BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Emmy Awards

LaconicLurker · September 24, 2012 12:38 pm

Ivy wrote:
I think the Internationals are for all shows that you don't see in the USA. And Sherlock is PBS and other British stuff is usually on BBC America.

The international Emmy awards eligibility period for this year was that the program had to air internationally between January 1 through December 31, 2011, and so Sherlock would not have been eligible. Setting that aside, though, and assuming that Sherlock would have aired during the eligibility period, it is the show producers' decision as to whether they want to submit for a regular Emmy or an international one, but they cannot submit for both. The regular Emmys have a much, much higher profile and many, many more categories, and so it stands to reason that if there is any shot at a nomination, a show would submit for the regular Emmys.

The American network airing the show, PBS, would have also strongly preferred Sherlock to be submitted for a regular Emmy because then it adds to their prestige factor to say: "This network was nominated for X Emmys."

I thought it was strange that the show was nommed for "mini-series" but only one episode was submitted? I have no idea how the Emmys work-- maybe all the series did that, only submit one of the episodes from the season for consideration?

It was nominated in the "miniseries or [standalone] movie" category. It did not air enough episodes to be eligible as a regular drama (like Downton Abbey), and so this category was its only shot. I think (but am not sure) that it was not eligible to be considered as a full mini-series, and so "movie" was its only option. I looked up the rules online a few months ago, and they have a rule stating that a miniseries has to have a single storyline that is resolved within the series. Sherlock really had 3 distinct storylines in series 2, and each was resolved within its episode (even if Moriarty was an overarching presence throughout the series).

I don't think there was any anti-British sentiment that kept the show from winning (just look at all the comments last night during the show that indicate American actors have a bit of a lighthearted inferiority complex when it comes to British actors). I think that it was just a strong, strong pro-movie star sentiment, like someone pointed out above. Tom Hanks produced Game Change, and it starred a ton of movie stars and aired on HBO, the Emmy darling network. That's a lot of star power. Probably the same reason Costner won over even his costar, Paxton.

kazza474 · September 24, 2012 12:42 pm

Each award ceremony is different and has different criteria applied. Both are run by Academies however.
Just like two Universities, one in London and one in Washington, they each decide on their own set of rules. These are decided on by the members of the relevant Academies.
The Emmy Awards are open to shows shown on Prime Time Television in the USA.
The Baftas are only open to British shows except for the an International award & an audience vote award.

As I said earlier, it's a well known fact that politics plays a part in awards like the Emmys, so no great shock that they didn't win anything. I doubt they will lose too much sleep over this in the long run.
You guys haven't followed awards ceremonies & all the bitching & backstabbing that goes with it much have you? lol.
For instance this year, had Mad Men won their category, they would have surpassed the Iconic Hill Street Blues for drama. And some late 'leaks' said that wasn't going to happen apparently. So it's not about how good the show is sometimes, its about what the win would mean.
There was a not so subtle snub for House this year also, many thought the finale was some of Laurie's best work. I guess the Academy figured it might knock off one of their favourites, lol.

In Hollywood it's all about who you know, not how you perform. I doubt any 'exposure' from other sources will boost their appeal too much next year.
Quality shows rarely win out over the 'machine churned' shows that use 'recipes' of what the audience are lapping up.

It really doesn't bother me that much, just adds another chapter of amusing antics by an American Award show.

Ivy · September 24, 2012 1:56 pm

Emmy roundup focusing only on the Sherlock nominations, that's all we really need. Made by Romangirl88, she's brilliant.

Last edited by Ivy (September 24, 2012 2:12 pm)

SusiGo · September 24, 2012 2:00 pm

Yes, just like the pics - [video] [/video]

Ivy · September 24, 2012 2:01 pm

How simple! Thank you....

tobeornot221b · September 24, 2012 3:47 pm

Who cares about all the Emmys, Baftas, Oscars? I don't mind.
We don't love our boys because they are winners of some dust traps on the shelf.
We love them anyway. Not everyone has our exquisite taste. Leave the awards to the ordinary people - they do need them so badly!

Sentimental Pulse · September 24, 2012 5:01 pm

tobeornot221b wrote:
Who cares about all the Emmys, Baftas, Oscars? I don't mind.
We don't love our boys because they are winners of some dust traps on the shelf.
We love them anyway. Not everyone has our exquisite taste. Leave the awards to the ordinary people - they do need them so badly!

I understand what you are saying to be and you're right, we fans love them no matter what. But those responsible for their exceptional work: Moftiss, Ben, McGuigan, Martin deserve appropriate industry recognition. So I will continue to rail against the machine

Sam · September 24, 2012 6:27 pm

Perfect video for those who couldn't watch. I know the Sherlock team were just thrilled to be there...still love Ben's face when they announced his name.

Yeah, Emmys don't prove anything, it's just nice to at least be noticed for good/hard work.

Sam · September 24, 2012 6:30 pm

Ivy wrote:
The Emmys are too ordinary for such a brilliant show like Sherlock anyway

Yup

I was upset at first, right as it was all happening, but now that it's the day after I don't care. It's cool that the Emmys even recognized them in the first place - a feat in its own.

Emmys shmemmys ;)

ancientsgate · September 24, 2012 8:48 pm

Sam wrote:
Perfect video for those who couldn't watch. I know the Sherlock team were just thrilled to be there...still love Ben's face when they announced his name. Yeah, Emmys don't prove anything, it's just nice to at least be noticed for good/hard work.

