Clara Bush

How to adapt awards shows in the age of streaming

Have you watched any of the awards precursors this season?

I made sure to watch the Golden Globes and the SAGs, but I missed the others, plus you can’t easily watch the BAFTAs in the U.S.

The Golden Globes are still airing on broadcast channels, while the SAGs officially moved to Netflix streaming this year.

The Academy Awards are almost 100 years old. They’ve only been televised since 1953. But TV isn’t the same anymore.

So how does the Academy adapt? What lessons can it learn from other awards shows?

Air all categories

The Academy fumbled at the 2022 Oscars, choosing to air acceptance speeches only from eight below-the-line categories. To be fair, a good chunk of those were for “Dune,” so it could’ve been repetitive, but it felt unfair to not televise them in full, especially since the show was still more than 3 hours long.

The Emmys have started to put chevrons at the bottom with a list of people the winner wants to thank. This streamlines the speeches and makes them more interesting. Seriously, listening to 20+ names is boring. Give us something inspiring.

The Academy will have to consider how this works for the 2025 season when the first casting Oscar will be awarded.

Learn what people want (or spread the wealth)

I love the fashion of awards shows. I get that it feels a bit sexiest to ask what a person is wearing, but give credit where credit is due … and don’t make that your first question on the red carpet. Also, men are stepping up their fashion game, and I’d love to know the designers.

But that’s not everyone’s MO. It’s important to bring variety to keep people interested.

Lately, the shows are getting stale because it’s a set of the same winners over and over.

Especially this year, when the Emmys and Golden Globes were so close together, I felt like I heard so many speeches from the teams of “Beef” and “Succession.” Those weren’t the only two shows out last year!

The Oscars are getting siloed, too. Even with 10 Best Picture nominees, the total number of nominated movies seems to be dwindling, as Best Picture nominees rule other categories. It’s rare to have a sole nominee for a movie these days, making the awards shows seem repetitive.

Go to streaming?

Look, I get streaming is a big huge juggernaut with some big problems.

But there’s something about the buoyancy of streaming live that seems to work.

The SAGs have been on Netflix for two years now, once on its YouTube channel and once on the app.

With it being on streaming, the winners seemed a little more free to say whatever they wanted, including swearing. Netflix means no bleeping out!

Now, I do think the lack of commercials makes for some awkward transition issues, but I bet that can be sorted out in time.

What would you change?

The 96th Academy Awards air March 10 on ABC.

Golden Globes 2024 vs. 2023 Emmys

Due to the writer and actor strikes, the 2023 Emmys were delayed by four months. In an odd turn of events, the 2024 Golden Globes will air eight days before the 2023 Emmys.

The Emmys hold more weight (hello, EGOT), but The Golden Globes honor more recent shows due to the year/season regulations by both awards’ bodies.

How do the shows stack up with nominees? Let’s see.

Best Series

In drama and comedy, The Emmys has eight nominees, versus six for The Golden Globes.

“The Crown,” “Succession,” and “The Last of Us” overlap, which makes sense based on air dates.

In comedy, they all overlap, though technically they differ by seasons.

For limited, I’m surprised to see the Globes didn’t nominate “Fleishman is in Trouble.” Otherwise, the two overlaps make sense based on the timeline of when the shows aired.

I have to say though, “The Diplomat” and “The Morning Show” being nominated for drama series Globes is so typical of the Globes.

Lead Actress

The Globes have six nominees instead of five, which expands the variety a bit.

For drama, I guess the Globes like “1923” and “The Crown” more than the Emmys.

The Globes nominated Selena Gomez, whom I think the Emmys snubbed, in comedy, and Rachel Weisz, who I’ve heard is great in “Dead Ringers,” for limited.

Lead Actor

For limited series, “Beef” is the only overlap, which makes sense because of the time of year it aired.

The cast of “Succession” dominates both awards shows in drama.

For comedy, it’s all the same, except because of the Globes nominating six, Steve Martin also got in for “Only Murders in the Building.”

Supporting performer

The Globes combines drama, comedy and limited for supporting roles, which limits the total number of nominees. The Emmys have them separated out.

With that, there is very little overlap. “Succession” dominates the supporting actor race.

If I had to guess, The Globes wanted some star power, so they nominated Meryl Streep for “Only Murders in the Building.” (The Emmys wouldn’t have nominated Streep because they are honoring season 2 not 3 of “Only Murders.”)

