The Annual Primetime Emmys - General Discussion

[legaleagle53]

3 minutes ago, chitowngirl said:

The SAGs and BAFTAs are in there too.  I always include the Grammys because they are part of the EGOT.

The BAFTAs only count as part of the awards season in the UK.  Same with the Logies in Australia -- they're only part of the Australian awards season.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

Oh, please.  Elizabeth Taylor won her Oscar for Butterfield 8 because she nearly died after getting near-fatal pneumonia.  Julie Andrews won for Sound of Music because the studio gave her role in My Fair Lady to Audrey Hepburn ... There has been speculation about motivations for winning ever since the first Oscars.

She won for Mary Poppins.

[meep.meep]

25 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

You forgot the AMAs and the CMAs.  Or are those only for heretics?

Everyone is free to worship as they please.  I would never use the H word!

[Neurochick]

15 minutes ago, topanga said:

But that's just it: Not every actress would be able to do what Tatiana does: play 8 distinct characters in a show that requires her to interact--as different characters--opposite some of the same actors. Even her co-stars say they sometimes forget that Tatiana is the one playing each character. And at times she plays a clone who pretends to be another clone, so she has to maintain the integrity of the original character while showing her "trying" to become the other clone. 

This is why I was happy that she won.  Not only does she have to play 8 distinct characters, sometimes there are scenes where it's just the clones, meaning it's just her.  When I watch, I have to remind myself that all of these roles are played by ONE actress, also she's playing different characters with different accents, and it's convincing when she is playing one clone pretending to be another clone.  To me, that's acting. 

[meep.meep]

She's so great at it that during the aftershow, if she's on with Kristian Bruun, I find myself wondering why they couldn't get the person who plays Allison on too.

[Thumper]

1 hour ago, vb68 said:

I'm late on this, but...

 

as a resident SNL Freak, I disagree here so much.  Kate McKinnon winning is clear evidence to counter that stance.  Is it flawed?  Sure, but it always has been.  It's almost always better than the mountain of criticism it generates.  It has a deep bench of women performers right now from Kate to Aidy Bryant and Cecily Strong to a new legitimate star in Leslie Jones.  Just saying there's still plenty to like and enjoy about the show.  According to wiki, it also has the most Emmy wins of any show.   

I heard a quote from Lorne Michaels, who was asked what years were the best years of SNL.  His response was something like " the best years were the years you watched in high school."  LOL. We are so used to seeing the highlights, we forget that each season had its dud skits.  So happy for Kate McKinnon!

[AuntieDiane6]

Quote

Watching the Emmy Awards last night made me kind of sad.  Sometimes I'm not surprised we're so divided as a country, we don't even watch the same TV programs.  I'm old enough to remember when everybody watched more or less, the same TV shows, and then we'd talk about them in the lounge in school the next day.  Now, there are so many channels and so many choices, people watch TV so many different ways.  I think about a show I watch, Mr. Robot, and that I don't know anybody in my real life who watches it. 

I know!  Luckily I'm a pet sitter and stay in some of the nicest homes in my community (in-home movie theaters etc.) So, with the owners' permissions, I often have TV evenings and invite a friend or two over to see the shows they can't get on their TVs ... A friend and I get together one Friday night a month to catch up on Sex and the City.  (We used to get together for daylong marathons at my house of DEXTER.)  Another friend has come over for VEEP and Silicon Valley.  And a group of friends come over every January for Sunday afternoon movies.  Just continuing the tradition when I used to go over to my friend Cheryl's house and watch DARK SHADOWS!!

[mtlchick]

Quote

So this happened during the engraving of the awards which is so damn cool. https://www.buzzfeed.com/elliewoodward/sarah-paulson-got-marcia-clarks-name-engraved-on-her-emmy?utm_term=.ukx0rrE2V#.evq6RRmpM

I've always thought that as much Marcia Clark as did a horrible job in the trial, she was vilified for it when in reality the deck was stacked against her from the start and continued to grow higher as things went on so I can definitely feel why she thought it was a bad idea for the miniseries; it would be opening up old wounds.  But I'm happy that she's finally getting her due both here and in Made in America (not to mention one of her books is being turned to a TV series) and that Sarah's words will help change the perspective on her.  Holland Taylor is lucky to have Sarah as her partner.

