Ask Matt: Emmy Nominations and the Snubs (Michelle Pfeiffer, Network TV), RIP Anthony Head & More

Welcome to the Q&A with longtime TV critic — also known to some TV fans as their “TV therapist” — Matt Roush, who’ll try to address whatever you love, loathe, are confused or frustrated or thrilled by in today’s vast TV landscape. (We know background music is too loud, it’s the most frequent complaint, but there’s always closed-captioning. Check out this story for more tips.)

One caution: This is a spoiler-free zone, so we won’t be addressing upcoming storylines here unless it’s already common knowledge. Please send your questions and comments to [email protected]. Look for Ask Matt columns on every other Tuesday.

Pfieffer’s Madison Snub a Crying Shame

Question: I imagine you dread the many “Emmy snub” messages you no doubt got since last Wednesday’s televised nominations, but I’m jumping in and having my say anyway. I can’t believe Michelle Pfeiffer wasn’t nominated for an Emmy as Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series for her performance in The Madison! I’m not a huge fan of Taylor Sheridan‘s writing, but he does seem to get truly inspired performances from his actors and Pfeiffer’s performance was no exception. I thought she was phenomenal as the grieving widow, Stacy Clyburn. I know this is a crowded field (when isn’t it?) and I’m not saying the others aren’t deserving. But while I thoroughly enjoyed her in Margo’s Got Money Troubles and I’m happy she was nominated for that supporting role, for me, Pfeiffer’s work in The Madison deserved Emmy recognition. And I have to ask: Why do the Emmys give seven nominations in the supporting acting categories but only five in the lead acting categories? Has this been the case for a while and I just missed it? Or is this something new?

On a completely different note, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of Anthony (Stewart) Head last month. I was in Yellowstone National Park when I unexpectedly saw the news, and it hit hard. I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Ted Lasso and Tony was brilliant in both. He is one of only a few actors that I adored as much as I loved the character he played — that would be the “Good Rupert” in Buffy, not the “Evil Rupert” in Ted Lasso, but boy, was he good at being bad! Tony was talented and kind. “The Earth (feels) definitely doomed,” with his passing. — Kelly

Matt Roush: To answer your most basic question, the number of acting nominations per category is determined by the number of submissions. Because there are typically more supporting performers in ensembles than lead performers, that accounts for why there are only five lead performances vs. seven in the supporting categories. Not a perfect system, I agree. And I bet if the lead acting category had been expanded to a few more slots, Michellle Pfeiffer would have made the cut for The Madison as well as for Margo, although the Emmy bias against Taylor Sheridan is pretty well established. I predicted Pfeiffer would get two nominations this year, but I was maybe even more surprised that Billy Bob Thornton was passed over for his work in Sheridan’s Landman. (Sam Elliott, too, for that matter.)

And thanks for the tribute to Anthony Head and the range of his various Ruperts. (Looking at his filmography, I was amused to discover he played a third Rupert, in two episodes in 2019 of the Jack Ryan series.) What a loss, and a poignant reminder of Buffy‘s glory days.

Is Network TV Truly an Emmy Wasteland?

Question: I used to enjoy watching the Emmy Awards. I usually watched all the programs and knew the performers up for awards. But all that has changed. I saw the nominations and only a few programs from network TV are up for awards. I know this has been a trend for many years and some people think the solution is two separate awards, one for streaming services and one for network programs.

I am starting to wonder if the folks behind the Emmys might be a little snobbish and sticking their nose up when it comes to recent network programs. Obviously, the networks cannot compete with the streaming services and their big budgets, making them able to produce grand series and hire big-name performers. Back in the day, network TV had wonderful programs and what I considered fine actors and actresses. I know how fond you are of Abbott Elementary and that they are up for Emmys, but do you think there are other network programs and performers worthy of being nominated? Please let me know that network TV is not the “vast wasteland” it was once referred to long ago. — Rob, Woonsocket, R.I.

Matt Roush: A little snobbish? The Emmy voters are infamously allergic to most broadcast network fare, excepting late-night talk and variety TV, awards shows, some reality shows, and a rare breakthrough like Abbott Elementary (comedy) and more recently This Is Us (drama). The myopia is regrettable, but I also blame the networks’ parent companies, who continue to annex their most interesting original shows to their streaming platforms. Looking at this year’s list, I wonder if Disney had put Paradise on ABC instead of Hulu if the show would have done as well. I’m thinking given the cast, the producer’s pedigree, and the show’s overall quality, it might have had a shot. We’ll never know.

I find myself thinking back fondly to the beginning of the century (which makes me feel so old) when shows like The West Wing, 24, The Good Wife, even medical dramas like House and Grey’s Anatomy, and a breakthrough procedural like CSI could be in the running for outstanding drama, or network hits like Will & Grace, The Office, 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation, Everybody Loves Raymond, Friends, Frasier, and the like were even front-runners in comedy. Sadly, the footprint of original comedies continues to shrink at the networks, and most dramas are so formulaic that even when done well (like Will Trent, High Potential, the reinvented Matlock, the recently departed Brilliant Minds) they don’t really stand a chance. Every year, I hope the Emmy voters will wake up to the treasure that is Ghosts (even in a so-so season) but am always disappointed. So the answer is no, network TV is not a wasteland, and good work is being overlooked, but those who program for these platforms will need to take bigger risks and swings to get noticed.

