The Annual Primetime Emmys - General Discussion

[Ohwell]

I'm happy for Bob Odenkirk and "Better Call Saul" getting nominated. 

 

Also delighted that David Oyelowo got nominated for "Nightingale."  I have never seen anyone on screen just utterly and completely lose his shit all by himself but he did a masterful job of pulling it off.  If he doesn't win, then I'm pulling for Richard Jenkins in "Olive Kitteridge."  I think Frances McDormand has the lock on the win though.*

 

I, too, am sad that Laurie Metcalf didn't get nominated for "Getting On."  Just that one scene when she was trying to tell the woman that her mother was dead--the look on her face--should have gotten her the nod. 

 

I'm also bummed that "Justified" didn't get any love and I just don't understand it.

 

*Oops, I meant the lock on the win in the actress category.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Ohwell

[ratgirlagogo]

 

I'm also bummed that "Justified" didn't get any love and I just don't understand it.

How can Homeland which has been just wretched for every single season after season one get nominated year after year?  And Justified gets nothing??!!  I just don't understand it either.

[truthaboutluv]

Serious question but who is even still watching Downton Abbey anymore? It's like damn, what does the cast and creators of The Americans have to do to get ANY love from Emmy voters? And I know it's always a long shot but I'm always rooting for Bates Motel and Hamnibal to get some love. Finally, I was really surprised to see The Affair completely shut out. While I hate the two lead characters and I do think the show has its flaws, I definitely would have voted for Ruth Wilson over Taraji for Best Actress.

Edited July 16, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[AimingforYoko]

Can someone explain to me Emmy's hardon for Jeff Daniels?

[blackwing]

(small voice) I still watch Downton Abbey and enjoy it a lot.  I'm actually kind of surprised that the incomparable Dame Maggie Smith wasn't nominated.  Some people may be tired of her, but there's a reason why she is a legend, her performance is flawless.  

 

Everyone is saying that this is finally Jon Hamm's year, but I'm thinking I disagree, I think Bob Odenkirk wins.  Elisabeth Moss loses in my book as well.  She is at best an ensemble player, I am confused as to why they have insisted on submitting her as Lead year after year.  She's the lead female in that she one of the most important females on the show, but she doesn't carry the show.  I'm hoping for Viola Davis.  In the lead comedy categories, I think Jeffrey Tambor and Amy Schumer are near locks.

 

I think Christina Hendricks could finally win this year.  Lena Headey has never been more deserving, and she was particularly powerful during the Walk of Shame scenes.  But I think she could lose some votes to Emilia Clarke, and Hendricks wins.  Honestly though, I'd be happy if any of the Supporting Drama women win, except for Christine Baranski.

[truthaboutluv]

Everyone is saying that this is finally Jon Hamm's year, but I'm thinking I disagree, I think Bob Odenkirk wins.

 

 

Maybe they'll do to him what they did Steve Carrell - a more than deserving actor who never won for a great role.

 

I don't know how I somehow missed that Big Bang Theory was almost shut out, save for the Best Supporting Actress nod for Mayim Bialik.  Especially surprised they didn't nominate Jim Parsons again, considering they not only nominated him last year but gave him the award. I wasn't holding my breath for Modern Family.

[blackwing]

Jon Hamm is also nominated for Guest Actor for "Kimmy Schmidt".  Maybe they give him a prize there and he loses Best Actor. That'd be bittersweet I would think.

 

Cicely Tyson MUST win Guest Supporting Actress Drama for her amazing portrayal of Viola Davis' mom on "How to Get Away with Murder".  So happy she was recognized.  The night that episode aired I was saying she should get an Emmy.

[Ruby25]

I don't get how they're not recognizing the guys from Silicon Valley, especially if they like the show overall. The cast is so great- I thought for sure TJ Miller at least would get in there. The ensemble really makes the show.

[Princess Sparkle]

Can someone explain to me Emmy's hardon for Jeff Daniels?

I remember reading, back when he had his upset win, that while the overall show has some issues (to say the least), for a role like Jeff Daniels has, it gives him the opportunity to do long, passionate monologues that the academy LOVES.  

[cpcathy]

Can someone explain to me Emmy's hardon for Jeff Daniels?

 

And while you're at it, explain the hard on for Michael J. Fox. He's really one of the most overdecorated actors I've ever seen.

[blackwing]

Or Edie Falco.  Nominated 6 out of 9 years for The Sopranos with three wins.  Nominated 6 out of 7 years for Nurse Jackie with one win.  Since 1999, she has been nominated 12 of the past 17 years, and one of those years she was in between shows.

[Snow Apple]

Modern Family again? I still watch the show, but I don't think it's Emmy worthy anymore. The Big Bang Theory is no longer the show it once was either but at least I still get laughs out of it, and they snubbed BBT but not MF too? Explain please.

[CMH1981]

I just realized they forgot Eden Sher for supporting actress in a comedy.  I mean couldn't they have made one more spot in that huge sea of nominees?

 

 

Jon Hamm is also nominated for Guest Actor for "Kimmy Schmidt".  Maybe they give him a prize there and he loses Best Actor. That'd be bittersweet I would think.

 

Well since they announce the guest actor award at the technical awards, I think we know if he wins there that he isn't winning for Mad Men at the actual ceremony.

Edited July 16, 2015 by CMH1981

[AshleyN]

Game of Thrones getting two directing nominations and neither being for "Hardhome" is a major WTF to me. I'm pulling for Lena Headey in Supporting Actress, but if they were going to nominate a second GoT actress there I'd much prefer Maisie Williams or Sophie Turner to Emilia Clarke.

 

Also, I know Comedy Actress is a brutal category (probably the most competitive acting category of the year), but the fact the Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt got FOUR acting nominations and neither was for Ellie Kemper is just bizarre.

 

On the same Comedy Actress note, I guess Gina Rodriguez can join the likes of Lauren Graham, Keri Russel, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Kristen Bell on the list of WB/CW actresses that the Emmys refuse to acknowledge no matter how much acclaim they receive elsewhere.

