Jump to content

Here's Lucy - No Emmy - Why?!


Recommended Posts

Questions and Thoughts needed:

 

Why didn't Here's Lucy ever get a nomination for best comedy or Lucille Ball ever get a nomination for her role on Here's Lucy? She won two for The Lucy Show so what went wrong from 1968-1974?

 

The only thing Here's Lucy related I can find during those years was a Outstanding Writing Achievement in Comedy nomination and a Supporting Actor nomination for Gale Gordon - but they both never won :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions and Thoughts needed:

 

Why didn't Here's Lucy ever get a nomination for best comedy or Lucille Ball ever get a nomination for her role on Here's Lucy? She won two for The Lucy Show so what went wrong from 1968-1974?

 

The only thing Here's Lucy related I can find during those years was a Outstanding Writing Achievement in Comedy nomination and a Supporting Actor nomination for Gale Gordon - but they both never won :(

By this point the Academy considered it passe, the initial reviews were not kind to Lucy's two kids. And the show was considered to be CORN. I loved it the first year, her dealing with the generation gap i thought was one terrific idea. But the writing was not what it used to be and the show suffered. BUT, at least, Lucy's popularity with the public was unchanged. Like Hope, she kept milking laughs out of stale or very badly written situations. But people like me watched because it was LUCY and she was just the best there was. The awards went instead to socially relevent series, like the Oscars, the Emmys tried to aim for more sophisticated fare. If Lucy had changed the format once again after three years and gone more sophisticated, or maybe surrounded herself with loons the way Mary Tyler Moore did, then again, the network, the sponsors, writers, everybody . . . . . they all knew people were tuning in Lucy for whatever she was presenting, she was the draw, the main attraction. The only way she could have gotten an Emmy would be for enduring, for being the same, for never changing the basics. Now why she never even got nominated for some of her specials, now that's even more of a sacrilege.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this point the Academy considered it passe, the initial reviews were not kind to Lucy's two kids. And the show was considered to be CORN. I loved it the first year, her dealing with the generation gap i thought was one terrific idea. But the writing was not what it used to be and the show suffered. BUT, at least, Lucy's popularity with the public was unchanged. Like Hope, she kept milking laughs out of stale or very badly written situations. But people like me watched because it was LUCY and she was just the best there was. The awards went instead to socially relevent series, like the Oscars, the Emmys tried to aim for more sophisticated fare. If Lucy had changed the format once again after three years and gone more sophisticated, or maybe surrounded herself with loons the way Mary Tyler Moore did, then again, the network, the sponsors, writers, everybody . . . . . they all knew people were tuning in Lucy for whatever she was presenting, she was the draw, the main attraction. The only way she could have gotten an Emmy would be for enduring, for being the same, for never changing the basics. Now why she never even got nominated for some of her specials, now that's even more of a sacrilege.

 

You'd think Gale would have at least won an award! The show deserved some sort of respect!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucille Ball deserved to win an Emmy for Here's Lucy, especially during seasons three and four. The Academy probably felt that by 1969 Lucille Ball had received enough (13 Emmy Nominations, 4 wins and the title of First Lady of Television) but it's still not fair. The nominees for Best Actress In A Comedy during 1971-72 season were Sandy Duncan (Funny Face), Mary Tyler Moore and Jean Stapleton. I can't believe the Academey overlooked Lucy for Sandy Duncan. Her show was a hit because it was placed right after All in the Family and right before Mary Tyler Moore on Saturday night. She got the nomination because she had surgery on one of her eyes and had to end the show during mid-season. She returned the following year with The Sandy Duncan Show which was cancelled before mid-season. I thought Lucy should have won during the third season of Here's Lucy (1970-71), but instead of nominating Lucy the Academy acknowledges the writers and Gale Gordon for the Burton episode. They nominate Mary Tyler Moore, Jean Stapleton and Marlo Thomas (That Girl) for Best Actress. In my opinion Mary Tyler Moore was overrated. The show was good but the supporting cast made it funny. Marlo Thomas was a good comedienne but her show was never a hit in the ratings and by the fourth season the show was really getting tired with Ann Marie and Don holding hands. It's funny because Lucille Ball received three Golden Globe nominations for Here's Lucy in 1969, 1970 and 1971 for Best Actress In A Comedy/Musical Series for "Here's Lucy". She was definitely worthy of an Emmy nomination.

