Although I bow to almost no one in my appreciation of "Extras" and the original U.K. version of "The Office," some of the response to Ricky Gervais being tapped to host the Golden Globes has left me scratching my head.

First, the Los Angeles Times' Patrick Goldstein acted as if some massive gantlet has been tossed down to the Oscars because of the Gervais choice, stating that his presence gave the show "instant event status" while simultaneously acknowledging that Gervais is "by no means a movie star" and "won't necessarily make the Globes an instantly credible show."

So a not-necessarily-credible instant event hosted by a not-quite star who even NBC's Paul Telegdy said (in a related Times story) probably won't bring a lot of extra viewers to the table. Gotcha.

Gervais has a well-deserved following, but it's difficult to sell the argument that his presence alone will get "a host of people to tune in," as Goldstein suggests.

Equally bizarre, though, was a Vanity Fair post by Julian Sanction contending that with Gervais emceeing "whatever scrap of legitimacy the awards have left will be eviscerated."

Why? Because Gervais will poke fun at celebrities. Oh, the horror.

Look, I get that everybody needs to be provocative to gain attention (and traffic) in this day and age, but somewhere between each of these hysterical, hyperventilating responses resides the truth -- that Gervais will almost inevitably make the Globes more entertaining and less stuffy, but his rapier wit might also produce some uncomfortable moments.

As for ratings, if he does produce big, memorable flourishes, like most everything else these days, those will likely be watched and passed around by people on Hulu or YouTube in the show's aftermath.

Somehow, when the smoke clears I suspect the republic -- and even the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. -- will survive.

Seriously, like, even more than Ryan Seacrest.

The "Glamcam" for the Emmy red-carpet arrivals on E! essentially pans up the body of whoever Seacrest or Giuliana Rancic is interviewing. I currently know more about Jon Hamm's shoes than I ever wanted to. There was even a "stilettocam" for, I guess, foot fetishists.

OK, yes, fashion is a big part of the evening, but I'd say half the emphasis on style and wardrobe is because the hosts have absolutely nothing to say to the nominees and presenters that cross their paths.

"I had a dream about you last night," Seacrest told Sarah Silverman, who might be one of the few female celebrities around who could actually roll with that line.

Meanwhile, CBS' Bears-Steelers game went down to the final seconds, as did the Chargers-Ravens game. Of course, that won't stop much of the football audience from flipping over to NBC for the Giants vs. the Cowboys, but because of the football overrun, the network's going to truncate "60 Minutes" down to less than half an hour so the Emmys can start on time. And, aw shucks, that means the piece on USC football coach Pete Carroll -- whose team lost on Saturday -- will have to be delayed. As a UCLA graduate, I'm heartbroken.

Anyway, should be interesting to see what all of that means for ratings.

Not to be premature, but this Sunday's Emmy awards are off to a good start. Alright, I doubt very many people are counting down the seconds to the ceremony the way they are on the website emmys.com, but there is a downloadable ballot on the site that gives the precise order of the awards. And I like what I see.

As previously announced, the awards will grouped together by theme, meaning all the comedy awards (the four actors, writing and directing) will go first except for best comedy, followed by the two reality awards, all eight longform categories, the variety/music honors, and finally drama. The evening culminates, as usual, with outstanding comedy and drama.

This makes an enormous amount of sense -- and not just because it will make it considerably easier for those of us covering the awards to identify trends as we go. Putting all the comedy honors together -- and using fewer presenters who have to be introduced and saunter on stage -- ought to not only unify segments of the show but potentially speed up the presentation, without having to dabble with "time-shifting" or other guild-aggravating methods of scrunching time out of the three-hour telecast (OK, two hours, 9 minutes sans commercials).

My pal Lisa de Moraes at the Washington Post has a typically amusing piece about this year's awards likely being a rehash of 2008, but there's only so much that the producers can control -- and that includes the weather, which with the forecast in the mid-80s, should at least make the red-carpet mayhem tolerable.

As an added bonus, those who attend the awards can come home and watch a terrific episode of "Mad Men" (no spoilers here) and the return of "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

When it comes to Emmy night, you spend a lot of time thanking God for small favors.

Daytime television has been dying the death of a thousand cuts, and the Daytime Emmy Awards are circling the same drain -- probably heading, inevitably, toward a move off broadcast to the less-demanding realm of cable.

The latest telecast predictably plummeted Sunday on the CW, with final ratings showing the average audience at 2.7 million viewers -- dropping by half compared to 2008, when the awards aired on ABC.

Frankly, with the daytime soaps being downsized and disappearing, the Daytime Emmy's reason for being is evaporating along with them. Yet if the two TV academies remain committed to mounting the show, then the likely move would be migrating to a cable network where a glitzy night with a couple of million viewers would look like a victory instead of an embarrassment.

Of course, those of us who have been around for a few years remember when ratings for the Daytime Emmys often rivaled the Primetime Awards, driven in part by the will-she-or-won't-she suspense surrounding Susan Lucci's 19 years of futility in terms of finally taking home a statue. Alas, who knew that when the "All My Children" star finally broke her streak in 1999 that her tearful acceptance would be the last time that most of us bothered to pay attention to these awards?

Granted, a decade ago the Daytime Emmys were drawing about five times what the most recent telecast did (see tvbythenumbers for this convenient chart) and were even considered a plum event to air during the May rating sweeps. 

It's almost a given that every TV-related event must be televised -- think of it as using every part of the chicken -- but with these kind of returns, we're looking at more of a snack, not a black-tie dinner.

Given that this year's Emmys -- even if they manage to produce a great show -- will very likely get their clock cleaned in the ratings up against a Dallas Cowboys-New York Giants football game, the recent handling of this year's presentation seems rather appropriate.

A fumble, followed by another punt.

After all, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences board agreed to change the ceremony in February. But when members of the TV movie community protested, they punted the problem down the road -- insisting that no decisions had been made, and wouldn't be until CBS named an executive producer. That was, at best, parsing words.

A lot of people weren't completely happy about it, but finally, the board overwhelmingly approved the idea to "time-shift" eight of the 28 awards. When the plan was officially announced in late July, ATAS President John Shaffner punted again -- this time to said executive producer, Don Mischer, who was left to outline the changes.

On Wednesday, the academy announced that it was retreating from the original plan back to the status quo, but nobody representing the academy was willing to discuss the matter beyond a cursory canned statement. Granted, this is an honorary organization, but its leadership needs to take at least some ownership of their actions.

Then again, perhaps we should just be happy that this gang isn't responsible for trying to reform the health-care system.

Update: Although I normally wouldn't bother quoting an anonymous comment from another site, couldn't resist the one on deadlinehollywooddaily.com that said the reporting on this issue has helped ruin the Emmy telecast and told Nikki Finke to "go sit in the corner with Brian Lowry."

