Don Mischer must be some kind of an evil genius.
Oh sure, plenty of people have proven proficient at inspiring anger in the TV industry rank-and-file, what with the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences’ long and colorful history of Emmy alienation.
But no one has been able to piss everyone off with such inclusive vigor and blinding rage as has this year’s Emmy executive producer. Had he set out to sabotage the ceremony on purpose, Mischer really could not have succeeded more resoundingly.
His proposal last week to “downsize” and “timeshift” eight of the “lesser” (my interpretation) categories at the Sept. 20 show -- handing the trophies out before the telecast starts and then editing the acceptance speeches into bite-size morsels -- has sparked the closest thing to outright mutiny this event has ever witnessed.
Yet you also have to gaze upon the upside. If this producer thing doesn’t work out for Mischer, he’s certain to have a glorious future in guild contract negotiation. The lightning speed and unbreakable solidarity with which he’s united writers, directors and producers toward a common goal (unfortunately, his lynching) has been monumental to behold.
The saddest part about this particular tempest is how seriously moronic it is, and how easily solved it could be, with a thimbleful of self-awareness.
And I’m not just talking about Mischer, who is merely doing the bidding for a group that somehow continues to believe it’s 1981, the broadcast networks still run the show, and the unbridled Emmy viewership erosion is nothing that a little razzmatazz can’t reverse.
Earth to TV Academy: Wrong. This ship has sailed. Tinkering with the formula looks more and more like not just shuffling the Titanic deck chairs but working to decorate them in the wake of striking the iceberg of apathy.
The real problem here is one that’s fairly simple to fix once it’s acknowledged. It’s far less about questioning why the emperor has no ratings than analyzing why he cares.
When Mischer told TV critics on Monday at their semiannual gathering in Pasadena, “We are trying to keep the Emmys alive as a major television event,” the question we should have is, “Um, why?”
The short answer is that it’s because the more people who watch it, the more money that’s brought in to the network coffers to cover rights fees.
So here are another few “whys”: Why should the success of a ceremony honoring television be contingent on ratings numbers?
And why is it seen as just another cash generator? This isn’t a naive question but a practical one. Because once you take having to ratchet up the sizzle out of the equation and instead risk using it as a loss leader/promo platform for the telecasting network, it removes the desperate need to Twitter-ize the event.
The TV Academy’s board of directors has been reticent to allow HBO to buy in to the Emmycast rotation out of an unfounded fear that fewer people will watch the show and it will consequently lose its longtime prominence and luster.