Frankly, I thought Streep was pretty bad and one of the worst parts of a substandard season 3.

It’s hard to say whether the winners will feel really repetitive since the shows are only eight days apart. They will air on different networks, and people are still a tad wary of The Golden Globes after the HFPA came under fire; the organization has since been dissolved.

Catching up with Emmy-nominated shows

The Emmys have been postponed, but fortunately only once after the writer’s strike ended this week.

In the meantime, I took some time to watch some shows I’d missed. Here are my thoughts:

Tiny Beautiful Things

2 Emmy nominations

This Hulu limited series is very loosely based on the Cheryl Strayed book. The book is just a collection of advice columns, hence the loosely based part. The story that Kathryn Hahn’s character handles seems made up based on Strayed’s other memoir, “Wild,” and for TV.

Neither the book nor the series were particularly riveting, but really, it’s not the most adaptable work. I think Hahn is a great (and underrated) actress, but she’s not given that much in her Emmy-nominated role.

I actually thought her younger self counterpart should’ve been nominated because she had more to do, and it was more interesting plot-wise.

Jury Duty

4 Emmy nominations

I really didn’t get this show, or the hype, at first.

It took me till episode 3 to enjoy it; maybe I just got the concept by then?

It’s pretty ridiculous, and it’s probably lightning in a bottle, only works once kind of thing.

But hey, enjoy it while it works. It helps they got super lucky in casting Ronald Gladden, an attractive, affable guy, for this “Office”-like “documentary.”

Welcome to Chippendales

5 Emmy nominations

So many people got nominated for this limited series, but I thought the overall concept wasn’t great.

A lot of plotlines were glossed over (Dan Stevens is in episode 1 and dies, but it’s glossed over), and it wraps up quickly overall because it’s only 8 episodes.

It’s well-acted, but with so many things left undone, the writing needed some help.

Daisy Jones & the Six

9 Emmy nominations

I hated every character in this show, but I think that was intentional.

Showcasing the tribulations of fame, this book to show adaptation was done much better than Tiny Beautiful Things.

The music was stellar, the costumes on point, but it was hard to root for anyone, which didn’t make it my favorite show. But the artistry was amazing.

Fleishman Is in Trouble

7 nominations

This miniseries starts slow.

I didn’t read the book, but plot lines seemed to drop off in the show, and the second half of the show is way better than the first.

The show explores change and how to handle it in life.

It’s well-acted, but it came and went. I don’t recommend bingeing it, because it covers a lot of subjects that may have you squirming in your thoughts.

Ted Lasso

21 nominations (this year)

This is a super binge-able show. It’s definitely a nice show where the good people win and the bad people are few.

I think three seasons work for this show based on the original conceit. Plus, I think the third season was uneven and had too many extra plotlines that were dropped or wrapped up too quickly.

But unpopular opinion, I think this show majorly benefitted from premiering during the pandemic. It gave me something happy to watch.

Schmigadoon

3 nominations (this year)

I really wanted to like this show. It’s a musical with a huge cast of performers I like!

But I thought it fell flat. The chemistry of the leads in season 1 didn’t work, and season 2’s Schmicago was not my taste.

Shrinking

2 nominations

I’ve burned through this show so quickly, but I wouldn’t say it was good.

It’s a horrendous representation of psychotherapy, breaking so many ethical boundaries.

It also wasn’t what I thought it would be based on the ads, so it felt uneven.

The acting, which is what it’s nominated for, is decent. Harrison Ford is pretty boring minus one scene where he sings in the car.

2023 Emmy nominations: The shows we forgot and remembered

The 2023 Emmy nominations were announced today.

Of course, we’re still in a writer’s strike, and an actor’s strike is looming. Not exactly the best time to announce television show nominees (including writers), but the Emmys honors those who are on strike, not the TV execs they’re fighting.

The presenters had to mention the Emmys are currently planned for September, because who knows if they’ll actually happen.

But for now, let’s discuss some observations from the nominations:

The shows people forgot

“The Crown” has been a big hit with the Emmys in the past, with 21 previous wins and 69 nominations to date. This year, there are only six nominations for the Netflix drama. It still managed to get Elizabeth Debicki a nomination, and the show is up for best drama, but it seems mostly ignored this year (Where’s the Queen?).

