Emmy: Got viewers?

Was it as endless and painful for you as it was for us?

Apparently not, because most of you at home didn't bother to watch the 60th Primetime Emmy Awards. Wise move.

Granted, you wouldn't have had to sit through the three-hour telecast perched on a folding chair so uncomfortable it could've doubled as a torture device like we did, but something must've told you to stay away. And steer clear you did. (Hey, how was the football game?)

The Emmy ratings this morning tell the story: 3.8 rating/9 share in the important adults 18-49 demo -- that's 12% below last year's record low for the program and the lowest in Nielsen's recorded People Meter history, says Live Feed.

About 12.2 million people watched, and they, no doubt, want their three hours back.

TV is lousy with awards shows these days, and even the marquee events have a tough time drawing an audience. Last night's craptacular performance won't help the cause.

Were people not interested because the most-nominated shows are niche and have a hard time drawing eyeballs themselves? Could be. Not just this town, certainly, but the whole world is celebrity saturated, so viewers can tune in anywhere, read a star rag, surf a few Interwebs sites and get their fix. No awards show needed.

Not sure what this portends about the Oscars. Time to seriously consider bringing in the populist movies? Probably, yeah.

In case you don't have time to troll around for a compendium of the bad reviews from last night's Emmys, check here. There are some doozies.