 

---

Quote

Watching the Emmy Awards last night made me kind of sad.  Sometimes I'm not surprised we're so divided as a country, we don't even watch the same TV programs.  I'm old enough to remember when everybody watched more or less, the same TV shows, and then we'd talk about them in the lounge in school the next day.  Now, there are so many channels and so many choices, people watch TV so many different ways.  I think about a show I watch, Mr. Robot, and that I don't know anybody in my real life who watches it. 

It wouldn't surprise me this a big reason why that early news suggest this is the lowest rated Emmys ever: there is TOO much diversity in terms of where to watch.  Who would have guessed 10 years ago a streaming service like Netflix would 1) exist and 2) produce great content?  Or even Amazon, the place I can buy clothing, a pan, filters for my dog bowl, books AND watch TV? The problem is there is too much choice which was highlighted last year in Samburg's opening: a great show may fall through the cracks unless it gets noticed, but no one can keep up the pace to view them all.  And it's harder for me in Canada since we don't have Amazon TV, we have to wait for a streaming service here to pick it up, which I won't pay for (so *cough*torrents*cough*.)

 

Finally to clarify something that i said earlier: for me, Emmys is the "last" major award show until the race for the Oscars begins which is now...what, late December?

[vb68]

Quote

Finally to clarify something that i said earlier: for me, Emmys is the "last" major award show until the race for the Oscars begins which is now...what, late December?

Not that it even matters, but I think that is the correct way to view the cycle if you use the television season as a basis.  The Emmys reward the past season whereas the Golden Globes reward the current season of shows (and they do like to reward the buzzy new titles before the Emmys), so I agree that the Emmys are the finish to the previous cycle.

[Neurochick]

16 minutes ago, mtlchick said:

It wouldn't surprise me this a big reason why that early news suggest this is the lowest rated Emmys ever: there is TOO much diversity in terms of where to watch.  Who would have guessed 10 years ago a streaming service like Netflix would 1) exist and 2) produce great content?  Or even Amazon, the place I can buy clothing, a pan, filters for my dog bowl, books AND watch TV? The problem is there is too much choice which was highlighted last year in Samburg's opening: a great show may fall through the cracks unless it gets noticed, but no one can keep up the pace to view them all.  And it's harder for me in Canada since we don't have Amazon TV, we have to wait for a streaming service here to pick it up, which I won't pay for (so *cough*torrents*cough*.)

Very true.  Ten years ago, many people didn't have high speed connections in their homes.  I didn't have high speed until 2005.  Now there is so much to watch, and you really can't watch it all.  I don't even know many of the shows that are on TV today.  I have cable but not Netflix and I only get HBO to watch Game of Thrones.  Today you can watch whatever you want to watch, there's a network for nearly every taste, and that's not a bad thing, but it seems that today we don't even laugh together.  I see people on the bus, headphones on, watching something streaming; everybody's watching their own program, alone. 

[truthaboutluv]

Quote

I still can't get passed that anything is real any more.  Yes some actors who win are deserving but is it always about the acting or because of a statement (trans, race, gay, anti religion, anti America etc....) 

It's pretty much been a fact for years that award shows are as much about politics, including campaigning by studios, actors, etc. as it is about talent. Doesn't mean the winners are not deserving. The fact is there are a lot of worthy and amazing performances, writers, producers, etc. and so naturally some really talented people get ignored.  

[Princess Sparkle]

16 hours ago, SpikeGal said:

 

Well, next year it'll be on another channel, so it definitely will have a new host.  Whose turn is it now? NBC? (prays) Oh, please have anyone but Seth Meyers if that's true!

Next year is CBS's turn.  The past two times it's been their turn, they've had Neil Patrick Harris host, but that's obviously out for next year.  I would bet money that it ends up being James Cordon that hosts.

[dinkysquid]

3 hours ago, Neurochick said:

I'm old enough to remember when everybody watched more or less, the same TV shows, and then we'd talk about them in the lounge in school the next day. 

We used to call those "water cooler shows" and those were great discussions. And because everybody had seen the show, there was no need for "spoiler alerts." The best ones I remember were on Friday mornings after Must-See-Thursdays, quoting Seinfeld. And Monday mornings were good too because you talked about what you watched all weekend.

Damn, I'm old.

