Should HBO Worry About Its Worst Emmy Showing Since the ’90s?
With the 76th Primetime Emmy Awards nearly upon us (the Creative Arts Awards are this weekend, while the main Emmys telecast is on Sunday, September 15), there’s one last major narrative we haven’t dived into: HBO’s historically poor showing. With 91 total nominations, the network that has dominated the Emmys for almost all of the 21st century placed third behind Netflix’s 107 nominations and FX’s 93. When it comes to major-category nominations (acting, writing, directing, and Best Series), the combined entity of HBO and Max finished fourth with 23 nominations, behind FX (33), Netflix (27), and Apple (26). It’s the first time since 1995 that HBO has finished outside the top two in major nominations.
Worse, HBO/Max only placed three shows into the three Outstanding Series categories: Hacks in Comedy, The Gilded Age in Drama, and True Detective: Night Country in Limited. That’s the fewest number of shows HBO has placed in those three categories since 1994. SINCE BEFORE ARLI$$!
This sounds … bad. But my colleague, Joe Adalian, who covers the business of television and is way smarter about this kind of thing than I am, is taking a decidedly anti-alarmist position about it. Awards monkey that I am, I decided to corner my Other Joe in a Google doc and make him explain it to me.
Joe Reid: Not to be overly prosecutorial right off the bat, but I just watched A Few Good Men, and the facts of the case are such: third place in overall nominations, fourth place in major nominations, fewest shows nominated in the big three categories since 1994. Joe, what’s your take on how much this kind of thing matters to a network like HBO? Of course, bragging rights are important to network heads, but does it go beyond that?
Joe Adalian: It would be foolish for me to suggest that Emmy nominations and wins aren’t something execs at HBO think about — a lot — because obviously they do. Prestige and quality are essential to their brand. It’s how HBO has historically marketed itself to subscribers. (“It’s not TV, it’s HBO.”) It’s also the implied pitch HBO makes to potential partners in the creative community who want the validation that comes with having a show on the network, even if it’s not a ratings hit. And for better or worse, awards — Emmys in particular — are a big part of how “quality” gets quantified in Hollywood. So yeah, a desire for winning Emmys is basically part of HBO’s DNA.
That said, HBO isn’t some up-and-coming service that needs validation from Emmy voters to justify its existence the way Netflix did circa 2013 or Apple TV+ does today. It’s been around half a century, and viewers who crave smart, upscale programming know HBO has a better track record at producing outstanding shows and miniseries than most other networks and platforms. Same thing goes for artists and the agents who represent them: I love Apple TV+, but I’d be willing to be that if you offered ten A-listers a choice between making their passion project at Apple, FX, or HBO, at least seven would go with HBO even if Apple or FX offered more money. That doesn’t go away simply because, through a confluence of factors, Emmy voters didn’t get as excited about HBO’s roster one year.
Joe R: Let’s get to that confluence of factors. Not to put words in your mouth, but I imagine you’re going to mention the strike, which pushed programming like The Last of Us or perhaps The White Lotus back and out of this particular Emmy window. Or the fact that Succession just ended and the next Succession hasn’t emerged yet. But this isn’t about Emmy voters not getting as excited about HBO’s roster. If anything, they got more excited about The Gilded Age than they had been previously. It’s that the shows HBO clearly positioned as awards bait — spring premieres, big stars — like The Regime and The Sympathizer completely flopped. Industry, with its late-summer premiere, is still waiting to catch on with awards voters the way Succession and Girls did. Isn’t that kind of failure to launch a little concerning for them?
Joe A: Without the strikes, I do think Mike White would’ve been able to get The White Lotus back in time for this cycle. Had that happened, HBO quite likely would’ve ended up snagging more noms than FX. Similarly, The Penguin would’ve been ready for this cycle, too, and while we can’t know for sure if critics and Emmy voters will embrace it, HBO insiders have been high on the show for months. I think the larger issue is just that every platform, including HBO, goes through up and down cycles in terms of what connects to viewers and Emmy voters. I’ve been covering TV for over 30 years (perhaps I shouldn’t admit that in public …) and I’ve stopped counting the number of stories I’ve seen playing up HBO’s inability to find a replacement for The Larry Sanders Show, The Sopranos, Sex and the City, Six Feet Under, Veep, or Game of Thrones — only to be followed a year or two later by stories declaring HBO Is Back. (And yeah, if you search back far enough, I’ve probably written some of those hand-wringing stories myself.)
