HBO Fends Off Streamers at Emmys While Other TV Networks Struggle (axios.com) 92
HBO managed to thwart competition from big streaming companies again Sunday night, taking home far more Emmy wins than any other network or streaming company. From a report: Other legacy cable and broadcast networks otherwise had a rough night. All other broadcast and cable networks combined nabbed 24 awards -- 10 fewer than HBO. HBO has been known for decades as the home to some of television's most prestigious content. But the premium cable network has faced stiffer competition in recent years from tech giants like Netflix and Amazon, which have poured billions of dollars into original content production for TV and film. Netflix made history last year by tying HBO in Emmy wins, putting an end to HBO's 17 year-long winning streak. HBO took home 37 wins, with 12 going to its blockbuster hit "Game of Thrones." The hit series, which ended this year, picked up a whopping 32 nominations.
HBO's "Chernobyl" was a surprise winner of the evening, nabbing 12 awards. The final season of HBO's hit comedy series "Veep," however, was largely ignored by the major awards categories. Amazon's hit comedy series "Fleabag" and "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" took home 14 awards collectively. Final count: HBO: 34; Netflix: 27; Amazon: 15; National Geographic: 8; NBC: 7; CNN: 5; FX Networks: 5; CBS: 4; FOX: 4; and Hulu: 4.
HBO's "Chernobyl" was a surprise winner of the evening, nabbing 12 awards. The final season of HBO's hit comedy series "Veep," however, was largely ignored by the major awards categories. Amazon's hit comedy series "Fleabag" and "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" took home 14 awards collectively. Final count: HBO: 34; Netflix: 27; Amazon: 15; National Geographic: 8; NBC: 7; CNN: 5; FX Networks: 5; CBS: 4; FOX: 4; and Hulu: 4.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that it was no surprise.
I thought "Chernobyl" was a extraordinarily well done , from the writing , to the acting to the direction, it was all spot on.
The kind of production worthy of an award, or several.
I disagree that it was propaganda. Propaganda in typically considered misleading. I do not believe there was a great attempt to mislead here. Quite the opposite.
The U.S. has not begun construction on a new nuclear reactor since March 28th 1979. Do you know why?
Re:Chernobyl (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I am not a nuclear power fan either. So you can cool your anger.
Nuclear reactors are not cooled with fans, modern ones are cooled with molten salts and are designed to withstand types of conditions that lead to Chernobyl.
More so, Chernobyl's root cause is operator disregarding warnings due to a frequent occurrence of false-positives and overriding safety shutdown mechanism. What other system or technology would be declared "categorically unsafe" in circumstances where operator actively undermined its safe operational parameters and shut down fail-safe mechanisms?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. I do know that Green is good though. And stuff.
Yet another dumb thing to fight over... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Molten salt is old technology, largely abandoned because too many problems were found in it. Modern gen IV reactor designs don't use it.
There are two major issues with molten salt. It requires an on-site chemical plant to process the stuff, and it tends to make the reactor and cooling system wear out a lot faster and then be a complete bugger to decomission. The original plan was to just bury the reactor and forget about it, but it was soon realized how stupid that was and clean-up became a major problem.
It
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
No. It was the failure of the reactor's scram system that was the proximate cause of the disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
"The U.S. has not begun construction on a new nuclear reactor since March 28th 1979. Do you know why?"
"Because we don't need one."
Tell that to the rest of the slashdot nuclear playboy posse. They seem to think we need loads of them, even though it would be the most expensive way to get more generation capacity.
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, the "Green" nutjobs think solar and wind and batteries are going to solve the problem too. Of course, no one talks about conservation. That would be too inconvenient. Meanwhile a lot of people work very hard to provide us with our energy needs and I am grateful to them all.
