Robin PottratzIs "30 Rock" trying to make up for an "Arrested" mistake?
September 24th 2008 18:43
This past Sunday at the Prime Time Emmy awards, the NBC comedy "30 Rock" took home the award for Outstanding Comedy Series for the second consecutive year. The series also took home lead acting awards for Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey respectively as well as two other major awards. The great irony of the Emmy success of the Tina Fey created comedy is that after two seasons and numerous awards and critical acclaim the show still has yet to catch on with audiences finishing just 102nd out of a possible 142 prime time network series last season.
This equation of critical acclaim not equaling higher ratings is a formula that is nothing new. It actually spelled the downfall of another critically claimed yet ratings deficient comedy, the groundbreaking series "Arrested Development." That Ron Howard created series also won the Emmy award for Outstanding Comedy Series in its first year in 2004. What followed were two more years, a total of 15 Emmy nominations...with only one win. Eventually the series was not able to gain a sizeable audience and was cancelled after its third season despite its cult status and critical acclaim.
One can't help but wonder if "Arrested" would've been able to gain more momentum with audiences if they would've recieved more Emmy awards...even if they wouldn't have deserved them (I've seen the program and believe me, that wouldn't have been a problem). There may have possibly been some residual guilt from the consitituency of television critics and other Emmy voters that they didn't push "Arrested" as hard as they could have and allowed the series to be cancelled. It is also possible that television critics and other Emmy constituents feel that they need to cathartically correct their mistake.
This brings me back to "30 Rock." Emmy voters may view "30 Rock" as an oppertunity to correct an error in the realm of intelligent television. In "30 Rock's" second year of Emmy eligibility, it took home nearly three times as many prime time Emmys as they had during their first year. After they swept these awards, I couldn't help but ask the question of: Did they really deserve all of them? In my opinion...the answer is no. Is "30 Rock" really a funnier, better written, better acted show than say "The Office" or "South Park" or "King of the Hill?" Don't get me wrong, I like the show. I think that it is very well written and well acted. However I just think that "30 Rock" is little more than a show that critics have decided is the show for them. I can't help but think that this series with critical acclaim and ratings anemia is nothing more than another oppertunity for critics to persumably get it right. Whether it will work has yet to be determined...but if "30 Rock" is cancelled, than the television critics can say that they didn't let it go without a valiant effort.
This equation of critical acclaim not equaling higher ratings is a formula that is nothing new. It actually spelled the downfall of another critically claimed yet ratings deficient comedy, the groundbreaking series "Arrested Development." That Ron Howard created series also won the Emmy award for Outstanding Comedy Series in its first year in 2004. What followed were two more years, a total of 15 Emmy nominations...with only one win. Eventually the series was not able to gain a sizeable audience and was cancelled after its third season despite its cult status and critical acclaim.
One can't help but wonder if "Arrested" would've been able to gain more momentum with audiences if they would've recieved more Emmy awards...even if they wouldn't have deserved them (I've seen the program and believe me, that wouldn't have been a problem). There may have possibly been some residual guilt from the consitituency of television critics and other Emmy voters that they didn't push "Arrested" as hard as they could have and allowed the series to be cancelled. It is also possible that television critics and other Emmy constituents feel that they need to cathartically correct their mistake.
This brings me back to "30 Rock." Emmy voters may view "30 Rock" as an oppertunity to correct an error in the realm of intelligent television. In "30 Rock's" second year of Emmy eligibility, it took home nearly three times as many prime time Emmys as they had during their first year. After they swept these awards, I couldn't help but ask the question of: Did they really deserve all of them? In my opinion...the answer is no. Is "30 Rock" really a funnier, better written, better acted show than say "The Office" or "South Park" or "King of the Hill?" Don't get me wrong, I like the show. I think that it is very well written and well acted. However I just think that "30 Rock" is little more than a show that critics have decided is the show for them. I can't help but think that this series with critical acclaim and ratings anemia is nothing more than another oppertunity for critics to persumably get it right. Whether it will work has yet to be determined...but if "30 Rock" is cancelled, than the television critics can say that they didn't let it go without a valiant effort.
| 49 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog