My Top 10: Recent Emmy Snubs and Flubs

While the Emmys are a great platform to recognize outstanding work in television, there are many moments that leave me questioning its critical eye. I am an avid TV watcher, but not a professional of any kind in the field of TV criticism. If I can watch multiple shows a year and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, you're damn right I expect Emmy voters to do the same, especially when it is their exact job to do so. Here are the top 10 nominations (or lack thereof) that made me lose any respect for or faith in the Emmy awards in recent years.

10. SNUB: "Southland" forgottenAfter being shuffled around to different channels and times, it's a wonder even critics found this show again every time. But what started as a bizarrely dark NBC cop show that refused to be another standard procedural blossomed into a fantastically gritty drama that never hesitates to be depressing. Shawn Hatosy should have had a lock on a nomination this year, with Michael Cudlitz close behind.

9. SNUB: Anna Torv and John Noble pull double duty for "Fringe"Torv really pulled her weight in later seasons and proved that she can step up to the plate of being a dynamic lead character. John Noble displayed the most range, believably playing two drastically different characters with entirely different personalities. Many of the sci-fi twists of this show can sound like soap opera dreck to the unitiated, but it's handled so intelligently and the actors are a huge part of that success.

8. SNUB: "Battlestar Galactica" suffers from genre curseI'm not a fan of "Battlestar Galactica," but I'm not going to pretend for a second that it was a bad show. In fact, it was an excellent show. But it's hard-core sci-fi genre pretty much guaranteed that it would never be recognized, despite stellar acting and writing. It won some random technical awards and a few writing nominations, but should have achieved so much more.

7. SNUB: "Community" strikes outOne of the most egregious omissions this year was ignoring this show in favor of tired yet crowd-pleasing favorites like "Glee" and "The Office." Innovative in its tongue-in-cheek style, "Community" takes sitcoms to the next level each week as it lovingly skewers expectations. It'll take cliches, twist and turn them, and throw them back in your face, saying the whole time "we're above that, we can do better." And they do every week, whether they're mocking action films with epic paintball games or poking fun at the standard clipshow episode. If nothing else, it should be well represented in the writing category.

6. SNUB: Lauren Graham and Kelly Bishop not taken seriously for "Gilmore Girls"Much like the Oscars, the Emmy Awards want to be taken seriously, so it votes for "serious" or "real" shows. Venturing outside the big networks or the prestigious cable channels is verboten. Hence the overlooking of SciFi, the WB, UPN, or the later CW network. In an ideal world, it shouldn't matter what network a show airs on. If it's a great show, it's a great show, no matter where it airs or who it stars or any other behind-the-scenes nonsense. "Gilmore Girls" elevated the family dramedy to something else entirely, proving that a little WB show could be whip-smart, heartbreakingly relatable, and side-splittingly hilarious. Lauren Graham ably switched from drama to comedy in a heartbeat as Lorelai Gilmore while Kelly Bishop perfected the love-her/hate-her WASP mother Emily Gilmore. Say what you will about the show itself, but these two actresses never failed to impress.

5. FLUB: Alfre Woodard nominated for sinister "Desperate Housewives" role She was nominated for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series. Comedy, meaning funny. Anyone who watched her season of "Desperate Housewives" was left scratching their heads in confusion when that nomination was announced. The new neighbor with a dark secret was great soap opera-esque dramatic fodder, but comedic it was not. You could argue that she gave a good performance in a show designated a comedy, but the award is put in the comedy category so the actor being recognized should be giving a comedic performance.

4. SNUB: Brilliant but undiscovered "Veronica Mars"Once again, the curse of a small network lives on. Even more obscure and less-respected than the WB, "Veronica Mars" started its run on UPN. While it sounded like a cutesy, fluffy distraction, viewers knew that "Veronica Mars" was a hip, noir mystery that didn't talk down to its audience. The high school drama plays out in class wars and the series stays firmly rooted in reality, like when a killer walks free simply for being a famous celebrity. Things weren't always tied up in a neat bow, and Veronica wasn't an invincible heroine. As played by Kristen Bell, she turned what could have been a fantastical character into a real person.

3. FLUB: Ellen Burstyn for brief moment in "Mrs. Harris"This is one of the biggest flubs I have ever seen because it proved clearly that Emmy voters don't watch all the performances they vote on. Burstyn was on-screen in this TV movie for 14 seconds in a role that contained 38 words. She is a fine actress, but I don't care if you're voting for Helen Mirren - you watch the person's performance to evaluate its merit. If there's any flub more outrageous than this one, I don't know what it is.

