October 7, 2001

4:05 PM

Emmy Awards postponed...maybe even cancelled. Sounds OK to me; there's already waaaay too many awards shows. Anyone upset by this, or have a strong opinion either way? Just trying to draw some fire away from the monster thread re: attacks, which is stuck in some sort of continuous circle.
posted by davidmsc (13 comments total)

Actually, this was already mentioned in that thread you're trying to get out of. *shrugs*
posted by FunkyHelix at 4:18 PM on October 7, 2001

I only wish it could have happened to the Grammys instead. Or better yet, also.
posted by jjg at 4:22 PM on October 7, 2001

This just means the West Wing won't sweep'em again.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 4:24 PM on October 7, 2001

I think it's lame. Unless there is some overriding fear that all the guests gathered together are some sort of plausible target for attack (highly unlikely), then this is just the wrong thing to do. Are we going to rearrange our lives completely because of what looks to start out, at least, as a fairly routine (in a military sense, if not in a "normal American life" sense) air strike operation? Why give the terrorists that kind of power to alter our priorities and way of life?

It's all about ratings, of course. Bombs trump awards.
posted by rushmc at 4:26 PM on October 7, 2001

It's all about ratings, of course. Bombs trump awards.

With all this supposed concern why isn't it just cancelled outright? Reschedule, dress down, etc. Looks like the advertisers are heading for the economic bunker until its safe to come out.
posted by skallas at 4:33 PM on October 7, 2001

I was actually quite bummed by this. Does anyone know where I can find a nominees list? I want to find out if the death-of-Buffy's-mom episode was nominated. Joss Whedon deserves an award for that one.
posted by samishah at 4:33 PM on October 7, 2001

I think they wanted to avoid giving Martin Sheen an opportunity to voice his opinions. Not that that was the main reason, but it probably factored in.
posted by Optamystic at 5:09 PM on October 7, 2001

skallas, it was cancelled outright.

samishah, easy enough to find the Emmy nominations official page, which also includes the previously-announced winners in technical categories. No Buffy in evidence, sorry.
posted by dhartung at 5:35 PM on October 7, 2001

See? Why have these stupid awards shows at all? Just let the members do the voting, tally the damn results, and then issue a press release. Just because there won't be an Emmy awards TV show doesn't mean that they won't *award* them to the winners. Right?
posted by davidmsc at 6:29 PM on October 7, 2001

I, for one, feel really sorry for those rich, famous people who didn't get to honor themselves again tonight.
posted by dopamine at 7:56 PM on October 7, 2001

Rather than being a target for a terrorist attack, I'd suspect the overriding factor for cancelling was the fear of it being interrupted by a three hour news break-in. The fact that it was interrupted would be more of a story than the actual event itself.

If you put on a show and noone was there to watch it, would it still exist? :)
posted by digital_insomnia at 8:13 PM on October 7, 2001

Just trying to draw some fire away from the monster thread re: attacks, which is stuck in some sort of continuous circle.


Except... they were cancled due to the US bombing of Afgh... I mean the taliban. And before that postponed due to the inital NYC attack.
posted by delmoi at 12:45 AM on October 8, 2001

I couldn't decide if it was cancelled more out of fear of attack, or out of that eternel celebrity desire to be perceived as sensitive and worldly. I didn't think of the fear of a "we interrupt this program", like digital_insomnia suggested. In my most generous moments I can't shake the feeling that that is probably the right answer.
posted by holycola at 10:17 AM on October 8, 2001