Re: (Score:2)
The greens are CONSTANTLY talking about conservation, and if you're not aware of that it's because you're willfully ignorant. We are always harping about waste, you're just not listening because only the irrational messaging fits your prejudices.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, "CONSTANTLY talking" is exactly right. All talk, no action. Conservation has been a key goal since forever but no one really wants to do it. The only thing modern "Greens" want to do is install solar/wind/battery and tax. Conservation is paid lip service. As usual, no one really wants to be inconvenienced, which is why energy usage increases every year. Its OK, you can get as mad at me as you want, but next year CO2 and energy usage will be up, and so will the year after that, and the year after that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, they are willing to sacrifice. I know. I read it all the time. They Tweet about it on their iPhones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all the talk of fixing things comes from the greens, and the conservatives who own everything refuse to take any action. You're blaming the victims. Typical.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right. Conservatives=bad. I forgot. Politics.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not my fault that they are all heels. I'm not forcing them to be assholes. If conservatives don't want to be seen as the problem, all they have to do is stop oppressing people, and raping the planet. They are far and away the largest and most conspicuous abusers in both cases, to the extent that only the severely mentally ill believe otherwise. The conservatives control virtually everything, then blame greens for everything being shitty. You can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those damn conservatives. If it weren't for them we wouldn't be in this mess. They control everything too so we can't fight back. Bastards. If only we could get political control WE would change things. For sure!
Re: (Score:2)
"Of course, no one talks about conservation. That would be too inconvenient."
Everyone talks about it. Only nutballs actually do it because it is too inconvenient. The idea is to find a path to not only maintaining our standard of living but maintaining its rate of improvement that doesn't destroy the world, not to roll it back and suffer masochist style.
As long as you keep clinging to the idea that the world should just suck it up and suffer as the solution to problems you'll never make progress and you are
Re: (Score:3)
People do... all the time just not on a large scale. They replace their homes windows with more efficient windows, install storm windows, insult their attics, they use lower wattage bulbs, change their heating/cooling settings when they are not home, upgrade and use more energy and water efficient appliances. I will grant you that they do these things to save money or because they need or want new appliances and not to conserve energy or water but they do it.
If you put out a more efficient air conditioner f
Re: (Score:2)
"I will grant you that they do these things to save money or because they need or want new appliances and not to conserve energy or water but they do it.
If you put out a more efficient air conditioner for the same price but would cut my summer power bills in half I would buy one."
You are making my point not disagreeing with me. Pretty much anyone is willing to feel good about themselves while cutting their bills or even turning a profit. A smaller but still large number will accept neutral outcomes where th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My attic is a total c*%7 5&K##g a&(@i$@ and deserves every insult I hurl its way.
Either that or GP missed a syllable. In which case I might owe my attic an apology.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really unnecessary thing to be divisive over. If we're going to make the fight over nuclear OR wind/solar, when we can do both, we won't move past burning dirt.
Re: (Score:2)
They even threw in a female who came in and "saved the day". None of that actually happened of course.
As noted at the end of the series, the female scientist character represented the group of scientists that came together to address the situation. Perhaps the use of a female actor was significant in modern circumstances, but that doesn't take away from how well the series was executed - unless you feel threatened by fictional characters.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not threatened at all. Never mind. Continue on. It was a good series. You guys win.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
"unless you feel threatened by fictional characters"
I do, those characters do more to shape the views of society and especially our youth than people credit. I'm watching and essentially EVERY new piece of film and television portrays white males with any kind of backbone as evil, the rest as incompetent, only harmless men of color are allowed to be capable and NEVER are they actually more capable or insightful than a woman (usually also of color). Actually more and more the trend is that all capable white
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. has not begun construction on a new nuclear reactor since March 28th 1979.
False (guess your post is some of that misleading propaganda). Vogtle (still under construction) and Summer (now cancelled) both started construction in 2013.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. has not begun construction on a new nuclear reactor since March 28th 1979.
False (guess your post is some of that misleading propaganda). Vogtle (still under construction) and Summer (now cancelled) both started construction in 2013.
Wrong : original construction began BEFORE 1979.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong : original construction began BEFORE 1979.
No, they really were not. Both plants had existing reactors, but both plants started brand-new construction to add new reactors (using the Westinghouse AP-1000 design) in 2013.
