<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Emmy Nominations: Meaningful In a Meaningless Sort of Way</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/16/emmy-nominations-meaningful-in-a-meaningless-sort-of-way/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/16/emmy-nominations-meaningful-in-a-meaningless-sort-of-way/</link>
	<description>Canada&#039;s only national weekly current affairs magazine.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:13:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Betty Clarke</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/16/emmy-nominations-meaningful-in-a-meaningless-sort-of-way/comment-page-1/#comment-143721</link>
		<dc:creator>Betty Clarke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:47:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=70946#comment-143721</guid>
		<description>I guess I am out of the loop, all the tv shows I watch seem to be on another list...Like Cupid, Castle, CSI New York, The Closer, and quite a few others..PBS has some wonderful programs..Science Now..The Agatha Christie series, and a few more I can&#039;t think of now..For comedy, I enjoy a good laugh and on lot of the sit-coms, they send you into the bedroom too often...They could use a little instruction from &quot;Leave it to Jim&#039;..they do have some rather suggestive scenes, but they don&#039;t carry it too far.. So I guess I will remain with my own preferences..and by the way, I seldom watch those award shows, most of the people on it I don&#039;t know or haven&#039;t heard of them, all of the blonds look alike. When the &#039;Big Bang Theory&#039; aired for the first  time, my husband made the comment, &#039;Well, that won&#039;t last long, we enjoy it too much.&#039; And that is what I watch tv for...I do enjoy it as now I am a widow and I like the company of those good friends who come on my screen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess I am out of the loop, all the tv shows I watch seem to be on another list&#8230;Like Cupid, Castle, CSI New York, The Closer, and quite a few others..PBS has some wonderful programs..Science Now..The Agatha Christie series, and a few more I can&#039;t think of now..For comedy, I enjoy a good laugh and on lot of the sit-coms, they send you into the bedroom too often&#8230;They could use a little instruction from &quot;Leave it to Jim&#039;..they do have some rather suggestive scenes, but they don&#039;t carry it too far.. So I guess I will remain with my own preferences..and by the way, I seldom watch those award shows, most of the people on it I don&#039;t know or haven&#039;t heard of them, all of the blonds look alike. When the &#039;Big Bang Theory&#039; aired for the first  time, my husband made the comment, &#039;Well, that won&#039;t last long, we enjoy it too much.&#039; And that is what I watch tv for&#8230;I do enjoy it as now I am a widow and I like the company of those good friends who come on my screen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jaime Weinman</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/16/emmy-nominations-meaningful-in-a-meaningless-sort-of-way/comment-page-1/#comment-143720</link>
		<dc:creator>Jaime Weinman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:26:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=70946#comment-143720</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s never -- well, rarely -- dickish to point out the facts. Besides, in this case, the actual facts help my generalized point (that the nominees reflect the preferences of the industry). Not often that correcting a mistake actually helps one&#039;s case...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s never &#8212; well, rarely &#8212; dickish to point out the facts. Besides, in this case, the actual facts help my generalized point (that the nominees reflect the preferences of the industry). Not often that correcting a mistake actually helps one&#8217;s case&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd VDW</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/16/emmy-nominations-meaningful-in-a-meaningless-sort-of-way/comment-page-1/#comment-143719</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd VDW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:29:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=70946#comment-143719</guid>
		<description>Not to be a dick or anything, but they DID choose nominees by popular vote this year. The blue-ribbon panels have mostly been ditched.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to be a dick or anything, but they DID choose nominees by popular vote this year. The blue-ribbon panels have mostly been ditched.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck VS Macleans</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/16/emmy-nominations-meaningful-in-a-meaningless-sort-of-way/comment-page-1/#comment-143718</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck VS Macleans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:31:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=70946#comment-143718</guid>
		<description>No &quot;Chuck&quot; Noms, WTF, it is the best show on TV. Season 2 of &quot;Chuck&quot; was one of the best I have ever seen on TV.

The season finale alone needs a Emmy, &quot;The Matrix&quot;,&quot;Tron&quot; and &quot;The Last dragon&quot; references, all in the last 6 minutes of the show, was nothing but pure genius.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xldp0d-aeq0&amp;NR=1&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xldp0d-aeq0&amp;NR...&lt;/a&gt;

Nevermind Jeffster doing  a Mr. Roboto and Africa cover this season.  I am off to get a five dollar footlong from Subway to drown my sorrows...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No &quot;Chuck&quot; Noms, WTF, it is the best show on TV. Season 2 of &quot;Chuck&quot; was one of the best I have ever seen on TV.</p>
<p>The season finale alone needs a Emmy, &quot;The Matrix&quot;,&quot;Tron&quot; and &quot;The Last dragon&quot; references, all in the last 6 minutes of the show, was nothing but pure genius.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xldp0d-aeq0&amp;NR=1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xldp0d-aeq0&#038;NR&#8230;</a></p>
<p>Nevermind Jeffster doing  a Mr. Roboto and Africa cover this season.  I am off to get a five dollar footlong from Subway to drown my sorrows&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joan Tintor</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/16/emmy-nominations-meaningful-in-a-meaningless-sort-of-way/comment-page-1/#comment-143717</link>
		<dc:creator>Joan Tintor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=70946#comment-143717</guid>
		<description>Actually for the past 3 years I have not found it at all hard to know what to say about TV award noms, thanks to their outrageous overlooking of &quot;Friday Night Lights.&quot; They SUCK. Hard.