First off, that's really unfair, since DHD didn't do much reporting on this story other than to occasionally print the statements issued by the guilds and call the TV academy folks "dumbasses." So let's give credit (or blame) where it's due.

Fortunately, the new administration is taking steps to outlaw torture, so such punishment for either side of that equation, thankfully, is unlikely to occur.

In the web world it's called "sock puppetry" -- that is, posting favorable comments under a fake name or without fully identifying yourself in order to bolster your cause. And apparently one of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences governors got caught doing precisely that on Twitter, where he sought to tamp down the criticism in a message thread titled #emmysfail.

Brian Seth Hurst is a governor representing the academy's interactive media branch and runs a new-media consulting firm. But he seemingly took it upon himself to join in the conversation about changes in the Emmy presentation -- the ones that would have pretaped (or "time-shifted") eight awards -- to put a more positive spin on the discussion.

Unfortunately for Hurst, he was outed as a member of the TV academy leadership (though wrongly accused of overseeing its PR efforts) and chided for disseminating "Emmys propaganda."

Of course, with Wednesday's announcement that the Emmys would retreat from the proposed changes, the whole situation has been pretty well rendered moot. But there is a cautionary note here about the pitfalls of such campaigning. Journalists, after all, have been reprimanded and worse for using pseudonyms, including Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik, who was temporarily suspended for the practice in 2006.

Hurst didn't respond to emails seeking comment, despite the fact that I would have happily given him more than 140 characters to do so.

For years, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences has waged an internal battle to determine the direction of the Emmy Awards: Are they a showcase to honor excellence -- that is, the best in television -- or an annual TV special that will generate a big license fee and fund ambitious academy-sponsored activities?

The decision to "time-shift" eight of the 28 awards handed out on Emmy night -- prerecording those award presentations in order to squeeze an extra 15 minutes out of the broadcast and pay homage to more popular (if potentially less excellent) programs -- makes clear which side won.

To be fair, the academy, CBS and producer Don Mischer were seeking a compromise, and on paper it's a fairly artful solution. But like many compromises, while it was enough to pass muster with the organization's board, it's unlikely to please everyone.

Unlike the Oscars, the TV academy doesn't control the production of its own show. They have licensed the rights to the four major networks, who share the awards on a rotating basis and, frankly, have largely fallen out of Emmy contention for many of the highest-profile awards.

Said broadcast networks want to put on a show that will generate high ratings and make them some money. And they're convinced (self-servingly, but not necessarily inaccurately) that recognizing programs like AMC's "Mad Men," HBO's "John Adams" or Showtime's "Dexter" evokes a big "Huh?" response among too much of the audience to fulfill that objective.

The Oscars -- faced with a similar dilemma, as little-seen indie films piled up award bids -- announced that they would expand the best-picture roster to 10 nominees. The Emmys came pretty close to that, upping the best drama and comedy list, with seven contenders in each category based on the latest voting. But that still wasn't enough.

As the host network, CBS was all for cutting back on time allotted to categories that don't feature recognizable stars. After all, the Tonys and Grammys both performed better ratings-wise this year, and each of those academy-backed exercises have reduced the number of on-air award presentations. Why should the Emmys be immune?

Besides, the networks are tired of watching HBO talent keep parading up to the podium. Last year's Emmy ratings were a disappointment. What better excuse to give the heave-ho to some TV movie categories (where HBO -- yet again -- nabbed the lion's share of nods), outstanding miniseries, and maybe even writing for a drama, where "Mad Men" garnered four of the five nominations. (For the record, "Lost" rounded out the category.)

But the academy also knows that this policy shift will not sit well with prominent members of the TV community, which is why the organization has at best been coy about its plans since a preliminary vote to amend the awards in February.

Based on reaction to Thursday's announcement, the roster of aggrieved parties begins with writer-producers, who are television's top dogs. The Writers Guild of America West made clear that it's not happy about the move, saying, "Last year's Emmys suffered a tremendous decline in quality and ratings because of a lack of scripted material. That the Academy would then decide to devalue the primary and seminal role that writing plays in television is ridiculous and self-defeating."

Asked how writers would feel about the news, one showrunner -- alluding to some of the sensitivity that surfaced during last year's writers strike -- said wryly, "As you may have noticed, writers are a little touchy on this respect issue."

Altering the Emmy format might help improve ratings, which would make the networks happy -- and assist the academy in negotiating a more lucrative license fee after its current contract expires in 2010. But it is sure to alienate those who see the Emmys as a rare oasis devoted to lauding excellence, amid a TV landscape where commercial considerations can often be downright cruel to quality programming.

In this decades-old struggle, something eventually had to give -- a little like the psychological war between Norman Bates and his mother. Just don't expect the combatants on the short end of this existential struggle to sit there, quietly, like they wouldn't hurt a fly.

It's been a foregone conclusion since Variety broke the story in February that the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences would remove at least seven of the 28 awards from the live Emmy telecast by prerecording them and showing only the acceptance speeches. The board voted on the matter back then, with the only question being which awards were going to be shifted -- and which group of recipients disappointed.

The answer appears to be predominantly the longform community, with six of those categories -- outstanding movie, miniseries, writing and directing for a movie or miniseries, and supporting actor/actress -- to be time-shifted into (or depending on one's point of view, out of) the primary telecast.

Two additional categories for writing and directing will also be prerecorded.

So what's the big deal, and why is this happening? The goal is to give producer Don Mischer more time to put together an entertaining show, and remove categories that might not be as interesting to the audience. By cutting out the build-up, the "time-shifted" approach will probably give the producers another 15 minutes or so to play around with during the CBS broadcast.

It's a happy coincidence that most of those categories are likely to honor a cable network and have traditionally overlooked broadcasters in recent years. HBO has won best movie, for example, all but two times since 1993, and broadcasters have grown tired of seeing the awards become a three-hour commercial for the pay service, which set a record last year with 13 awards for the miniseries "John Adams."

Still, the TV academy knows that some people are not going to be happy about this. Longform producers and execs, led by Helen Verno at Sony Pictures Television, complained bitterly when the matter first arose.

The academy responded with this statement at the time:
"We have no intention to remove any of the TV movie, miniseries, variety/music/comedy specials and series categories from the Primetime Emmy Awards. There have been no such discussions with CBS."

Whoops.

One can sympathize with the academy about the pressure to remove (or at least diminish the exposure for) certain categories and streamline the awards. The Tonys and Grammys have employed a similar approach. Even the Oscars demonstrated a willingness to break with tradition by expanding best picture to 10 nominees.

The academy's leadership, however, should have been more honest with longform producers when the situation first became public, instead of (charitably) punting the problem down the road -- including the question of whether the talent guilds representing writers, directors and actors will withdraw waivers for the use of clips if they are unhappy about the new configuration.

