kefrank

I happened upon the Emmy broadcast just after it started and enjoyed it quite a bit. I haven't watched Succession or The Bear, but it was pretty obvious from the other awards shows that they were likely to dominate their categories. I would have loved to see The Last of Us get at least one win because it was such an outstanding show, but I knew that was a long shot with those other popular/acclaimed shows in the mix.

How in the world did Obi-Wan Kenobi get a nomination for best limited series? I didn't think it was awful, but it was nowhere near good enough to be within striking distance of an Emmy (or any other award). The Andor noms were warranted though.

Decker

It won 8 Emmys.

X - Formerly Twitter

RichC2

Yeah, Nick Offerman won an Emmy finally and it was for Last of Us.

kefrank

I probably should have been more specific. I was referring to the "major" categories awarded on the live broadcast. As far as I can recall, none of those were on the live broadcast were they?

Decker

Nope. The only Drama Award given to any show besides Succession last night was Best Supporting Actress, which went to Jennifer Coolidge for The White Lotus.
But those other Emmys still count. And that was 8 more than Better Call Saul won in 6 seasons.

kefrank

I wasn't suggesting the other Emmys don't count. The implicit meaning of my original statement was, "I would have loved to see The Last of Us get at least one win [of its 5 noms on the live broadcast]...."

Sorry if that was somehow unclear in context.

Decker

I also would have liked to have seen the awards spread around a bit. Lately the Emmys have gotten in a rut where they award everything on the live broadcast to one or two shows and it makes the telecasts very boring and predictable. The worst was the Covid year of 2021, where both Schitt's Creek and The Crown won all 6 awards in their respective categories.

Draven

I still maintain that shows should be restricted to one entry per category. I loved Succession but I don't believe it had the three of the absolute best actors on television in it compared to every other show. It would bring a lot more productions into the mix and make for a much more interesting contest. It's one of the reasons I think these things are dying out. If you didn't watch the 2-3 shows that are nominated for everything, there is nothing to root for.

Red Dog

Do the Emmys still do the thing where nominations/awards are based on one episode submitted for consideration?

Saw that Bear cleaned up in the comedy category. That alone is more laughable than a single moment of that show. "Yes, Chef!" Oh and it isn't a good drama either.

cultshock

I'm finally watching Succession after all the awards, and am enjoying it quite a bit. I tried a few episodes of The Bear several months ago and it really wasn't doing much for me, maybe it eventually gets better?

Count Dooku

If the show is the West Wing, and they have Richard Schiff, Brad Whitford, and John Spencer all in supporting roles, how do you tell two of them they can't be nominated for an Emmy?

There was that Netflix show that starred Linda Cardelini and Christina Applegate. One of them CANNOT be nominated if the other is?

And if you are the best show on TV, don't you think you're gonna have more than one of the best written and best directed episodes, each written and directed by different people?

What's the point of the awards to begin with, if you are restricting who can be nominated as being the best? If Succession is far and away the best show on TV, which it seems Emmy voters think it is, then it gets overwhelmingly praised. That makes perfect sense.

Yes, what you are suggesting will result in more shows getting nominations, but the point is to nominate the best. If you're not nominating the best, then what's the point?

Count Dooku

Yes, but if think all those people have not watched every episode of Succession, you're crazy.

And in the drama category, it would have been completely smoked by Succession, so going into the comedy category seems like the smart play, doesn't it?

Red Dog

If awards matter, I guess. I really don't put much stock into the Emmys.

The irony of your statement is that Succession (considered a drama) is a far funnier show than The Bear. 3/4 of a typical Succession episode is funny insult zingers.

cultshock

Are there hard, fast rules which dictate what catagory a show can be put in? Or is this something the producers can decide, and can choose accordingly based on a show's best chances? (especially "borderline" shows like The Bear)



I'm almost done season one of Succession, and have had numorous laugh out loud moments for sure, which is rare for me in general, but some humor on the show just snuck up on me unexpectedly.

Decker

The "Comedy vs Drama" debate is old and played out.
Here are the current rules for categories :
So it's the Producers' call, with the Television Academy reserving the right to Veto. Barry and Ms Maisel both have significant dramatic components and are also considered to be Comedies.
Furthermore, the Golden Globes and the Critics Choice Awards also had their own classification criteria for their awards, and both considered The Bear to be a Comedy program.

cultshock

Thanks Decker. And yeah, the last season in particular of Barry was anything but funny to me for the most part, lots of it near the end was quite the downer (but still very well done).

Draven

I loved Succession. The actors are incredible on Succession. And there are also incredible actors and writing and directing on many other shows. Are you really saying that a judgement call can't be made on the best representatives from each show? I don't think Succession has the three best male actors when compared to every other actor on television.