Actually, in the industry, it does prove something to get nommed, and a nomination might actually translate into real work later on. To be one of 6 men in that category recognized for outstanding work is a real feather in Ben's (and Martin's) hats. Here in the States, anyway, from now on, they'll be introduced as, "Emmy-nominated Benedict..." or "Martin...." yes, to be the winner is always the absolute best, but a nom is the next best thing. Plus, being Brit, it's really really good to have gotten their faces and names out there in the Hollywood industry-- way better than being some anonymous Brit guy no one in the States ever heard of. People (directors, producers, casting people) remember the nommed actors, later on when they're looking to cast roles. Never a bad thing.

Sam · September 24, 2012 9:08 pm

Yeah, that's true. Having them introduced as "Emmy nominated actor..." will be good for their careers. But, I guess I was meaning on a more personal level they don't mean anything. Like, they don't need to win to prove anything to themselves (well, or to the industry for that matter). And I think instead of winning an award, their roles will put their names out there more so. Such as Martin in The Hobbit and Ben in Star Trek.

ancientsgate · September 24, 2012 9:16 pm

Sam wrote:
Yeah, that's true. Having them introduced as "Emmy nominated actor..." will be good for their careers. But, I guess I was meaning on a more personal level they don't mean anything. Like, they don't need to win to prove anything to themselves (well, or to the industry for that matter). And I think instead of winning an award, their roles will put their names out there more so. Such as Martin in The Hobbit and Ben in Star Trek.

I do wonder what they were actually thinking (especially Martin) yesterday, standing in the broiling mid-afternoon heat, doing their best to be polite and happy-looking on the way into the theater. I do wonder how much they care or how much of their self-esteem they put into that particular kind of industry-recognition basket. I suspect that intellectually they see and know and admit how it's important and good to get recognition. But maybe they also wish they could take that whole aspect of their work and just give it a good shove into a place where the sun don't shine! Maybe a mix of both, I suspect.

I dunno. Next time one of them calls me, I'll be sure to ask. *dream on, lol*

Sam · September 24, 2012 9:19 pm

Yeah, same. I bet there's some quote out there of them mentioning how much awards mean (or don't mean) to them. The Emmys may be a little different. But something tells me they don't take it personally or loose any sleep over it.

Say "Hi" for me

Sherli Bakerst · September 24, 2012 9:53 pm

Ancientsgate asked: I thought it was strange that the show was nommed for "mini-series" but only one episode was submitted? I have no idea how the Emmys work-- maybe all the series did that, only submit one of the episodes from the season for consideration?

As I understand it (from what my sister said when her show was nominated), all nominations involve just one episode. So a series or a mini-series nominates whichever episode they are most proud of/feel has the best chance to win, and that's the episode that represents the entire series.

I agree with everyone who has said that Scandal was the best to nominate from the second season. It included all kinds of action: suspense, humor, romance, tragedy, sibling rivalry, mystery. Hounds I think was too "out there" for a mainstream audience and if one wasn't familiar with the characters in advance, the interaction between Sherlock and John wouldn't really resonate. TRF could have worked but why give people the show that is the culmination of the series? Without knowing all that went before, again, it probably wouldn't mean as much or affect those viewers to the extent it did us.

Davina asked: Just wondering why they aren't up for International Emmy Awards then? Sherlock was produced and initially aired in the UK, not the US.

Yes, originally, but didn't PBS put up some money to help produce the second season/series? I thought I read that somewhere.

Sam · September 24, 2012 10:36 pm

Here's an interview from yesterday that romangirl uploaded:

As we were talking about, I think they were just happy to be recognized

Caroll · September 24, 2012 11:20 pm

Thanks for the videos! Oh, we didn't win, shame on you, Emmy! Congrats to Sherlock guys, all of them, really good work!!

The Doctor · September 24, 2012 11:39 pm

I am not the one to repeat my postings from other threads but this time I have to. As stated, I found it on tumblr:

"You... You told me once... That you weren't an Emmy winner. Umm... There are times I don't even know how that's possible, but let me tell you this. You are the best series, the most clever... Cleverly brilliant thing that I've ever watched and no one will ever convince me that you didn't deserve it, and so... There. I was so disappointed... Still, I love you so much. But please, there's just one more thing, one more thing, one more favor, Sherlock cast and crew, for me, don't be... Sad. Would you do that just for me? Just celebrate it. Celebrate the nominations."

NW16XE · September 25, 2012 12:21 am

Sentimental Pulse wrote:
I let them have it over at huffington post:

"Sherlock is the wittiest, most creative show on television and Benedict Cumberbatch is to die for. It appears that Emmy voters are comprised of the same demographic that prefer safe, dumbed down mediocrity over sheer brilliance. And what was with all the hideous yellow dresses last night? "

That was you! Saw it and wondered if it was posted by anyone here.

Sherli Bakerst · September 25, 2012 12:31 am

I find it very interesting that critics appreciate the show, and Benedict's performance in a role that was game-changing for him, more, apparently, than the Academy members. I guess the people who actually voted for the nominees couldn't surmount their dull and ordinary vision of what a winning show/role should look like. (BTW, SP, I posted the same New York Times snippet on the other Emmy thread, too!)

sherlockedkt · September 25, 2012 1:15 am

Thanks for the vids - those are great! Here are some better pics from the broadcast (the ones I put up last night were just pics I took of my TV screen with my digital camera).

Last edited by sherlockedkt (September 25, 2012 1:20 am)