[topanga]

12 minutes ago, dinkysquid said:

We used to call those "water cooler shows" and those were great discussions. And because everybody had seen the show, there was no need for "spoiler alerts." The best ones I remember were on Friday mornings after Must-See-Thursdays, quoting Seinfeld. And Monday mornings were good too because you talked about what you watched all weekend.

Damn, I'm old.

One of my last and fondest memories of this is when I was working at a hospital and got really frustrated about something. I yelled, "Serenity Now!," and several people around me laughed. They'd also watched Seinfeld the night before and knew exactly how I felt. 

[wendyg]

Silje: Doris Roberts and Ann Morgan Guilbert both spoke, and lots of men were silent.

Edited September 19, 2016 by WendyCR72
Edited to remove initials/signature. Please do not sign posts. Thanks!

[Superpole2000]

5 hours ago, Neurochick said:

Watching the Emmy Awards last night made me kind of sad.  Sometimes I'm not surprised we're so divided as a country, we don't even watch the same TV programs.  I'm old enough to remember when everybody watched more or less, the same TV shows, and then we'd talk about them in the lounge in school the next day.  Now, there are so many channels and so many choices, people watch TV so many different ways.  I think about a show I watch, Mr. Robot, and that I don't know anybody in my real life who watches it.  The only places I can talk about it are with people on message boards and Twitter.  I work with a woman who does not have cable, so she's never even seen most of the shows that won last night yet, though she knows about them.  I contrast that to when I first started working, in 1981, when my co workers and I would talk about the latest episodes of shows like "The Jeffersons."

It's amazing how fragmented TV and music have become. There is so much choice out there, and you're right, it's hard to find consensus on anything anymore. That's why it's so strange to me that there are still just two main choices for President, and most people don't fully identify with either side. I guess the powers that be in TV-land weren't able to keep the upstart competitors from stealing eyeballs, whereas the story is completely different in politics.

[AuntieDiane6]

Quote

I only get HBO to watch Game of Thrones.  Today you can watch whatever you want to watch, there's a network for nearly every taste, and that's not a bad thing, but it seems that today we don't even laugh together.  I see people on the bus, headphones on, watching something streaming; everybody's watching their own program, alone. 

Well, then, if you have HBO, invite everyone over to watch VEEP or Silicon Valley!!  They're half-hour shows, so you can actually see an entire season (10 episodes) in an afternoon.  People watch FOOTBALL together ... why not shows?  If it wasn't so dang hot this summer (90+ nearly every day in UPSTATE NEW YORK -- the REAL Upstate New York near Buffalo), I planned to have a Rio Olympics party with Brazilian food and drinks to watch the opening ceremony.  I remember when Athens hosted, I went to a party with Greek food and drink.  FUN!!   When I first watched Sex and the City, I had a party with my friends to watch the last episode -- with cosmos and chocolate!  

[maraleia]

To anyone here who doesn't have Netflix it is a great investment if you get the two sign-on account package and share it with someone. There's so much good content you will find yourself watching way less broadcast TV as a result.

[callmebetty]

1 hour ago, maraleia said:

To anyone here who doesn't have Netflix it is a great investment if you get the two sign-on account package and share it with someone. There's so much good content you will find yourself watching way less broadcast TV as a result.

I've cut the cord. And between an antenna and Netflix I don't miss cable at all.

[Silje]

7 hours ago, wendyg said:

Silje: Doris Roberts and Ann Morgan Guilbert both spoke, and lots of men were silent.

I was talking about the clips for the Outstanding Lead Actress/Actor in a Drama Series, not the in memoriam segment.     

[biakbiak]

I realize the death montage had a lot of people to fit in this garbage year but including people who aren't famous for tv and excluding Larry Drake and Pat Harrington who both won individual Emmys is not the way to do it. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by biakbiak

[Neurochick]

15 hours ago, AuntieDiane6 said:

Well, then, if you have HBO, invite everyone over to watch VEEP or Silicon Valley!!  They're half-hour shows, so you can actually see an entire season (10 episodes) in an afternoon.  People watch FOOTBALL together ... why not shows?  If it wasn't so dang hot this summer (90+ nearly every day in UPSTATE NEW YORK -- the REAL Upstate New York near Buffalo), I planned to have a Rio Olympics party with Brazilian food and drinks to watch the opening ceremony.  I remember when Athens hosted, I went to a party with Greek food and drink.  FUN!!   When I first watched Sex and the City, I had a party with my friends to watch the last episode -- with cosmos and chocolate!  

I get what you're saying there (especially the HEAT this summer in NY).  But I'm not talking about watching TV with just your friends and family.  I'm talking about those "water cooler shows."  You might not have been friends with co-workers, but you all laughed at the same stuff. 

[Chaos Theory]

42 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

I get what you're saying there (especially the HEAT this summer in NY).  But I'm not talking about watching TV with just your friends and family.  I'm talking about those "water cooler shows."  You might not have been friends with co-workers, but you all laughed at the same stuff. 

People at my work do talk about shows though.  I don't think more content is a bad thing.  The exact opposite.  I think when people only have three channels they have less to talk about.  I think having more choices means more content that would never have been put on the air a decade ago not just because...well a decade ago but because there was so little room. Now there is just more space so there is room for shows like Master of None, Fresh Off The Boat and Transparent other shows that I might not watch but others can....and discuss with whoever else they can recommend them to.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[KLovestoShop]

Seeing how great a job James Corden did with the Tony Awards, he'd be a great choice for next year's Emmy's.  

I'll say what I did last year that it's sad that so  many regular network TV shows go unrewarded because the voters seem to wear blinders when it comes to shows on the four major networks.  Despite what a lot of people might think, there's a lot of great acting going on in shows that aren't on HBO/Netflix/Amazon/Showtime etc.  And although I like Veep, isn't there another comedy actress who does just as good a job as JLD?  I've felt this way when the same actress/actor wins year after year despite others who are just as deserving, whether it's comedy or drama.

[zxy556575]

10 minutes ago, KLovestoShop said:

And although I like Veep, isn't there another comedy actress who does just as good a job as JLD?

My objection to the repeat winners is that it seems like the job becomes kind of rote for them after several seasons. Are they really, REALLY doing groundbreaking work after 4-5 years of it? Inhabiting the same character at that point seems more like second nature than award-worthy acting.

[Chaos Theory]

1 minute ago, lordonia said:

My objection to the repeat winners is that it seems like the job becomes kind of rote for them after several seasons. Are they really, REALLY doing groundbreaking work after 4-5 years of it? Inhabiting the same character at that point seems more like second nature than award-worthy acting.

Not a comedy person but on the Drama Category Bryan Cranston won a few times for Breaking Bad and yes he and the show deserved it.  

[Blakeston]

2 hours ago, KLovestoShop said:

Seeing how great a job James Corden did with the Tony Awards, he'd be a great choice for next year's Emmy's.  

I'll say what I did last year that it's sad that so  many regular network TV shows go unrewarded because the voters seem to wear blinders when it comes to shows on the four major networks.  Despite what a lot of people might think, there's a lot of great acting going on in shows that aren't on HBO/Netflix/Amazon/Showtime etc. 

I don't think the voters are unwilling to recognize shows from the four major networks. This wasn't a great year for the networks at the Emmys (although Kate McKinnon is on NBC), but in very recent years they had no problem giving multiple Emmys to Jim Parsons and Allison Janney - or with throwing Emmy after Emmy after Emmy at Modern Family.

I think the shows with the biggest obstacle are the ones on the CW. The lack of a nomination for Rachel Bloom was one of the biggest mistakes they made this year, and they've refused to recognize Jane the Virgin (or Veronica Mars, back in the day).

If network shows are at a disadvantage, I think it's because of how many episodes they make. I don't think the voters generally take into account that the writers for a show like The Good Wife had to create more than twice as many episodes as some of the other contenders.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Blakeston

[Lady Iris]

I was so impressed with Sarah Paulson. Thrilled for her win and the remarks she made on Marcia Clark's behalf. I remember the whole OJ thing quite clearly. I'm glad that even though it took a couple of decades, time has shown what she was really about and how hard she worked to try to get justice for Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

And yay for Game of Thrones! Nothing less than their win for best show would've made me happy.

I'm not a regular watcher of Jimmy Kimmel but I know enough about his and Matt Damon's ongoing, whatever you call it and that was my favorite funny bit for the whole night. Well played Matt Damon. "How'd you like those apples?" Gotta wonder if he and Minnie Driver ran into each other backstage.