 

The writing for "Here's Lucy" wasn't the greatest but because of Lucy and Gale the shows were funny and still hold up until today. The first five seasons of "Here's Lucy" were the best. Out of the 24 episodes produced each season I would say that there were about 4 shows (in each of the first five seasons) that were terrible; especially the jungle shows. Season six is the worst season of "Here's Lucy". Lucy did season six because she was persuaded by Fred Silverman of CBS, but you can tell here heart really wasn't in it. She should have quit at the end of season five. There are only four good episodes during the first half of season six. The second half of "Here's Lucy" gets much better. I think "Here's Lucy" was very underrated because Lucy did some of her best work in this show. During the 1968-69 and 1969-70 seasons "Laugh-In" was the number one show but Lucy still remained in the Top 10 at number 9 (1968-69) and number 6 (1969-70), and in 1970 "Here's Lucy" topped "Laugh-In" - Lucy was number 3 and CBS's highest rated show and "Laugh-In" fell out of the Top 10. I am one of Lucille Ball's biggest fans and I also believe that if a TV show is bad people are not going to watch no matter who you are - i.e. Life With Lucy - I watch only four out of the eight shows that aired and couldn't take it. My point is that "Here's Lucy" was a pretty good sitcom and if people didn't like it they would have changed the channel as they did with Life With Lucy. I am so tired of reading stories by old men like Maury Thompson and Herbert Kenwith putting the show down. They were just bitter because of Lucy's star status and her enduring longevity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucille Ball deserved to win an Emmy for Here's Lucy, especially during seasons three and four. The Academy probably felt that by 1969 Lucille Ball had received enough (13 Emmy Nominations, 4 wins and the title of First Lady of Television) but it's still not fair. The nominees for Best Actress In A Comedy during 1971-72 season were Sandy Duncan (Funny Face), Mary Tyler Moore and Jean Stapleton. I can't believe the Academey overlooked Lucy for Sandy Duncan. Her show was a hit because it was placed right after All in the Family and right before Mary Tyler Moore on Saturday night. She got the nomination because she had surgery on one of her eyes and had to end the show during mid-season. She returned the following year with The Sandy Duncan Show which was cancelled before mid-season. I thought Lucy should have won during the third season of Here's Lucy (1970-71), but instead of nominating Lucy the Academy acknowledges the writers and Gale Gordon for the Burton episode. They nominate Mary Tyler Moore, Jean Stapleton and Marlo Thomas (That Girl) for Best Actress. In my opinion Mary Tyler Moore was overrated. The show was good but the supporting cast made it funny. Marlo Thomas was a good comedienne but her show was never a hit in the ratings and by the fourth season the show was really getting tired with Ann Marie and Don holding hands. It's funny because Lucille Ball received three Golden Globe nominations for Here's Lucy in 1969, 1970 and 1971 for Best Actress In A Comedy/Musical Series for "Here's Lucy". She was definitely worthy of an Emmy nomination.

 

The writing for "Here's Lucy" wasn't the greatest but because of Lucy and Gale the shows were funny and still hold up until today. The first five seasons of "Here's Lucy" were the best. Out of the 24 episodes produced each season I would say that there were about 4 shows (in each of the first five seasons) that were terrible; especially the jungle shows. Season six is the worst season of "Here's Lucy". Lucy did season six because she was persuaded by Fred Silverman of CBS, but you can tell here heart really wasn't in it. She should have quit at the end of season five. There are only four good episodes during the first half of season six. The second half of "Here's Lucy" gets much better. I think "Here's Lucy" was very underrated because Lucy did some of her best work in this show. During the 1968-69 and 1969-70 seasons "Laugh-In" was the number one show but Lucy still remained in the Top 10 at number 9 (1968-69) and number 6 (1969-70), and in 1970 "Here's Lucy" topped "Laugh-In" - Lucy was number 3 and CBS's highest rated show and "Laugh-In" fell out of the Top 10. I am one of Lucille Ball's biggest fans and I also believe that if a TV show is bad people are not going to watch no matter who you are - i.e. Life With Lucy - I watch only four out of the eight shows that aired and couldn't take it. My point is that "Here's Lucy" was a pretty good sitcom and if people didn't like it they would have changed the channel as they did with Life With Lucy. I am so tired of reading stories by old men like Maury Thompson and Herbert Kenwith putting the show down. They were just bitter because of Lucy's star status and her enduring longevity.

 

Wow! That was a great post to read and very informative! I didn't realise that Lucy was nominated for 3 Golden Globe nominations! That does make me feel somewhat better I guess knowing that she was AT LEAST nominated in some sort of award ceremony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this whole subject ate at Miss Ball back when she was filming HL?