Re:Chernobyl (Score:4, Informative)
The U.S. has not begun construction on a new nuclear reactor since March 28th 1979. Do you know why?
The EIA disagree.
The newest reactor to enter service is Tennessee’s Watts Bar Unit 2, which began operation in June 2016. The next-youngest operating reactor is Watts Bar Unit 1, also in Tennessee, which entered service in May 1996
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs... [eia.gov]
Technically the construction started before 1979, I guess (altough probably stopped for a long time and resumed).
But there are other power plants were the construction begun and have not been finished (some likely never will be), which are not yet in service, such as this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Still, in 1979 the combined US nuclear electricity production was about 260 TWh per year and in 2011 it was about 800 so it did increase a lot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because hippies and other anti nuke kooks in the '60s and '70s, spread so much miss information about nuclear power. The media didn't help much by over blowing a minor accident at Three Mile Island. This caused so much fear in the general public that unscrupulous politicians where able to cash in on the irrational fear to boast their own image at expense of progress and the environment.
This outbreak of anti nuclear hysteria caused nuclear research to be set back decades and lead to almost irreparable
Re: (Score:3)
They are moving towards renewables because it is more economically effective to do so at this point based on improvements in the technology. It isn't like they suddenly had an epiphany and decided to do the right thing. They also now have to import power, which is a bad indication of the current state of things.
Re: (Score:1)
There was a little bit of an epiphany when people started to notice just how expensive nuclear power was, and when some of the welfare was withdrawn EDF nearly went bust. The electorate realized how badly it had been fleeced, and how none of the promises about cheap power had come true because the electricity wasn't that cheap and even that was subsidised by taxes anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not going to bother to try to convince you why you are wrong. Because that would be like trying to teach a pig to sing. But I am going correct you because I don't want your misinformation spreading to people not up to speed on the issue.
The reason why nuclear power is expensive in some cases is because the hippie scare basically shutdown all research in to nuclear anything. Because of this hippie induced shutdown power companies where unable to replace aging reactors with more modern systems. As t
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know anything about France? They didn't have hippies preventing nuclear power doing anything. The government was backing it. Greenpeace complained about security at some plants and were ignored.
Nuclear had every advantage and still turned out expensive and uncompetitive.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. I can't believe you denied that France had any hippies protesting nuclear power. Then you went on to cite Greenpeace as protesting nuclear power in France. I'm just going to leave that there, and let you think about that statement.
Now that has sunk in. Yes, France had hippies protesting nuclear power. There hippies where such a problem for France that France committed a terrorist act in 1985 in an attempt to silence them.
So, Yes, hippies in France where also the major cause of the problem. Th
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't even realize you meant environmental campaigners when you said hippies, I thought you meant actual hippies. Don't just assume people share your cultural definitions of words next time.
So what has Greenpeace actually managed to do to make nuclear power in France expensive? Fuck all, I would suggest. France got most of its electricity from nuclear power anyway. There were a few low level security incidents and that security was needed regardless.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Try citing
What's interesting to me... (Score:2)
...is that a Swiss politician fired RPG's into a French Nuclear Reactor in the 80's.
That must have been Awkward.
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/0... [nytimes.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Oh just stop. I said hippies AND anti nuke kooks. Green Peace fits nicely in to both categorizes. You're not going to bullshit your way out of this one. Yes, France has hippie problems. Yes, the protesting of Greenpeace and other kooks lead to the current nuclear problems in France.
Time to return to the real topic at hand.
Re: (Score:1)
> Time to return to the real topic at hand
Hippies! all the way down
Fission reactors aren't happening anytime soon. (Score:2)
We still haven't solved the big problem, of continuous operation.
When we get there, we get to figure out how to handle the neutron problem.
Re: (Score:1)
So I'm guessing you're an angry Gen-X'er who
never lived near Seabrook NH, but as a libertarian
free-state'r might be living there now?
