Emmys: The host who wasn't there
Twitter
The last time FOX broadcast the Emmys, it opted to go without a host, instead going through a rotation of comics who kept the show rolling along. For as little as Ryan Seacrest was on the air Sunday, the network might well have done the same thing.
That's not really a knock against Seacrest; when he was actually on camera, he was fine. But I can't remember the last time, save that hostless FOX broadcast in 2003, that an Emmy emcee was less present over the course of the show.
His opening monologue went about as well as it could have for a non-comedian. He and the folks who wrote his material cannily took the criticism the TV academy and FOX's choice head-on, as he joked right away about how some 6,000 people were in attendance Sunday night -- and every one of them turned down the hosting gig.
Seacrest also kept the opening mercifully short, although he did manage to work in a squirmy-funny moment with his briefly rumored paramour from a year and a half back, Desperate Housewives star Teri Hatcher, and make rumors that he'd do a musical number into a joke to close his monologue. He instead yielded the stage to Ray Romano, who was there to present the night's first award but turned his time into a couple minutes of stand-up about how he's home all the time now.
After that, though, Seacrest was absent for very long stretches of time as the show's producers opted to let other presenters handle transitions and other bits of business. Also missing were the small snippets of commentary that other hosts have offered on the night's unfolding stories. Past hosts provided a running voice throughout the marathon that went missing a little this year.
Seacrest and everyone else who took the stage Sunday were done no favors by the theater-in-the-round setup. I'm sure it sounded like a good idea, but at least on TV, it appeared that all the presenters and winners were playing to the same side of the room. That couldn't have been fun for the folks stuck staring at people's backs all night.
The telecast also suffered from several technical glitches. At least three times, the sound cut off while the picture cut to a weird overhead shot of the partially obscured stage -- including during best drama actress Sally Field's acceptance speech. Field, of ABC's Brothers & Sisters, thanked all mothers who are waiting for their children to return from places of danger and war. She closed with "If mothers ran the world, there wouldn't be any god***n war" -- or I think so, anyway. The mike went dead at "god..."
Unless Seacrest, who also did red-carpet duty for E! earlier in the day, was in the production booth for those, no one can blame him for that. He did all right, but he was let down a little by the folks running the show.
Post a comment
- Most Liked
- Most Commented
Technical glitches? I highly doubt that those were glitches. More likely, those were just part of the Emmy broadcast's ham-handed attempt at censorship, considering one occurred during Sally Field's expletive in her anti-war speech. The other occurred immediately after Katherine Heigl was seen (but not heard) to say "s**t" after winning her award.
I don't have a good explanation for the first though. If I recall, it occurred during Ray Romano's bit, and the "ceiling shot" could be because Ray decided to ramble on a bit too long off teleprompter.
That wasn't a technical glitch. That was FOX "bleeping" Sally Field, using a seven second delay, to avoid airing her inappropriate-for-the-FCC language.
Seacrest did okay. Better than thought he would. But it was like he wasn't even the host...
He was fine. Pretty good even, as he played to his strengths (ambiable, upbeat, relaxed.) A comedian would've been much better but with Fox not having any strong ones on their roster these days (and thankfully they didn't go with Brad Garett) he was a decent choice. The only part that totally bombed was the Paulie Walnuts bit.
I do wish they'd give the winners more time, though. Just an extra 15 seconds or so would help, as its ridiculous they work their whole adult life for this and then get shoved off immediately.
Actors are supposed to entertain us - I don't want to hear their political digs -they need to realize that they aren't as powerful as they think.
Ryan wasn't that funny but I wasn't expecting him to be. He did a pretty good job but I think I would have liked to see more of him. What was up with the Henry the VIII custom? I didn't get that.
Also the technical difficulties like everyone else mentioned already were censors to Ray Romano when he said Patricia Heaton is "screwing" her new "Back to You" co-star Kelsey Grammer; Sally Field's "If mothers ran the world, there would be no goddamn wars in the first place,"; and Katherine Heigh's "s--t"...
(Smacks side of head) Of course that was a trigger-happy censor -- why this didn't occur to me at the moment, I'm not sure. Jumping to the strange overhead shot made me think something had gone wrong, I guess.
He was the worst host that I can remember at the emmys... His jokes were lame and he is completely annoying.
Ah, yes...the joys of live television! Ryan Seacrest wasn't as annoying as I thought he would be. He was his typical "American Idol" persona, although the dig at Paula Abdul was a bit mean.
I agree that the theater in the round idea didn't make any sense. How many Emmy winners mentioned in their acceptance speeches that their cast mates were sitting BEHIND them, and that they couldn't look into the camera and at their co-workers at the SAME time?
I'm glad the censors were using the delay button because I'm sure that the nominees were already warned before the telecast to keep their speeches brief and relevant to the categories. The scheduled 3-hour long broadcast was already running about 15 minutes late! In the future, the winners could be given more time if the producers would just eliminate all the musical numbers (sorry, Tony, Christina and The Jersey Boys!).
To WENDY: Seacrest was wearing the Henry VIII costume because Showtime's "The Tudors" had won a creative Emmy for best wardrobe design last week. That was probably one of the few funny moments of the evening!
I didn't care much for the round stage either. People didn't know where to look and kept turning around...very distracting. I also agree that more time should be given to the winners, especially near the end when the more important categories are presented. Too much time is given in the first two hours to the well-deserved writer, director, etc, awards, but yet the winners of the outstanding actor, actress, comedy, and drama ones are told to hurry it up. It doesn't seem fair. And what is with bringing an actor/actress up to say a few words only to announce a couple of other presenters?? Exposure??? Isn't that what Seacrest's duties were? I don't know....just a lot of wasted time. I flicked back and forth between the Emmys and a movie.