The 2010 Emmy Awards

[Sonic Youth]

CBS producer who blackmailed Letterman up for Emmy
Thu Jul 15, 1:56 pm ET
Associated Press

NEW YORK – The former CBS News producer jailed for trying to blackmail David Letterman is up for an Emmy award.

Robert "Joe" Halderman was nominated Thursday for a News and Documentary Emmy award for his participation in an April 2009 "48 Hours" story about an American exchange student charged with murder in Italy. He was one of four producers cited for the story.

Halderman began a six-month jail sentence in May for trying to extort money from Letterman in exchange for not revealing the late-night host's office affairs.

The "48 Hours" story is nominated in the category of best continuing coverage of a news story by a newsmagazine. The awards will be presented Sept. 27 in New York.

PBS led the way with 37 news Emmy nominations. CBS had 31 — more than rivals ABC and NBC combined.

[Damien]

I watched the first season and never felt any desire to watch any more. It premiered shortly after Rome, and in comparison The Tudors just seemed joyless, humorless, and lifeless.

On the contrary it was anything but that.

I agree, Reza, If anything, The Tudors had too much lightness and high spirits and bodice-ripping. It was great fun, as well as being unexpectedly moving.

I also disagree with Big that Jonathan Rhys-Myers was miscast, for in having a sex symbol in the role made believable the attraction that he held for so many women. That attraction was, of course, in reality based on the allure of power, but that doesn't translate visually -- the actor's good looks was a manifestation of the attractiveness of royalty.

Simon Ward (Young Winston almost 40 years ago) deserved a nomination for his quietly chilling portrayal of Bishop Gardiner.

And Henry Cavill became my newest hearththrob.

[Reza]

I'm usually a sucker for these Brit dramas, but I tried to watch the first season of The Tudors and couldn't take it. It was too drawn out and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers struck me as totally miscast as Henry.

Yes at first I also thought Rhys Myers was miscast but he really made the part his own.

I thought it was a brilliant move to portray the king as a sex symbol throughout (probably to rope in younger viewers.....who, unfortunately, never came) instead of the obese, disgusting character he actually was.



Edited By Reza on 1279001940

[Reza]

I watched the first season and never felt any desire to watch any more. It premiered shortly after Rome, and in comparison The Tudors just seemed joyless, humorless, and lifeless.

On the contrary it was anything but that.



Edited By Reza on 1279002005

[Big Magilla]

I'm usually a sucker for these Brit dramas, but I tried to watch the first season of The Tudors and couldn't take it. It was too drawn out and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers struck me as totally miscast as Henry.

[dws1982]

The Tudors won a few Emmys in the tech categories, but it never really caught with viewers and never really got the kind of reviews that would've put it in the major categories.

I watched the first season and never felt any desire to watch any more. It premiered shortly after Rome, and in comparison The Tudors just seemed joyless, humorless, and lifeless.



Edited By dws1982 on 1278942380

[Reza]

Anyone have theories on why The Tudors has never been shown any love by the Emmys? It manages to be historically illuminating and also great fun (occasionally in a trashy way), and its scenes of torture and executions are beyond compare. And with those accents, its sets and costumes and historical period, it would seem to be perfect Emmy bait. And there are some wonderful performances -- Joeley Richardson certainly deserved to be nominated. I've just finished watching all 4 seasons in a 6-week period. (By contrast, I gave up on the dreary Pacific after just two episodes.)

Probably because the usual suspects always dominate the drama and comedy categories leaving no room for a Brit historical drama. This sort of story would have received multiple nods if it was a mini series or tv film.

The Tudors is a wonderful, if inacurate, portrait of Henry VIII. However, it is great soap opera with superb production values and should have been nominated. Wasn't Jonathan Rhys Myers nominated a couple of years ago for Season 2? Or maybe it was a nomination for the Globe? Usually the Emmys nominate stars of the caliber of Peter O' Toole and Max Von Sydow, both of whom played Popes in this series, but were both overlooked.

[Damien]

Anyone have theories on why The Tudors has never been shown any love by the Emmys? It manages to be historically illuminating and also great fun (occasionally in a trashy way), and its scenes of torture and executions are beyond compare. And with those accents, its sets and costumes and historical period, it would seem to be perfect Emmy bait. And there are some wonderful performances -- Joeley Richardson certainly deserved to be nominated. I've just finished watching all 4 seasons in a 6-week period. (By contrast, I gave up on the dreary Pacific after just two episodes.)



Edited By Damien on 1278918130

[Eric]

Lotta good stuff in the nominations this year. Of course, it helps to be caught up on Mad Men. The Hendricks nod has been long overdue.

[Okri]

I thought the Burstyn nomination was largely attributed to name recognition by people who didn't see the movie she was in, or maybe watched the first 15 seconds of it where she does appear and assumed she was in more scenes, and wrote her down as a fill-in in a weak year.

Elizabeth Mitchell does not have the same name recognition.

True. I was just pointing out that

(a) the Emmys have given us a precedent for this kind of silliness.

(b) Given the positioning of Lithgow in guest, we've run the gamut of wrong calls.

I actually don't mind the nomination, but yeah, it's clearly a farewell/thanks for all the good work type nod.

Big Magilla, I also have fond memories of Early Edition.

[OscarGuy]

I would contend that some may have written her name down associated with Lost just because of her past association with the show.

[Big Magilla]

I thought the Burstyn nomination was largely attributed to name recognition by people who didn't see the movie she was in, or maybe watched the first 15 seconds of it where she does appear and assumed she was in more scenes, and wrote her down as a fill-in in a weak year.

Elizabeth Mitchell does not have the same name recognition.

[Okri]

I like Elizabeth Mitchell, but her role in the last episode was so brief the nomination has a "So long and thanks for all the fish" feel to it.

I disagree.

Lovely scene. I watched it twice on air, choked up both times.

But it was less than two minutes, and her only notable scene in the show. I thought guest actor had to amount to a little more than that.

Really? Remember, this is an organization that nominated someone for that 15 second role as best supporting actress. I think it was Ellen Burstyn.

[Mister Tee]

I like Elizabeth Mitchell, but her role in the last episode was so brief the nomination has a "So long and thanks for all the fish" feel to it.

I disagree.

Lovely scene. I watched it twice on air, choked up both times.

But it was less than two minutes, and her only notable scene in the show. I thought guest actor had to amount to a little more than that.

[anonymous1980]

I like Elizabeth Mitchell, but her role in the last episode was so brief the nomination has a "So long and thanks for all the fish" feel to it.

I disagree.

Oh and Michael Giacchino is nominated for Lost again. He has won an Oscar and a Grammy so far this year. If he wins, he'd be a triple-crown winner. The only other person to win three in one year that I know of is Bob Fosse. Who else has done this?



Edited By anonymous on 1278614055