‘Prestige pieces’ win awards while fan favorites go unnominated

So I watched the Emmys on Sunday.

My reactions amount to these thoughts: Kate McKinnon deserved her win for “SNL”, “The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story” rightfully earned most of the Limited Series categories, and hooray for Rami Malek and his award for “Mr. Robot”!

Why do I focus on these winners specifically? Easy—I’ve made a point of watching all these shows over the past year. When it comes to almost every other nominated program, however, the most I’ve seen are the promos (No, I don’t watch “Game of Thrones,” and yes, I know that makes me a terrible person). Actually, I take back the part about the promos. “The Affair”? “Getting On”? “Catastrophe”? What are all of these? And I’m 90 percent sure that “The Americans” is just being produced so that FX can corner the market on shows about spies since “Burn Notice” ended.

In his monologue at the start of the telecast, host Jimmy Kimmel mentioned that this year’s Emmy Awards were the most diverse to date. Diverse in terms of nominees? Yes. Diverse in terms of content, however, is a hard “no.” Every program nominated for Outstanding Drama Series was a prestigious piece about political intrigue and/or dirty dealings. There was a good amount of variety, meanwhile, in the Outstanding Comedy Series nominees, but I’d like it explained to me in writing as to why “Transparent” is in that category as opposed to drama.

Back in February, in my negative review of Netflix’s “Fuller House,” I wrote that American viewers now appreciate realism in both their comedies and dramas, and I stand by my statement. But my goodness, does realism have to be so commonplace? Does everything have to be set in a city or a suburb for it to be relatable? Evidently not, as “Game of Thrones” shows us, but the Emmys aren’t biting at any other fantasy or sci-fi shows. One of the most-watched shows in the country is AMC’s “The Walking Dead,” which takes place during a zombie apocalypse, but the pro-gram has only received a Creative Arts Emmy, an award not even presented on the main show. The CW’s offbeat comedy-musical series “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” was praised by T.V. critics, with its main star, Rachel Bloom, winning a Golden Globe, Critics’ Choice Award, and a Television Crit-ic’s Association Award. Yet come Emmy time, she was nowhere on the ballot under Comedy Actress.

My favorite new program of last year was the Starz horror-comedy “Ash vs. Evil Dead,” located in a universe where the Necronomicon exists and demons possess people left and right. This show received an astonishing 98 percent approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the second best of last year, but received a total of zero nominations from the Television Academy—even at the Creative Arts Emmys! What I’m trying to say is this: Emmys, you’ve got the same problem as the Oscars—you’re afraid to get weird.

And that’s honestly terrible, because a good chunk of today’s best T.V. is just that: weird! “BoJack Horseman” is the story of a former sitcom star who happens to be a horse. “Scream Queens” is about a style-oriented killer bent on offing sorority girls. “Preacher” is about a clergyman who is possessed by an omnipotent supernatural creature. Netflix’s sci-fi thriller series “Stranger Things” was possibly the best show of the summer, if not the year. For such an excellent show not to be nominated because it’s, well, strange, would be an absolute shame.

Television is quickly becoming the preferred entertainment medium of millions around the world, and the programs that break the mold ought to be celebrated. Please, Emmys, don’t become boring, bland, and predictable. We have the Oscars for that.