 

I'm a little surprised none of the Silicon Valley actors managed to break through. The show already got a series nomination last year, and this year seemed to have much stronger buzz, so I thought Thomas Middleditch or TJ Miller had a pretty good chance of getting in. The former in particular, since Comedy Actor is a pretty barren category (does anyone even watch Episodes or House of Lies?) and it ended up with seven nominees.

 

I'm way behind on Orphan Black, but still really happy to see Maslany recognized. Two years too late is better than never.

 

Finally, could the Modern Family reign FINALLY be over? It was left out of directing and writing, and only had two main cast members nominated (as opposed to their usual five or six). Then again, I said the same thing last year after Orange is the New Black cleaned up in the nominations, so I'll try not to get ahead of myself.

Edited July 16, 2015 by AshleyN

[Irlandesa]

My immediate response: nothing for "The Americans" or "Jane the Virgin"?

That The Americans is overlooked for the likes of Homeland or Dowton Abbey just irks me.  And while I love Margo Martindale and her character on The Americans, her character had so very little to do in her short appearance last season so it's hard for me to be anything other than dumbstruck by it.  It's almost as if the voters kept hearing how it was a shame The Americans didn't get any Emmy love so instead of paying attention to the overall show, they instead chose to throw their love behind an actor they had awarded in the past to try to alleviate that criticism. 

 

I'm not surprised about Jane The Virgin except for potentially Gina Rodriguez.  Even if it hadn't fallen off in quality in the second half of the season (not that I think it would have necessarily mattered to the Emmys if it were on the pay channels) it was facing an uphill battle being a telenovela and on the CW.  But Gina had been killing it on the awards scene.  Not only was she winning but she was giving amazing acceptance speeches.

 

I think Will Forte deserved his nomination, he did a lot of acting alone on Last Man on Earth.

His character is awful but Will did a good job.  I'm a little sorry that Kristin Schaal didn't get recognized, though.  I can take or leave her depending on the role she's playing but I think she did terrific work on LMOE and gave it some heart.

 

I would have loved to see Tobias Menzies get a Best Supporting nod for Outlander.  I lost interest in Outlander but Tobias is terrific and has been for a long time.

 

Jon Hamm has a good shot at the guest actor win but I wouldn't be surprised if Bradley Whitford took it.  He already has Emmy hardware and he has already been recognized for his guest work on Transparent.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Irlandesa

[DearEvette]

"Nothing for 'The Americans?' was my second thought after being happy for Tatiana.

 

My third thought: Congrats to Anthony Anderson, but no recognition for Tracey Ellis Ross for black-ish? She's as talented on the show as he is.

 

My fourth thought was "Again?" in honor of the shows that continue to be nominated year after year, even though their quality has fallen over the years: Downton Abbey, Homeland, and Modern Family, to name a few.

 

So much this!

 

My head scratchers: Downton Abbey, Homeland, Modern Family, Claire Danes, Jeff Daniels, Jeff Bridges (season 1 yes, Season 2, no).  Grace of Monaco?

 

My WTF: No Tracee Ellis Ross? How to you nominate Key without Peele?  Not a single song from Empire? No Lorraine Toussaint as guest (as much as I love Allison Janney on Masters of Sex she really didn't do much on S2. No Gina Rodriguez.  No

 

My yearly question:  How can shows like Saturday Night Live, Key & Peele or Inside Amy Schumer be a Variety series but all the actors in the show are in Comedy series categories?  Doesn't seem fair somehow that shows like that can be in multiple categories divide the show from the performances like that but other shows that legitmately straddle the line between comedy and drama can't.

[helenamonster]

As someone who watches and, for the most part, genuinely enjoys Downton Abbey, it did not deserve to be nominated for this past season, which featured such storylines as Mary's Neverending Harem, the Merry Murdering Bateses, and the Judgement of Edith Crawley. Say whaaa??? However, I will not turn my nose up at a nom for Joanne Froggatt. She's long overdue for her Emmy hardware, imo. Anna's stories are shit but damn if she doesn't do some awesome work with them. I haven't finished the second half of S7 of Mad Men yet but I wouldn't be in the least bit upset if Christina Hendricks ends up taking home that one instead. Joan Harris is my heart, and it's her last chance at an Emmy for the role.

 

I've only watched the first half of S1 of Orphan Black but I'm happy for Tatiana Maslany and all her fans. It really is easy to forget that all those characters are played by one actress.

 

Super stoked at the love Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt got, but I gotta scratch my head at them not nominating Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt herself. Ellie Kemper is an absolute gem in the role. The main character is rarely ever my favorite in any work of fiction, but she's just phenomenal. However, after looking at the noms in the Lead Actress Comedy category I could see that it was tough. However...despite my love of Edie Falco (she's one person that can take home as many Emmys as she wants for the rest of her life as far as I'm concerned), is Nurse Jackie really a comedy? I've never seen it (watched them film a scene on my school's campus last fall, though, and was only five feet from EF and totes magotes freaking out!) but her name just seems really out of place in that category. I'd rather her get shuffled over to drama to make room for Kemper. But I guess if Nurse Jackie really is a comedy it makes sense. I'm sure EF can be very funny but I'll always see Carmela Soprano when I look at her and it's weird to see her nominated for the same award as Amy Poehler and Lisa Kudrow.

 

If Jon Hamm wins for UKS but not Mad Men...that should be interesting. If he wins for both that'd be hella.

[MyAimIsTrue]

(small voice) I still watch Downton Abbey and enjoy it a lot.  I'm actually kind of surprised that the incomparable Dame Maggie Smith wasn't nominated.  Some people may be tired of her, but there's a reason why she is a legend, her performance is flawless.  

 

I proudly admit to watching Downton Abbey and agree with you about Maggie Smith.  She is the heart, soul, and genius of that show.

 

Can someone please explain to me who the hell Amy Schumer is and why the hell she's everywhere (magazine covers, media, etc.) the past few months?  I'd never heard of her before then and she seems like a real life version of "fetch" that someone is succeeding in making happen.

[wonderwoman]

"Can someone please explain to me who the hell Amy Schumer is and why the hell she's everywhere (magazine covers, media, etc.) the past few months? I'd never heard of her before then and she seems like a real life version of "fetch" that someone is succeeding in making happen."

I was thinking the same thing until I started watching her show, "Inside Amy Schumer." Then I got it. Of course, then I watched her stand-up special on Comedy Central. That I didn't get. But the show, check out a few episodes. A lot of critical subtext in some of those sketches.

[fakeempress]

Emilia Clarke gets nominated AGAIN? I want to see who voted for her.

 

At least I don't have to suffer through another embarrassing snub for Tatiana. 

[Blakeston]

No Lorraine Toussaint as guest (as much as I love Allison Janney on Masters of Sex she really didn't do much on S2.

Lorraine Toussaint wasn't eligible in the Guest Actress category this year. They changed the rules, so that actors aren't eligible in the guest categories if they're in more than half of the season's episodes. (That's why Uzo Aduba is nominated in supporting rather than guest this year.)

Personally, I would have given Toussaint a supporting nomination over Aduba.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Blakeston

[superdeluxe]

(small voice) I still watch Downton Abbey and enjoy it a lot.  I'm actually kind of surprised that the incomparable Dame Maggie Smith wasn't nominated.  Some people may be tired of her, but there's a reason why she is a legend, her performance is flawless

 

In kind of the same vein, I still watch Modern Family and enjoy it a lot.  I still get big laughs from that show.  So, for me, it's sad that it looks like the reign is over.  It's going to lose to a show that really isn't funny.  I don't watch Veep.  I've seen clips of it and I've never laughed.  And Transparent?  That's basically a 30 minute drama.

 

Can someone please explain to me who the hell Amy Schumer is and why the hell she's everywhere (magazine covers, media, etc.) the past few months?  I'd never heard of her before then and she seems like a real life version of "fetch" that someone is succeeding in making happen.

 

Same thing for me.  I've heard of this chick before and I've seen clips from her show.  Not funny.  I'm like, people are hyping this chick up?  Why?  Then, you have the "experts" saying that she's going to win because her movie Trainwreck is coming out and apparently that's going to be a huge hit.  They're trying really hard to make her happen and it seems to be working.  They quickly buried her controversy about making racist jokes.  Heard about that for a couple days and then that was gone.

[Snow Apple]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who have no clue to Amy Schumer is except for hearing her name all over entertainment news and magazines. All of a sudden, she was just everywhere. 

[Inquisitionist]

this chick

 

Amy Schumer is a grown woman with talent and business savvy.   Her 12 Angry Men parody alone is award-worthy, IMO.

[Ohwell]

I just want her 15 minutes to be up ASAP.  I'm sick of looking at her and hearing about  her.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Ohwell

[Irlandesa]

Amy has become more visible this summer but she hasn't just come out of nowhere.  She's a mid-30's actress and stand-up comedian who has been working for quite a while.  She's not some teenager who has had the world laid at her feet.  She has grown a fan base through the work she has done which includes writing a lot of her own material. I've heard about her for a few years now, even though this is the first year I'e started watching her show.  (Based on clips so they were funny enough for me).

 

I'm not saying she's everyone cup of tea but "out of nowhere" implies she hasn't paid her dues and I think she has.

 

In kind of the same vein, I still watch Modern Family and enjoy it a lot.  I still get big laughs from that show.  So, for me, it's sad that it looks like the reign is over.  It's going to lose to a show that really isn't funny.  I don't watch Veep.  I've seen clips of it and I've never laughed.  And Transparent?  That's basically a 30 minute drama.

I think this is where comedy is subjective.  While I do agree that Transparent is more of a 30 minute drama than a comedy, I actually laughed more at it than I usually do watching full episodes of Modern Family which is more of a traditional sitcom.  I guess what irks me about that show is that I can usually predict how they're going to get the laugh (quick cutaways).  I don't have that happen with Veep, which I find hilarious.

[blackwing]

She may have "paid her dues" but based on the comments in this thread, it appears that 95% of people had never heard of her before her recent incessant overexposure, so yes, that qualifies to me as "out of nowhere".

I mean, I saw on CNN or some other website that was saying she should be the next "Bachelorette". I mean, give me a break. Even Chelsea Handler wasn't this overexposed.

[helenamonster]

I first heard about Amy Schumer this past semester when a girl I had a couple classes with talked about interning at her show and did a presentation on her for one of the classes. I don't watch the show religiously but every once in awhile I'll go down the YouTube rabbit hole with clips. Like was stated above, comedy is subjective. I think she's pretty funny. Not to be presumptuous of anyone's age, but maybe it's a generational thing. Although I was talking to my mom recently and she randomly started going on about how funny she thought Amy was, and Amy's kind of comedy is normally not her cup of tea.

 

Idk, I think she earned her nomination fair and square. Idk what being overexposed or paying dues has anything to do with it. She's the lead actress in a comedy show that is currently airing on television. That makes her just as eligible as anyone else. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[truthaboutluv]

She may have "paid her dues" but based on the comments in this thread, it appears that 95% of people had never heard of her before her recent incessant overexposure, so yes, that qualifies to me as "out of nowhere".

I mean, I saw on CNN or some other website that was saying she should be the next "Bachelorette". I mean, give me a break. Even Chelsea Handler wasn't this overexposed.

To be fair about The Bachelorette thing, that only came about because she made a guest appearance on the show for one of the lame group dates. Viewers thought she was great and of course some ran a bit over the top with it.

[JustaPerson]

The comment section on the clips from Amy's show on youtube are surprising some of the more civilized places there. Of course there is still at least one negative comment on her appearance or women being unfunny but it's youtube, what can you do. If that doesn't mean she's funny I don't know what does. Joking of course.

 

I heard about her for a while (mostly on buzzfeed posting funny clips from her show) but never watched any of her stuff. before one of her clips showed up on my recommendations on youtube. I've definitely gone down the rabbit hole watching her clips. But her series is going into its 4th season, so I guess it's just now people are noticing (and she was nominated last year for writing). 

 

ETA: Maybe she's everywhere now because of her new movie?

Edited July 18, 2015 by JustaPerson

[superdeluxe]

I just want her 15 minutes to be up ASAP.  I'm sick of looking at her and hearing about  her.

