By going host-less, the Emmys tried to have 30 hosts

The Atlantic

"Last year, when the Emmy Awards were emceed by the very sleepy duo of Colin Jost and Michael Che, it felt like the show had no host at all," says David Sims. "Over the course of the evening, the two Saturday Night Live comedians would occasionally saunter onstage, stand listlessly, and recite jokes as if they were being held hostage. This year’s Emmys, perhaps as a reaction to that lethargic affair, dispensed with hosts altogether, instead jumping from award to award with nary a transition. But if anything, this approach created a whole new problem: Rather than having one pair of awkward presenters, the ceremony ended up trotting out dozens." Sims adds that the lack of a host resulted in a more bloated ceremony. "Last night’s Emmys should be a crucial lesson for awards shows going forward, especially with the Oscars race beginning this fall," he says. "Live television events such as these work only if they’re memorable; people don’t tune in just to see which group of millionaires got the golden statues and remembered to thank their agent this year. Proper hosts have a much better chance of generating well-crafted, enduring moments."

ALSO:

• Broadcast networks accounted for 23% of all nominations and took home just 14% of all awards: 24 was the last broadcast show to win outstanding drama, in 2006
• It's worth noting that Netflix's small-scale Ozark beat HBO's big-budget Game of Thrones in two categories: Outstanding drama supporting actress (Julia Garner) and outstanding drama directing (Jason Bateman)
• Why so many Emmy surprises?: Las Vegas bookies probably lost a lot of money, as there were more upsets than anticipated wins
• Christina Applegate deserves an Emmy for her savage red carpet interviews
• Nobody is talking about Homer Simpson dying at the Emmys
• Jason Bateman really did deserve his outstanding director Emmy for Ozark, even if he doesn't think so
• Watch a 3-minute highlight video of the 2019 Primetime Emmys