[truthaboutluv]

Quote

I'll say what I did last year that it's sad that so  many regular network TV shows go unrewarded because the voters seem to wear blinders when it comes to shows on the four major networks.  Despite what a lot of people might think, there's a lot of great acting going on in shows that aren't on HBO/Netflix/Amazon/Showtime etc. 

I agree with the above response to this quote and would like to add "how quickly we forget". I feel like this is the same argument when indie films have a big year at the Oscars and the comments come out about no one caring about the Oscars because the big blockbusters and films that made a lot of money never get rewarded, which is simply not true. 

As stated above, how long was Modern Family's stranglehold on the Best Comedy Series (too long in my opinion), how many times did Jim Parsons win for Big Bang Theory, the love for The Good Wife, Alison Janney's stranglehold on the Supporting Actress category? American Crime that Regina King has won an Emmy for two years in a row is on ABC. On the flipside, how long did it take the voters to finally acknowledge The Americans, which is on FX? Or to acknowledge Tatiana Maslany? And it's not like Game of Thrones was sweeping up Best Dramatic wins for years. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by truthaboutluv

[Chaos Theory]

Honestly I don't think any of the major network show hold a candle to the cable shows and I am not even talking about HBO (which I loathe).  I mean Channels like SYFY and FX and the lot.  I enjoy many of them but I do t think they come close to the quality of what these networks put out which is why I wouldn't exactly be opposed to maybe an award show for the big four/five? networks.  Don't get me wrong some of them are great shows but put them against a show like the Americans, American Crime,. Fargo or the People vs Oj and they don't have a chance.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

Not a comedy person but on the Drama Category Bryan Cranston won a few times for Breaking Bad and yes he and the show deserved it.  

Yep.  And while I get the desire for variety (which I think the show did rather well this year by recognizing repeat performers/shows but also by recognizing networks like USA, Syfy and FX that normally don't get Emmy love), There are some performers that do seem to up their game/blow me away year after year.  Bryan on BB did that.  And so does JLD on Veep.  And I'm surprised when it happens because at a certain point I just love a performer but it's hard for me to be surprised or wowed by them.   JLD does do it for me, though so I was happy for her win even if it was the 5th.

[WendyCR72]

4 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

Honestly I don't think any of the major network show hold a candle to the cable shows and I am not even talking about HBO (which I loathe).  I mean Channels like SYFY and FX and the lot.  I enjoy many of them but I do t think they come close to the quality of what these networks put out which is why I wouldn't exactly be opposed to maybe an award show for the big four/five? networks.  Don't get me wrong some of them are great shows but put them against a show like the Americans, American Crime,. Fargo or the People vs Oj and they don't have a chance.

Well, that was what the defunct Cable ACE Awards were for, to honor cable shows. But with cable now "equal" to broadcast - if not surpassing it, I guess it was concluded that the Emmys cover all the bases. And, thus, the Cable ACE Awards became obsolete.

[Kromm]

1 hour ago, WendyCR72 said:

Well, that was what the defunct Cable ACE Awards were for, to honor cable shows. But with cable now "equal" to broadcast - if not surpassing it, I guess it was concluded that the Emmys cover all the bases. And, thus, the Cable ACE Awards became obsolete.

Yeah, there were (and still are) "Streaming Awards" too, but those never got off the ground past amateur status for the most part because the professionally done stuff is getting covered okay by the Emmys now too. Ergo... Jeff Bezos gets thanked a lot at the Emmys now!!!

[vibeology]

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 1:28 PM, Blakeston said:

I think the shows with the biggest obstacle are the ones on the CW. The lack of a nomination for Rachel Bloom was one of the biggest mistakes they made this year, and they've refused to recognize Jane the Virgin (or Veronica Mars, back in the day).

This goes all the way back to Sarah Michelle Geller and Buffy. Whether or not you're a fan of the show, SMG did Emmy nomination (and probably winning) worthy work in Buffy's fifth season. Between The Body and The Gift she should have been nominated but she wasn't on a "real network," Buffy was a genre show that people didn't take seriously and that was the season Buffy switched from the WB to UPN and I imagine neither network was too willing to promote her as a potential nominee. If you've seen The Body you know that the work was amazing but for whatever reason, the Emmys don't treat those teen marketed network shows seriously even if the quality is there.

