Despite new rules, picks have same old feel

There's so much that's wrong and illogical about the 2006 Emmy nominations, which were announced yesterday, that it's hard to know where to begin.

No major nominations for ``Lost"? No mention of James Gandolfini or Edie Falco? A best-drama nod for ``House," but no love for Hugh Laurie, the engine that makes it run? A first best-actor nomination for Kevin James for the eighth season of ``The King of Queens"?

And what about ``Rome," Forest Whitaker, Zach Braff, Neil Patrick Harris, Jason Lee, Ethan Suplee, Lauren Ambrose, Rainn Wilson, Naveen Andrews, Terry O'Quinn, Michael C. Hall?

OK, breathe.

This year, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences instituted a few new rules -- including a ``blue-ribbon" judging panel -- designed to help TV's underdogs make it into the nomination process. The result? An absolute mess, one that has succeeded only in keeping such tired series as ``Will & Grace" high on the list with 10 nominations while continuing to ignore the under-recognized gems.

Is finally taking note of ``Two and a Half Men" and its stars Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer considered some kind of progress?

The facts: ``24" was the most honored drama, with 12 nominations, including best drama, actor (Kiefer Sutherland), supporting actor (Gregory Itzin), and supporting actress (Jean Smart). ``Grey's Anatomy" was not far behind, with 11 nominations, including best drama and supporting actress (Sandra Oh, Chandra Wilson). And ``Will & Grace" was the comedy to beat, with nods for best comedy, actress (Debra Messing), supporting actor (Sean Hayes), and supporting actress (Megan Mullally).

Thanks to ``The Sopranos," ``Curb Your Enthusiasm," and ``Elizabeth I," HBO led all networks with 95 nominations, followed by ABC (64), CBS (47), NBC (46), and Fox (41).

Among the best drama nominees, it will probably come down to a race between ``Grey's Anatomy" and ``24." A win to ``House," ``The Sopranos," or ``The West Wing" would qualify as a surprise. And for best comedy, a category that includes ``Will & Grace," ``The Office," ``Two and a Half Men," ``Scrubs," and ``Curb Your Enthusiasm," the voters may well have a sentimental moment for ``Will & Grace."

Too many of this year's nominations feel inauthentic to me, in that they may well have been chosen for reasons other than quality. Every season, the TV academy comes up with a list that includes its full share of favorites (such as Allison Janney) and ``career" nods. But this year that kind of beside-the-point logic seems out of control, and the 2006 Emmy ceremony, hosted by Conan O'Brien on Aug. 27, promises to be a particularly curious event.

The nomination of Stockard Channing as best actress in a comedy for ``Out of Practice" is a good example of what's wrong. Channing is an Emmy favorite -- she has been nominated 12 times for ``The West Wing" and various TV movies -- and voters seem to name her no matter what she does. She's an automatic nominee.

``Out of Practice" was one of her worst moments on TV, an irritatingly hammy performance on a now-cancel ed show. Yet, there she is among the chosen few, instead of, say, Marcia Cross, who is the best thing about ``Desperate Housewives," or Lauren Graham, who is so beloved on ``Gilmore Girls."

Too many of the choices are similarly suspicious. Were same-old-same-old faces Hayes, Messing, Jane Kaczmarek, and Martin Sheen nominated simply as parting thanks for their work on cancel ed hits ``Will & Grace," ``Malcolm in the Middle," and ``The West Wing"? Are William Shatner, Candice Bergen, and Tony Shalhoub named just because they're older-skewing faves? Was Alfre Woodard the only nominee for her disappointing turn on ``Desperate Housewives" only because of her reputation as a strong film actress? Were Mariska Hargitay and Christopher Meloni nominated purely as a pity vote for NBC's failing ``Law & Order" franchise?

Really, none of these actors' names come up very often in conversations about great acting on TV right now. Meloni certainly fits in well in the standard crime show atmosphere of ``Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," and he was even better on ``Oz." But did he have a stronger year than the unrecognized Gandolfini on ``The Sopranos"? No way.

To be fair, there are a few welcome new names this year, which may vaguely have something to do with the new nomination rules. Kyra Sedgwick has a lot of range in ``The Closer," Denis Leary is brutally good in ``Rescue Me," Steve Carell is a perfect match for the offbeat ``The Office," and Jaime Pressly is a major kick on ``My Name Is Earl."

These are the kinds of performers who aren't the usual safe bets that the Academy is so accustomed to honoring. I was also happy to see Lisa Kudrow on the list for her painfully good work in ``The Comeback," although I do wonder if she was named simply because she's in the Academy's good graces for her ``Friends" past. She deserves a nomination this year, but you never know why she got it.

One of the oddest quirks about this year's nominees is that many of last year's big winners were dropped off the list entirely. Patricia Arquette, James Spader, and Felicity Huffman are nowhere to be seen. And the top nominees from 2005, including ``Lost" and ``Desperate Housewives," were also ignored. Were they so good last year, and so negligible this year?

Who knows. It's just another absurd twist in an awards-show process that never fails to fail.

Matthew Gilbert can be reached at gilbert@globe.com.

(Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story on the Emmy nominations in Friday's Weekend section incorrectly included ``Will & Grace" as a nominee for outstanding comedy series. ``Arrested Development" is the fifth nominee.)