Honorees will still get their moment in the sun, even if it's slightly different and somewhat cloudier than in the past. That said, there are going to be some hurt feelings, and I suspect there might be a little extra irritation about the simple fact that the academy didn't engage in some straight talk about its plans from the get-go.

Update: Emmy producer Don Mischer confirmed that the changes are planned while stating that the actual configuration of the awards isn't officially locked. He also noted that the prerecorded awards will have to begin around 4:15 p.m. PT (45 minutes before the live telecast), so a long evening just got a bit longer.

Meanwhile, Academy Chairman John Shaffner has emailed members complaining about the information leaks out of the academy, which of course was promptly leaked. Fortunately, we're talking Emmy procedures here, not torture memos, but it's always nice to be talked (or emailed) about.

Mischer also noted one interesting point during the conference call: That with the increased commercial load in primetime, the Emmys have to present 28 awards in roughly 2 hours and 10 minutes, which left "very little time to do anything else." I doubt that will mollify those writers, producers, directors and actors who feel like they're being dissed, but when you ask "Why can't they hand out 28 awards in three hours?," it's a noteworthy statistic.

For the record, I think the whole "Let's announce the Emmys at 5:37 a.m. West Coast time in order to get two minutes on the network morning shows" is cruel and barbaric, so don't expect anything here to make a lick of sense. Besides, I'm still steamed about the two women who talked all the way through a screening of the new "Harry Potter" movie last night.

With that disclaimer -- and congratulations to all 509 nominees -- here are 10 rapid-fire thoughts about this year's Emmy nominations:

-- "Big Love" was very deserving of a best drama bid, but inasmuch as that was the only nomination for the third-year series, are we to assume that it wrote, directed and performed itself?

-- The longer it goes, the less likely "Friday Night Lights" will ever gain the recognition that it deserves at the Emmys, but take consolation in knowing that it hasn't gone unnoticed by bodies such as the AFI's annual TV honor roll.

-- Four writing nominations each for "Mad Men" and "30 Rock." I realize individual writers deserve credit, but inasmuch as programs are the product of writing staffs, I sort of wish that the wealth had been spread around better.

-- Everybody has a favorite category. Mine might be supporting actor in a drama series: Christian Clemenson, Michael Emerson, William Hurt, Aaron Paul, William Shatner, John Slattery. That said, I'm mystified that John Mahoney isn't on that list for his tremendous work on "In Treatment." (Dianne Wiest and Hope Davis were acknowledged on the supporting actress side.)

-- Yes, "Ugly Betty" had a subpar year, but no America Ferrera? And while we're at it, no Anna Paquin for "True Blood," which is taking off in season two?

-- With only two nominees and seven submissions, the argument for keeping "outstanding miniseries" as a separate category has gotten considerably weaker. On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to the assertion that letting something like "Little Dorrit" or "John Adams" compete with a regular old movie is apples and oranges.

-- It's not quite the Oscars' expansion to 10 best picture nominees, but with ties, there will be seven bids for both comedy and drama series. Theoretically that will help expand the rooting-interest factor, but the competition from NBC's "Sunday Night Football" is still a major challenge in terms of jump-starting the ratings.

-- Not sure what to make of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" being left out of variety series, but I suspect some will attribute that to hostility from the creative community toward Leno's move to 10 p.m., eating up slots for scripted programming.

-- Small comeback for multicamera comedies, but not a full-fledged one. Fortunately, "Two and a Half Men"/"The Big Bang Theory" producer Chuck Lorre can take some comfort (not that he will) in how well those programs are doing this summer paired in the 9 o'clock hour. In the meantime, I look forward to next year's vanity card where he shares his thoughts with the academy.

-- Should be in the back of everyone at the academy's mind that 2010 marks the final year of the eight-year "wheel" deal in which the show rotates among the four major networks. So the Emmycast needs to put its best foot forward these next two years as organizers prep to negotiate a new deal.

The Creative Arts Emmys have always been a long (OK, make that looooooooooooooong) sit with so many categories to recognize. And unless you're a big fan of Kathy Griffin, they just got a whole lot longer, with the announcement that the star of Bravo's "Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List" will be hosting the Sept. 12 event.

Griffin made news two years ago when she won an award at the Creative Emmys and riffed on people thanking Jesus when they win awards, championships, etc. “Can you believe this shit?" she said in her acceptance speech. "I guess hell froze over. … A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. So, all I can say is, ‘Suck it, Jesus.’ This award is my god now.”

Shockingly, not everyone was amused, though it did give those who see Hollywood as a haven for godless anti-Americans a big fat hanging curve ball to swing at. The academy responded by censoring the line out of the E! channel's delayed telecast of the ceremony.

Still, producer Spike Jones Jr. was bursting with enthusiasm about his host, saying in a statement issued by the academy, "We're thrilled as Kathy's the first Emmy winner to host the Creative Arts show. She stole the show the last two years, so now, we're giving her the opportunity to officially hijack it. We're all very, very excited. And just a little bit scared."

Yep, be afraid. Be very afraid.

On the plus side, Neil Patrick Harris is a great choice as host for the main Emmycast, so depending on your point of view, the academy is batting at least .500. In baseball terms, that's terrific.

Of course, damn the luck, I just noticed I have a UCLA football game to attend the night of the Creative Arts Awards. Shoot. Oh wait, the game's being played in Tennessee? Ah, well, what I really meant is that I have Hollywood Bowl tickets. That's right, I'll be at the Hollywood Bowl. Otherwise I'd be there with bells on, I swear.

Right after the Tonys aired in June, I politely suggested that Neil Patrick Harris -- who also did a brilliant job emceeing the recent TV Land Awards -- was the logical choice to host the Emmys.

I know what you're thinking: Brian, do you ever get tired of being right? Well, no, but thanks for asking.

As my colleague Cynthia Littleton is reporting, it looks like the "How I Met Your Mother" star does indeed have a date with the Emmys, a savvy move that promotes host Emmy network CBS' Monday comedy block while bringing a multifaceted talent (go back and watch that terrific closing number at the Tonys) to the hosting role -- someone who actually welcomes the pressure associated with a gig that brought five reality stars to their knees.

Now I know what else you're thinking: There's nothing more obnoxious than columnists who dislocate a shoulder patting themselves on the back over what they told you (or rather, Toldja!) would happen, and I completely agree. But frankly, that's child's play.

From the pundit's couch that I occupy (and someone should really re-upholster this baby), the real trick is having the insight to anticipate what should happen. You know, like stating outright that ABC should declare an official end date for "Lost" two or three years down the road -- under the headline "'Lost' needs an exit strategy" -- about six weeks before producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse wisely cajoled ABC into doing just that.

Of course, I've been wrong a number of times over the years too, but for some reason my Google refuses to dredge any of those up. (OK, so I might have predicted that the premiere of "Law & Order" looked shaky and that "Cop Rock" was likely to open big; sue me.)

