Whenever a subject comes along celebrated by the leftwing, you can always count on one final rescue when it ultimately loses with the American people.
The writers of Game Change and the accompanying surrogates in Hollywood who turned it into a film worked hard to keep their narrative on schedule. In the free market of art (that’s the nicer way to describe a work of fiction), many folks invested a lot of money and effort in trying to make this thing work.
After the movie was hyped to the gills, it disappointed in ratings. As reported at Breitbart, a disappointing 2.1M viewers tuned in to watch. Contrast this overly-hyped propaganda piece with Sarah Palin’s Alaska which brought in 5M viewers in a single episode — or when Palin gave Oprah her largest viewing audience in two years when appearing on her show in 2009 — or when SNL was given its biggest ratings in more than a decade when the real Sarah Palin made an appearance.
The result is apparent. While the real Sarah Palin is a massive hit with the American people, the poorly-portrayed and sold out version through the avenues of smear books and films seem to all share the same fate of utter-floppery.
So I expected some type of politically correct recognition which falls in line with that of a room-monitor handing out prizes to all the kids just for participating. This was done this week when the Emmys announced that Game Change had earned 12 award nominations. Julianne Moore now stands to win an award previously earned by Tyra Banks.
I don’t mean to knock soap opera actresses who grace the screens of daytime TV, but when multi-million dollar productions are forced to share space with the likes of day-timers like Maury Povich, it’s easy to see where the legacy of the subject is headed.
To better explain the prestige of the Emmys, an article written by Joel Keller says: (Emphasis)
“As big a deal as the Emmys are to people who are TV geeks like us, in the grand scheme of things, it feels less essential than most of the other major awards shows. The winners are often forgotten a few weeks after the hardware is given out, to the point where it’s a surprise to find out who is an Emmy winner and who isn’t (for instance, did you remember that Patricia Arquette is an Emmy winner? Neither did we; she won in 2005 for “Medium”).”
“But when it comes down to Emmys vs. Oscars, it’s a bit more complicated than just TV vs. movies. Even though both academies give a ton of awards, the Oscars are more defined. There are no separate awards for best comedy, best drama, or best indie movie. It’s just best picture, best actor, best actress, etc. Natalie Portman was the best leading film actress last year, period. It’s that distinction that makes Oscar winners stick in people’s minds more.”
In other words, the Emmys seem to create categories to fill its time. Television shows and TV-movies are a dime a dozen. As such, many varying categories and sub-categories are required to fill an award show and they are divided between daytime and prime time.
Accordingly, it’s no shock that the Emmys were able to hand out 12 award nominations to the creators of Game Change. Based on its awful ratings, all that’s left is a little recognition from an auditorium filled with prime time sitcom experiments preceded by salacious talk show hosts and caddy soap opera queens.
After all is said and done, the consequences of this fact-changing hit piece seem positioned to fall on the predators. Millions of dollars are down the drain, recognition from the American public is lacking, and the intended target is still going strong.
Hope springs eternal.