 

I'm sure it would have hurt - to go from such a strong show winning two Emmy's to doing a brand new show with her two kids for another 6 seasons and winning nothing - how wouldn't that upset you?, even if she didn't show it, it must have cut deep :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucille Ball deserved to win an Emmy for Here's Lucy, especially during seasons three and four. The Academy probably felt that by 1969 Lucille Ball had received enough (13 Emmy Nominations, 4 wins and the title of First Lady of Television) but it's still not fair. The nominees for Best Actress In A Comedy during 1971-72 season were Sandy Duncan (Funny Face), Mary Tyler Moore and Jean Stapleton. I can't believe the Academey overlooked Lucy for Sandy Duncan. Her show was a hit because it was placed right after All in the Family and right before Mary Tyler Moore on Saturday night. She got the nomination because she had surgery on one of her eyes and had to end the show during mid-season. She returned the following year with The Sandy Duncan Show which was cancelled before mid-season. I thought Lucy should have won during the third season of Here's Lucy (1970-71), but instead of nominating Lucy the Academy acknowledges the writers and Gale Gordon for the Burton episode. They nominate Mary Tyler Moore, Jean Stapleton and Marlo Thomas (That Girl) for Best Actress. In my opinion Mary Tyler Moore was overrated. The show was good but the supporting cast made it funny. Marlo Thomas was a good comedienne but her show was never a hit in the ratings and by the fourth season the show was really getting tired with Ann Marie and Don holding hands. It's funny because Lucille Ball received three Golden Globe nominations for Here's Lucy in 1969, 1970 and 1971 for Best Actress In A Comedy/Musical Series for "Here's Lucy". She was definitely worthy of an Emmy nomination.

 

The writing for "Here's Lucy" wasn't the greatest but because of Lucy and Gale the shows were funny and still hold up until today. The first five seasons of "Here's Lucy" were the best. Out of the 24 episodes produced each season I would say that there were about 4 shows (in each of the first five seasons) that were terrible; especially the jungle shows. Season six is the worst season of "Here's Lucy". Lucy did season six because she was persuaded by Fred Silverman of CBS, but you can tell here heart really wasn't in it. She should have quit at the end of season five. There are only four good episodes during the first half of season six. The second half of "Here's Lucy" gets much better. I think "Here's Lucy" was very underrated because Lucy did some of her best work in this show. During the 1968-69 and 1969-70 seasons "Laugh-In" was the number one show but Lucy still remained in the Top 10 at number 9 (1968-69) and number 6 (1969-70), and in 1970 "Here's Lucy" topped "Laugh-In" - Lucy was number 3 and CBS's highest rated show and "Laugh-In" fell out of the Top 10. I am one of Lucille Ball's biggest fans and I also believe that if a TV show is bad people are not going to watch no matter who you are - i.e. Life With Lucy - I watch only four out of the eight shows that aired and couldn't take it. My point is that "Here's Lucy" was a pretty good sitcom and if people didn't like it they would have changed the channel as they did with Life With Lucy. I am so tired of reading stories by old men like Maury Thompson and Herbert Kenwith putting the show down. They were just bitter because of Lucy's star status and her enduring longevity.

 

Completely disagree about Sandy Duncan and FUNNY FACE. She was a sensation on that show and extremely popular - it really looked like Sandy was going to be the 70's "new Lucy" like Carol Burnett seemed to be the 60's "new Lucy" (all the while the original of course was still going strong in both decades with her popularity unthreatened by up and comers.) Sandy was very popular with kids at the time with that series and the Disney picture MILLION DOLLAR DUCK. I don't know why CBS didn't just revive FUNNY FACE when she was well enough to return to work instead of creating a new show which strangely just didn't jell for her. Sandy deserved that Emmy nomination though and didn't get nominated for being ill. Sentimental Hollywood ain't, that's for sure, well at least not toward female stars.

 

Also Can't agree with your comment if a show is bad people won't watch it, look at all the highly rated popular crap of the last three decades. HERE'S LUCY wasn't bad but Lucy had set the bar so high with I LOVE LUCY and to a lesser degree with THE LUCY SHOW it's not surprising the Emmys chose to ignore her third series for the current "hip" crowd of Mary, Jean, Bea, and Valerie. She probably would have got a few HL nominations though if the category the Emmys had kept their nominee counts at five instead down to three during those years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone can enlighten us about the Emmy nominating rules. For Comedy Actress, sometimes there's 3,4 or (in 67-68) 5. I would assume there hasn't to be a certain number of total votes before you're nominated.

The fact that the winners in the top series acting categories in 66-67 and 67-68 caused a bit of a stir. There was talk of changing the Emmy rules to prevent repeat winners. I think Lucy's 68 win caused an unfair backlash against her, especially since the favored nominee Paula Prentiss was so fresh and new and Lucy was considered an old war horse who had won her share, as if she should step aside for someone younger. Of the 4 66-67,67-68 repeat winners, 2 won again in 68-69 and the other winner Bill Cosby's show I Spy had been canceled, so really only Lucy suffered.