At any rate, with the prospect of Harris as host I'm actually looking forward to the Emmys -- the actual show, I mean, not just the melee that's about to ensue when the TV academy tries to strip a handful of awards out of the main televised ceremony without causing a major ruckus among producers and members of the talent guilds.

So for now, assuming that nothing derails the deal, CBS and the Academy should reap the rewards of a solid decision, one that could be -- wait for it -- Legendary.

New York Times TV critics Alessandra Stanley and Ginia Bellafante both submitted Emmy picks on Sunday under the headline "And the Nominees Should Be..."

Only for about a third of their choices for lead actor and actress in a comedy and drama, the nominees can't be -- because those performers weren't submitted in the lead acting category.

Stanley gave a well-deserved promotion to supporting actor Michael Cudlitz ("Southland"), but it was the actresses that received the most bumps up: Hope Davis ("In Treatment"), Portia de Rossi ("Better Off Ted"), Chloe Sevigny ("Big Love") and Holland Taylor ("Two and a Half Men"). The biggest head-scratcher, though, might have been Chris Rock as the narrator in "Everybody Hates Chris," which suggests she must have thought the comedy category was really slim pickings this year.

For her part, Bellafante also elevated Sevigny to lead status, along with Justin Kirk ("Weeds"), Jeremy Piven ("Entourage"), Lisa Edelstein ("House"), Jane Lynch ("Party Down"), and Madeleine Martin ("Californication").

Granted, there's a fair amount of strategy and politicking in deciding how performers are submitted, but some of these are clearly supporting players. Although I understand the impulse to simply single out those actors that you liked, the fomal way in which the choices were presented within the paper's special "Emmys section" sort of muddied the waters, especially if Emmy voters fill out their ballots the way California primary voters do -- you know, read the ballot recommendations in the polling booth and make up your mind at the last minute.

So consider this effort to set the record straight a public-service contribution to the TV academy, ensuring that the Emmy voting process is handled more smoothly than the standard election in Florida or Ohio.

A bit of Socratic logic:

Neil Patrick Harris has proven himself to be a talented host of award shows.

CBS -- the network upon which Harris stars in "How I Met Your Mother" -- will broadcast the Emmy Awards this fall.

Is Neil Patrick Harris the logical choice to host this year's Emmys?

In addition to the Tonys -- which he opened with some very funny stuff and closed with a riotous song, including a joke about how "singing on your knees" is the way to win Golden Globes -- Harris did a yeoman's job hosting the TV Land Awards recently. He obviously likes this stuff -- he actually told the New York Times that "I love the hosting thing" -- which separates him from the many who rightfully view award shows as a sort of thankless task.

After last year's misguided experiment with a quintet of reality hosts, the Emmys are likely to try and get back to basics a bit. Yet while that might augur going with Craig Ferguson -- host of CBS' "The Late Late Show" -- Harris could be a more logical fit. He's been nominated for "Mother," and it's a show CBS would like to prop up as the series slides down to 8 p.m. in the fall.

Actually, the really logical choice would be David Letterman, assuming that someone could convince him that the exposure would do him good in his goal of becoming No. 1 in latenight again. But getting Dave to attend the Emmys, much less host it, has always been a problem, and I suspect that Oscar-hosting "Uma-Oprah" thing still sticks in his craw a bit. Then again, the pitch to Dave could be about achieving a measure of redemption in more ways than one -- reminding the TV world why he's so highly regarded by critics and helping promote his program in the process. Just think of all the "Leno at 10 o'clock" jokes he could do on the night before Leno premieres.

At the least, CBS and producer Don Mischer have some interesting options. And I'm pretty sure that after last year, Jeff Probst isn't one of them.

Let's give credit where it's due: The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences still has a big headache awaiting it when organizers try to pare down the number of awards presented live during the annual Primetime Emmy Awards telecast. But the group did make a smart move in splitting the awards for writing and directing in variety, music or comedy programs into two categories: series and specials.

The most recent Emmys underscore the problem. The variety directing category pitted the 80th annual Academy Awards against series such as "Saturday Night Live," "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report." It is, at best, an apples and oranges comparison.

Of course, the last thing the TV academy needs is more awards, as anyone who has spent a week sitting through 50-some-odd categories at the Creative Arts ceremony can testify. Still, the reasonably artful solution will be for the categories to rotate back and forth between the main Primetime Awards and the Creative Arts showcase. Notably, that might be the best alternative available assuming the board proceeds with its voted-on plan to whittle a half-dozen or so awards out of the principal show to provide the producers more flexibility, and it's telling that writers and directors were willing to grant a use-of-clips fee waiver in exchange for a compromise that was to their liking.

Here's the announcement:

In a move to expand its recognition of two key peer groups, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences has established separate series and specials categories for both the Outstanding Directing and Writing Emmys® for a Variety, Music or Comedy (VMC) Program. Television Academy Chairman-CEO John Shaffner made the announcement today.

“The Television Academy’s Board of Governors, writers and directors peer groups have long wanted to see separate competitions for the VMC series and specials,” Shaffner said.  “Now, writers and directors working on both VMC series and specials will take part in competitions that recognize the creative challenges posed by each format, as well as the talent required and accomplishments possible in both the series and specials categories.”

Starting with the year’s Primetime Emmy Awards, the presentation of awards for directors and writers of VMC series will rotate annually with those for VMC specials between the Creative Arts Emmy Awards and the Primetime Emmy telecast.  Those VMC Writing and Directing Awards presented at the Creative Arts show will be acknowledged on the Primetime telecast.

This year, the Creative Arts Awards are scheduled Saturday, Sept. 12, and will air on E! Entertainment Television on Sept. 19; the Primetime Emmy Awards will be televised Sunday, Sept. 20 on CBS.

“We are grateful to both the Directors Guild of America and Writers Guild of America East and West for working with us on this change and graciously granting a modification to our current clip fee waiver that accommodates this rotation,” said Shaffner.

Having covered assorted television award shows over the years, it's very difficult to get me out to one on a voluntary basis. That's because they are invariably too long, too boring during the commercial breaks if they're live, and drag on interminably if they're taped.

Still, good word of mouth convinced me to attend Sunday night's taping of the 7th annual TV Land Awards, and while the evening was far from perfect -- beginning with the fact that the two-hour taping for the April 26 telecast ran close to three hours -- I'm still glad I squeezed into the old tuxedo.

On the down side, the show was looooooooooong. An elaborate musical tribute to Sid and Marty Krofft -- which, for all I know, is still going on -- became its very own "Land of the Lost." There were too many honorees, and the producers should have asked each one of the program's featured to elect a spokesperson, as opposed to allowing however many people who wanted to say something to take their turn at the mic.

