But then I remembered it's the Emmys, and it's driven by politics as much as it is by talent. If it were only the latter, Buffy would have gotten more than one nomination in writing, Lauren Graham would have gotten a nomination, and there'd be a moratorium on the number of times Two and a Half Men could be nominated.
But it's not, and I've watched the politics of Emmys too much to know that it's hard for the voters to see excellence DESPITE bad material, no matter how well deserved it may be on both counts. They are more likely to honor someone in a season that is strong overall, because they tend to keep the show in mind despite the fact that they're supposed to look at individual performances. In this case, the writers totally screwed over Annie, and it wasn't helped by Cherry not submitting.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-09 11:13 am (UTC)But then I remembered it's the Emmys, and it's driven by politics as much as it is by talent. If it were only the latter, Buffy would have gotten more than one nomination in writing, Lauren Graham would have gotten a nomination, and there'd be a moratorium on the number of times Two and a Half Men could be nominated.
But it's not, and I've watched the politics of Emmys too much to know that it's hard for the voters to see excellence DESPITE bad material, no matter how well deserved it may be on both counts. They are more likely to honor someone in a season that is strong overall, because they tend to keep the show in mind despite the fact that they're supposed to look at individual performances. In this case, the writers totally screwed over Annie, and it wasn't helped by Cherry not submitting.
Sucks, I know. But that's the game.