I enjoyed The White Lotus too. But look at the Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series nominees:

• Matthew Macfayden, "Succession" — Winner
• F. Murray Abraham, "The White Lotus"
• Nicholas Braun, "Succession"
• Michael Imperioli, "The White Lotus"
• Theo James, "The White Lotus"
• Alan Ruck, "Succession"
• Will Sharpe, "The White Lotus"
• Alexander Skarsgård, "Succession"

I will never believe that the 8 best supporting actors on television right now are all on just two shows. It's impossible, especially for something as subjective as "best supporting actor". This is ALL subjective. There are people out there who hate Succession. These are simply judgement calls by voters. Spread the love.

I go back to shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There were episodes and performances on that show that rivaled any other show on TV at the time and it never got the love it deserved. I was thrilled with Tatiana Maslany got a win for Orphan Black because her performance in that show was the single best performance I've ever seen any actor do on television. That was a time when they got it right.

bluetoast

The theme of the evening was nice and Anthony Anderson did a good job as host.

Josh-da-man

It does seem like there are always a handful of "buzzy" series they glom onto and vote accordingly.

It sort of reeks of politics. (Not politics politics, but industry politics.)

Decker

I think "buzz" is the key word to me. I think more than politics, it reeks of laziness. When they give these sweeps, to me it says that most voters are only watching a few shows regularly. No better example of that than the aforementioned Schitt's Creek, which never even got an Emmy nomination until its fifth season and suddenly won an unprecedented sweep of 6 major wins in the comedy category in its final sixth season. Now I haven't watched this show but I have a hard time believing that the quality of the show jumped so much in the final two years that it went from being completely ignored to winning literally everything it could.

Another example would be the final season of Game of Thrones winning Best Drama Series in a year where literally nobody was claiming it was the best show on TV. To award that season just felt like a voter cop-out.

Count Dooku

The awards matter to the people who win them. I think ultimately that's the point, isn't it?

Decker

This is pretty cool, too :

X - Formerly Twitter

Count Dooku

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The awards are presented to INDIVIDUALS for their INDIVIDUAL work. It is absolutely unfair and completely contrary to the point of the concept of awarding "the best performance" to tell anyone they are ineligible because someone the other people they work with are also delivering great performances.

If you don't think Succession has the three best male performances on TV, then do not vote for all three of them in the nominating round. Simple as that. Now all you need is more people to agree with you. Every nomination is based on the accumulation of one vote at a time. There is no nomination by acclamation. You have to get one vote at a time.

OK don't believe it.
Your opinion is different than the expressed opinion of the majority of Emmy voters.
Their opinions are the ones that get to decide who gets nominated and who wins.

Have you never had the experience in your life of disagreeing that the best person fro the job won an election? Does that mean the election was invalid?
Yep, you have accurately described the concept of voting for acting awards.

However, you might want to consider that all those people making a living as professional actors know more about acting than you.

That's certainly something voters can think about when they vote, but not a requirement. They each get to vote how they each want to vote, using whatever criteria they each want to use.

Okay, then you were certainly welcome to cast your Emmy ballots for those Buffy actors.

I thought it was all subjective?

Count Dooku

People had not seen the show because it was on an obscure cable channel. Then the episodes ran on Netflix and it took off in popularity. By the time it got to the sixth season, enough people had binge-watched the entire series for them to want to throw their love at it at the end.

Draven

Why not? If the rules are "one representative per category, per show", then they should just step it up. It's not like there aren't already a bunch of ridiculous rules in play for the Emmys (see The Bear controversy).

Or they just watched Succession and The White Lotus and went "good enough".

And I'm saying that picking all of the best actors from a handful of shows is lazy. I don't truly believe most considered other shows. Otherwise there would be more varied fare than just the shows that everyone is watching.

Let's use a school vote for eight candidates to be the "best high school student" - there are 300 students eligible...and then 4 go to members of the football team and 4 go to members of the cheerleading team. I wouldn't go "welp, they must be the best."

Hence why I think they are, in general, a waste of time - people awarding themselves accolades. But they should at least TRY to make it interesting.

We have regional Broadway awards here. Anyone can nominate anyone, and then the community votes. Every year, there are one or two shows that sweep most of the awards. Knowing there are literally hundreds of shows happening all year and dozens and dozens of people are nominated for awards, I do not agree that the four main actors and the director and the choreographer (for a show with little choreography) all came from the same production (which I saw and it was good, but so were a lot of things I saw this year). Instead, those companies leverage their Facebook pages and subscriber base and get people to vote for those particular shows. So it's no surprise when they win, but that certainly doesn't make them "the best".

Great.

And I would have.


For a drama like Succession, it is. What Maslany did was an acting challenge. Some roles, by their very nature, are more difficult than others. That should be factored in (and it was in the case of Orphan Black).

I am not a Hollywood star but I have performed in, music directed and directed dozens of musicals starting since before I could walk and I have seen over 150 productions as well. Some roles are super flashy, while others completely carry a show, and still others are just there for comic relief. I would rather there be some parameters other than "well this was a good show that is ending so lets nominate every single person on it". It's lazy and boring.