1966 to 1970 were NOT good years for comedy on television, evidence by the nominees (winner listed first)

Best Comedy Actress:

1968-69 Hope Lange, Barbara Feldon, Diahann Carroll, Marlo Thomas, Eliz Montgomery

1969-70 Hope, Marlo, Liz

IMO the most glaring omission is the exclusion of the only two women (besides Lucy) who gave us actual COMEDY; Eve Arden and Kaye Ballard of the Mothers In Law. Especially Kaye who I appreciate much more since getting the MIL DVDs last year. She brings much needed energy and a uniqueness that should have been rewarded---with more work at least. Granted MIL was not ground-breaking comedy and could be a bit creaky at times, but you can't fault the two leads.

Nothing against any of these fine women, I would have picked Marlo over Hope. I loved Liz in the early years of Bewitched but by this time the show was already tired (and had 3 seasons to go!) and Liz was mugging and overacting. Hope was appealing but G&Mrs.Muir did not tax anyone's talents. One Emmy maybe, but TWO??

Best Comedy:

68-69 Get Smart, Bewitched, Family Affair, Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Julia

Was GS in its 4th and final NBC year that good? I would guess not. G&Mrs.M had an intriguing concept but it was not one that made for a good series. however it did give us Reta Shaw. Charles Nelson Reilly had the bulk of the comedy in a Mrs. Kravitz like role. Family Affair: REALLY?, I don't know what the fuss was about Julia other than a "colored woman" (which is what Julia called herself in the first episode) was the star of a show. It dealt, very superficially, with race issues so was considered 'relevant', but a comedy? "Julia" faded very quickly after its first high-profile season.

69-70 My World and Welcome To It, Courtship of Eddie's Father, Room 222, Bill Cosby Show, Love American Style

The one-season My World was 'innovative' in that it incorporated James Thurber drawings within the show, but I don't remember ever seeing it. Bill Cosby's first sitcom would have been my pick. In this one he played a PE teacher in this laugh-track-less sitcom perfectly suited to his talents. (By the time of "the Cosby Show" I found him very hard to take). It too fell out of ratings and Emmy favor the next year and was gone after its 2 seasons and I'm not sure why. The other 3 entries, all on ABC, made me cringe. Room 222 was hip and relevant, but a comedy? I don't remember it as such. Courtship and LoveAm: BLEEEHH!

 

Here's Lucy for all its shortcomings was as good or better than the other nominees in this comedy desert. And more importantly, Lucille Ball's performances were on a par with any of the nominees, because (with the possible exception of Marlo), these ladies simply read their lines, ably but uninspired, because their series gave them no outlet for an actual comedy performance, though Liz aimed for one, but missed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone can enlighten us about the Emmy nominating rules. For Comedy Actress, sometimes there's 3,4 or (in 67-68) 5. I would assume there hasn't to be a certain number of total votes before you're nominated.

The fact that the winners in the top series acting categories in 66-67 and 67-68 caused a bit of a stir. There was talk of changing the Emmy rules to prevent repeat winners. I think Lucy's 68 win caused an unfair backlash against her, especially since the favored nominee Paula Prentiss was so fresh and new and Lucy was considered an old war horse who had won her share, as if she should step aside for someone younger. Of the 4 66-67,67-68 repeat winners, 2 won again in 68-69 and the other winner Bill Cosby's show I Spy had been canceled, so really only Lucy suffered.

1966 to 1970 were NOT good years for comedy on television, evidence by the nominees (winner listed first)

Best Comedy Actress:

1968-69 Hope Lange, Barbara Feldon, Diahann Carroll, Marlo Thomas, Eliz Montgomery

1969-70 Hope, Marlo, Liz

IMO the most glaring omission is the exclusion of the only two women (besides Lucy) who gave us actual COMEDY; Eve Arden and Kaye Ballard of the Mothers In Law. Especially Kaye who I appreciate much more since getting the MIL DVDs last year. She brings much needed energy and a uniqueness that should have been rewarded---with more work at least. Granted MIL was not ground-breaking comedy and could be a bit creaky at times, but you can't fault the two leads.

Nothing against any of these fine women, I would have picked Marlo over Hope. I loved Liz in the early years of Bewitched but by this time the show was already tired (and had 3 seasons to go!) and Liz was mugging and overacting. Hope was appealing but G&Mrs.Muir did not tax anyone's talents. One Emmy maybe, but TWO??