Re:Chernobyl (Score:5, Insightful)
The Chernobyl accident happened, and it was as bad as portrayed. Some of the things are dramatised: the helicopter crashed much later during the construction of the sarcophagus, the steam explosion wouldn't cause megaton scale explosion but merely comparable pollution, many of Legasov's colleagues were condensed into one magical woman, etc. Most of the series though is quite accurate.
The timing could be construed as anti-nuclear propaganda, but honestly, I don't think that's what they were going for at all. On the contrary, the show underlines just how badly people had to deliberately screw up in order for this kind of accident to occur. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if this instead relieves the fears of people who might thus far think something like this could accidentally happen with any NPP.
Re: (Score:3)
" the steam explosion wouldn't cause megaton scale explosion"
Yeah, uh, minor detail, right? Along with the whole Russia/Europe could possibly be uninhabitable thing. None of that was necessary, but was used to "push the narrative".
No it wasn't accurate at all. It was just a dramatization of events that occurred. It is OK, but if you don't see it as propaganda you are just being wilfully ignorant.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I don't like nuclear power. Sorry, nice try to draw me into some green/anti-nuke/pro-nuke fight.
"Virtually all movies and television shows contain propaganda for whatever topic their creators/publishers are on about at the time."
Um, yes. I am glad you admit that. That is what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, uh, minor detail, right? Along with the whole Russia/Europe could possibly be uninhabitable thing. None of that was necessary, but was used to "push the narrative".
No it wasn't accurate at all. It was just a dramatization of events that occurred. It is OK, but if you don't see it as propaganda you are just being wilfully ignorant.
It's a line one of the fictional characters says. It doesn't have to be "accurate" as in exactly what we know now. It could've been a deliberate exhageration to get the Party to take the problem seriously. Or they coul've been wrong, like they were about needing cooling.
Re:Chernobyl (Score:4)
Or maybe Chernobyl was just a really well made, compelling docudrama.
GoT shouldn't have got so many awards though, the last season was one of the most anticipated and lamest endings in TV history.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right. All of a sudden Hollywood got real interested in an event that occurred (and documented extensively) in Russia in 1986. It wasn't really a "docudrama" either: more like a drama.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh right. All of a sudden Hollywood got real interested in an event that occurred (and documented extensively) in Russia in 1986. It wasn't really a "docudrama" either: more like a drama.
Yes?
Hollywood makes documentaries/dramatizations of Historical Events, all [imdb.com] the [imdb.com] time [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, good point. It was just a coincidence. Not sure what I was thinking. Great series! Carry on.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why do you think "Hollywood" suddenly made three or four movies about the 1969 moon landing this year?
You are just upset because it shows nuclear power having a bad day.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Not a nuclear power fan myself. But nice try. You guys see everything in black and white. Pretty disgusting, but that is the modern political animal.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I take it back. Reviewing your comment history you do indeed not have a history of supporting nuclear power.
It seems you just hate everything and complain about it all bitterly. Almost every post is a rant about something.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it is almost as if I see the world heading in the wrong direction and idiots tearing the world apart with artificial divisions and the rich feasting off of us. But I am sure everything is going to be fine, because the Democrats will get rid of the Republicans and fix everything (or maybe the opposite - hard to remember). Either way, that team is bad, but ours is good.
Re: (Score:1)
Genuine question. Do you think complaining bitterly about it will actually make things better? Or is it just to make yourself feel better about it all. When the world finally crumbles you can point to some Slashdot posts and say "I told you so!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If anything Chernobyl is anti-Russian propaganda not anti-nuke"
Yeah, it can't be both, right? Huh, I wonder why someone would suddenly come out pushing anti-Russian propaganda. I'll need to think about that.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh and before anyone asks, if the fuel had melted trough the pipes and then the concrete under the reactor to t
What Netflix got (Score:2)
Netflix shows were unreported in the summary, here are some of the Netflix shows that won awards:
Love, Death and Robots
Queer Eye
Bandersnatch (Black Mirror)
Ozark
When they See Us
Probably a few more, those are the names I recognize - L,D&R deserved a few awards I thought.
