Apparently there’s talk about splitting the Emmys into two shows next year.  According to a Hollywood Reporter article (found here):

“The idea seems to be having one Primetime Emmys show for the series categories, which would air on a broadcast network, and another for the long-form programs, which would air on a cable or pay TV service. If it was on pay TV, based on past discussions, the pay wall — which would exclude nonsubscribers — would be dropped for that night, so all cable subscribers could see the show.”

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a huge Emmy person to begin with.  I didn’t even watch them this year, and I’m well aware that the Emmys aren’t exactly on the same level as the Academy Awards or even the Golden Globes.  But I still found this new idea intriguing because nobody can deny the dominance of HBO at the Emmys and other similar award shows.

I can see both sides of the coin here.  Basic cable networks have made it clear that they are sick and tired of a number of HBO shows taking home all the awards.  This past year HBO had a grand total of 17 wins – eight for The Pacific, seven for Temple Grandin, and two for You Don’t Know Jack (for a full list of winners, check out the Emmys website).  With The Pacific and Temple Grandin taking the number 1 and number 2 win spots, Modern Family (ABC) was a close third place with a total of six wins.  But the HBO competition ends there, with a three-way tie for fourth place between Glee, Mad Men, and Saturday Night Live (all with 4 wins total).  Looks like total HBO domination to me.

Basic cable networks argue that the reason HBO is able to put out more Award-worthy programming is that they have way more money to sink into projects.  Hard to argue against after HBO just put 200 million into creating The Pacific.  Since HBO relies on revenue from subscribers rather than commercials, they have the luxury of putting out non-mainstream material.  Lots of basic cable networks often have to rely on cheap reality programming to maintain their lower budgets.  So how can they be expected to put out programs that are of the same quality as what’s coming out of HBO?

Then again, there’s AMC.  AMC relies on revenue from commercials just like other networks like NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.  It wasn’t nearly as successful as HBO’s seventeen wins (they had 4 for Mad Men and another 2 for Breaking Bad) but AMC is certainly earning a reputation for putting out some quality shows.  I’ve heard good things about their new show Rubicon too.  So clearly having a number of critically acclaimed shows on a basic-cable-budget isn’t impossible, and that’s HBO’s argument.  It isn’t a factor of having more money, it’s merely a factor of putting out better quality programming.  Why should they be punished for creating so many excellent mini-series, shows, and made-for-TV movies?

In the end, it’s a tough call that I can’t make a decision one way or another on.  HBO’s dominance is a good source of competition that drives other networks to be better and give us better shows.  But maybe they have the deck stacked in their favor.  We shall see what next year brings.