Best Comedy:

68-69 Get Smart, Bewitched, Family Affair, Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Julia

Was GS in its 4th and final NBC year that good? I would guess not. G&Mrs.M had an intriguing concept but it was not one that made for a good series. however it did give us Reta Shaw. Charles Nelson Reilly had the bulk of the comedy in a Mrs. Kravitz like role. Family Affair: REALLY?, I don't know what the fuss was about Julia other than a "colored woman" (which is what Julia called herself in the first episode) was the star of a show. It dealt, very superficially, with race issues so was considered 'relevant', but a comedy? "Julia" faded very quickly after its first high-profile season.

69-70 My World and Welcome To It, Courtship of Eddie's Father, Room 222, Bill Cosby Show, Love American Style

The one-season My World was 'innovative' in that it incorporated James Thurber drawings within the show, but I don't remember ever seeing it. Bill Cosby's first sitcom would have been my pick. In this one he played a PE teacher in this laugh-track-less sitcom perfectly suited to his talents. (By the time of "the Cosby Show" I found him very hard to take). It too fell out of ratings and Emmy favor the next year and was gone after its 2 seasons and I'm not sure why. The other 3 entries, all on ABC, made me cringe. Room 222 was hip and relevant, but a comedy? I don't remember it as such. Courtship and LoveAm: BLEEEHH!

 

Here's Lucy for all its shortcomings was as good or better than the other nominees in this comedy desert. And more importantly, Lucille Ball's performances were on a par with any of the nominees, because (with the possible exception of Marlo), these ladies simply read their lines, ably but uninspired, because their series gave them no outlet for an actual comedy performance, though Liz aimed for one, but missed!

 

 

 

Marlo Thomas was not nominated for an Emmy during the 1968-69 season. It was just Hope Lange, Barbara Feldon, Diahann Carroll and Elizabeth Montgomery. The winner was Hope Lange (a good actress but not deserving of an Emmy.) If anyone deserved an Emmy it was Elizabeth Montgomery who was nominated five times for "Bewitched" and nominated for TV Movies "Lizzie Borden," "A Case of Rape," and "The Awakening Land," not to mention her first Emmy nomination for The Untouchables in the eary 60's. Today, its okay to nominate Betty White (who I love) for every stupid thing she does. Betty got an Emmy nomination for Off Thier Rockers as Best Reality Show Host (PLEASEEEEEEE) and she won an Emmy for "The Pet Set" a daytime show as Best Hostess. Betty White getting the SAG Award for Hot In Cleveland was one of the biggest jokes. The show is terrible. Mary Tyler Moore was another Emmy darling winning two during the 73-74 season for Best Comedy Actress and Actress of the Year. Actress of the Year was a new category. The following year the category was dropped because it was just plain stupid. They pitted Mary Tyler Moore against Michael Learned of "The Waltons." Mary won. Mary Tyler Moore got way too many Emmy nominations: two for The Dick Van Dyke Show (and she wasn't the lead in the show/she was a supporting character and seven nominations for her own show. I think Lucy was the one who got a backlash for winning a 4th Emmy in 1967-68. Lucille Ball should have won her third Emmy for the first season of "The Lucy Show" and Vivian Vance should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actress. In 1962-63 Lucille Ball's big comeback resulted in one Emmy nomination for Best Actress In A Comedy. Lucy was runner-up to Shirley Booth of "Hazel." But what really gets me mad was that Lucy & Vivian (supporting actress) was shut out of the race during the 1963-64 season. The nomineesfor Best Actress in A Comedy were Irene Ryan (Beverly Hillbillies), Mary Tyler Moore (Dick Van Dyke), Shirley Booth (Hazel), Patty Duke (Patty Dyke Show) and Inger Stevens (The Farmer's Daughter.) Mary won.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely disagree about Sandy Duncan and FUNNY FACE. She was a sensation on that show and extremely popular - it really looked like Sandy was going to be the 70's "new Lucy" like Carol Burnett seemed to be the 60's "new Lucy" (all the while the original of course was still going strong in both decades with her popularity unthreatened by up and comers.) Sandy was very popular with kids at the time with that series and the Disney picture MILLION DOLLAR DUCK. I don't know why CBS didn't just revive FUNNY FACE when she was well enough to return to work instead of creating a new show which strangely just didn't jell for her. Sandy deserved that Emmy nomination though and didn't get nominated for being ill. Sentimental Hollywood ain't, that's for sure, well at least not toward female stars.