Streamers Attacked HBO At The Emmys? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's amusing to say "HBO fended off streamers" when HBO itself is now a streaming service. Many cord-cutters watched their shows on HBO Now, leading to their high popularity that likely got them these awards.
Maybe "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" is the more accurate saying here.
Surprise? (Score:2)
Chernobyl was easily the most talked about show of the year. Anyone surprised by its success is clueless beyond description. I do my best to avoid television-related media (meta-television, that is) and even i heard about it repeatedly.
Re: (Score:1)
No one intelligent is really surprised. The entire "Chernobyl" push was heavily marketed and orchestrated. Most people are too dumb though to realize that. And yes, I actually watched the entire series and enjoyed it a lot. And no, I am not a nuclear power fanboy either. So you mods can cut out your crap. No one is attacking your precious worldview.
Re: (Score:2)
"Chernobyl? Oh right, that show that dramatizes the worst nuclear accident in the history of the world"
Eh, so far. Fukushima daiichi is still exchanging seawater. I don't just mean the water they're intentionally dumping either. And they haven't been to do anything about the core, so there's still plenty of opportunity for it to get worse. And the story I've heard about that is that GE insisted on that site. Not content with selling Japan reactors which it knew to be unsafe, they had to locate them on a sit
Re: (Score:2)
"Now I wonder, which country is GE in"
Many countries. GE is a multinational, like most massive corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
GE was founded and remains based in the USA, as you well know. And i am unsurprised that you are insufficiently mature to admit it, given your posting history. But i also know that you can do better, so i an still slightly disappointed in you.
Do better. Maybe even be best.
Re: (Score:2)
You are dumb. GE is a multinational as are most modern large corporations. Where they are "founded" and headquartered makes zero difference at this point. They are multinational. Also, GE is almost bankrupt so that boogeyman is almost dead.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about actions taken before they were multinational. You're just weaseling. How boring and predictable. You should be replaced with a very small shell script. Or possibly a systemd module.
Re: (Score:2)
And the story I've heard about that is that GE insisted on that site. Not content with selling Japan reactors which it knew to be unsafe, they had to locate them on a site which was known to be unsafe since ancient times... Now I wonder, which country is GE in?
Perhaps you’d like to share this story because it seems like pure BS to me. Nothing about Fukushima suggests the reactors or site were unsafe. The problem at Fukushima was that the site wasn’t adequately designed for the series of events that happened.
Breakdown (Score:2, Informative)
NETWORK
HBO 34
Netflix 27
Amazon 15
National Geographic 8
NBC 7
CNN 5
FX Networks 5
CBS 4
FOX 4
Hulu 4
VH1 4
YouTube 4
SundanceTV 3
CW 2
ABC 1
Apple Music 1
BBC America 1
NASA TV 1
Oculus Store 1
Twitch 1
SHOW
Game Of Thrones 12
Chernobyl 10
The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel 8
Free Solo 7
Fleabag 6
Love, Death & Robots 5
Saturday Night Live 5
Fosse/Verdon 4
Last Week Tonight With John Oliver 4
Queer Eye 4
RuPaulâ(TM)s Drag Race 4
Age of Sail 3
Barry 3
Russian Doll 3
State Of The Union 3
The Handmaidâ(TM)s Tale 3
Anthony Bourdain Parts Unk
"Fends off" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
What does that mean? How did HBO fend off streamers?
First, they have a massive streaming platform themselves.
Second, their goal is to just win, not to make sure streamers don't win. And by winning, they "fend off" all the other non-streamers.
Third, even if Netflix were to take the most wins, it wouldn't mean anything. Nothing would happen. The game wouldn't end.
Bleh... I hate this pseudo-team-sports mentality of entertainment and business.
Game of Thrones (Score:2)
Cyclical sucking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disney bought the rights to some Fox shows, but not the network itself (probably because it couldn't get away with owning two networks).
Snobs don't know better (Score:1)
You have to discount the GoT awards (Score:2)
Are the big 5 networks going to survive? (Score:1)