 

That's why I'm hoping her movie will flop.  Then, maybe the experiment will be over.

[designing1]

Even though it's already overloaded with categories, perhaps the Emmys need to add a dramedy category for the increasing number of shows which, like life, do not fall squarely into either the drama or comedy realm. Those types of shows didn't used to exist; everything was either laden with laugh tracks or somber as hell. Entertainment has evolved, and it's time for the Emmys to catch up.

Edited July 18, 2015 by designing1

[sunflower]

 

Game of Thrones getting two directing nominations and neither being for "Hardhome" is a major WTF to me.

 

Right on. GOT gets the most nominations, but for the wrong things.  Hardhome was the episode of the season, with half the episode so crazy zombie battle scary, but with darkness and weight.  Miguel S deserved the nomination, the win.  But Unbowed?  Nominated for the controversy?  Mother's Mercy overrated and the ending Jon scene sucked.  But, everyone, almost, agrees that Hardhome was awesome.  

 

also Peter D and Emilia are horrible noms as they did nothing Emmy worthy.  A conversation or 2?  Please.  S Dillane as Stannis was the Emmy worthy role of the season.

 

I feel so done with Mad Men as I feel Matt Weiner made a mistake with that ending. Better Call Saul or Orange is my choice. 

 

Some really lazy choices in Drama with Homeland, Downton, House of Cards.  I stopped watching House and Homeland due to suckage, and I watch Downton, but  I know that shit's not Emmy worthy.  Nothing for Rectify, Justified, Leftovers?  Really?  Jeff Daniels, but no  Adrian Young?  Puh-lease.

Edited July 18, 2015 by sunflower

[Blakeston]

However...despite my love of Edie Falco (she's one person that can take home as many Emmys as she wants for the rest of her life as far as I'm concerned), is Nurse Jackie really a comedy? I've never seen it (watched them film a scene on my school's campus last fall, though, and was only five feet from EF and totes magotes freaking out!) but her name just seems really out of place in that category. I'd rather her get shuffled over to drama to make room for Kemper. But I guess if Nurse Jackie really is a comedy it makes sense. I'm sure EF can be very funny but I'll always see Carmela Soprano when I look at her and it's weird to see her nominated for the same award as Amy Poehler and Lisa Kudrow.

 

If we're talking about this past season, then the answer is no, it is definitely not a comedy.

 

It was a dramedy when it started off. Sort of like Weeds was - it had many dramatic elements, but it also had a lot of humor to balance it out, so it didn't neatly fit into either drama or comedy.

 

But the final season barely even attempted to be funny.

[cooksdelight]

The Marilyn Monroe biopic will probably be nominated next time around. The cutoff date for when a show can be nominated is weird.

[Ruby25]

Yeah, it's tied to the old idea that the traditional TV season runs from fall to spring, which isn't really true anymore.

[CMH1981]

 

The Marilyn Monroe biopic will probably be nominated next time around. The cutoff date for when a show can be nominated is weird.

 

The cutoff date was May 31 2015, which the Marilyn biopic met.  It just didn't get nominated for any main awards, other than for three creative arts nominations.  I read somewhere that Kelli Garner didn't even submit for the movie which is a shame, b/c she was good in the film.  The fact that they didn't even give Sarandon a nomination is shocking to me.  She was outstanding in the role of the mother.  So again, the fact that Grace of Monaco can be nominated but not this film is a shame, but i'm guessing that has something to do w/ Weinstein...we all know how he likes to buy his nominations.

[CMH1981]

 

Not sure why Juliana Margulies (defending champ) wasn't nominated.  Her show might have taken a bit of a dip...but she didn't.  She did what she always does.  She excelled.

 

I think all the rumors/backstage gossip about JM being the one who deemed her character and Kalinda wouldn't have anymore scenes together unless they are shot separately then spliced badly sunk her for this past season.  

 

In all honesty though the character arc for Alicia this past season was all over the place.

[DrSpaceman]

I've known about Amy Schumer for many years, ever since she was on Last Comic Standing.  Even before her show she has been on the stand up circuit for a long time.  I like her, I think she is hilarious. 

 

She has exploded this summer because her movie, TV show and the magazine shoot all coincided. 

 

[QueerGirrl]

I've known about Amy Schumer for many years, ever since she was on Last Comic Standing.  Even before her show she has been on the stand up circuit for a long time.  I like her, I think she is hilarious. 

 

She has exploded this summer because her movie, TV show and the magazine shoot all coincided. 

 

 

I agree DrSpaceman, I got the chance to see her live back in March and I've never missed her show on Comedy Central, she's fantastic, but I enjoy her style of humor.

[dampfire]

I think all the rumors/backstage gossip about JM being the one who deemed her character and Kalinda wouldn't have anymore scenes together unless they are shot separately then spliced badly sunk her for this past season.  

 

In all honesty though the character arc for Alicia this past season was all over the place.

 

Well, of course, there are always (or at least often) ancillary reasons why certain people get nominated or not. I agree with you that The Good Wife itself took something of a downturn this season.  But I don't think JM's acting suddenly started to suck either.  If Viola Davis can garner a nomination while appearing on the debacle that is HTGAWM...and if Clare Danes could nab a nom for the laughably disastrous third season of Homeland, I don't see why JM's acting should be automatically and correspondingly judged deficient simply because her show didn't entirely measure up to the high standards it had previously established for itself.  Even in a down year, The Good Wife was still one of the best (if not the best) drama on network TV.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not necessarily contending that JM should have received a nom this year.  I'm just saying that, if she had received one, it neither would have been a surprise nor would it have been categorically undeserved.

 

The whole feud between Juliana Marguiles and Archie Panjabi is flat out weird.  I Googled it once, and all I got was a whole lot of evasive and mysterious nothing.  Nobody seems to know (or is willing to say) exactly what happened to create the rift between the two actresses.  Speculation abounds.  But corroboration doesn't.  The feud's been going on for awhile now though.  A few seasons.  It wasn't adversely affecting the show exclusively this past season.  JM, the star of the show and a producer of some sort, seems to take the bulk of the criticism because she's the one in a position of power.  If nothing else, it all comes off as very unprofessional.  I don't know.  Unless Archie actually did something thoroughly unconscionable, the whole thing seems pretty petty.  Might be petty enough to get JM ignored this year.  But it wasn't petty enough to keep her from winning last year.  Weird.

