The Prime Time Emmy Award nominations were announced on Thursday, and one major show's nomination means big things for how we consume episodic television. Netflix original series, House of Cards was nominated for best drama and people (myself included) are surprised (Jason Bateman is also nominated for Best Actor, Comedy for the now-Netflix produced Arrested Development). Why are we surprised? Because Netflix is not television. It's an online platform that we can watch on our televisions, but it's not a network. At least not the way we're used to.
Netflix started as a mail-subscription service in the US where people would mail away for movies, and when they finished watching them, would mail the discs back. Now, they are a digital service who announced they had purchased the rights to Arrested Development and then announced the production of some all-new series to start with Lillehammer. The success of that show led to shows like Hemlock Grove, Orange is the New Black and House of Cards. But why the fuss around the nomination of Cards? Because this is the first time ever that an episodic show that was not produced specifically for television was nominated for a television award. Because the Prime Time Emmy Awards is for television produced for cable and basic cable. Not necessarily for online produced shows. So, it's like the Academy of Television Arts saying that television doesn't actually have to be aired on television and that a good series can be nominated if it's produced in a similar fashion.
This is giving legitimacy to all those small online productions who couldn't get funding or a meeting with a TV executive and went and did it themselvs. And yes, Netflix is a major corporation, but the precident has been set and who knows where it will take us in the next few years?
It will be interesting to see how Cards fares over many of the other shows nominated, and whether they win or not isn't really the interesting part. It's the nomination.
The Emmys air in September. For a full list of nominees check out their site, and we'll see you at our annual YMC Emmy chat on Twitter!
So, spill it! What do you think about this year's Emmy nominees?
As we all woke up Sunday, we learned of the tragic news of Glee star Cory Monteith's death in a Vancouver hotel. We all swirled towards the initial thought: drugs and alcohol. The actor had been very open in the past with his struggles with addiction, but maintained a sober lifestyle and by all accounts, was one of the kindest, hardest working young people in Hollywood. So what happened?
TMZ speculates that he may have been living some sort of double life (this is backed by some of his friends and family, apparently), being the clean cut Hollywood heartthrob while in LA, and a hard partying drug user back home in BC. Apparently, he couldn't escape his addiction when he was around his friends and family (and enablers).
Come Tuesday, the coroner's office released its findings: heroin and alcohol killed the young star. But what is it about fame that hooks people? In Monteith's case, he was sober before becoming famous, so his addiction was there before Hollywood came a courting. With yet another tragic loss of a bright star, I wonder if it's true that artistic, intelligent people can often fall victim to addiction because of their ability?
Clearly there are lots of celebrities who became addicted after they became famous, but in this case, the addiction happened before, yet seemed to rear its ugly head again. Hollywood is a sick machine that we all readily buy into (even me) even just by buying an album or going to a movie. We vote for people's popularity with our wallets and I'm sure that takes a strong emotional toll on those with an artistic temperment.
I don't think we'll ever really know what happened in Monteith's case, other than the fact that he worked in an industry that is not very helpful of those with addiction. Some are lucky and survive (like Robert Downey Jr) but most are not. Those who do manage to pull themselves back from the brink seem to have long, illustrious careers: something it seemed Montieth was poised to move towards. The hard part now is explaining to his young fans what happened to him and have talks about drugs and alcohol that many of us as parents may not have been ready to have.
So, spill it! What were your reactions to the news of Cory Montieth's death?
Earlier this week, a single (and wonderful) friend posted a Facebook update because she was recently found out that unless she was with a child, she would be unable to enter the new Legoland Discovery Centre. The park says that they host an adults only night once a month and that single adults should come then. This raised the ire of a number of people and started an intense discussion on her post.
I mentioned that I understand that blanket liability is easier than not, but that I didn't necessarily think it was the right thing to do. Then I started thinking. Theme parks the world over allow unaccompanied adults. In fact, an ex boyfriend and I took a trip to Florida many years ago to go to Disney/Universal studios.
I wonder if it's the location (near/in a huge mall) or if it's just easier to say "no adults" than allow it and train staff to be vigilant? But now that the point has been raised, I just don't know. I mean, I GET the liability thing. But the policy basically makes it sound like any adults who enjoy theme parks and don't have kids COULD potentially be a danger. Which is ridiculous, discriminatory and just effing wrong.
H is still a little too young to go to Legoland, but I wouldn't be bothered seeing adults enjoying the theme park alone. And I'm pretty sure that most kids who are harassed/assaulted are done so by people they know, so how does the policy actually protect them? I haven't ever encountered this sort of thing so I really don't know what to think. You tell me.
So, spill it! What do you think of this policy? Do you think it makes your kids more safe or is it a smoke and mirrors thing?
Printer-friendly version