WEST HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA – SEPTEMBER 14: Stephen Colbert attends Apple TV+’s Primetime Emmy Party Red Carpet at Ysabel on September 14, 2025 in West Hollywood, California. (Photo by Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic)
FilmMagic
The 2025 Emmys featured a bold new experiment designed to shorten the length of acceptance speeches, but the change proved somewhat controversial.
The 2025 Emmys Tried Something New
The 77th Emmy Awards kicked off with an interesting proposition from first-time host, comedian Nate Bargatze.
Bargatze announced that a total of $100,000 was going to be donated to the Boys & Girls Club of America, with a catch—the donation would drop every time a winner delivered an acceptance speech that dragged on too long.
The winners were given 45 seconds to deliver their speech, and if they continued talking past the timer, the donation amount would drop.
Each second that passed over the 45-minute mark removed $1000 from the donation to the Boys & Girls Club, and the plummeting amount of cash was shown onscreen, right behind the winner.
“I know. I know. That’s tough. It’s hard. That’s tough. It’s brutal,” Bargatze said. “What are you going to do, though? I can’t change it. This is a game I made up, and these are the rules.”
To balance things out, $1,000 per second was added to the pot after winners cut their speeches below 45 seconds.
The rapidly rising and diving numbers added a MrBeast-esque pressure timer to speakers, and while many viewers found the timer to be a good joke, others reckoned it was a major distraction.
Many pointed out that this was not a good approach for speakers who were already nervous, noting that for some winners, this was a once-in-a-lifetime moment, and the countdown risks overshadowing what they had to say.
The timer had mixed results —John Oliver began by saying a hearty “F*** you” to Nate Bargatze,” rushing through the rest of his speech.
Hacks star Hannah Einbinder spoke over the timer, using the stage to deliver a political message, but promised that she would pay her share back to the charity.
At one point, Tina Fey apologized for how long her presenter bit was, seemingly stressed about the speeches that were cut short. There was also a joke about the In Memoriam segment going too long, and cutting into the charity donation.
The added pressure gave the Emmys something of a rushed feel, with little room for winners to relax and get spontaneous.
In keeping with the MrBeast energy, Bargatze regularly kept viewers updated with how much money the winners were earning, and squandering.
While the “ticking clock” did infuse the Emmys with dramatic tension, the experiment risked overshadowing the winning speeches.
Despite the mixed reception, the money counter was an earnest attempt to keep the show running on schedule, preventing one or two self-indulgent speakers from wrecking the running time.
There seems to be a clash between producers and viewers, as lengthy, dull speeches can make audiences cringe, but they can also inspire laughter, and memes.
Think of how Adrian Brody’s bloated Oscars speech became part of the discourse.
Notably, most viewers are watching the Emmys and other award ceremonies in bite-sized clips, scattered through social media timelines, rather than the full ceremony, and don’t pay as much attention to the running time.
Ideally, some of those over-the-top speeches are going to go viral and shouldn’t be rushed offstage with an ominous ticking clock— threatening to withdraw a charitable donation is going to dampen the enthusiasm somewhat.
Perhaps we should allow our stars to bask in the spotlight after a hard-earned win—going overtime can add a bit of chaotic energy to award ceremonies.
When the Emmys concluded, the money counter had plummeted well below zero, but Bargatze reassured the audience it was a false threat—CBS is donating the full $100,000 and Bargatze personally pledged to donate $250,000.
Perhaps Hollywood should reintroduce the “shepard’s hook,” the curved cane that was always tugging Bugs Bunny and Daffy off the stage—the Emmys could surely do with a little more whimsy.