February 21, 2014 at 4:02 am #546727
Which one do you prefer in terms of buzz, predictions… overall…?February 21, 2014 at 4:04 am #546729
Emmys are relatively unaffected by external factors, so that is admirable.February 21, 2014 at 6:32 am #546730
Emmys can get repetitive, and you can often know who will win before the nominations are announced. Look at Claire Danes last year, there was no way she was going to lose. I prefer the oscars, because they’re more dynamic, especially leading up to nomination time. I had Redford winning in October, and he didn’t even get nominated.February 21, 2014 at 9:09 am #546731
I love the Emmys personally because of the quirky, unpredictable nature most of the time (look at 2013 – Daniels, Hale and Weaver, not to mention Burstyn)February 22, 2014 at 6:28 am #546732
Emmys can get repetitive, and you can often know who will win before the nominations are announced. Look at Claire Danes last year, there was no way she was going to lose. I prefer the oscars, because they’re more dynamic, especially leading up to nomination time. I had Redford winning in October, and he didn’t even get nominated.
I have to disagree. If anything, we can be fairly certain of what’s going to win at the Oscars just a few weeks into the season due to critics’ awards getting swept up in awarding a single performance or picture. Really, by the time of the Globes and SAG, we’re generally set with our major predictions (at least in the acting categories).
At the Emmys, almost anything can happen. You say there was no way Danes was losing, but there’s no way to be certain of that. No voting panel is the same, so it could have easily gone to someone like Vera Farmiga. If anything, it’s far too common to have upsets. Aside from Renaton, how many people were calling Jeff Daniels’ win? And Tony Hale? Or Arrested Development’s series win? Or the first win for Bryan Cranston? Jon Cryer’s wins?James Spader? These were wins that came from voters liking their submissions, not from advanced buzz.February 22, 2014 at 8:28 am #546733
Over the past five years my interest in the Oscars has waned while my interest in the Emmys has been on the rise. By the time of the ceremony there might be two major Oscar categories up for grabs. Everything else is cemented. There are too many reasons movies win Oscars that have nothing to do with perception of quality. There’s enough unpredictability and there’s been less prejudiceness over recent years. The Emmys still have their blindsides and frustrating redundancies, but in general they recongnize more good TV than the Oscars recognize good movies.February 22, 2014 at 11:57 am #546734
-campaigns really don’t matter (no Kerry Washington victory)
-tape system ensures that quality wins 80% of the time
-usually nominate the best of television
-legitimate surprises (Weaver, Daniels, Hale)
Oscars are boring because there are so many damn precursors. Also, the quality of the performance does not mean anything. Jeff Bridges and Christopher Plummer did not win because they were the best in their respective category… Finally, way too political.February 24, 2014 at 6:11 am #546735
Emmys and for three reasons:
1) It’s unpredictable and the frontrunner doesn’t always win (Jeff Daniels winning is a perfect example)
2) Best Drama Series……..best catagory ever to predict.
3) Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy….or as I call it now “will Ed ONeil finally win one of those?!?!”February 24, 2014 at 8:34 am #546736
The Oscar races are interesting in November and December, but by the time we get to the ceremony there have been so many precusors and so much politiking and so many obvious winners that most of the fun has been zapped away.