There was also gratuitous TV Land product placement, including models from the next edition of the channel's "She's Got the Look." Next time, maybe they'll have the star of "The Cougar" choose a mate between awards. And strictly from a logistical standpoint, on a 90-plus degree day in the valley, some genius cut off supplying water to the upper sections of the audience when the show began, nearly turning the event into a hostage situation.

For all that, though, the evening exhibited a real appreciation of vintage TV, and those in attendance clearly basked not only in the adulation from the crowd at Universal's Gibson Amphitheatre but each other's company. Stars of programs like "Home Improvement," "MASH," "Knots Landing" and "Magnum P.I." genuinely seemed to relish the chance to get reacquainted. And as "Married's" Katey Sagal noted, hers was not a show that won awards, so this sort of belated recognition generated what felt like real gratitude, which is not always the case with one of these manufactured-for-TV spectacles.

The undeniable highlight, however, was an honor presented to Don Rickles, who -- as he demonstrated in a recent HBO special -- has still got it. "I'm so excited to get this cockamamie award," he deadpanned. Shortly after, he looked at the oddly shaped trophy and said, "Whoever designed it is a moron."

I'm not sure I'll be back for the eighth edition of the TV Land Awards, but at least going didn't make me feel like a moron. Now if I could just get the damn "H.R. Pufnstuf" theme out of my head.

Without making too much of a relatively small thing, a couple of letters in the latest issue of Emmy magazine underscore the ongoing problem that the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences faces if it intends to expand reality TV's presence in the primetime Emmy Awards.

Bottom line: While the academy wants to invite reality to its party, a lot of people within its most influential branches -- especially performers and writers -- have a genuine distaste for the genre.

The trigger, in this case, was an Emmy issue that featured Bravo's "The Real Housewives" franchise on its cover.

"I'm still in shock," wrote actor Eric McCormack, the former "Will & Grace" star. "On Emmy magazine? Really?

"Usually when I pass my Emmy on the mantle, it gives me a warm feeling, makes me think about what I've achieved in this business. But today? It just ... kinda looks like a joke."

"I realize that reality shows are a fact of life for the present, but please think about the actor who has worked all his life in little theater, off-Broadway ... et cetera. Reality show participants are not professional actors and should not be treated as such," added Marcia Ann Burrs.

To be fair, a couple of unscripted TV producers wrote letters praising the magazine's acknowledgment of their field, but I suspect as a percentage of academy membership, they remain in the minority.

The cover flap might seem like much ado about nothing, but it reflects a larger tension within the academy over what some see as the pressing need to recognize reality, which boasts several of TV's most-watched franchises and thus could potentially boost Emmy ratings. Moreover, the major networks that share the Emmy broadcast on a rotating basis have a better chance of winning an award in reality now than the scripted (especially drama) competition, given the many prestige cable hours vying for attention and the recent increase in top-notch candidates on basic cable.

That said, there's a vocal contingent that thinks the Emmys should be reserved for recognizing excellence, not rewarding commercial success, and who wince at seeing reality elevated to the same level as scripted programming.

I'd be interested in hearing feedback from those on either side of this debate, because frankly, I don't have a simple answer. But as the letters cited above indicate, the discussion isn't going away any time soon.

Every substrata of entertainment must have its own awards, but egad, shouldn't they have to come up with better names for these things?

Enter The Streamy Awards, honoring the stars of web TV. Organizers billed the event as the "first annual," which is wrong, because you can either be one or the other. Then again, accuracy and fact-checking isn't exactly the web's hallmark.

The one thing that does stand out among the winners, though, is the mix of known along with relatively unknown talent that has found its way to the web, highlighted by Joss Whedon's "Dr. Horrible Sing-Along Blog," which has again helped render the writer-producer-director the de facto king of a small cult following with a vague, poorly defined business model. If this keeps up, he should consider going into newspapers.

So screw the Peabodys. Here are the Streamys. And if you can think of a better name for the second annual edition, please feel free to send it along:

Los Angeles, CA - March 31, 2009-The First Annual Streamy Awards™, honoring excellence in Web television programming, is pleased to announce the winners of the first annual Streamy Awards ceremony, which took place on Saturday, March 28, 2009 at the Wadsworth Theatre in Los Angeles. Over 1,000 creatives and digital entertainment industry executives celebrated the best in original episodic programs created originally for online distribution. Nominees were recognized across 25 award categories, including actors, directors, writers, cinematographers, editors, music and special effects. Both the Official Red Carpet Pre-Show hosted by Shira Lazar and the Awards Ceremony were streamed live on http://www.streamys.orgto Web television fans around the world. The Awards were created by Drew Baldwin, Brady Brim-DeForest, and Marc Hustvedt of Tubefilter, and Joshua Cohen and Jamison Tilsner of Tilzy.TV.

Official Streamy Award Winners

Audience Choice
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog – http://www.drhorrible.com

Best Comedy Web Series
The Guild – http://www.watchtheguild.com

Best Dramatic Web Series
Battlestar Galactica: The Face of the Enemy - http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/webisodes

Best Reality Web Series
The Shatner Project - http://www.theshatnerproject.com

Best News or Politics Web Series
Alive in Baghdad - http://www.aliveinbaghdad.org
   
Best Directing in a Comedy Web Series
Joss Whedon, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog - http://www.drhorrible.com
   
Best Directing in a Dramatic Web Series
Blake Calhoun, Pink - http://www.pinktheseries.com
   
Best Ensemble Cast in a Web Series
The Guild - http://www.watchtheguild.com

Best Male Actor in a Comedy Web Series    
Neil Patrick Harris (Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog) - http://www.drhorrible.com

Best Male Actor in a Dramatic Web Series
Alessandro Juliani (Battlestar Galactica: The Face of the Enemy) http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/webisodes

Best Female Actor in a Comedy Web Series
Felicia Day (The Guild) - http://www.watchtheguild.com

Best Female Actor in a Dramatic Web Series
Rosario Dawson (Gemini Division) - http://www.geminidivision.com

Best Web Series Host
Alex Albrecht (Project Lore) - http://www.projectlore.com

Best Hosted Web Series
EPIC FU - http://www.epicfu.com

Best Writing for a Comedy Web Series
Maurissa Tancharoen, Jed Whedon, Zack Whedon (Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog) - http://www.drhorrible.com   

Best Writing for a Dramatic Web Series
Jane Espenson, Seamus Kevin Fahey, Ronald D. Moore (Battlestar Galactica: The Face of the Enemy) - http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/webisodes   

Best Cinematography in a Web Series
Ryan Green (Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog) - http://www.drhorrible.com

Best Editing for a Web Series
Lisa Lassek (Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog) - http://www.drhorrible.com    
    
Best Guest Star in a Web Series
Paul Rudd (Wainy Days) -  http://www.wainydays.com

Best Original Music in a Web Series
Joss Whedon (Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog) - http://www.drhorrible.com

Best Visual Effects in a Web Series
Erik Beck (Backyard FX) - http://www.indymogul.com/episode/BFX_20070514

Best Ad Integration in a Web Series
Back on Topps - http://www.backontopps.com    

Best Animation in a Web Series
Dan Meth (The Meth Minute) - http://www.channelfrederator.com/methminute39        

Best Art Direction in a Web Series
Kim Bailey (Tiki Bar TV) - http://www.tikibartv.com
   
Best Artistic Concept in a Web Series
You Suck at Photoshop - http://www.snurl.com/yousuckatps

Ah, this one sounds familiar: It's all the press' -- and specifically, Variety's -- fault.

Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Prez John Shaffner wrote members yesterday to reassure irate TV producers (see item below) that they're not being kicked out of the Emmy telecast. Yet, anyway.

Here's what the letter said, in part:

Over the past week, concern has been expressed over rumors which appeared in a Daily Variety story regarding this year’s Primetime Emmys®; some of you may not yet be aware of these rumors, which are based on the fear that the presentation of awards in various categories will be removed from the telecast.
 
In an effort to bring our entire membership up to date on this year’s Primetime Emmy Awards (which will air Sunday, September 20, on CBS), I would like to dispel these rumors and clarify the situation.
 
Here are the facts:
 
1) We have no intention to remove any of the TV movie, miniseries, variety/music/comedy specials and series categories from the Primetime Emmy Awards. There have been no such discussions with CBS.
 
2) The creative discussions underway with CBS concern a number of production suggestions with one goal in mind: to make the show as entertaining as possible.
 
3) These discussions are hypothetical — nothing will be resolved until after a producer is selected and he/she joins the discussion.

That, to put it mildly, is a nifty bit of parsing words. So here are the facts: The academy's board voted at their retreat in early February to remove a half-dozen categories from the live Emmy telecast, presenting them instead during a half-hour pre-show, and paring the total number of awards handed out during the three-hour broadcast to 21. No program categories were to be affected, so "best movie" and "best variety series" would still be in there. But related honors for writers, directors and performers -- with a special eye on the TV movie/miniseries categories -- were very much in play to be demoted. Part of the rationale for this is also outlined in the previous item.

Nothing is official yet because the academy wants to consult with CBS and whoever's named to produce the show, as well as analyze the nominations once they're announced to see which omissions make the most sense. Bottom line: If Al Pacino were nominated for "Angels in America," as he was a few years ago, they'd find a way to keep that in the main show.

Governors, by the way, were asked to sign confidentiality agreements, since the academy knew that if word got out prematurely they'd face a backlash that they weren't prepared to deal with yet. Sorry about that, but hey, that's what we do for a living over here, so our needs to report the news take precedence over your desire not to be inconvenienced.

While nobody likes receiving hostile emails, the fact that the academy is contemplating changes that will piss off part of its membership doesn't justify distorting what's happened thus far to defuse the controversy. And that "we have no intention" line is certainly misleading. Maybe "we have no concrete plans yet" would be more accurate, but I don't get paid enough to give free PR lessons.

Not enough people saw "Frost/Nixon," so here's a reminder: The cover-up is often worse than the original crime.

Change seldom occurs easily or without complaint when it comes to award shows, and the Emmys are no exception.

Helen Verno, exec VP of movies & miniseries at Sony Pictures Television, has called plans that would move some TV movie categories out of the main Emmy telecast and into an adjacent pre-show "an outrage," and urged others who work in the TV movie biz to register their objections. A veritable who's who of TV movie producers (no need to go through all their credits here, but feel free to look them up on imdb.com) have written to the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences to voice their concerns.

Personally, I have somewhat mixed feelings about this campaign -- or at least can see both sides of this issue. The Emmys embarrassed themselves the last time around in part by pandering to reality TV. That said, reality has become a major element of primetime television, while the TV movie has been in decline -- certainly in terms of volume, and often in terms of creative ambitions.

As a consequence, establishing which awards are handed out live comes down to a question of priorities -- namely, are the Emmys about honoring excellence, or is the foremost goal to put on a good show that will attract solid ratings (and not incidentally, younger demographics), thus making the networks that televise the awards happy? It's worth noting, too, the networks that share broadcasting the Emmys on a rotating basis (that is, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) have dramatically reduced their movie production, so they have less interest in seeing movie categories represented. In other words, they'd rather have "Dancing With the Stars" or "Survivor" out there than some HBO movie or PBS miniseries.

While I sympathize with the pickle in which Emmy organizers find themselves, the passion of these TV movie veterans deserves a forum (plus, it lets others write my blog for me, which appeals to my slacker instinct). So I asked producers to copy me on their messages to the academy. Here's a sampling:

* "As a member of the Academy, and a producer of made for television movies for the past twenty years, I strongly object to the removal of long form awards from the televised portion of the program. Made for television movies and mini-series have proven not only to achieve high ratings, but have historically attracted major film actors to television. Just two quick recent examples include Robert Duvall in Broken Trail and Susan Sarandon and Ralph Fiennes in Bernard and Doris." -- Diane Sokolow

* "As a long-time Academy member and three-time Emmy nominee, I am quite upset to learn that the Academy is considering moving the longform Emmy Awards out of the primetime telecast. Longform television has always been a prime staple of network and cable television. The programming is the most expensive per hour and often most complicated to produce (especially well) of all primetime programming. It is the vehicle which attracts the most prestigious and accomplished acting and directing talent in the business. And of course many of the biggest stars in the business who attend the Emmy broadcast, do so because they are longform nominees. I urge you to continue to keep the longform Emmy awards in the telecast." -- Larry Sanitsky

* "Television movies and miniseries should certainly be part of the Emmy telecast. These films are often the best, most watched and most distinctive and distinguished programs on the air. If there's any hope of maintaining audience interest in quality programming, the Academy must recognize and promote these television movies and minis. Denying them on-air exposure is dismissive and demeaning to those professionals who worked so hard to get them made and who've spent so much of their time and money to make them good." -- Frank Konigsberg

* "I made my first Television Movie in 1973. It was a 90-minute Hallmark Hall of Fame. They're still around. I'm still around. I paid my TV Academy dues all these years. And what do I get? Extirpated from the Emmys! At least I get all the good theatricals from my membership in the Motion Picture Academy. Clever ideas like this one usually come from the Federal Bureacracy. Congratulations! After 120 movies, 3 series, 5 features, 1 animated series, and various other stuff you, not the networks and cable companies as we all thought would be the case, have made me irrelevant, sent me to an ignoble, anonymous death." -- Michael Jaffe

* "This is most unfortunate and self-defeating decision and an insult to those of us still fortunate enough and passionate enough to continue producing Made for Television Movies. I seriously hope this decision will be reconsidered and overturned." -- Linda Kent

