I've been reading the unofficial lists of Emmy semifinalists that Tom O'Neil has been posting at Gold Derby (goldderby.latimes.com). And I was struck, once again, by an idea that would go a long way toward fixing the eternally frustrating Emmys.
What if the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences simply left the lists of semifinalists as they are? Why not have 10 slots for each of the major Emmy categories?
It should be noted that the names on the lists of semifinalists in each acting category have not been confirmed by the academy. But O'Neil usually gets the goods straight from academy voters. In any case, those lists were cut to five nominees in each category through another round of voting that ended last week.
That round should have been scuttled. The lists should have been left as they were.
The number of worthy TV shows has exploded in the past decade, yet the academy doles out a mere five slots in each of the major acting categories and in the best comedy and drama categories. These are the same five slots that were available when the Emmys judged the fare on three big broadcast networks with little competition.
Now there are four broadcast networks, and every year an ever-expanding array of cable networks come up with yet more original programming. It's easy to name at least three dozen scripted series that deserve Emmy consideration in one category or another.
The academy needs to open up the field and allow more nominees in the major categories. The alternative is to keep confirming its reputation as an out-of-touch, almost comically inept organization holding a yearly popularity contest for well-known shows.
But the lists at the Gold Derby site are proof that, given the chance to expand their horizons, the often-stodgy Emmy voters will allow worthy but less famous shows to get some much-deserved attention.
These preliminary rosters leave me surprisingly migraine-free. Sure, there are shows that deserve far more representation than they get from the academy on a yearly basis, but all things considered, these lists aren't embarrassing, and that's a start.
Yet when the final nominees are announced Thursday, many TV observers, including me, will probably be moaning about the fact that "The Wire," "Flight of the Conchords," "Battlestar Galactica," "Friday Night Lights" and "Dexter" -- all of which are represented on the semifinalist lists -- didn't make the final cut.
"In Treatment" is well represented at this stage in the balloting, but will it hold out against more well-known but past-their-prime war horses such as "Boston Legal" and "Grey's Anatomy"? That's highly questionable, considering that many Emmy voters don't watch much TV and tend to just vote for the shows they've heard of.
I'm not a particular fan of "Samantha Who?" or "The Sarah Silverman Show," but it would sure be nice if the stars of those programs, who are on the semifinalist list in the comedy-actress category, could be part of the final roster of nominees. Who wants to see another "Desperate Housewives" near-shutout in this category?
There are many problems with the Emmys. But the quickest and best way to make the awards relevant is to expand the number of nominees in each category. The sheer number of TV shows -- and the quality of the top shows -- has been expanding at a dizzying pace. It would be helpful if the Emmys woke up to that fact.
