Comments on: How the Categories Got Their Shapes: Eligibility & the Emmy Nominations http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2011/07/14/how-the-categories-got-their-shapes-eligibility-the-emmy-nominations/ Responses to Media and Culture Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:35:04 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.5 By: Myles McNutt http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2011/07/14/how-the-categories-got-their-shapes-eligibility-the-emmy-nominations/comment-page-1/#comment-98481 Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:49:50 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=10005#comment-98481 Leachman’s decision does seem suspect, but that’s how she’s credited – she’s only becoming a regular NEXT season, so we won’t be running into this issue next year.

I can see why the Academy changed from their initial 3-episode limit, and then changed again from their 6-episode limit (allowing for recurring guests), but the fundamental LACK of limit does seem a bit on the strange side. It’s possible that Leachman’s nomination (which everyone saw coming) could force them to make a move on this issue, but I’m guessing Showtime would throw a fit if the limit was less than 12.

]]> By: Jonathan Gray http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2011/07/14/how-the-categories-got-their-shapes-eligibility-the-emmy-nominations/comment-page-1/#comment-98434 Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:46:21 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=10005#comment-98434 The whole “guest” vs. “supporting” distinction has become entirely silly. It’s bad enough when a character who appears in every ep in a single season (as with the baddies on Dexter) is nominated, but an outright joke when, like Leachman, they’re a series regular. Maybe Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton should have just said they were guests and gotten their much-deserved silverware that way?

]]>