 

Also Can't agree with your comment if a show is bad people won't watch it, look at all the highly rated popular crap of the last three decades. HERE'S LUCY wasn't bad but Lucy had set the bar so high with I LOVE LUCY and to a lesser degree with THE LUCY SHOW it's not surprising the Emmys chose to ignore her third series for the current "hip" crowd of Mary, Jean, Bea, and Valerie. She probably would have got a few HL nominations though if the category the Emmys had kept their nominee counts at five instead down to three during those years.

 

During the 70's there was no set count. There could have been five nominees. CBS knew Funny Face was not a well produced show and they were having problems with the series, especially the supporting cast. It was only a hit because it followed All in the Family. They didn't bring it back the following year because they knew it was a very weak show and they produced an even more horrible show for Sandy known as The Sandy Duncan Show. Valerie Harper was great in Rhoda but only during the first two seasons. She did deserve to win during the first season (1974-75) of Rhoda. But seasons three thru five (season five only lasted half a season) were terrible and the ratings reflected it. After Rhoda and Joe split the show just dropped out of the Top 20. In its' last season it was (I believe) in 79th place in the ratings. Beatrice Arthur who I thought was good in Maude only received one Emmy and deserved at least another, but Maude was another "Rhoda" the ratings after the fourth season dropped and it was cancelled during season six. The show was never a hit in syndication or on DVD. I tried to watch a rerun of Maude recently and it's just not funny it's too topical like All in the Family. I believe it was Jean Stapleton who made All in the Family a funny show. When I watch a rerun today she is the only character that still makes me laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure it would have hurt - to go from such a strong show winning two Emmy's to doing a brand new show with her two kids for another 6 seasons and winning nothing - how wouldn't that upset you?, even if she didn't show it, it must have cut deep :(

The beginning of her sadness from people not appreciating her work more than likely started here. Poor Lucy. Don't you wish that in those later years you could just hug her and tell her she was loved everywhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beginning of her sadness from people not appreciating her work more than likely started here. Poor Lucy. Don't you wish that in those later years you could just hug her and tell her she was loved everywhere?

 

Miss Ball loved her work, we all know that but I don't think she did it with winning awards (or even being nominated) in mind. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the 70's there was no set count. There could have been five nominees. CBS knew Funny Face was not a well produced show and they were having problems with the series, especially the supporting cast. It was only a hit because it followed All in the Family. They didn't bring it back the following year because they knew it was a very weak show and they produced an even more horrible show for Sandy known as The Sandy Duncan Show. Valerie Harper was great in Rhoda but only during the first two seasons. She did deserve to win during the first season (1974-75) of Rhoda. But seasons three thru five (season five only lasted half a season) were terrible and the ratings reflected it. After Rhoda and Joe split the show just dropped out of the Top 20. In its' last season it was (I believe) in 79th place in the ratings. Beatrice Arthur who I thought was good in Maude only received one Emmy and deserved at least another, but Maude was another "Rhoda" the ratings after the fourth season dropped and it was cancelled during season six. The show was never a hit in syndication or on DVD. I tried to watch a rerun of Maude recently and it's just not funny it's too topical like All in the Family. I believe it was Jean Stapleton who made All in the Family a funny show. When I watch a rerun today she is the only character that still makes me laugh.

 

I think one thing to remember is how much things were changing -- and ever so rapidly -- in the early 70s: We still had "old guard" 60s-type family sitcoms (many more on the "sit" side than "comedy"!) still airing (Brady Bunch, Partridge Family, Room 222, Mayberry RFD, etc.), along with the burgeoning MTM product, which was classic character-driven comedy (MTM, Bob Newhart, Rhoda, Paul Sand, etc.) alongside increasingly popular "realistic" (for lack of a better word) shows mostly from Norman Lear's wheelhouse (AITF, Maude, Jeffersons, Sanford & Son, Mary Hartman, etc.) and so with such an amalgam of styles, quality and presentation, it was a unique, often confusing time, not only for the home audience but the professionals in the industry as well.

 

I'm sure the first few years of the 70s the TV Academy was scratching its collective head wondering what the hell was going on! :lucythrill:

(But oh what an exciting time it was!!! :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the 70's there was no set count. There could have been five nominees. CBS knew Funny Face was not a well produced show and they were having problems with the series, especially the supporting cast. It was only a hit because it followed All in the Family. They didn't bring it back the following year because they knew it was a very weak show and they produced an even more horrible show for Sandy known as The Sandy Duncan Show. Valerie Harper was great in Rhoda but only during the first two seasons. She did deserve to win during the first season (1974-75) of Rhoda. But seasons three thru five (season five only lasted half a season) were terrible and the ratings reflected it. After Rhoda and Joe split the show just dropped out of the Top 20. In its' last season it was (I believe) in 79th place in the ratings. Beatrice Arthur who I thought was good in Maude only received one Emmy and deserved at least another, but Maude was another "Rhoda" the ratings after the fourth season dropped and it was cancelled during season six. The show was never a hit in syndication or on DVD. I tried to watch a rerun of Maude recently and it's just not funny it's too topical like All in the Family. I believe it was Jean Stapleton who made All in the Family a funny show. When I watch a rerun today she is the only character that still makes me laugh.

