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.

The TV Critics Assn. tour is officially over, meaning that I won't have to wait for my car at the Langham Huntington Hotel in Pasadena again for awhile, and thank God for that.

Thanks to fortuitous timing, the first post-Comic-Con press tour wasn't a complete news-free zone. In fact, we learned the following from the latest gathering:

-- Every network except NBC feels entitled to take a few parting shots at NBC, and more than a few producers are determined to get their licks in as well.

-- All network executives love Paula Abdul and think she's an interesting, fascinating and wonderful piece of talent, at least until they sort out what she'll be doing next. Once she lands on another network one suspects she'll be considerably less interesting to everybody.

-- The out-of-town press really couldn't give a rat's ass about the skirmish involving the "time-shifting" of acceptance speeches during the Primetime Emmy Awards.

-- Even if the press tour is spiraling toward irrelevance, reporters and critics still take umbrage when they feel they are disrespected by networks failing to dispatch top executives to the event, especially if there has been a management shift. (Translation: If this thing's still around in January, NBC should put Jeff Gaspin on the stage for questions.)

-- The sessions might have been full of people barking questions, but the number of longtime critics who were absent this time around provided a nagging, constant and depressing reminder of the changes and cutbacks that have assailed the newspaper industry in general and critics in particular. Fortunately, old standbys like the Philadelphia Inquirer's Jonathan Storm were still there to call CBS' Nina Tassler "Nancy," so the tour wasn't entirely devoid of comic relief.

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.