While “Only Murders in the Building” was recognized (11 nominations this year), Martin Short is the only actor in the main trio nominated, which seems odd. The show might’ve been hurt by not airing its third season, featuring Meryl Streep, quite yet.

The shows people remembered

“Dead to Me” and “The Diplomat,” both Netflix comedies, received nominations for their lead actresses, Christina Applegate and Keri Russell, respectively. Those are the shows’ lone nominations, but it’s nice to see their talent recognized.

Disney+ seemed to be on it this year, getting nominations for “Andor” and “Obi-Wan Kenobi,” two Star Wars shows I’ve forgotten about. (I’m curious how much money they spent on promotion; “Hocus Pocus 2” also got a nod.)

Also, I had no idea “Welcome to Chippendales” was going to pop up in the nominations; it received five. Guess I’ll have to watch it now.

The shows people will miss

Long-running shows “Succession,” “Barry,” “Better Call Saul,” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” all aired definitive series finales.

“Succession” has 27 nominations this year, the most of any show this year. But three of its nominations are in best actor, four in best supporting actor, two in guest actor, three in guest actress and 3 in directing. Clearly, the show is well-acted, but it halts the overall number of wins. (Plus the debate of where Brian Cox should have campaigned seems moot.)

Can Bob Odenkirk finally win for a role he’s been playing for more than 10 years? We’ll see: He could pull ahead with the actors of “Succession” splitting votes, but the show finished last year, so it’s not fresh in people’s minds.

Overall, there are some great first-time nominees, and HBO didn’t dominate quite as much as I thought it would, though it does have half of the best drama series nominations and all but 8 of the main drama acting categories.

But at this point, I’m more curious about if the Emmys will actually air Sept. 18 or not.

Is continuity expert a TV job now?

Ever watched a show so many times you noticed errors?

For me, “Gilmore Girls” has many errors. The church bells work, break, then work again. Rory is a mustard person, then a ketchup person. Emily skinny-dipped, then Richard says she kept her clothes on. I could go on, but admittedly I’ve seen this show way too many times.

It’s the struggle with binge-watching; when you watch multiple episodes in a row (or a season in a week), it’s much easier to catch flaws in the writing.

Even recently when I watched “Full House,” I noticed Danny doesn’t have his compulsive neatness until the later seasons.

Before Netflix, we only had reruns. And you may not even catch them sequentially. If you missed a day, you missed the episodes. That was it…at least until the next time through.

Now with the Internet, people dissect shows to oblivion. You can watch episodes over and over whenever. We’re not stuck to the TV Guide or channel listings.

So when a show comes out, it has to be flawless. A show can’t afford to have mistakes that commenters will eviscerate the moment it airs.

When “The Good Place” aired, and then expanded its universe, the amount of continuity and work it must have taken was astounding.

I’d imagine writer’s rooms must have a crime-scene-red-string set of boards mapping out storylines, characteristics…anything to help keep continuity at bay.

In order to satisfy today’s viewers, shows have to nail:

Character traits, histories
Conflicts prior to airing, in the same timeline
When and where stories take place, in order
Dealbreakers for characters

And that’s the bare minimum.

So, yes, we still need writers. AI can’t solve this.

Writer’s strike means one long summer of bad TV

We’re in for a long rest of 2023 the way things are going.

Members of the WGA are on strike. From news reports, it’ll be a while before we get new scripted material, and actors may join.

Rumors of a strike circulated for a bit before it formally started May 2. And it feels like some networks were assuming it was inevitable.

Let’s take a look at what some networks are doing during this strike.

CBS

All new shows or seasons say “Coming Soon” at the end of the previews.

This includes “Young Sheldon” and “Ghosts,” which ended on a cliffhanger. There also looks to be a new “Matlock” starring Kathy Bates, and at least something has been written and filmed based on clips from the commercial.

Fox

Two reality shows flooded commercials on this broadcast network.

There’s “Food Stars,” another Gordon Ramsey competition show. Plus William Shatner will host “Stars on Mars” starting June 5.

No, they didn’t film on Mars, and the cast is an interesting hodge-podge (Ariel Winter from “Modern Family” and Tom Schwartz from “Vanderpump Rules”… and your social media feeds … are among the cast).

ABC

As if watching so many more game and reality shows this summer and potentially fall wasn’t enough, ABC has “The Game Show Show,” a docuseries about…you guessed it, game shows.

It’s actually interesting, but it’s only four parts.