 

Truth be told, there's a similar feud taking place on Orphan Black.  The actress who plays Alison and the actress who plays Rachel have never appeared (and, rumor has it, will never appear) in a scene together.  The problem apparently surfaced when the actress playing Rachel wanted to use a Hot Glue Gun in a seduction scene in Episode 205 ("Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est").  It just so happened that the actress who plays Alison had used a Hot Glue Gun in a torture scene in Episode 106 ("Variations Under Domestication").  When the actress who plays Alison found out about the actress who plays Rachel's intentions, the former stormed into the latter's dressing room (which they were both, paradoxically, already in) and proceeded to read the latter the riot act.  The totality of what was said is unknown.  But several reluctant witnesses do agree that, at some point during her rant, the actress who plays Alison clearly screamed (in character no less), "Holy Doodle, it's MINE!!!"

Edited July 25, 2015 by dampfire

[Irlandesa]

Haven't seen Empire yet.  But I like TJH.  I imagine her performance being big, big, big, sometimes OTT, and generally deliciously outrageous.  (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)  Have nothing intrinsically against such a performance unless there's no nuanced counterbalance (vulnerability, insecurity, tenderness...or somesuch) to it. 

TPH's character is larger-than-life so I guess her performance could be considered "big" but I think it's mostly commanding.  When she's in a scene, it's hard to pay attention to anyone else and it's not necessarily because of a "look at me" performance.  I just thoroughly believe her. At this point she's my sentimental favorite because I do think she owns the show, which is a bit of a surprise considering it is also supposed to be a Terrence Howard vehicle.  Whereas it's no surprise Viola Davis owns her show even though it is an ensemble. I do think Viola Davis might have an edge in this category for the raw power of the wig removal scene. 

 

The feud's been going on for awhile now though.  A few seasons.  It wasn't adversely affecting the show exclusively this past season.  JM, the star of the show and a producer of some sort, seems to take the bulk of the criticism because she's the one in a position of power.  If nothing else, it all comes off as very unprofessional.  I don't know.  Unless Archie actually did something thoroughly unconscionable, the whole thing seems pretty petty.  Might be petty enough to get JM ignored this year.  But it wasn't petty enough to keep her from winning last year.  Weird.

The feud has been discussed for a few seasons online but this was the first year where it started to get mainstream entertainment media attention. They are usually ready to kiss ass, and definitely have in the Good Wife's case, but finally someone took the online spec and wrote an article about noticing that they haven't shared a non-phone scene together in a few seasons.  The Good Wife then made it worse by filming scenes that were supposed to make it look like the actresses were on set together but were clearly not and it just grew.

 

I don't think this is the only reason Juliana didn't get nominated.  Room had to be made for newcomers.  And eventually, older shows start to lose Emmy recognition.

[DrSpaceman]

Continues to disappoint me that The Middle and Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia don't get nominations for best comedy. 

 

Modern Family is getting by on reputation alone. 

 

I just finally have to come down on the Louis CK and that show of his, I just do not find it that funny.  I stopped watching.  It has interesting elements.  If you want to call it a drama, fine.  I know he is and always tries to be different than the standard sitcoms, I am fine with that.  ANd I actually do like his stand up, I think he is hilarious.  I don't think he is as funny as many other comedians seem to think he is, but I enjoy his stand up.  His show though, in the end, it you are nominated for best comedy, the show should be funny.  I just don't see it with this.  Its Always Sunny is a much better example of dark, offbeat humor than Louie, in my opinion. 

 

And it makes me even more mad that for years The Simpsons was never even nominated for best comedy.  It was at one consistently the funniest show on TV, but never nominated, largely because it was a cartoon.  Then things like Ally Freakin' McBeal come along and Louie and all this other stuff that is sitcom/drama, they can get nominated, but the SImpsons in its prime could not be.  Frustrating.  The Simpsons received other nominations, but not in that best comedy series.  They submitted two years in that category and were turned down, which in retrospect, this was back in 1993 and 1994 when it was doing some of its best work and was at is peak, is just blasphemous.  Not that they did not win, but they WERE NOT EVEN NOMINATED.  ANyone even recall was sitcoms were on back then other than Seinfeld? 

 

Cheers, Home Improvement, The Larry Sanders SHow, Murphy Brown, Mad About You. 

 

Those are some quality shows, but Cheers was on its last legs and really, Home Improvement? 

Edited July 27, 2015 by DrSpaceman

[cpcathy]

Yes, they were probably just trying to fill out the category. Don't remember Cheers being on its last legs, despite being 11 years old. One of the funniest episodes ever came at the end of season 10.

I do feel the Emmy categories need tweeking, Louie and shows like Married or You're the Worst, or Togetherness (which I loved) need to be in their own categories, some have said there should be a "dramedy" category.

[helenamonster]

I'm not totally against a dramedy category, but I do feel that it would complicate the nomination process that much more. How would they determine what qualifies as a dramedy? A certain number of jokes per minute? I'm not trying to be flip, I just think it would be more trouble than it's worth.

 

I agree with the general sentiment that television is not as cookie cutter as it used to be in terms of genre, but I think the Emmy's are better served by just keeping everything as simple as possible. It might result in some unfairness, but isn't the outrage at the unfairness part of the fun of award shows? ;)

[Ruby25]

Yeah, I don't think they should include a dramedy category- it would make things too difficult. I don't think it should be that hard to decide that dramedies belong for the most part in comedy. Especially when you look at all the dramas that get in every year- for me all you have to do is stand Orange is the New Black up against Game of Thrones, Homeland, and Mad Men and you can just tell by the overall tone that Orange is supposed to be comedic and highly exaggerated compared to those shows. To me it's a black comedy most of the time and I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed in the comedy category.

[DrSpaceman]

I am not suggesting any show should not be allowed in any category they want.  Just the opposite.  I think they should be able to choose what category they want to be in, pick one comedy or drama. 

