The TV IV talk:IVy Awards/2006/Worst Cancellation

Qualification clarification

Do shows that have been definitively cancelled but are having a burn off run of the last handful of episodes this summer qualify? (ie. Commander in Chief, Fear Factor, Less Than Perfect, or Joey) Obviously something like Deadwood or The Shield that has been cancelled/ended but still has a whole or substansive portion of a season to run don't qualify but shows airing just a handful of episodes are a bit more grey. --The-jam 11:08, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

I specifically wrote the rules to exclude Deadwood from this year's eligibility. (Also, HBO hasn't officially cancelled Deadwood yet, last I heard, so it doesn't look good, but it would be a bad idea to say the "Worst Cancellation" is a show that ends up coming back for another season.)

However, for the shows you mentioned, you're right, it's a grey area. I'd say, though, that the best way to resolve it is to adhere to the June 1 - May 31 rule (which is taken directly from the Emmys). It doesn't mean they're not eligible. They just won't be eligible this year.

Shows with burn-offs are eligible after their burn-off. So all those shows you mentioned would be eligible for the category of "Worst Cancellation" on the 2007 IVies, but not the 2006 IVies. JCaesar 16:06, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

Without getting too argumentative, I think it's a bit silly to consider Commander in Chief and Joey as being "cancelled" in the 2007 season. Not that I would nominate either show, but they may be people who would, and forcing them to nominate it next year well after the show has been forgotten doesn't make too much sense. Suppose the best show in the world premiered in midseason on FOX with horrible ratings, was quickly cancelled, and then FOX decided in July that they should burn off the remaining handful of episodes to the diehard fans? What would we do then? I understand that we need a hard-and-fast rule for it instead of giving leeway to certain shows over others, but the rule is too limiting in its scope right now. I know the Emmys function under this rule, but they also don't have a Worst Cancellation category where those dates in particular would fit our particular criteria for nomination. --Wizardryo\^talk 03:00, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

True, and I think we can review this. On the other hand, many would say that FOX did cancel the best show in the world this year, and Commander in Chief and Joey would have had an unfair chance to compete this year as a result. Also to consider: Because of the way TV cancellations work, it is possible for another network to choose to pick up either of those series, but only after their contract expires with their initial network. So it is possible (albeit, perhaps, unlikely) for another network to pick up, say, Commander in Chief after ABC burns off the remaining episodes, in which case the series wouldn't truly have been a "cancellation."

Also, in thinking more about it, the time issue is a problem which I simply can't think of a way to resolve fairly in any category. It's an unfortunate fact that series, movies and episodes which aired months ago are going to be at an unfair disadvantage against those which aired more recently. If you look at the proposed nominations for the "Best Episode" and "Best Guest Actor/Actress" categories, there is a clear lopsidedness in favor of episodes which debuted between January and May than those which debuted between June and December 2005. Even on a wider scale, in the "Best Comedy" category, Extras, which hasn't aired a new episode since I think October or November, may be at an unfair disadvantage against, say, My Name Is Earl. Even Arrested Development hasn't aired since February. Conversely, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia may be at an unfair advantage, as new episodes will be airing as we hold the votes for official nominees and winners. While we can say over and over that only the episodes which aired prior to May 31 should be considered, the simple fact is, there's a good likelihood people are going to remember more fondly something they laughed at last night, or even last week, than something they haven't laughed at in five months. That's just an unfortunate reality I don't know that we can force to be corrected, no matter how we draw the lines. (Unless we have these awards once a month, but that might be pushing it.) Even were we to expand the lines for just this category, proposed nomination The Inside debuted and finaled last summer, and shows like that will always be playing an uneven field. The Emmys, Golden Globes, et al., receive "For Your Consideration" tapes to catch voters up or remind voters, and even they tend to heavily favor more recently released movies and series. Without even those tapes to refresh memories, I think this could be a "nature of the beast" limitation we'll be stuck with any way we slice it. JCaesar 04:07, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Nomination criteria

For nominating (and, although I don't want to get ahead of myself here, voting), how do we approach the shows? Alias, for example, is well and above all the other shows currently being nominated right now if taken as a whole, but if taken simply on the merits of season five, it's a bit iffy. Season two of Alias is better than 99% of network television, in my opinion, but season five? Although decent in its own right, it isn't in the same league. --Wizardryo\^talk 03:00, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Ultimately, I don't think there's any way to police what criteria people use when casting their final ballots. I personally intend to try to adhere to the double litmus test of: "What show will I miss the most?" and, "What show had the most room left to grow?" But if people choose to vote for, say, The West Wing because they loved the show in its first three seasons and ignore, say, Threshold, even if the latter may, for example, have had more stories left to tell than the former, you know, we can't really force them. However, the best way to try to convince people to consider all aspects is through the discussion, both on these pages and on the forum where the final vote is taking place. Beyond that, you just kinda hope they listen.

That said, if you're an Alias fan, there are those who would say that, weak season or not, Victor Garber's work was as great as ever. They might argue that his attempts to be a typical grandfather were among the most hilariously memorable moments of the season, that the limits to which he was pushed when he thought his pregnant daughter was in danger were compelling, and that his final gambit against Sloane was absolutely jaw-dropping. I'm not saying I personally agree or disagree, mind you, but I'm saying what Alias fans might argue. And, were those Alias fans around, they might find it odd that Garber's name has yet to be proposed for nomination. Just sayin'. JCaesar 04:15, 13 June 2006 (EDT)