 

I have to respectfully disagree, as I think Bea Arthur / Maude was one of the funniest ladies / shows in televsion history. Topical, yes; dated, perhaps, but particulary in the midway point of the shows run, after Vivian and Arthur married and the maid was primarily Mrs. Naugatuck, the cast "jelled" and produced some of the funniest and most memorable episodes of the series.

 

I do agree that Ms. Arthur indeed well-deserved at least one more Emmy statue (if not more), regardless of whom she was up against. But at least she won one for the role, which is more than many equally-deserving actors did for their respective roles in their series. :lucyshy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucille Ball deserved to win an Emmy for Here's Lucy, especially during seasons three and four. The Academy probably felt that by 1969 Lucille Ball had received enough (13 Emmy Nominations, 4 wins and the title of First Lady of Television) but it's still not fair. The nominees for Best Actress In A Comedy during 1971-72 season were Sandy Duncan (Funny Face), Mary Tyler Moore and Jean Stapleton. I can't believe the Academey overlooked Lucy for Sandy Duncan. Her show was a hit because it was placed right after All in the Family and right before Mary Tyler Moore on Saturday night. She got the nomination because she had surgery on one of her eyes and had to end the show during mid-season. She returned the following year with The Sandy Duncan Show which was cancelled before mid-season. I thought Lucy should have won during the third season of Here's Lucy (1970-71), but instead of nominating Lucy the Academy acknowledges the writers and Gale Gordon for the Burton episode. They nominate Mary Tyler Moore, Jean Stapleton and Marlo Thomas (That Girl) for Best Actress. In my opinion Mary Tyler Moore was overrated. The show was good but the supporting cast made it funny. Marlo Thomas was a good comedienne but her show was never a hit in the ratings and by the fourth season the show was really getting tired with Ann Marie and Don holding hands. It's funny because Lucille Ball received three Golden Globe nominations for Here's Lucy in 1969, 1970 and 1971 for Best Actress In A Comedy/Musical Series for "Here's Lucy". She was definitely worthy of an Emmy nomination.

 

The writing for "Here's Lucy" wasn't the greatest but because of Lucy and Gale the shows were funny and still hold up until today. The first five seasons of "Here's Lucy" were the best. Out of the 24 episodes produced each season I would say that there were about 4 shows (in each of the first five seasons) that were terrible; especially the jungle shows. Season six is the worst season of "Here's Lucy". Lucy did season six because she was persuaded by Fred Silverman of CBS, but you can tell here heart really wasn't in it. She should have quit at the end of season five. There are only four good episodes during the first half of season six. The second half of "Here's Lucy" gets much better. I think "Here's Lucy" was very underrated because Lucy did some of her best work in this show. During the 1968-69 and 1969-70 seasons "Laugh-In" was the number one show but Lucy still remained in the Top 10 at number 9 (1968-69) and number 6 (1969-70), and in 1970 "Here's Lucy" topped "Laugh-In" - Lucy was number 3 and CBS's highest rated show and "Laugh-In" fell out of the Top 10. I am one of Lucille Ball's biggest fans and I also believe that if a TV show is bad people are not going to watch no matter who you are - i.e. Life With Lucy - I watch only four out of the eight shows that aired and couldn't take it. My point is that "Here's Lucy" was a pretty good sitcom and if people didn't like it they would have changed the channel as they did with Life With Lucy. I am so tired of reading stories by old men like Maury Thompson and Herbert Kenwith putting the show down. They were just bitter because of Lucy's star status and her enduring longevity.

 

Much as I'm enjoying reading your thoughts, Mr. Wilson, it's a little difficult to clearly respond to your posts since you are stating facts intertwined with personal opinions and observations (e.g. that Duncan was nominated for an Emmy solely for having eye surgery (which we do know effectively prematurely ended Funny Face) -- really? That's a pretty callous thing to say, IMHO, she was just as deserving of recognition in her category for her wonderful work as she was for any health problems. Oy!), although there are many points I do agree with you on....but perhaps nearly as many that I don't. ;)

 

What show were the late Maury Thompson and Herb Kenwith putting down? They were both involved with her later series and if anything, I would imagine (but have no way of knowing since I wasn't there) that if they were indeed "bitter" it may be because they perhaps felt they didn't receive more "credit" for the shows success? Just a thought.