 

What I am suggesting is that if a show is nominated as a comedy, it should be funny, and that should be the primary criteria used in evaluating the show quality in that category, seeing as how that is the title of the category. 

 

Orange is the New Black yes is a dark comedy in some ways, but its not one of the best comedies or funniest shows on TV.  I like it for different reasons, and I binge watched it in a week when it came out.  But best comedy it would not be.

 

That is just an example, though, not picking on it or specifically saying anything about it. 

 

Some of the nominees and winners over the years I just don't see answering the basic question "Is this the funniest show on TV this year," or one of the five or so funniest to be nominated.  Many times I think other elements play into it that really don't seem relevant to the category. 

 

I guess my basic issue is cartoons get the shaft when it comes to best comedy nominees while "dramedies" do not.  Its better to be a non-cartoon so called dramedy and less funny than to be a comedy based cartoon, which makes no sense at all. 

 

Even ignoring The Simpsons, this is still a problem.  A show like Archer, one of the funniest shows on TV consistently, left out. 

 

And to further complicate things you have a dramedy cartoon like BoJack Horseman........seems to have no chance. 

 

 

So I went back and looked over the last 20 years or so at least since comedies have existed for adults basically.  There was the Jetsons and Flinstones back in the 60s or so, but I don't consider them like modern cartoons.  I reviewed how many cartoons have even been nominated for a primetime emmy as best comedy. 

 

ONE NOMINATION I could see in total for a cartoon in best comedy :  Family Guy in 2008 or so.  ONE nominee since the dawn of The Simpsons and the new era of cartoons.  Futurama, Archer, Family Guy, The Simpsons, BoJack Horseman, South Park, just to name the ones off the top of my head.  Three of those shows are long running classic cartoons that are considered at least among some circles as some of the funniest and also groundbreaking shows in TV history. 

 

One nomination total among all of them.  No wins, forget that. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by DrSpaceman

[Inquisitionist]

Both TV critics for the NY Times are predicting Jon Hamm will win the Best Actor category this year, and one of them even thinks he deserves it.  That kind of talk makes me nervous.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

What I am suggesting is that if a show is nominated as a comedy, it should be funny

Well, hell, that's going to leave out a lot of "comedies".  Modern Family for one.  You must be some kind of wild-eyed radical crackpot.

Edited July 30, 2015 by ratgirlagogo

[dampfire]

TPH's character is larger-than-life so I guess her performance could be considered "big" but I think it's mostly commanding.  When she's in a scene, it's hard to pay attention to anyone else and it's not necessarily because of a "look at me" performance.  I just thoroughly believe her. At this point she's my sentimental favorite because I do think she owns the show, which is a bit of a surprise considering it is also supposed to be a Terrence Howard vehicle.  Whereas it's no surprise Viola Davis owns her show even though it is an ensemble. I do think Viola Davis might have an edge in this category for the raw power of the wig removal scene. 

 

The feud has been discussed for a few seasons online but this was the first year where it started to get mainstream entertainment media attention. They are usually ready to kiss ass, and definitely have in the Good Wife's case, but finally someone took the online spec and wrote an article about noticing that they haven't shared a non-phone scene together in a few seasons.  The Good Wife then made it worse by filming scenes that were supposed to make it look like the actresses were on set together but were clearly not and it just grew.

 

I don't think this is the only reason Juliana didn't get nominated.  Room had to be made for newcomers.  And eventually, older shows start to lose Emmy recognition.

 

Well, I did finally watch Empire.  Mostly over last weekend.  Confirmed, in part, my a priori assumptions about TPH's performance ("big...OTT...outrageous"), but also offered up plenty of the "counterbalance" I was hoping for.  Sure, there's lots of Kookie Cookie on display, but there's more than enough (in a "less is more" kind of way) offsetting semi-subtlety to round out and ground the performance.  Plus, any doubts I might have had about TPH being a "lead" on the show were quickly quelled.  She's definitely a lead actress (ensemble cast or no).  Have no real qualms about her being nominated.  Commanding indeed, TPH certainly belongs among the dozen or so serious, almost interchangeable, contenders I mentioned upthread (first two lists) in the initial post of mine that you responded to, Irlandesa.  TPH's performance is memorable.  And exceedingly entertaining.

 

Agree with you that TPH and Viola Davis are probably the frontrunners in this category.  While I admired VD's performance more, TPH's was far more enjoyable to watch.  (Of the two actresses, I too will be rooting for TPH.  HTGAWM just grates on me so much that I doubt that I could bring myself to root for anything even remotely associated with that trainwreck of a show...including, sadly, The Divine Ms. Davis herself!) 

 

Deserving of a win on the basis of talent and performance as both women arguably are, it probably doesn't hurt either of their chances (not this time anyway) that they both happen to be African American...unless of course they manage, in this respect, to ironically cancel each other out of contention.  This is the first time two African American actresses have been nominated for this award in the same year.  Not many black actresses have been nominated in this category before: Debbie Allen, Fame (4 times), Regina Taylor, I'll Fly Away (twice), Kerry Washington, Scandal (twice), Cicely Tyson, Sweet Justice (once), and Alfre Woodard, St. Elsewhere (once).  I think the relatively low number of African American actresses who have been nominated previously has less to do with specific snubs (although I'm sure there were some) than it has to do with the more general paucity of lead roles for black actresses over the years.  We can hope that tendency is changing (although I, for one, am not going to hold my breath).  Big picture, it's certainly time that an African American actress won this award.  I'll be happy on that count should it happen on September 20th.  Viola Davis and Taraji P. Henson are each more than worthy of that honor.

 

That, however, would be a partially ancillary reason for rewarding VD or TPH.  As would be, IMO, giving the Emmy to Elizabeth Moss (a distinct possibility!) for all the fine work she's done "over the years" on Mad Men.  As would be giving the award to Robin Wright simply because it's deemed to be "her turn".  