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 2:19 PM, Chaos Theory said:

Honestly I don't think any of the major network show hold a candle to the cable shows and I am not even talking about HBO (which I loathe).  I mean Channels like SYFY and FX and the lot.  I enjoy many of them but I do t think they come close to the quality of what these networks put out which is why I wouldn't exactly be opposed to maybe an award show for the big four/five? networks.  Don't get me wrong some of them are great shows but put them against a show like the Americans, American Crime,. Fargo or the People vs Oj and they don't have a chance.

American Crime airs on ABC. Networks can create programming like this. They have so many resources at their disposal to do it, but they don't because it's a financial risk. A mini-series/anthology series is hard to place on a network schedule. A mini-series/anthology series is hard to sell to advertisers. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done. I can't imagine a writer would turn down NBC and opt to develop a show with FX. It's just most of the time the networks do a risk assessment and opt to produce a procedural or reality show because they know how to sell that to advertisers and market that to viewers.

[catrox14]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:40 AM, lordonia said:

My objection to the repeat winners is that it seems like the job becomes kind of rote for them after several seasons. Are they really, REALLY doing groundbreaking work after 4-5 years of it? Inhabiting the same character at that point seems more like second nature than award-worthy acting.

That really comes down to writing and performance IMO. 

If a character changes either grows or even devolves like with Wallter White, it's not a static performance.  It's taking a character to a new place and finding different layers to that character.  That's why IMO Cranston won so often for Walter White. He wasn't a static character and the actor kept him out of that stasis. To me if a character evolves/devolves or the actor brings something different to the same character they should still win.

[Chaos Theory]

22 minutes ago, vibeology said:

This goes all the way back to Sarah Michelle Geller and Buffy. Whether or not you're a fan of the show, SMG did Emmy nomination (and probably winning) worthy work in Buffy's fifth season. Between The Body and The Gift she should have been nominated but she wasn't on a "real network," Buffy was a genre show that people didn't take seriously and that was the season Buffy switched from the WB to UPN and I imagine neither network was too willing to promote her as a potential nominee. If you've seen The Body you know that the work was amazing but for whatever reason, the Emmys don't treat those teen marketed network shows seriously even if the quality is there.

American Crime airs on ABC. Networks can create programming like this. They have so many resources at their disposal to do it, but they don't because it's a financial risk. A mini-series/anthology series is hard to place on a network schedule. A mini-series/anthology series is hard to sell to advertisers. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done. I can't imagine a writer would turn down NBC and opt to develop a show with FX. It's just most of the time the networks do a risk assessment and opt to produce a procedural or reality show because they know how to sell that to advertisers and market that to viewers.

American Crime is on ABC isn't it?  My mistake.  I do think major Networks do occasionally come up with amazing shows but they tend to do horribly in ratings.  It's a crime how badly shows like Hannibal, Gallavant and  Agent Carter did all of which should have been award worthy shows.   

Procedurals are easy.  I've watched them myself and then skipped a half a dozen episodes and then jumped back in without missing a step.  You can't do that with a show like yhe Americans.

[Moose135]

1 hour ago, Chaos Theory said:

Procedurals are easy.  I've watched them myself and then skipped a half a dozen episodes and then jumped back in without missing a step.  You can't do that with a show like yhe Americans.

But they also don't have to crank out 22+ episodes a season of The Americans.  They do a dozen now, some more next year, a bunch the year after that. Would the quality be the same if they maintained the typical broadcast network schedule?

[topanga]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

That really comes down to writing and performance IMO. 

If a character changes either grows or even devolves like with Wallter White, it's not a static performance.  It's taking a character to a new place and finding different layers to that character.  That's why IMO Cranston won so often for Walter White. He wasn't a static character and the actor kept him out of that stasis. To me if a character evolves/devolves or the actor brings something different to the same character they should still win.

True, but is that the intent behind the repeated wins, or is it pure inertia? i.e., I loved The Golden Girls, and the Academy saw to it that each actress eventually won an Emmy (which they deserved). But was Bea Arthur's performance in Season 5 really that much better than her performance in Season 2, enough to win her an Emmy? Or was she better than her co-stars that particular year, but she wasn't other years? To me, that was an example of the Academy deliberately wanting to share the wealth when it comes to awarding great performances . 

I love JLD and think she's awesome on Veep, but so is Tracy Ellis Ross and Laurie Metcalf. Is JLD really better than the other women in her category year after year, or are voters just checking a box?

