Too Many Emmy Awards Reruns? Term Limits! Or Worse.
"This is crazy," says executive producer Rory Alabanese, in accepting another award. "Colbert went to Iraq, Conan's [great], and we keep winning it." Then an uncomfortable pause and shrug of shoulders. "It's tough to feel bad. We work really hard. The competition is fierce."
AMC's "Mad Men" is now at three in a row for the big best drama award. Bravo's "Top Chef" finally broke the seven-year Emmy winning stretch of of CBS' "Amazing Race" for best reality show.
Trouble is, everyone likes new winners. (Hello, Archie Panjabi of "The Good Wife"). But there is still too few of them.
Emmy show producers know privately TV viewers sitting at home in their living rooms are grumbling about the rerun nature of these awards. But what can you make of the boredom of the people who are getting these awards -- on the air. Talk about your TV indecency.
My answer? Term limits -- just like in politics. Go for a new vision, new direction and a chance to serve those entertainment-deprived TV citizens. A chance to protect the recreational/down time of the TV viewing public.
Three years in a row should be plenty for a winning TV series; four years for a drama actor; five for a comedy actor. Good news: They can get back in the game (if they still got game) a year later.
To be sure, winning a TV Emmy isn't much of a guarantee of future success. AMC's "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad" have grown some in audience, but not in contrast to all the seemingly high-level publicity and marketing spin from earning Emmy hardware.
Indeed, many shows and performers have typically come and gone by the time they are awarded big Emmy trophies.
Of course, some may believe the Emmys need to be stopped in its tracks in a more severe way. Critics could have grabbed the best person at hand for introspective advice -- someone right at the Nokia Theater where the Emmys were held because of the HBO film about him: Jack Kevorkian.