I get why we are taking note of this down cycle. But I think we need to wait a year or two to understand if this is a trend or just the quirks of TV production schedules and Emmy voters. You note The Sympathizer “completely flopped,” and it’s true: Emmy voters rejected it even though critics were mostly very positive, including our own. But Emmy voters also ignored multiple seasons of HBO’s My Brilliant Friend, which is even more beloved by critics, and showered two Apple TV+ shows not at all beloved by reviewers — Palm Royale and The Morning Show — with a ton of nominations. Quality and Emmys are not always synonymous.
Joe R: Looking ahead, HBO/Max seems to be leaning heavily on franchises: a Dune series, an It series, whatever they’re doing with Harry Potter, another Game of Thrones offshoot. Many of these projects feel far more Warner Bros. in branding than they do HBO. If The Penguin is going to be their highest-profile new series this year, (a) is that good for the HBO brand, and (b) is that a show that you see doing well with Emmy voters?
Joe A: Look, it’s hard not to notice that HBO has been leaning into big franchises of late. But it’s not entirely new for the network to spend big on crowd-pleasers: True Blood was one of HBO’s biggest hits during its run, and nobody talks about it in the same breath as The Sopranos. Same thing with Senator Elizabeth Warren’s favorite show, Ballers, or something like Entourage. Now, only True Blood was based on successful IP, but all three shows fed similar parts of the HBO audience. I think the success of Game of Thrones, followed by the strong numbers for House of the Dragon and now The Last of Us, has given HBO execs permission to keep expanding the definition of an HBO show. The Penguin was originally developed as a Max Original because it came up via DC Comics and felt super broad. It apparently turned out very well and HBO insiders seem to think it’s worthy of the network’s name. We’ll see. But I don’t see why it couldn’t do well with Emmy voters given the strong cast and the fact that we’re in a world where (some) Marvel movies get taken seriously by critics and a show based on a video game (The Last of Us) had some of the most moving hours of television I’ve seen in years. The same thing could be true for the Dune show, too.
Here’s the thing: I think media observers sometimes misunderstand what the HBO brand is now, and really always has been. Yes, the shorthand of “It’s not TV, it’s HBO” implies programming that’s the best of the best, that critics kvell over, that you can’t find anywhere else. But especially during its first 30 or so years, HBO was also home to a ton of stuff that didn’t win awards but did keep people paying for it every month: Taxicab Confessions, Real Sex, Hung, Cathouse. Nobody was giving those series Peabody Awards, even if, in their own way, they could all claim to be good TV.
Right now, I think expanding beyond the “obvious” HBO fare probably means doing more stuff connected to well-known titles, like The Penguin and Dune and the upcoming Harry Potter show nobody I know really wants (which is why it’ll probably be a hit). But as long as HBO keeps making shows like Industry, White Lotus, Euphoria, and Hacks, and takes chances on stuff like Somebody Somewhere or My Brilliant Friend, the brand should be okay.
Joe R: Which brings us back to the awards of it all. Audience does not equate with ceremony gold, and yet — should I be worried in a year when The Gilded Age gets a Drama Series nomination before The Regime, or when FX has the new epic in Shōgun and The Morning Show is pulling in Succession-esque numbers of acting nominations? Do you think HBO will feel pressure to adopt a new strategy, or will it be back on top next year without changes?
Joe A: I have never understood how the TV Academy ends up nominating or neglecting shows the way it does. That said, based on what’s on HBO’s calendar over the next few months, and what won’t be on deck at some of its rivals — Shōgun can’t possibly return by next May, right? — I think it should do okay. Over this season or the next, depending on the release schedule, the troika of House of the Dragon, White Lotus, and Euphoria alone should give it a massive head start over this season (and yes, I’m assuming that last one returns and it’s not a hot mess). If Industry or Somebody Somewhere or My Brilliant Friend break out (finally), that would also be a boost. HBO also has a new drama project from Mare of Easttown scribe Brad Ingelsby starring Mark Ruffalo that seems possible for next spring, and if it turns out well, it should be in contention for major awards. Seems like a pretty strong roster to me, particularly when you consider HBO spends a fraction of what Netflix or Apple TV+ shell out for programming.
On the other hand, we live in very strange television times, and audiences have more options than ever. For example, being on Hulu and more recently Disney+ has arguably made it easier than ever for FX to reach audiences with its own brand of It’s Not TV. Something like The Bear has a better chance of taking off through word of mouth, especially when audiences don’t have to tune in for a linear premiere or remember to set a DVR. To a degree, the prestige playing field is more level than ever, which means HBO has to fight harder than in the past to stand out. Personally, I think they’re still doing a great job of that, but I’ve learned to take nothing for granted in the Peak (and now post-Peak) TV world.