[Chaos Theory]

11 minutes ago, Moose135 said:

But they also don't have to crank out 22+ episodes a season of The Americans.  They do a dozen now, some more next year, a bunch the year after that. Would the quality be the same if they maintained the typical broadcast network schedule?

You could also make the case that each of those 22 episode season shows has about a dozen good episodes a season.  If they cut them in half I think a lot of the better shows would be well better shows.  What makes a lot of these cable shows so good is that they tell a tight story with maybe one or two "filler" episodes a season.  

[BW Manilowe]

On September 21, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Chaos Theory said:

American Crime is on ABC isn't it?  My mistake.  I do think major Networks do occasionally come up with amazing shows but they tend to do horribly in ratings.  It's a crime how badly shows like Hannibal, Gallavant and  Agent Carter did all of which should have been award worthy shows.   

Procedurals are easy.  I've watched them myself and then skipped a half a dozen episodes and then jumped back in without missing a step.  You can't do that with a show like yhe Americans.

American Crime is on ABC. American Crime Story (which was about the OJ trial this season) is on FX. It's probably an easy mistake.

[Inquisitionist]

1 hour ago, BW Manilowe said:

American Crime is on ABC. American Crime Story (which was about the OJ trial this season) is on FX. It's probably an easy mistake.

I'll say it is! 

[BW Manilowe]

Stephen Colbert is hosting this year's Primetime Emmy Awards, airing live on CBS on Sunday, September 17th at 8PM Eastern/5PM Pacific Time.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/stephen-colbert-host-2017-emmy-awards-cbs-967509

[Hanahope]

Isn't this the first time in many years Colbert wasn't nominated for an Emmy?  So he gets to host instead.

[Princess Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

Isn't this the first time in many years Colbert wasn't nominated for an Emmy?  So he gets to host instead.

He was nominated for an Emmy last year, just  not for The Late Show - he was nominated for the Annual Kennedy Center Awards. 

I would've bet my life CBS was going to pick James Cordon, and I've never been so happy to be wrong. I can't wait to see what Stephen's going to do. 

[mtlchick]

Quote

I would've bet my life CBS was going to pick James Cordon, and I've never been so happy to be wrong.

Corden is already hosting the Grammys and the Tonys on CBS.  Him hosting the Emmys would have been WAY too much overkill. 

[Trini]

Quote

The Television Academy announced today that Anna Chlumsky and Shemar Moore will present the nominations for the 69th Emmy Awards from the Wolf Theatre at the Television Academy's Saban Media Center on Thursday, July 13 at 8:30 AM PT /11:30 AM ET.

Television Academy Chairman and CEO Hayma Washington will join Chlumsky and Moore at the nominations ceremony, which will stream live on Emmys.com.

http://www.emmys.com/news/awards-news/chlumsky-moore-announce-170629

[Valny]

I’m an awards whore so I can’t wait to find out the noms today.  I am most looking forward to the actress/drama categories. There were some many great performances, it’s going to be hard to choose.  After watching Big Little Lies, I had firmly believed Nicole Kidman deserved many awards but at the time I didn’t know Elizabeth Moss would be in the mix.  I still haven’t seen Handmaid’s Tale but heard what a great performance she gave and there’s such a big buzz around that series. You just know Jessica Lange will be in there too, and I’m a huge fan, (she was great in Feud) so it’s tough for me to pick anyone over her but the fact is, there  will be worthy performances from all. 

[mojoween]

Sterling and Milo are nominated for Best Actor in a Drama but Mandy is not nominated for Best Actress.  Huh. I could go either way on that choice, actually, because I'm not generally a Mandy fan, but no one else could be Rebecca to me.

Also I think Nicole has it in the bag for her category.

Could this be the year "Silicon Valley" takes the win?  Hahaha of course not but I can dream.

[truthaboutluv]

I'm happy for Milo. I think he's actually been a little underrated because of all the focus on how good Sterling is. I feel like Jack is so essential to the larger story of This Is Us and Milo plays him perfectly. I wonder if he and Sterling both submitted the episode when Randall was having the breakdown at the cabin. I can see that nabbing them both nominations because that was a pretty powerful episode. 

[vb68]

SNL is represented in a big way! I mean, half the nominees for supporting actress in a comedy. I love it. Leslie Jones. I never thought that would happen.