe you don't watch the show regularly. Maybe you don't like sci-fi. Maybe you've never heard of it. Maybe NBC/Universal and the Sci-Fi Channel weren't able to do the kind of push that more mainstream shows are afforded when it comes to wooing you and suggesting shows to nominate.
But if you're going to vote, don't you have some responsibility here?
I know you got the screeners. How do I know? My Aunt is an Emmy voter and I saw hers.
I also know she never watched it. Now, I'll admit, she's been ill and in surgery recently and maybe her mind wasn't on it. However, I have a feeling she wouldn't have watched it anyway and that may be an indication of where the disconnect was. Because she's also in her 70's and doesn't like science fiction (the woman walked out of the theater halfway through the Cantina scene in Star Wars because it was "silly" -- yeah, I still wonder about which side of the family my geek comes from).
And that's my issue...
If people get the screeners but don't watch them, if they only vote on the shows with the most visibility, or the shows they "recognize", or if they don't take the time to consider the acting/writing/directing/whathaveyou regardless of genre and content because they don't "get" sci-fi, then what are they doing voting?
Over the last four years, Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell have produced some of the most amazing work I've ever seen for any media type or genre.
Does Hugh Laurie need to be recognized over and over? I know people say "look at the new names" but was Simon Baker really better than Edward James Olmos, or was he more visible to the voting block?
Mariska Hargitay and Kyra Sedgwick are both very talented actresses. Granted. But are you telling me that either of them turned in performances that were better than Mary McDonnell's?
Or was it just the fact that Hugh Laurie and Mariska Hargitay are both on mainstream television shows, on major networks, with present day storylines?
I defy any Emmy voter to watch Olmos as Adama at the end of Maelstrom or to watch the character progression and depth McDonnell brought to Laura and not call them brilliant.
And yet...that's just what they did.
If I'm supposed to believe that your nominations are some kind of measuring stick for the quality of the acting on television. Or if networks are going to use Emmy nominations and winners as yardsticks for excellence, then I'd like to know how it is you can repeatedly overlook performances like these.
The way I see it, you're either biased against Sci Fi, lazy or too busy to give each potential nominee equal consideration.
So, I have to ask and I want to know. What the Frak is the deal, people?
Why are you voting in the first place?
And why does anyone take you seriously?