Jaime puts it mildly when he cites &quot;the dominance of a certain kind of cable drama.&quot; I call them self-conscious, self-aggrandizing Emmy bait. And they work I guess. Bryan Cranston deserved the Emmy every year on &quot;Malcolm in the Middle&quot; but he had to be on that crazy dying-prof-sets-up-a-meth-lab cable show to win. Same for John Slattery, who played a brilliant character on &quot;Ed&quot; but was overlooked until &quot;Mad Men.&quot;

I look forward to Edie Falco&#039;s endorsement of ObamaCare in her acceptance speech next year for Nurse Jackie. Not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually for the past 3 years I have not found it at all hard to know what to say about TV award noms, thanks to their outrageous overlooking of &quot;Friday Night Lights.&quot; They SUCK. Hard.</p>
<p>Jaime puts it mildly when he cites &quot;the dominance of a certain kind of cable drama.&quot; I call them self-conscious, self-aggrandizing Emmy bait. And they work I guess. Bryan Cranston deserved the Emmy every year on &quot;Malcolm in the Middle&quot; but he had to be on that crazy dying-prof-sets-up-a-meth-lab cable show to win. Same for John Slattery, who played a brilliant character on &quot;Ed&quot; but was overlooked until &quot;Mad Men.&quot;</p>
<p>I look forward to Edie Falco&#039;s endorsement of ObamaCare in her acceptance speech next year for Nurse Jackie. Not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/16/emmy-nominations-meaningful-in-a-meaningless-sort-of-way/comment-page-1/#comment-143716</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:01:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=70946#comment-143716</guid>
		<description>This is one of the better batches of nominees; less Piven and less &lt;i&gt;Two and a Half Men&lt;/i&gt; makes it better than the last few years, by default. It&#039;s especially nice to see the core supporting players from &lt;i&gt;30 Rock&lt;/i&gt; all get nods, after having all been shut out in the first two seasons.

But, this &lt;i&gt;Family Guy&lt;/i&gt; getting nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series thing is outrageous. After passing over &lt;i&gt;The Simpsons&lt;/i&gt; during the years when it was, bar none, the funniest show on network television (deal with it &lt;i&gt;Seinfeld&lt;/i&gt;!) for the likes of &lt;i&gt;Mad About You&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Home Improvement&lt;/i&gt;, ATAS should have just made it official that the category was limited to live-action series. Codifying their reticence towards animation would certainly have pissed me off less than having that particular barrier be broken by one of &lt;i&gt;The Simpsons&lt;/i&gt;&#039;s worst knock-offs, fifteen years after the better show blazed the trail. This is the equivalent of &lt;i&gt;All in the Family&lt;/i&gt; being ignored and &lt;i&gt;According to Jim&lt;/i&gt; getting special recognition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is one of the better batches of nominees; less Piven and less <i>Two and a Half Men</i> makes it better than the last few years, by default. It&#039;s especially nice to see the core supporting players from <i>30 Rock</i> all get nods, after having all been shut out in the first two seasons.</p>
<p>But, this <i>Family Guy</i> getting nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series thing is outrageous. After passing over <i>The Simpsons</i> during the years when it was, bar none, the funniest show on network television (deal with it <i>Seinfeld</i>!) for the likes of <i>Mad About You</i> and <i>Home Improvement</i>, ATAS should have just made it official that the category was limited to live-action series. Codifying their reticence towards animation would certainly have pissed me off less than having that particular barrier be broken by one of <i>The Simpsons</i>&#039;s worst knock-offs, fifteen years after the better show blazed the trail. This is the equivalent of <i>All in the Family</i> being ignored and <i>According to Jim</i> getting special recognition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/16/emmy-nominations-meaningful-in-a-meaningless-sort-of-way/comment-page-1/#comment-143715</link>
		<dc:creator>Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=70946#comment-143715</guid>
		<description>I agree I thought The Office got stronger as the season went on.  When Michael left Dunder Mifflin to start the Michael Scott Paper Company was great and I enjoyed how they kept that story arch for a few episodes, not just one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree I thought The Office got stronger as the season went on.  When Michael left Dunder Mifflin to start the Michael Scott Paper Company was great and I enjoyed how they kept that story arch for a few episodes, not just one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Garnet</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/16/emmy-nominations-meaningful-in-a-meaningless-sort-of-way/comment-page-1/#comment-143714</link>
		<dc:creator>Garnet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:55:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=70946#comment-143714</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the Family Guy/American Dad comparison. The latter seems to have a much more clearly defined protagonist and it regularly aims for the middlebrow, which given MacFarlane&#039;s history had to qualify to downright ambitious when it began.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the Family Guy/American Dad comparison. The latter seems to have a much more clearly defined protagonist and it regularly aims for the middlebrow, which given MacFarlane&#039;s history had to qualify to downright ambitious when it began.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