The Ranting Continues

Comment: I have a couple of comments, and I’ll preface saying I’m going to sound like a bah humbug in this mini-rant. Firstly, most of the nominees for Outstanding Comedy Series at the Primetime Emmys this year are laughable. The only ones I believe truly deserve nominations are Only Murders in the Building, Hacks, and Shrinking. I really want Murders to win but I highly doubt it’s going to. It’s no secret that awards organizations refuse to give network shows the time of day, unless it’s Abbott Elementary, so I say let the Emmys move to a streamer. It’s not all negativity from me, though. I’m elated that a network show like Dancing with the Stars got represented and that Yahya Abdul-Mateen II earned a nomination for Wonder Man. (I just watched the first three episodes recently and they were amazing).

Secondly, The CW doesn’t deserve to call itself a major network anymore. By the time All American concludes its final season, what scripted programming will the network really have? The fact that they don’t even bother with upfronts anymore is revealing. Nexstar bought a ship just so they could sink it posthaste, but maybe I’m missing something. Maybe Nexstar has a plan that will blow us away. What are your thoughts on this Scrooge’s opinions? And thank you for the column. — Kyle

Matt Roush: I give you credit for not holding back, although I’m OK with almost everything in the comedy category — except maybe Nobody Wants This, whose second season was nowhere near as memorable as the first, and I was particularly chagrined at the exclusion of the final season of The Comeback, which was not only superbly executed and entertaining but prescient in its warnings against AI usurping the creative process in the entertainment business.

To your larger point, I’m beginning to think that the Emmys rotating among the “major networks” despite their lack of inclusion can be likened to the annual broadcasts of the Oscars, Grammys, and Tonys. These are major cultural events within their own worlds, and the networks still give them the broadest exposure, even though they have no (as they say) dog in the hunt. Relegating the Emmys to a Netflix, HBO, or even Apple TV just because they’re reaping most of the accolades ignores the ceremony’s long history. I get that many don’t see the relevance anymore, because the popular shows they watch aren’t well represented, and what’s now seen as TV’s finest often resides behind paywalls not everyone can or will subscribe to.

As for The CW, the simplest explanation is that the new owners took an unprofitable and top-heavy business and stripped it down into what amounts to a platform for sports, unscripted reality and game shows, and occasional acquisitions and cost-efficient co-productions of mostly Canadian light dramas. I still haven’t gotten over saying goodbye to The WB all those years ago, so nothing in this scenario surprises me.

One Is the Loneliest Number

Question: How does it make any sense that shows like Your Friends & Neighbors and Nobody Wants This can make the cut for Outstanding Drama and Comedy at this year’s Emmys, with not a single acting or other nomination? What gives? — Loretta

Matt Roush: These are the year’s most notable head-scratchers for sure, and the only thing that I can surmise is that Nobody Wants This (which did get a second nomination for music supervision but no other craft or acting nods) and Your Friends & Neighbors benefited from the popularity among Emmy voters of their respective platforms, and maybe the fact that Neighbors only recently ended its run so was fresh in their minds. Nobody fared better last year with nominations for its leads (Kristen Bell and Adam Brody), and once you crack into the top series category, repeat visits are common even when unwarranted. But Neighbors getting an Outstanding Drama nomination was surely the year’s biggest surprise, edging out a show like HBO’s Task, which earned two acting nominations as well as writing and directing, editing, and cinematography bids. Go figure. (But don’t cry for HBO Max, which landed three other series in the category, including The Gilded Age, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, and front-runner The Pitt.)

In Jeopardy of Oversaturation?

Question: I just saw the news that Jeopardy! is cloning again. I’m not into sports, so for me ESPN Jeopardy! is an easy pass. However, it does renew the question of how much Jeopardy is too much Jeopardy. They now have the regular show and Celebrity Jeopardy! and Pop Culture Jeopardy! on Netflix, and now the ESPN version on Disney+ and Hulu, plus Jeopardy! Masters is also coming back to ABC in August. I understand that it’s a big franchise for Sony, and I get that executive producer Michael Davies likes expanding. But at some point, don’t you think that making too much is going to catch up with them? I would think they wouldn’t want to spread the brand too thin and make it feel less special than it is. — Jake

Matt Roush: I was always more concerned with the overuse of tournaments cluttering up the regular season than with niche spinoffs diluting the brand. The daily Jeopardy! will always be my primary focus, and I have no real issue with these themed spinoffs with different hosts on streaming platforms. (I also don’t object to a streamlined Masters season airing during the syndicated show’s hiatus, leading into a new season in September.) I imagine there will be sports enthusiasts drawn to ESPN Jeopardy! who have minimal connection to the general-interest trivia show. And given how leery regular contestants tend to be when it comes to some sports categories, it could even be fun to watch sports experts show their stuff.

And Finally …

Question: Is there any chance another network or streaming service might pick up Brilliant Minds? So many loose ends could be tidied up. — Andrea M.

Matt Roush: Very unlikely. With NBC’s parent company among the producing studios and with only two seasons to offer for library purposes, and a notable decline in viewership for its second season even before NBC benched it until the post-season, there are more negatives than positives in this scenario. I hated seeing this go, and I’m sorry they felt the need to build some season-ending cliffhangers into the finale, since they had to know even as they were filming that the likelihood of a third season was iffy at best. They didn’t have to wrap everything up, but they didn’t need to end mid-crisis either. Not a brilliant move. But the show obviously deserved better, although it’s another nail in broadcast TV’s coffin that when a show aims a bit higher than the usual procedural, it can’t attract a big enough audience base to survive. A pity it was set in the Bronx and couldn’t be titled Chicago Brilliant Minds.

That’s all for now. We can’t do this without your participation, so please keep sending questions and comments about TV to [email protected]. (Please include a first name with your question.)