 

Above all, I don't care to nor do I think it's fair to disparage those who, again IMHO were just as deserving of nominations for their work as Our Favorite Redhead. I grew up watching and loving most of these shows and the strong, talented women in lead roles and except for the glaring, dispicable total shafting of Elizabeth Montgomery year after year, I can't think of one instance where I think it would be more "fair" to wrench the award out of that year's winners hands and hand it Lucy or someone else in the category.

Perhaps they simply should have had more ties! :lucyhaha:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miss Ball loved her work, we all know that but I don't think she did it with winning awards (or even being nominated) in mind. :)

I know that, we all do. But she adored when others appreciated her work. That brought her the greatest joy it seems like. Nothing better than to see her get rewarded for her work, so humble and loved her audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I'm enjoying reading your thoughts, Mr. Wilson, it's a little difficult to clearly respond to your posts since you are stating facts intertwined with personal opinions and observations (e.g. that Duncan was nominated for an Emmy solely for having eye surgery (which we do know effectively prematurely ended Funny Face) -- really? That's a pretty callous thing to say, IMHO, she was just as deserving of recognition in her category for her wonderful work as she was for any health problems. Oy!), although there are many points I do agree with you on....but perhaps nearly as many that I don't. ;)

 

What show were the late Maury Thompson and Herb Kenwith putting down? They were both involved with her later series and if anything, I would imagine (but have no way of knowing since I wasn't there) that if they were indeed "bitter" it may be because they perhaps felt they didn't receive more "credit" for the shows success? Just a thought.

 

Above all, I don't care to nor do I think it's fair to disparage those who, again IMHO were just as deserving of nominations for their work as Our Favorite Redhead. I grew up watching and loving most of these shows and the strong, talented women in lead roles and except for the glaring, dispicable total shafting of Elizabeth Montgomery year after year, I can't think of one instance where I think it would be more "fair" to wrench the award out of that year's winners hands and hand it Lucy or someone else in the category.

Perhaps they simply should have had more ties! :lucyhaha:

 

 

I totally agree with you about Elizabeth Montgomery. She deserved to win more than anyone else after receiving so many Emmy Nominations. But as far as Sandy Duncan is concerned the show "Funny Face" was horrible, critics hated it, and CBS was having problems with the show. They knew it was a weak series and that's why they revamped the show the following year and renamed it The Sandy Duncan Show. There are a lot of actors that won awards and weren't deserving i.e. Elizabeth Taylor won the 1960 Best Actress for Butterfield 8 a really bad film. 1960 was not a good year for Liz health wise. There was also rumor that she won the award out of illness. I believe Sandy Duncan got the Emmy nod over Lucy because in 1971 Lucy was considered old hat and the Academy just didn't want to nominated Lucy again in the Best Actress Comedy category and gave the nod to Sandy who was also having a tough time health wise with the loss of her eye. I have nothing against Sandy Duncan but she did not deserve the nomination just like Lindsay Wagner didn't deserve to win Best Actress In A Drama for Bionic Woman.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you about Elizabeth Montgomery. She deserved to win more than anyone else after receiving so many Emmy Nominations. But as far as Sandy Duncan is concerned the show "Funny Face" was horrible, critics hated it, and CBS was having problems with the show. They knew it was a weak series and that's why they revamped the show the following year and renamed it The Sandy Duncan Show. There are a lot of actors that won awards and weren't deserving i.e. Elizabeth Taylor won the 1960 Best Actress for Butterfield 8 a really bad film. 1960 was not a good year for Liz health wise. There was also rumor that she won the award out of illness. I believe Sandy Duncan got the Emmy nod over Lucy because in 1971 Lucy was considered old hat and the Academy just didn't want to nominated Lucy again in the Best Actress Comedy category and gave the nod to Sandy who was also having a tough time health wise with the loss of her eye. I have nothing against Sandy Duncan but she did not deserve the nomination just like Lindsay Wagner didn't deserve to win Best Actress In A Drama for Bionic Woman.

I guess we're just going to "agree to disagree" since I was a huge fan of Bionic Woman, and Lindsay Wagner, loved her and her work and I don't begrudge her her awards either.

 

I'm wondering aloud here but perhaps by this point (early 70s) that we're talking about maybe the Academy just took LB for granted, maybe thinking well it's the same old but a little older/slower/repetitive Lucy -- she's "been there, done that". I dunno... but you'd think for nothing else she would have been nominated for the Liz & Dick episode, a superior installment all the way around (and of course, a ratings bullseye!). :lucyblah:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...