2. SNUB: Walton Goggins ignored for "The Shield"After watching "The Shield" for the first time earlier this year, I could not comprehend how he did not walk away with a single award. His performance as the often despicable yet painfully human Shane Vendrell was probably the best I have ever seen on television. The final season of the show had so many scenes that in and of themselves should have earned him a nomination and a win. Most "Shield" fans will also point out Forrest Whitaker as another snub, but I don't entirely agree. His Internal Affairs character was a dynamic, terrifying force, but I thought Whitaker tended to overact and he was the only character I felt was more a dramatic creation than a real man. While his scenes sometimes took me out of the show, Goggins' presence never for a second had me thinking about the actor rather than the character in front of me. Except maybe to think, "damn he's good." As another person once commented, "I have never simultaneously hated a character but loved an actor so much."

1. SNUB: "The Wire" celebrated by everyone but the EmmysOften cited as the best television show of all time, "The Wire" got next to nothing from the Emmys. Gritty realism at its finest, "The Wire" unfolded at a uniquely slow, ponderous pace. There were no sweeps week stunts, no suspension of disbelief required, and the actors didn't look like models. Watching "The Wire" is like watching literature on-screen for the density of the writing and depth of characterization. It never shied away from relevant and poignant social or political issues, and never delved into BS just for the sake of grabbing ratings. There were no heroes and villains, good guys or bad guys - just people surviving in tough situations. It examined societal issues with a sober mind, never for a moment sinking into the naive belief that anything has a simple solution or easy explanation. "The Wire" is serial storytelling at its finest and shows what television can do when it gets everything right. So why did it only earn two measly writing nominations from the Emmys?

"The Walking Dead" season in review

So "The Walking Dead" aired its final episode for its first season on Sunday. If you read my initial review, you might be surprised that I actually tuned in for the whole thing. But 6 episodes wasn't exactly a huge commitment, so I stuck it out and decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. Well, 6 episodes later, I'm still bored with this show.

It's still well shot and the acting is good enough. The dialogue is nothing spectacular, but what more could you expect when 90% of it involves someone talking someone else down from a ledge? I still think it has offered absolutely nothing new or interesting for an avid horror film watcher to enjoy. Maybe if you like seeing the same cliches played out over and over, sure, there is plenty for the horror fan. But I was ready to start a drinking game by the third episode and really should have since they hit a lot of the plot points I was waiting for. By the time one of their group members was found to be hiding a zombie bite, I really should have been drunk.

In addition to the unoriginality of the show, I'm also experiencing what I'm deeming "Battlestar Galactica syndrome." It's where you just don't want to watch an otherwise good show because it is so damn depressing. "Battlestar" was a great show, and I know it's shallow, but I don't want to watch genocide and misery every week. Now, I want to distinguish this from other dark or violent programs. I have nothing against dark or violent shows. On the contrary, I prefer them to lighter shows. But what "The Walking Dead" has and "Battlestar Galactica" had is a crushing hopelessness. What good is cheering for the protagonists when the villain is all-powerful and always crushing them back into death and suffering? Even if you love the characters (which I don't on either of these shows), it's still difficult to watch because their greatest hope is to be killed off eventually. Their respective struggles against the Cylons and the zombies are so pointless and hopeless every week that I have to force myself to watch them. (FYI: I only got a few seasons into "Battlestar," right as Baltar was in charge and they tried to populate New Caprica when the Cylons took over. So if the tables were turned in some way, I didn't get to it.)

There's the added problem that, six episodes in, I don't care much for any of the characters. I guess we were supposed to feel sad that that one woman stayed behind to die? And we were supposed to feel bad that the other two almost stayed behind to die, but cheer when they ran out? And I guess Redneck guy's brother is just wandering around somewhere, that's done with? And despite the zombie apocalypse, we're supposed to be invested in Lori and Shane's relationship drama? I guess the big mystery we're supposed to cling to is what CDC guy whispered in Rick's ear? Perhaps having something to do with the results of the blood samples?
Thankfully, they finally sort of got around to the requisite "why is this happening?" conversation. And, naturally, one person suggested it was the wrath of God. But as I've been reminded multiple times, this show isn't about why a zombie apocalypse happened, it's about humans surviving and struggling. Honestly, I rather see the time period we saw at the beginning of the last episode with Shane in the hospital. I want to see how society broke apart and civilization slowly but horrifyingly went downhill. I want to watch THAT show. Partly because I want to know how it got as bad as it did. These are slow-moving zombies, and infection takes at least a little while to set in. So how did it spread that much unless there was some other initial way of infection? I also find it hard to believe that the CDC fell that quickly. It's in the city, I know, but of all places in the country to protect in a zombie apocalypse, good god it's the CDC. Another thing I want to know is why the group ventured into the city near dark, got to the CDC, and had no idea what to do when they couldn't get in. Why would they still go in near dark? Why wouldn't they have, like, a billion contingency plans in place? They seemed more organized and careful when it was just a few of them retrieving some guns.

