I thought the purpose of the Emmys and the Oscars (and all the other award shows) was to recognize outstanding performances in various categories of television and motion pictures. That would be fine. BUT

I just finished watching Joan Rivers and her daughter Spot (I mean Melissa) interviewing celebrities for what seemed like hours, asking such salient questions as, "Who dressed you?" and/or, "Who are you wearing?" Then I watched another show wherein Joan and Rover (I mean Melissa) announced what they thought to be the best and worst dressed. My question is....who annointed Joan and Poochie (I mean Melissa) to be in a position to be fashion authorities? Let's face it. Joan has had so many facelifts, she blinks her lips. When she crosses her legs, her mouth snaps open. And I think Missy sleeps in a wicker basket by the stove and plays with a sock with a knot in it. I think they had a problem at one point; Missy kept chasing the limosines.

And what's with some of the stars? I must be old or live a very sheltered life or be totally unaware of what fashion is all about, but most of the women looked like strippers in need of a comb and brush. And the cleavage! A few looked like they were trying to cram 10 pounds of potatos into a 5 pound bag. These women could nurse Detroit. And those females built like 10 year old boys still tried to convince the world that they were mammarily gifted....if only those push-up bras had something to push up. These people must have magic mirrors at home.

What does all of this have to do with the quality of their performances?

No KIDDING! What doesn it have to do with their performances - or anything? I think alot of that comes from "normal" people's need for them to be such glamorous people.
In reality, actors and actresses are simply doing a job. I see no need for them to get paid millions of dollars for about 3 months of work to make a movie, or the hundreds of thousands or a million dollars per episode to to a television show. The ones who are getting paid that much, making demands of what foods to have on the set, etc, and also using stand ins during parts where they aren't shown up close, so that they don't have to stand around all day for some shots are just spoiled. Just because they have a more glamorous than average job doesn't make them better people than the rest of the world.
Then comes the awards show.......what is the point of a $5,000 - $10,000 dress and millions of dollars worth of jewelry just to sit in the auditorium and MAYBE get an award? Even if they win, they can accept the award just as easily in a dress that only cost $100......that actually has some material to it. I'm not a prude, but some of those dresses have less material than a bathing suit!
I don't see what the sex appeal of a woman with no curves is either. But it seems like the scrawnier a woman is, the more attractive men find her to be.
Anyway........I'm sure I got way off topic here, but I just felt a need to vent once I read the topic. I think some of these actors/actresses lose their minds when they get famous and start living their whole lives as though they were on camera, and it all becomes and act. Alot of people (non Hollywood types) expect stars to act that way, so it only feeds the fire.

awards shows did indeed start out as a way for your peers to vote on who they thought did the best job...never you mind that the only way to tell is to put actors in the same roles and compare them. today, they are a way to generate more income. Did well at the Grammys? sell hundreds more CD's. Did well at the Oscars? watch your movies ticket sales rise or people will buy the DVD. Did well at the Tonys? watch attendance rise. the only one this trend does not seem to work for is the Emmys. doing well there does not necessarily turn into a big audience. the TV watcher is very fickle.

I don't really understand all the frustration over it.
it is what it is and it serves a purpose.
who really cares? I'm sure that many stars don't take it very seriously...I sure don't...I do however, think that it is a lot of fun. But I'm just a jaded boy that lives in Los Angeles, right?
what could I possibly know?

so, don't get twisted up about it.
there are far more important things in life.
I know and you know that.

they entertain...they make us talk like we just did.
and that means they've gotten to us.

as to why they make so much?
supply and demand.
Americans are willing to pay...so the market adjusts upward.
not very hard to understand is it?
does that make us foolish? not really.

"Life is, what it is."

Agreed! All of the above! As I said in the other thread on this topic...I was glad for the "spoilers" as I didn't have to watch the whole damn thing! I am still SEMI-interested in the outcome, though................from a sociological point of view!
I can't lie...a modicum of interest on what America thinks is worthy at the moment! Before the brickbats fly, I know it's not ALL America.............but the industry does reflect....well......something...............?

I am sorry but Joan and her daughter are complete idiots. How do they have their job? Joan's daughter claimed she was a fan of "Six Feet Under" and then made so many mistakes about the show while interviewing the actors.
Last year at the Golden Globes, Joan told Andie McDowell that her show "CSI" was so wonderful and she loved it. Andie said "Yes it is a wonderful show, but I am not in it"
The need to lose their job.

Like valois, I really do find the Rivers Girls a gruesome twosome. Devoted to the most shallow type of vanity and hypocrisy--these two smile and tell an actress she looks wonderful, and then rip her apart in their next show--their main function at these events seems to be to allow the participants to give plugs for designers in return for having been allowed to wear free clothes and jewelry. The Rivers Dames (both of whom promote, but never seem to wear their own lines of jewelry at events like these) seem mired in superficiality, phoniness and pretense. Their shallowness, and lack of taste and attractiveness, should really prevent them from throwing stones at anyone.

I do like to look at these award shows just to see what people are wearing. I am curious about fashion trends. I thought that most of the women looked quite good at the Emmys--most of the dresses were attractive and they were on the right bodies. But I can't understand these very skinny women trying to prove something by exposing basically flat chests and a flash of protruding ribs.
More suspense might have been generated by wondering if someone's barely covered breasts would pop out, than who would actually pick up a trophy.

I watched only the last few Emmy awards to be given out--just to see if my favorites won. Can't say that the results mattered to me at all.
The Emmy voting is based on the viewing of a particular tape, which the actor submits as an example of his/her work. That's really quite a narrow sample of the person's performance to judge anything by.

I think the awards shows are harmless entertainment. I'm not so sure that the Rivers duo falls into that same category. I think they should be ditched.

Last year right after the Oscars I posted a topic quite similar to this one. What it boiled down to was that I think the Emmy's and Oscars reward only those films/shows that fit a certain mold, and also make a profit. The mold I'm referring to is the typical Hollywood mold, a movie/show that offends the pleases the most people while typically not breaking too many boundaries or taboos that the Hollywood bigwigs determine are not good for us.

For example, at the last Oscars A Beautiful Mind won the Best Picture award over Lord of the Rings. While A Beautiful Mind was decent film, it fit the typical Hollywood idea that we've seen time and time again (person overcomes odds, wins over hearts of people, and director leaves out all the bad tidbits that would make such a character seem bad). LOTR on the other hand took many risks, it was directed by a man who never helmed such a big film, it had to translate one of the most beloved books of all time, it was both entertaining and artistic, it didn't rely on big names to sell itelf, and so on. Why didn't it win? Because, as most critics would tell you, it was a fantasy film and therefore should not be taken seriously.

Hollywood is constantly rewarding the plain while ignoring the revolutionary. Television is at it's peak in terms of technology, and some shows are rising to the challenge of using it. 24 is a fantastic idea and well executed, CSI shows everyone how proper TV should be made, and a cartoon (the Simpsons) is still the funniest show on TV after so many years. How many awards did they walk away with? Not as many as The West Wing. Let's hope in the future that people who appreciate new ideas are given a chance to vote for their favourite shows, instead of the people who are just checking their pocket books.

I actually disagree with you there...

Simpsons is no longer as funny as it once was.
I like Friends myself.

and LOTR lost out to a very deserving Beautiful Mind
keep in mind I am a very big sci-fi/fantasy genre nut.

so, sometimes I think it does work out.
now, not everything is good.
I felt that West Wing did not deserve drama...I felt that CSI should have won...and so on and so forth
I guess everyone has different opinions.

there is no 'A' for effort...
what is...is
what will be...will be
why stress about it?