* "I was heartbroken to learn the academy is considering removing movies and miniseries from the televised Emmys. I must tell you I grew up watching television like millions of Americans and my favorite memories were when the networks broadcast the longform. From 'Roots' to 'Brian's Song' it was these movie moments that inspired me to become a producer/writer in television, and I was blessed when I was able to stand on your stage and accept the Emmy for Best Picture for 'Door To Door.' I would not have been there if not for the movies I watched and the movies the Academy honored through the years. I cannot imagine an Emmy telecast without these movies being honored, and despite what the leaders at the network have done to devalue a longform one thing is certain...the audience loves them and will continue to till the end of time." -- Dan Angel

* "As a writer who was twice nominated for the Emmy in the TV-movie category ... I wish to strongly add my voice to those protesting the possible removal of the TV-movie/miniseries awards from the televised portion of the Emmy presentations. What an absurd notion! TV movies are not the stepchildren of the industry. We deserve to go to the ball with all the other grown-ups. It's not that we want to be on TV so we can wave to Mom. It's the principle of the thing!" -- Anna Sandor

Now that I've had a chance to read a lot more of the post-Oscar coverage, a few additional thoughts:

* As tvtattle.com cleverly noted, reviews of the show were all over the map: "Best Oscars in years," "worst ever," etc. Everyone has a right to his or her opinion, but it's hard to escape the sense that journalists feel extra pressure these days to issue bold, sweeping proclamations in order to get attention. Saying something is "a little better than most, not as good as some," or vice versa, might be accurate, but that isn't the kind of headline that's going to generate a Drudge link.

 * A producer I know (who will remain anonymous) made what I thought was a pretty interesting point: "I thought the real unspoken loser last night were people like Jon Stewart. I thought last night (which was terrific) was all of show business taking back their big night from the likes of a cable comedian and his snarky, New York writing staff.  And God bless Danny Boyle for essentially saying as much on-air.  And given the debacle of last year's Emmys, this couldn't have come at a better time."

While I don't completely agree with that appraisal (I thought Stewart was fine, and far from the problem), it does make one assertion that might very well be true: That the Oscars should unabashedly celebrate movies and be hosted by a movie star. Writer-producer Ken Levine echoed this point in an item on the Huffington Post.

Tapping comics like Stewart or Chris Rock has been emblematic of the "Let's appeal to a younger audience" imperative, whereas this approach basically said, "Here we are -- big, glossy and unapologetic. Take it or leave it."

* Having done this for a few years, nobody is really meant to sit and intently view the Oscars for 3 1/2 hours straight unless they're A) surrounded by people drinking; B) paid to; or C) in the market for an impossibly expensive size-0 evening gown. That's probably why some critics sound particularly bitchy. Still, I always wonder when there's extra griping about award shows being "long" or "silly" or "self-important" -- "Um, have you ever actually watched one of these things before?" That's sort of a given. Just to be fair, the finished product has to be considered in context.

* Preliminary results based solely on overnight metered markets show a 6% ratings increase over last year. (Nielsen's fast-national ratings will be issued after noon Pacific time.)

Update: OK, yee-ha, so the fast nationals came a little early: ABC reports that the Oscar audience actually rose 11% in total viewers, to an average of 36.3 million, and 13% among the key demo of adults 18-49.

Any improvement is good these days, though at least some of that bump over the low-rated 2008 Oscarcast is likely attributable to a more popular group of movies, including the inevitable Heath Ledger/"The Dark Knight" tribute. It does, however, seem to endorse one strategy -- keeping elements of the show secret in an effort to build interest and suspense.

* The arrivals coverage has sunk to all-time lows, with virtually no discussion of the movies themselves. OK, we get it, the powers that be have decided that it's primarily women who are watching, and that they care disproportionately about fashion. You know, we don't want to fill their pretty little heads with too many thoughts or anything in between Revlon commercials.

Yet it's insulting, frankly, to have Kate Winslet standing there and not be able to ask one question about her acting, as ABC and local KABC-TV gush-bag George Pennacchio did, instead waxing on about how great she looks (duh) and whether she's nervous (double duh). Pennacchio was so effusive about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's humanitarian efforts that even they were looking at him like, "Dude, get a grip."

At least back when Roger Ebert used to join Pennacchio on the red carpet there was some give-and-take about the movies. Now it's just a race to see how fast the hosts can crawl up the talent's skirts and pants legs.

* Let the culture wars begin! Well, that didn't take long -- from the web page for the second hour of Bill O'Reilly's syndicated radio show: "Big wins for the movie 'Milk' put gay rights and gay marriage back on the front burner, and that is just the way Hollywood likes it. We'll talk about the how and why of Hollywood's politics." Actually, it's rather a transparent way for cable news and talkradio to piggyback on the Oscars and inject pop culture into their shows by deriding those "Hollywood pinheads," but knock yourself out, gang.

* Now that the show's finally over, can the LA Times please re-seal "The Envelope" -- maybe with Tom O'Neil inside it -- until, oh, next December?

Bill Condon and Laurence Mark will be closely scrutinized for this Sunday's Oscar telecast, but the producers have already exhibited one bit of questionable judgment: Wasting time before the awards having lunch with the Los Angeles Times' resident pompous blowhard, Patrick Goldstein.

Goldstein sounded his latest "Oh no, the Oscar telecast might stink" alarms in his most recent column, while casually mentioning that Condon and Mark had lunch with him the other day.

Really? Like, they didn't have better things to do?

Remember, this is the same guy that couldn't even be bothered to actually sit through the 2008 awards. Or to quote from Goldstein's post-Oscar column last year: "Here's how we watched the Oscars in my household: We TiVo-ed the broadcast, came back from Little League practice, hopped in bed with some snacks and zapped through the commercials, the musical numbers and most of the craft awards, giving our full attention to (Jon) Stewart's routines, the clip compilations and the big awards and acceptance speeches, starting with best animated feature. Total elapsed time: one hour, 45 minutes, tops."

Wow, talk about commitment. And this is supposedly the Times' ace movie columnist. Seriously, he couldn't skip Little League practice (at 5 p.m. on a Sunday, by the way? Wonder when they play the actual games) on Oscar night?

Granted, I might be a little extra sensitive since Goldstein continues to deride studios for spending any money on Oscar campaigning -- as if "For your consideration" ads are especially unsavory compared to Hollywood's other ego-stroking activities -- at a time when both my newspaper and his are struggling in the face of cutbacks and a dismal economy. Besides, lobbying for awards has been part of a delicate eco-system that actually supports the kind of prestige movies that Goldstein professes to care about. (For another take, see A.O. Scott's New York Times piece.)

Meanwhile, the Times keeps shrinking -- a far cry from those days when the paper was so fat that the Sunday edition was reputed to have squashed a small dog, or so the story (likely apocryphal) went. Today's Times would have a hard time mashing a slug.