 

Truth is, there doesn't seem to be a consensus about who should win.  Juliana Marguiles won last year's Emmy (then didn't even get nominated this year).  Ruth Wilson won the Golden Globe (but didn't get nominated either).  Viola Davis won the SAG award, and Taraji P. Henson won the CCA.  And how well do the GG, SAG, and CC awards serve as indicators about who will win the Emmy?  Well, Robin Wright, Maggie Smith, and Tatiana Maslany won those three awards respectively last year, and only RW was subsequently nominated for the Emmy that Juliana Marguiles eventually won.  In short, for the last seven major acting awards, there have been seven different winners.  And, just to be thorough, looking at two full years of these awards (by adding the Emmy from two years ago), all that's additionally revealed is that there have been eight different winners (Clare Danes won the Emmy two years back).  There's not one performance out there that's currently considered clearly the best...not, that is, if tracking the industry's major acting awards is used as the method of determination. 

 

It's not insignificant however that both VD and TPH are nominees appearing in first year shows.  They're the ones who most notably prevented Lizzie Caplan, Michelle Dockery, Juliana Marguiles, and Kerry Washington from duplicating their nominations from last year.  Elizabeth Moss is new as well.  But that's only because she was passed over last year.  Before that ostensible slight, she was nominated three straight times (and four of the previous five times) for her role of Peggy Olsen.  In Elizabeth Moss's case, everything old is new again.  Tatiana Maslany's new too, but only after having been a buzz producing candidate three years running.  VD and TPH, in their particular roles, are the true freshman phenoms.  They're the ones making the most noise with their party crashing.

 

Which is fine.  And fun.  And fresh.  For the most part.  I'm all for making room for newcomers.  But not necessarily, Irlandesa, simply for its own sake.  When noting the exclusion of Juliana Marguiles from the roster of this year's nominees, I wrote in the second post to which you responded, "...I don't think JM's acting suddenly started to suck."  That was my opinion.  But the fact that she was nominated for a Golden Globe, the SAG award, and the CCA this year would seem to indicate that her work on TGW was and is still held in pretty high esteem.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not sweating the fate of of Juliana Marguiles.  It just seems to me that her exclusion was more arbitrary than pointed.  Using the same reasoning you mentioned (Newcomers Needed), the Academy could just as easily have passed over Clare Danes or Elizabeth Moss or Robin Wright...or all of them (JM included).  There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of rhyme or reason to any of it.  It would just seem silly, even stupid, to have actresses of this quality sitting on the sidelines while lesser talents are vying for recognition which more appropriately and deservedly should be directed toward the hypothetical sideline sitters. 

 

Luckily for us (the TV viewers), I don't think this is at all presently the case.  While the exclusion of Juliana Marguiles may seem (even be) somewhat arbitrary, I don't see her being supplanted outright by an inferior talent in a less demanding or noteworthy role.  (Well, at least I'm not willing to type "Elizabeth Moss" outside the protective cover of a set of parentheses.)  As I repeatedly posited (no doubt to the point of annoyance) in the first post that you responded to, there's an embarrassment of riches currently available for consideration in this category.  As far as I'm concerned, last year's slate of nominees could be wiped completely clean and all the actresses on it (plus Elizabeth Moss) could temporarily and without malice be declared persona non grata.  This year's slate would hold no hint of the past.  This year's true newbies (Viola Davis, Taraji P. Henson, and Tatiana Maslany) would, of course, head this year's list of nominees.  Then some combination (all being preferable) of Caitriona Balfe (Outlander), Eva Green (Penny Dreadful), Keri Russell (The Americans), and Ruth Wilson (The Affair) could fill out the slate.   And despite the fact that not a single repeat nominee would be represented, there would still be no need to look to the sidelines.

 

Am I seriously suggesting that such wholesale turnover become commonplace?  Of course not.  I'm not even seriously suggesting that it should have actually happened this year.  I'm merely suggesting that, had it, there would have been no appreciable dropoff in the quality of performances being considered tor Best Actress in a Drama Series.  The field's that fucking strong this year.                   

 

If Viola Davis, Taraji P. Henson, Elizabeth Moss, and Robin Wright all have some sort of ancillary consideration working (no matter how tenuously) for them, Clare Danes probably doesn't.   Nor does she probably have much of a chance at winning.  Homeland (uptick in quality this season aside) simply isn't as highly regarded as it once was, and CD's already nabbed two statuettes for playing Carrie Mathison.  (Stranger things have happened though.  Who knows?  Maybe all the ancillary reasoning surrounding the other actresses up for the award may fragment the vote so completely that whatever solid and faithful level of support that CD might have may allow her to squeak out a win with a marginal plurality in the final tally.)

 

Likewise, even though I'm of the firm and unflinching belief that Tatiana Maslany should be the HANDS DOWN winner of this award, Tat probably doesn't have much of a chance either.  I think her nomination was little more than a consolation prize.  I think Emmy voters just got fed up with being called out for the clueless idiots they'd proved themselves to be the previous two years.  And actually, I'm kind of okay with this.  Having thought about it, it's pretty amazing that an actress on a comparatively low budget BBCA show somehow managed to get nominated over some truly awesome talent on the broadcast networks, on the more established cable channels, and on the even more prestigious (and critically respected by default) pay platforms.  I just hope Tat's nomination wins OB a few more fans.  Hope the nomination piques the curiosity of a few people out there who've been putting off checking out OB...or who simply don't follow "entertainment" news closely enough to have heard of the show or Tat's performance(s) before.  (Hey, I never really realized I had BBCA on my cable lineup until I quite accidentally channel surfed my way into an episode of Doctor Who some years back.)  These are people who may watch TV regularly...but don't necessarily read about it or make a concerted effort to venture outside their comfort zones to find new and exciting and interesting shows to watch (as, I'm assuming, many of us who frequent this site do)...but still might be generally interested enough in the medium to habitually watch the Emmys. 

 

(Listen, I just binge watched Empire primarily to evaluate TPH's performance.  It's most likely I wouldn't have done so -- yet anyway -- if she hadn't have been nominated in Tat's category...the only category that I truly care about, feel invested in this year.)  

 

Obviously, an actual win for Tat would be even more beneficial for OB than the nomination alone will be.  "Who the hell is she?  WTF is Orphan Black?" those not previously clued in will hopefully ask.  More than merely asking though, they just might follow up on the questions and find out for themselves.  And, oh, what a transcendent treat they'll be in for if they do!  A veritable master class in the art of acting...all amidst a fun, funny, thrilling, dark, intelligent, provocative, genre-bending, female-centric, character-driven (if nonetheless imperfect) roller coaster ride of a television series. 

