Tomorrow "Road Case" today "Emmy's".

I don't know why television producers can't produce a decent television show honoring their own. The Emmy's telecast continues to be completely without imagination or even entertainment. Last night's show was no exception. The participation by the "five" hosts proved that none of them is up to the job they were Emmy nominated for. Just being pretty was not enough to keep Heidi Flum from goofing up. She introduced an actor form the show "The Bones" instead of "Bones", at least get the title right. (She was nominated for a "hosting" Emmy?)

I never liked Howie Mandel, used to work comedy clubs with him and never understood how he kept working. He never made me laugh, I never saw an inspired piece of material and think his style is childish and dumb. I think he shaved his head in an attempt to find a brain, which was obviously unsuccessful. He is perhaps best on Deal or No Deal since the job is for the most part just answering the phone.

The Emmy's like every award show insists on writing bits for celebrities that aren't funny, aren't rehearsed and only cause the show to run longer than it should. Most every celebrity pokes fun at the crap they are asked to read, which does not make it any funnier only sadder. Snappy dialogue between two narcissistic diva's talking about how good it is to see one another when they are reading off a teleprompter and NOT looking at each other is just insulting. And it is very bad acting.

Once in a while a creative actor will write his own stuff and it shines so brightly in the telecast sea of crap that it eclipses the rest. Last night Steve Martin and Ricky Gervis were the light house beacons. Give us more of that kind of television.

As far as the awards themselves go, I hate to hear, "Wining his seventh Emmy in a row is....." Let's say a good sitcom runs 8 years. Every year they nominate the same actor in the same role and if they are good at the role, they win the same Emmy eight times. Isn't that just giving an award to the same actor for the same part year after year. What has he or she done differently this year? Didn't we think that role and that actor in it was the best last year, and the year before?

The Tony's do it right. A Tony award is for work that is new that season. If the same actor in the same role is still in the show the next year, he or she doesn't get nominated again. With the Academy Awards it is clear that the Oscar is for a specific movie for a specific year. To win again you have to do an equally great job with another character in some other film. Lucky television actors who happen to fall into a part that runs for a long time end up with a room full of Emmy's. They might as well just be reproductions of the original, it is the same accolade for the same work.

I think once you win an Emmy you should be eliminated from the competition for the next year, maybe the next two years. If the show runs for two more years then the Academy acknowledges the fact that staying on the air with the same character and same show for more than three years is a real accomplishment, and they nominate that person again.

SOAP won a few Emmy's but we were always up against M*A*S*H and it always won... year after year. To nominate them was to give them the award. God bless Alan Alda he must have a garage full of Emmy statues, M*A*S*H ran 11 years. If he had been ineligible for a couple of those years he would still be a multiple award winner, but some other actors could have had a chance to grab the brass ring.

I think we are watching the end of network television. The Web will soon take over. How will they nominate Emmy's for a Youtube?

As you were,
Jay

Tomorrow - as promised "Road Case"