If I weren’t so steeped in mathematics that I couldn’t bring myself to gamble on the Powerball $1.5B jackpot, I would have bet on 12/12/12/12/12 [And yes, I actually know that that is not a valid lottery ticket].

It’s my “Year of the 12”. The 12th Doctor, of course. Series 8, episode 12, Series 9. Episode 12 – and now The Flash: Season 2, episode 12, and Legends of Tomorrow, Season 1, episode 12.

I have had enough good luck in my life (family, friends, work, career, school and I even once won the jackpot on a slot machine) that winning the lottery isn’t in my future. I would be better off buying tickets and giving them to the homeless outside the mini-mart. They would have lost on my 12’s anyway – and probably would prefer the $2.

Thinking about the ‘most talked about story of the week,” namely the Lottery, I am reminded of its tag-line: “You gotta play to win”. And the second most discussed story this week: the Oscars nominations, which could use the equivalent tag-line: “You gotta be seen to win”. And the sadder truth: ‘Well, no, you don’t”.

At least not for the Oscars, Emmys or BAFTA’s. A voter procedure that requires viewing all the submissions seems like a good starting place for ‘fairness’ and ‘judging based on worth’. But as I look over the qualified BAFTA TV list this year, I know that watching all the submissions would take weeks. The Emmy list is well beyond that: the fancy box sets one receives prior to Emmy season – very cool, but more decorative than practical within time-management.

So, not surprisingly, the majority of the material nominated has some backing behind it, some deep pockets pushing the voters to pay attention to that movie. Sometimes an underdog appears – mostly from another contest such as the Sundance Film Festival or the Independent Features Awards. But by the time it makes it to a bigger competition, it has money behind it – the wherewithal to send out screeners to the membership and put ads in the relevant print-spaces seen by the juries.

Awards that are voted on by a large peer membership, the WGA, DGA , BAFTA, Emmys, Oscars, are the ones most likely to be voted on by persons who have not watched even a small percentage of the eligible work.

Therefore it’s not surprise – that the nominations are mostly predictable, that they lack diversity. The flaws in the voting system are hardly new. They just haven’t been addressed.

For instance, take the 2006 Emmy Nominations: Ellen Burstyn was nominated for a role that was 14 seconds on screen – a flashback sitting in a chair.



How many of the voters actually watched this appearance and thoughtfully compared it to the numerous supporting performance of lesser known actors, and decided it was the best. Take a look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHmT_yjdcV0

I believe this clip is her ENTIRE performance.

http://www.today.com/id/14253083/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/emmy-seconds-worth-work/ I venture that Ms. Burstyn herself does not considered this among her crowning achievements. So let’s not pretend that name-recognition doesn’t at times outweigh talent.

The Daily Mail weighs in (yeah, I know)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2536916/How-Bafta-judges-vote-films-theyve-never-seen-An-insider-turns-whistleblower-reveal-shocking-truth-Britains-awards.html

DIVERSITY ISSUES

As you have no doubt read, the Academy is mostly White and Male. It starts even before that – with the movies that are actually made. No real surprises, Cara Buckley’s NYTimes article is an excellent analysis. This blog is hardly revolutionary rhetoric.

But every time the diversity ‘issue’ is brought up, someone responds with a version of the following quote:

“But I just want the best/worthiest/(insert adjective), I don’t care about gender or colour.”

And it always feels as if it is written with a cocky sneer – like the person questioning the votes is just a bad loser. After all, only a fool wouldn’t want the ‘best’ to win?

It makes my eyeballs bleed.

One way to address this naïve statement is: Best? Worthiest? Based on what criteria? Highest box office/viewership? Highest rating on IMDB? Best reviewed on Rotten Tomatoes? Your ‘opinion’?

Remember Chris Rock’s eye-opening indictment of the Oscar Voters from 2005:

He went into ‘real’ America and asked people if they’d seen the Oscar-nominated movies (no), what their favorite movies were (Saw, Alien Vs. Predator, Chronicles of Riddick) and had they seen White Chicks (yes from all). [I know that this was edited to give these results]. But it returns us to the question “what are the criteria for your argument for worthiness/quality?”

I would love to see Doctor Who Series 9 honoured by BAFTA and Emmy nominations. On the statistical ‘best’ criteria, Series 9 is the top-reviewed genre show of 2015 according to Rotten Tomatoes. It is also the #4 top-reviewed returning TV show of the year.

But voters need to watch it. Historically, the BAFTA voters have a love for “Bonnets and Bustles”. Take an unnamed and uninitiated BAFTA voter and ask them to look over the list of shows of the year and all the great actors — Doctor Who seems like an obvious skip-over. Yeah, sure, Peter Capaldi is a great actor, but who cares about that kids’ show? And it’s sci-fi, not ‘real’ drama, and it’ll be around forever and we need to support new and fresh.

(Of course, we all know that joy of DW is that is strives to stay new and fresh —the Daleks did not steal from R2D2…)

If you’ve never watched Doctor Who, you may be inclined to throw up your hands in terror. But you don’t have to watch 100+ episodes of New Who and 700+episodes of Classic Who to understand how incredible the work this season has been.

Spend five minutes watching the incredible anti-war speech delivered by Peter Capaldi in “The Zygon Inversion.” Or a few more minutes watching Jenna Coleman’s emotional, powerful goodbye in “Face the Raven.” You don’t need to know these character’s history to appreciate the tremendous work here.

Take an hour to watch the experimental one-man-show puzzle-box episode “Heaven Sent,” [full disclosure – I directed this one] which can be viewed without knowing 52 years of Who-history. It is an absolute acting tour-de-force, all-doctor-all-the-time, and it demands to be seen before the voters turn to the obvious dramas.

And credit Will Oswald’s extraordinary editing of billions of years of footage. And Stuart Biddlecombe’s stunning cinematography. All accomplished on a budget less than ¼ of an episode of Game of Thrones. These craftsmen-artists need recognition.

And none of this would be possible without Steven Moffat’s immaculate, intricately plotted, remarkable script. He stated, both publicly and to the team, that this was one of the hardest things he has ever written. Love or hate the Moff, honour him for the attempt at different television and the sweat and toil for a show that could be what non-watchers assume it is: some old time-travel show with monsters.

I’m not searching for votes. I’m just asking the Voters to watch and judge on the work, not on pre-conceived notions of what the show is, as any Oscar contender would hope – watch before you vote. Cause “You gotta play to win”.

Watch watch watch.