 

Unfortunately though, in order for Tat to win, Emmy voters would have to vote, um, honestly and responsibly.  [Pause for laughs]  They'd have to take the novel approach of actually watching the salient shows, ignoring ancillary factors, and simply and objectively voting for the best performance.  Which is but part of the problem.  Sad to say, not that many people, Emmy voters I assume included, watch OB (which maybe has a viewership 1/10 as large as Empire does).  The other part of the problem is that comparing what Tat's currently doing on OB and and what the other nominees are doing on their shows is, well, comparing apples to oranges.  Judging actors based on things like the emotional and behavioral depth and breadth and complexity and verisimilitude and range and gravitas exhibited in their performances is, ideally, how voters should attempt to decide who is best.  And that works more than well enough when like things are being compared.  All this year's nominees, Tat included (five times over...at least), show all or some of these qualities (and others) to varying degrees in their performances.  The thing is though, Tat takes the range factor to a place never before visited in the history of television (perhaps even the history of acting itself).  She upsets the apple cart and leaves us glorying in her radiant and inimitable orangeness.  In a way, it's patently unfair for the other actresses in Tat's category to even have to compete with her.  But it's just as unfair (if not moreso) that Tat should somehow be penalized for having landed an actor's dream job...and having thereafter delivered the goods in spades...and hearts and clubs and diamonds...and in suits heretofore unseen...let alone imagined.  By rights, her coronation should be a foregone conclusion...a mere formality.  I don't merely think Tat's work is the best offered by an actress in a leading role this year...or over the last three years for that matter.  I think her performance is TV's greatest such performance EVER.

 

I have little doubt that many will instinctively balk at this assessment.  Sounds crazy, I know.  Even to me.  Or at least it did.  At first.  But I looked it up.  And it turns out the claim isn't particularly crazy after all.  I also have little doubt that many or most who will be instinctively balking at my claim won't be regular viewers of Orphan Black. If you don't watch...I dare you!!!   Watch Orphan Black and find out for yourself.  

 

Here's the list.  If you see a performance on this list that you feel or believe is better than Tat's on OB, I'd like to know what it is and why you've come to that conclusion.  

 

NOTE: Prior to 1965-1966 the Emmys were more open.  Comedy and drama performances competed (for the most part) against each other.  In '65-'66 separate categories were established, giving us something like (ever-evolving as the Emmys are) the awards as we know them today.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Lead_Actress_in_a_Drama_Series

 

 

ETA (first): Of course, I suppose there might be a performance buried out there somewhere in the wasteland of television history that was never nominated in this category but still might be worth considering in this exercise.  Seems unlikely.  But it's nonetheless possible.  The closest such example I can come up with off the top of my head is Lauren Graham in Gilmore Girls.  Seven seasons worth of the flawed but irrepressibly charismatic Lorelai Gilmore, and all Lauren Graham got in return from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences was a heaping helping of wind pudding and fried snowballs.  Surely one of the Academy's most unforgivable long-term running snubs.  Lorelai Gilmore is undeniably one of TV's most beloved characters ever.  Recently read an article somewhere, one of those lists, naming the 100 (or, who knows, 99?) Most Memorable or Most Influencial or Most Important or Most...SOMETHING characters since Tony Soprano.  Lorelai Gilmore was ranked # 6 behind 5) The Wire's Omar Little, 4) GOT's Tyrion Lannister, 3) MM's Don Draper, 2) BB's Walter White, and 1) 30 Rock's Liz Lemon.  I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that I've ever seen the kind of wide ranging SCOPE to Lauren Graham's acting in GG (or, in truth, in her entire career) that I've been witnessing recently from Tat in the three short years that OB's been in existence...but I do know that Lauren Graham absolutely nailed the role of Lorelai Gilmore.  It was her role of a lifetime.  It's as if Lauren was born to play it.  She's said as much.  The Academy was not impressed.  Fuck 'em.        

 

ETA (second): Not that it matters much...but Susan Hampshire's consecutive Emmys for 1969-1970's The Forsyte Saga and 1970-1971's The First Churchills...plus Glenda  Jackson's win for 1971-1972's Elizabeth R really don't belong on this list  under current definitions of this category inasmuch as TFS, TFC, and ER were all mini-series.  It's purely and utterly coincidental (I swear!!!) that Glenda the Great, easily the most intimidatingly magnificent (and accomplished) actress included in this rundown of past Emmy winners and nominees in this category, shouldn't really be there.  Fine though...for those hardliners who insist that, hey, she won and therefore should indeed be included.  I'll still take Tat.  I'm sure Glenda Jackson's performance in Elizabeth R (which I haven't seen...but suddenly very much want to) was extraordinary.  She played a queen (impeccably so no doubt).  But Tatiana Maslany IS The Queen!  On Orphan Black she plays a con artist with punk attitude who abandoned her daughter, but wants nothing more than to make things right...a paranoid soccer mom with a substance abuse problem which leads to, surprise, more problems (and hijinks galore)...an evo-devo geek lesbian scientist (with dreads) whose sexuality isn't the most interesting thing about her...a corporate ice queen (straight out of Cold Bitch Digest) who has a pencil fetish with a debilitating twist...a hopelessly endearing and endlessly put upon manicurist whose hybrid idea for a porn name turns out to be Muffins Slowikowski, Bitch Mistress of Cumalot, and whose philosophy of life is, "...in spite of everything...you can't crush the human spirit" (think Anne Frank with a pushup bra and a predilection for "open" relationships)...a transsexual thief with a ridiculous mullet...a suicidal detective...a swim coach swimming in tragedy...a German enigma with a foreboding cough...a thoroughly lovable (while just as thoroughly lethal) Ukrainian assassin (sing it: "How do you solve a problem like Helena?")...and, oh yeah, a scorpion!

Edited August 6, 2015 by dampfire
Edited for length. Please link info if possible instead of pasting. Thank you!