There’s also “The Prank Panel,” which includes Johnny Knoxville. It looks like Punk’d for regular people.

And, ABC has finally got the ball rolling for its long-discussed senior bachelor show, though it’s called “The Golden Bachelor.” It seems to me the writers already left before a name was settled on. It’ll air in the fall, after this summer’s “The Bachelorette.”

the CW

the CW doesn’t really have a game show pull, nor does it do reality shows.

Now, they’ve done this before, but they announced (before the strike officially started) they are bringing a Canadian show, “Sullivan’s Crossing,” to the network.

I’m guessing it was an easy decision. The show has ties to “Virgin River,” and it stars Chad Michael Murray and Scott Patterson. The CW knows its demographic.

This is just what I’ve noticed; it’s not a comprehensive list. But overall, none of this particularly excites me, but this is what happens when there’s a strike.

Networks, if you want good TV again…pay your writers. And don’t use A.I.; it’s unnatural.

I’d suggest catching up with other shows, like “Not Dead Yet.”

A Streaming TV Casualty: Theme Songs

I binged the new musical show “Up Here” on Hulu last weekend, and I was surprised to hear a theme song with opening credits.

If I had to guess, they wanted to highlight the talent behind the Hulu show (it boasts the writers from “Frozen” and the director of “Hamilton”), but it threw me off. It didn’t help that the song is actually the big finale song, so it always felt out of place as the opening every episode.

But also because I thought we’d said RIP to the long theme song.

“Cheers,” “Friends,” “Full House”…all iconic theme songs, and all more than a minute long.

Nowadays, with streaming, lots of new shows, and the Skip Intro button, most TV shows don’t bother with an opening credits sequence.

We don’t need an intro to the cast that changes from year to year, season to season (Sidenote: It really bugs me that when you watch “Friends” on TBS, they only show the credits from season 7, regardless of what season is actually airing.).

With binge-watching, we’re not that dumb. We know the characters and don’t need a reminder of each one and their real name every 22-45 minutes.

The first time I remember being shocked by the lack of a theme song was “Glee.” Each show had a one-word note,”Glee,” with a black screen only. It was so simple, it was almost stark.

I miss the silly bops we got from theme songs, like “Scrubs” or “The Big Bang Theory.” What show can boast their theme song is by the Barenaked Ladies? Sure, they’re more retro now, but that’s pretty cool.

Or what about the heartfelt “Where You Lead” from “Gilmore Girls”? That’s an intro I don’t skip very often; I like the song so much.

Ultimately, longer theme songs mean less time to tell your story, especially on broadcast TV. On streaming, time isn’t as bound to a schedule, so you can play around, but let’s face it, people are probably hitting the Skip Intro button.

We want the story. We don’t want the theme song. We want to get into the episode without interruption.

RIP the theme song…another byproduct of streaming.

Winter TV 2023: 3 new shows reviewed

Winter blues no more, there’s some new TV to watch. There’s some promise in these shows.

Also, fun fact: Two of these three new shows have a character named Charlie.

Not Dead Yet

9:30 p.m. Wednesdays on ABC

Gina Rodriguez leads this sitcom, and she leads it with power.

She’s the best part of this newspaper-set comedy. The pilot includes some good setups, and while some characters are a bit cliche, they have hearts, too. I could live without the roommate dynamic; we saw it on “The Big Bang Theory.”

It’s a little sappy, and the premise is a little silly, but as an unmarried 30-something, I find it relatable.

Try it

Animal Control

8 p.m. Thursdays on Fox

Joel McHale is back on TV, playing another acerbic longer-type character.

It’s an office comedy but without the mockumentary bits. It seemed to be striving for a “Parks & Recreation” feel, but it missed the mark.

The opening credits are surprisingly long, which is unusual these days. But as usual these days, I didn’t find the sitcom that funny, especially with a cast of stock characters.

Skip it

The Company you Keep

10 p.m. Sundays on ABC

I’m always OK with having Milo Ventimiglia back on my TV screen. But I’m not sure this time will last long.

The premise reminds me of “The Catch” from a few years ago, and it’s the same network.

There’s a family element, which feels more like a watered-down “Sopranos,” with cat-and-mouse plotlines.

I think this could’ve been a better movie; I doubt the premise can keep up week after week.

Skip it

Winter TV 2023 includes a lot of procedurals

I know crime shows are popular on broadcast TV, but this winter includes more procedurals than usual, and it’s a bit boring.