At any rate, I'll be reviewing Sunday's show, and I'm going into that process with an open mind. As for Goldstein, if he wants the full, unbridled experience, here's a crazy thought: Try watching the whole thing.

One would think that escaping the tyranny of television would be a blessing, but the Writers Guild Awards could use a little of the discipline that a TV deal imposes – or at least a slightly tighter grip on the tiller.

Host Neil Patrick Harris was in fine form on Saturday evening – hell, he even called presenter Sandra Oh a “dirty, dirty whore,” much to her delight – but despite his reference to a surplus of “no-shows” speeding up the proceedings (“Love the no-shows – tick-tock, tick-tock,” he quipped), the actual presentation dragged on a full three hours.

Of course, it would have helped if more of the Los Angeles presenters had been clued in to the fact that some of the winners not at the Century Plaza were at simultaneous ceremonies in New York (hence the ungodly 5 p.m. dinner start time), meaning they might be accepting on the other coast. The reaction shots of the crowd were almost uniformly odd and ill-chosen, so much so that presenter Jamie Lee Curtis warned everyone to try looking happier, to no avail.

From the journalists’ table way in the back (near the bathroom and bar, so thanks for that at least), you could hear voices of people loudly trying to orchestrate matters – or not. Then again, those picket lines were pretty ragged too, come to think of it.

For all that, the evening wasn’t a complete loss thanks to a few splendid moments, beginning with Carl Reiner’s acceptance speech in receiving one of the many honorary awards, in which he announced that he wasn’t sure how many more of these events he had left (he’ll turn 87 in a few months) and thus would stay on until he had garnered three big laughs. By my count there were about three times that many, highlighted by a story about Billy Wilder that would be completely lost in translation.

There was also a lot of discussion, as always, meant to buck up writers and celebrate the craft, but the standout there was William Blinn’s tough-love speech, counseling younger scribes to avoid self-pity and “Get off your ass and do the work,” adding that working writers “have an obligation to understand how goddamn lucky you are.”

Harris deserves a pat on the back under difficult circumstances. As for the rest of the evening, not to pick at what’s surely a sore point for the WGA, but the writers’ awards presentation could use a bit more direction.

The Screen Actors Guild put on a perfectly credible and even classy show Sunday night in doling out its annual awards, with Tina Fey providing the only vague on-air reference to the contract negotiations near the outset of the TNT telecast. The action, it turned out, was backstage, where as my colleague Cynthia Littleton reports, there was plenty of lively discussion about the stalled talks.

What we viewers at home got, instead, was a lot of rah-rah-ing about the great work that actors do -- the kind of heavy-handed celebration of the craft that's the price you pay, I guess, in exchange for the right to televise a star-filled special on a basic cable network. Yes, yes, you're honored just to be spoken of in the same breath with these other wonderful professionals who were nominated (and -- bummer -- didn't win), but seriously, as long as you're the anointed one, could you please get on with it?

Kudos to Sean Penn, at least, for perceiving how this stately gathering must have looked to conservatives who view Hollywood as a den of left-wing iniquity, beginning his acceptance speech for "Milk" by saying, "Good evening, 'comrades.' That was for O'Reilly."

O'Reilly, of course, would be Bill O'Reilly, who will have a field day with the fact that he was mentioned by one of the liberal "pinheads" that he loves to bash. Call it a happy coincidence that the people he thinks are "hurting the country" almost uniformly happen to have really high "Q" scores.

But I digress. Because despite all the tumult occurring within the guild sobriety ruled the evening, and in this case, anyway, the revolution wasn't televised.

10. By the time the evening's over, as hard as this might be to believe, we're all going to be completely sick of reaction shots of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
9. This isn't the People's Choice Awards, but if the producers are serious about trying to boost ratings, they might want to linger longer than usual on every technical category for which "The Dark Knight" received a nomination.
8. Hugh Jackman is a talented song-and-dance man, but if the goal is to get younger demographics to tune in, have him perform at least part of his hosting gig wearing those retractable Wolverine claws.
7. The red-carpet fashion analysts will have a field day with this year's photogenic best-actress nominees, but their blather still won't be quite as obnoxious as Ryan Seacrest.
6. Please don't say that the show is playing to a global audience of 1 billion people. You always say that, and it's always a guess/lie. Just say it's "a global audience" available in however many countries and leave it at that.
5. Whether the ratings inch upward or downward, readers of the Drudge Report will be thoroughly convinced that nobody watched the show, and it's all because everyone (not just them, but everyone) is sick of liberal Hollywood. I guess all those issues of US Weekly buy themselves.
4. If she gets to deliver one, Kate Winslet's acceptance speech will be considerably shorter than either of the two she gave at the Golden Globes.
3. Although it's a deserving batch of movies, people will gripe about them if the ratings do go down, ignoring the prevailing laws of TV gravity.
2. I will lose the office pool yet again because of uneducated guesses about the short-film categories.
1. ABC will air a lot of promos during the telecast for new spring series, and if the network's really, really lucky, one of them will still be around for the next Oscars in 2010.

As I stated in my review, there seemed to be pent-up energy that spilled over within the Beverly Hilton audience during Sunday's Golden Globes telecast, apparent even to a viewer at home (or in my case, a viewer in a tuxedo watching a TV monitor backstage. Who said the life of a journalist isn't glamorous?).

That initial perception seemed even more true after the event, waiting to get into HBO's after-party and pushing through walls of humanity, who all seemed more intent on blowing off a little steam than usual. As a consequence, everyone was patient for the most part throughout the night, despite tedious, poorly organized lines to board a shuttle bus back to the preordained parking garage (many people hopped into cabs) or the need to navigate past the entourage that invariably surrounds the guys from "Entourage" just to say hello.

HBO's dominance within the night's TV awards was also reinforced by the opulence of its poolside bash, which explains why so much talent associated with other networks crowded into the event. The channel's spare-no-expense parties convey a not-so-subtle message that the pay channel remains alive and well and continues to play by its own set of rules, which is precisely the "It's not TV" image it wishes to convey within the creative community.

Two more unrelated postscripts:

-- Granted, the Globes are primarily a film showcase as an Oscar tune-up, but the way supporting actors from TV movies/miniseries and series regulars are thrown into competition together is idiotic and really should be either discarded or changed. A count of the last 10 years found that movie talent has claimed 13 of the 20 supporting prizes for actors and actresses, which means dropping in for a few weeks on a movie trumps grinding out a performance on a series week after week by roughly two to one. It's an apples and oranges comparison at best, and not even remotely fair.

-- In terms of memorable moments that didn't make it to air, my personal favorite was stumbling through the lobby and twice hearing women yell loudly, "Is that Mickey Rourke's dog?"