The Emmys are elitist - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

jamesanthony · 04-17-2004, 03:30 PM

I posted something about the emmies on the general board and on Roc's site, and didn't want to come right out and say it there but I'll say it here.

The emmies are not necessarlity racist, but elitist. They nominate shows based upon a narrow definition of what they consider to be good art. Esther Rolle should have been nominated at least once for playing Florida if not for GT for Maude. In what way is her performance worse than Mary Tyler Moore or the woman who played Rhoda or Jean Stapleton? And John Amos was just as good an actor as Henry Winkler or Carroll O'Connor or the other actors that they were nominating at the time.

During 1974-78 when Good Times, Jeffersons and Sanford and Son were all in their prime there were zero emmy nominations for any black player in a regular sitcom or drama. In the 90s there were zero nominations for any blacks in any sitcom. Good Times had good actors in it though.

vashti1999 · 04-17-2004, 06:59 PM

I agree with this. Using a current example, on UPN's Half & Half, Valarie Pettiford plays big Dee Dee. It's a slightly over the top, materialistic character, and she's great on that show. I think she's just as great if not better than the Sex and the City women, or Megan Mullaly on Will & Grace. They'll get Emmy recognition but not Valarie. It makes you wonder why. As for Good Times, I think both John Amos and Esther Rolle should have been repeat Emmy nominees for every year they were on the show.

jamesanthony · 04-17-2004, 08:28 PM

Yeah the TV industry is racist because they say that the UPN black shows are not good but what other opportunities do they give blacks to do shows on the bigger networks? The few that come on are put in poor timeslots like they're set up to fail. And I'm convinced that broadcast tv will probably never have a hit black drama. The most successful black drama that wasn't on cable was the White Shadow which had a white male lead and only had 58 episodes.

jamesanthony · 04-18-2004, 03:37 PM

I saw Valarie Pettiford on The District as the sister of the woman who was the Chief's assistant Ella who died last year. Valarie was totally different in that drama. She can act as well as anyone else. What is the difference between her and the women you mentioned, vashti? We already know the answer.

Even at the NAACP Image Awards they play favorites. Those awards seem very bourgie to me. They are just as predictable as the emmies in their own way. A few years ago there was a drama set in a hospital called City of Angels with Blair Underwood and Maya Rudolph. NAACP raised a ruckus about suing all the networks for not having black shows. That medical drama stayed on a bit, but was ultimately cancelled due to poor ratings. Guess what they gave the prize for best drama series to? That medical drama. Most of the drama prizes went to that show. Very predictable. I watched that show a couple times and I didn't like it at all. Very dull show. I can see why it got cancelled. It wasn't axed because of race so much as it was axed because it wasn't entertaining. CBS kept it on just to quiet down the NAACP.

Another thing about the NAACP Image Awards is they nominate nonblacks, which is fine but you know that those people won't win because they're not black. Why nominate George Lopez or Rita Moreno when you have NO intention of giving them an award? It's condescending and it looks bad. NAACP chooses Bernie Mac year in and year out, but there are other shows and actors of note. I suppose all these awards shows are set up politically to play favorites.

I'd like to read some interviews of people who've won these awards who comment on how much if at all winning these prizes has helped their careers.

04-17-2004, 03:30 PM	#1
jamesanthony Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 30, 2004 Posts: 2,180	The Emmys are elitist I posted something about the emmies on the general board and on Roc's site, and didn't want to come right out and say it there but I'll say it here. The emmies are not necessarlity racist, but elitist. They nominate shows based upon a narrow definition of what they consider to be good art. Esther Rolle should have been nominated at least once for playing Florida if not for GT for Maude. In what way is her performance worse than Mary Tyler Moore or the woman who played Rhoda or Jean Stapleton? And John Amos was just as good an actor as Henry Winkler or Carroll O'Connor or the other actors that they were nominating at the time. During 1974-78 when Good Times, Jeffersons and Sanford and Son were all in their prime there were zero emmy nominations for any black player in a regular sitcom or drama. In the 90s there were zero nominations for any blacks in any sitcom. Good Times had good actors in it though.

04-17-2004, 06:59 PM	#2
vashti1999 NY METS - #1 Forum Fanatic Join Date: Oct 14, 2003 Location: The world's greatest city - New York City Posts: 11,404	I agree with this. Using a current example, on UPN's Half & Half, Valarie Pettiford plays big Dee Dee. It's a slightly over the top, materialistic character, and she's great on that show. I think she's just as great if not better than the Sex and the City women, or Megan Mullaly on Will & Grace. They'll get Emmy recognition but not Valarie. It makes you wonder why. As for Good Times, I think both John Amos and Esther Rolle should have been repeat Emmy nominees for every year they were on the show.
	__________________ .

04-17-2004, 08:28 PM	#3
jamesanthony Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 30, 2004 Posts: 2,180	Yeah the TV industry is racist because they say that the UPN black shows are not good but what other opportunities do they give blacks to do shows on the bigger networks? The few that come on are put in poor timeslots like they're set up to fail. And I'm convinced that broadcast tv will probably never have a hit black drama. The most successful black drama that wasn't on cable was the White Shadow which had a white male lead and only had 58 episodes.

04-18-2004, 03:37 PM	#4
jamesanthony Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 30, 2004 Posts: 2,180	I saw Valarie Pettiford on The District as the sister of the woman who was the Chief's assistant Ella who died last year. Valarie was totally different in that drama. She can act as well as anyone else. What is the difference between her and the women you mentioned, vashti? We already know the answer. Even at the NAACP Image Awards they play favorites. Those awards seem very bourgie to me. They are just as predictable as the emmies in their own way. A few years ago there was a drama set in a hospital called City of Angels with Blair Underwood and Maya Rudolph. NAACP raised a ruckus about suing all the networks for not having black shows. That medical drama stayed on a bit, but was ultimately cancelled due to poor ratings. Guess what they gave the prize for best drama series to? That medical drama. Most of the drama prizes went to that show. Very predictable. I watched that show a couple times and I didn't like it at all. Very dull show. I can see why it got cancelled. It wasn't axed because of race so much as it was axed because it wasn't entertaining. CBS kept it on just to quiet down the NAACP. Another thing about the NAACP Image Awards is they nominate nonblacks, which is fine but you know that those people won't win because they're not black. Why nominate George Lopez or Rita Moreno when you have NO intention of giving them an award? It's condescending and it looks bad. NAACP chooses Bernie Mac year in and year out, but there are other shows and actors of note. I suppose all these awards shows are set up politically to play favorites. I'd like to read some interviews of people who've won these awards who comment on how much if at all winning these prizes has helped their careers.