Here are my thoughts on new scripted TV shows:

That 90s show

All episodes streaming on Netflix

This reboot is one of the better ones, but it still has flaws.

The references to the old show and the 1990s are spot-on, along with the casting of Kelso’s kid.

But the kids’ ages are off in more ways than one, and frankly, they are not the best part of the show. Debra Jo Rupp and Kurtwood Smith own it.

Try it

Will Trent

10 p.m. Tuesdays on ABC

This show really needed a better name. The police procedural features a lot of actors returning to TV.

You’re dropped right into the action in the pilot, but you’ll quickly find out there’s a lot of emotional baggage. It was a bit complicated to follow, and the pilot focuses on the wrong plot points (for example, the dog plot is useless).

I’d rather watch Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc, the better version of this character.

Skip it

Alert Missing Persons Unit

9 p.m. Mondays on Fox

On the flip side, this show had a lot of setup, which feels necessary for this crime procedural.

You’ve probably seen the actors before, too, so it makes sense they’re on network TV.

But the pilot’s end twist was so predictable; I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it on TV before.

Skip it

Night Court

8 p.m. Tuesdays on NBC

This is another reboot (verified via the opening credits sequence) starring Melissa Rauch and John Larouquette, who reprises his role from the original sitcom.

Rauch plays the new night court judge, stepping in her dad’s shoes. In real life, the original actor died, so this is a nice tribute.

There are other callbacks to the original without being confusing to new viewers.

It’s going for the emotional heart, but it’s still fairly predictable and not overly funny.

Try it (with caution)

Accused

9 p.m. Sundays on Fox

This anthology show started with an episode that seriously creeped me out.

This drama is based on an award-winning British show. Each episode focuses on a different story in a courtroom.

It’s a great way to get bigger-name actors into your show for one episode.

I found the first episode, focusing on a father and son, the latter of whom seems to have psychiatric issues, really freaked me out. It was terrifying to watch to unfold between the events leading up and the courtroom.

Try it (with caution)

Can we reinvent IP successfully?

Last night, I watched “Beauty and the Beast: A 30th Celebration.”

I was more of a Cinderella than Belle kid, but I have some special memories associated with various iterations of the 1991 Disney film.

“Beauty and the Beast” was the first Disney animated feature nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and it won two (song and score). The Broadway musical ran for 13 years; the live-action 2017 remake was nominated for two Oscars. It’s a big deal.

So it made sense to celebrate the anniversary of the Disney classic with a movie on ABC (it’s now streaming on Disney+). And Disney brought the star power, with H.E.R. starring as Belle, Shania Twain as Mrs. Potts, Martin Short as Lumiere, David Alan Grier as Cogsworth and Josh Groban as Beast. Not to mention Jon M. Chu (“Crazy Rich Asians,” the upcoming “Wicked” movies) was a producer on the hybrid animated and live-action special.

But did it work? Yes and no.

Rita Moreno introduced segments and revealed behind-the-scenes tidbits. The back and forth between animated and live was mostly seamless. The costumes were beautiful and just enough over the top to be fun but not crazy.

On the flip side, it had a lot of live-theater work that just doesn’t translate on a TV screen. H.E.R. and Twain do not have the vocal range to pull off the more significant songs, though they did their best.

My biggest complaint was it tried too hard. There were some segments that were avant-garde, which doesn’t work in an anniversary celebration of a classic.

All this to say, is it worth trying to reimagine IP?

It feels like everything entertainment is a franchise or re-imagination. Original ideas fall by the wayside.

Yet people crave original ideas. Look at the success of “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” We want something new and exciting, where we can’t know what will happen.

Franchises, sequels, etc., make money, no question. They have a built-in audience. It doesn’t matter if people don’t like it, so many others will flock to screens to stay in the loop. There’s a reason why the MCU has multiple phases in the works. (I’m not an MCU person, and with all the movies and TV shows, there’s zero chance I will catch up.)

So what are execs to do? Follow money or creativity? Of course, they’ll follow the money!

I give the producers credit for the 30th anniversary special. They tried to keep the classic feel while providing new views. It just didn’t always work, and ultimately it went too far to truly bring in the nostalgia it was aiming for.

As viewers, we must try to promote and view original content often. Because I’m not sure I want to watch a 50th-anniversary celebration of “Beauty and the Beast,” even though I’m sure execs will do something for it.