I did semi-enjoy their use of "Adagio in D Minor" in the penultimate episode, even if it was a bit dramatic for 'driving away' music. You've probably heard the John Murphy-composed piece of music, most prominently from Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" or repurposed for "Kick-Ass." It was random, but I enjoyed it.

I'm sorry to be so critical, but once again, this is only my humble (brutally honest) opinion. I feel like a show on AMC should be held up to a higher level of scrutiny than a show on NBC or FOX. And I feel I should point out that it's still a good show, even if I don't like a lot of aspects of it. I really think this one ultimately comes down to personal tastes, and it's just not my flavor of choice.

"Nikita" - pretty people fighting and a whole lot of familiar faces.

It's always fun around this time to see where actors end up. Each season you get shows that are inundated with familiar faces who aren't famous enough to land their own vehicles but not insignificant enough to drop into obscurity. "The Event" was practically its own drinking game of "hey, it's that guy" moments. Likewise, "Nikita" employs plenty of faces who bounce around TV that you'll recognize if you watch a lot.

I never watched the original "La Femme Nikita" or the movie so I'm not going to even try to compare the two. This modern update stands on its own so you really don't need to know the franchise's past. Maggie Q plays the titular Nikita who is forced into being an assassin by the mysterious Division and goes rogue after they kill her boyfriend. Another plotline involves young new "recruit" Alex who is being introduced to life at Division. She's more than just the audience surrogate, luckily, as lots of exposition comes from Nikita herself. The cast is pretty good so far, certainly better than you'd expect from the average CW show. I still love Maggie Q and she has the chops to back up her ass-kicking ways. Her acting is nothing brilliant, but it's not awful either. It was also nice to see Aaron Stanford, even if he is relegated to the obligatory computer nerd role as Birkhoff. I constantly need to remind myself lately that I'm one of, like, 12 people who actually saw (and loved) ABC's "Traveler" so I'll just say his best-known work is his role as Pyro in the "X-Men" movies. I'm glad he got to be a bit of a badass, although I hope his entire role on the show isn't to sit behind computers and track people. Melinda Clarke of "CSI" and "The OC" fame plays a leader in Division and seems like a good fit for the show. It took me forever to remember where I knew Xander Berkeley, who plays Division leader Percy, from - as George Mason on "24."

The only actor I had a problem with was Shane West as Michael, the Division operative tasked with dealing with the Nikita situation. I think he was really miscast in this role, partly because he seems too young for it. West is 32, but I just don't think he looks mature enough for the part. There can't be too much of an age difference, I suppose, if they want to make a history between Michael and Nikita, but he just doesn't command the authority that his character requires. He plays assholes well, but a little facial scruff and a rough voice don't a gritty performance make.

My one problem out of the way, I have to say I enjoyed this show. Granted, my expectations weren't high because it's on the CW and it's a remake of an old show, but then again "Supernatural" is on the CW and "Battlestar Galactica" was a remake of an old show. It's just nice to be pleasantly surprised, especially after watching the bland "The Event" last night. The dialogue isn't a huge step up, especially with the cringeworthy "this is war" line from Percy, but the narrative is solid so far. I thought it was an good pilot that was a nice mix of action and set-up. I didn't actually see the big twist coming, that the new recruit Alex is actually going undercover in Division for Nikita. I was expecting Birkhoff to somehow become her mole on the inside after she captured him and voiced her ideas about taking down Division. But it's nice to have Alex as the mole since they'll underestimate the new girl. I'd like to know more about her history, especially after they threw in that random thing about her Ukrainian past. I also think they cast her well as she actually looks like a young kid acting tough.

I enjoyed the action, but I hope they get a little more creative with it. I'd love to see them do what "Chuck" does where they add flavor and character to their fight scenes, using different environments, objects, and styles to create unique action sequences. Maggie Q can certainly handle it. I'm not going to take the show to task for not being fun enough though since they're going for a more serious tone and I'm okay with that. As long as they have riveting stories and characters to go with it, and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt there.

I still need to catch up on the second episode before the third airs on Thursday, but it looks like this will be an entertaining romp this season. It may be too dark or serious for some people, or not dark and serious enough, but this is the CW, not TNT or USA. I still highly recommend it.