August 26, 2014 at 4:19 am #329904
There’s too much to still discuss.
Continue.August 26, 2014 at 4:31 am #329906
I’d rather see awful winners but first-time winners than repeat winners (even if they’re deserving winners). If they want ratings they cannot bore viewers. My hubby fell asleep after the first hour. He said he had already seen it last year. Honestly I don’t blame him. The only thing that kept me watching this borefest was reading your comments here, guys.
Oh, and please, can someone tell Julia Roberts 90s are over? Gurl, you’re yesterday’s news, get over yourself.August 26, 2014 at 4:37 am #329907
Primetime Emmys: Same Old, Same Old
This is why it’s my least favorite among the EGOT.August 26, 2014 at 4:44 am #329908
Guys, it’s Television, though. It’s a long-running series type of business. If the same people are being nominated rightly for long running shows over a few years, of course there are going to be repeat winners. So can everyone shut the f@ck up about the show being boring or the repeat winners being predictable and boring.August 26, 2014 at 5:02 am #329909
I tried to post something last night but I think my reply got eaten right as the other thread was locked…
Anyway, a pretty boring/lame show IMO. I thought Seth’s monologue was funny and the Billy Eichner bit was actually pretty hysterical, but it was downhill from there once they started announcing the winners. A lot of the presenter bits seemed to go on to long. Chris Hardwick was painfully unfunny. Julia Roberts seemed so desperate to stay on stage a little bit longer when she was presenting.
As for the winners, the comedy ones were pretty terrible. I will never begrudge someone who’s won before a win if they actually deserve to win. Why should a previous winner be penalized if they actually are the best in his/her category year after year? To me that’s more unfair than the alternative. So I don’t mind Bryan Cranston winning a fourth, especially since he hasn’t won since 2010.
I think JLD benefits each year from a pretty weak category and weak submissions, as well. Selina Meyer is a multiple Emmy-winning role. I’m not sure at this point who could top her from winning four in a row. Jim Parsons also benefits from a weak field each year but how does this man have FOUR Emmys for a show so mediocre and a role so two-dimensional. I really don’t understand it. I’m also not a fan of Aaron Paul getting a third Emmy.
Modern Family having five is so preposterous at this point it’s basically parody. Attempts to rationalize the win as this season being the best since the first are even more ridiculous IMO. Mad Men had its best season since the last time it won, as well, but should that mean it win over more deserving Breaking Bad? Modern Family does not deserve to win for best series when other nominated shows (OITNB, Veep) are funnier and had better seasons in comparison. OITNB’s severe underperformance is not too surprising. I think these predominantly white male voters were put off by the large female cast and the types of stories this show tells. And since S2 only intensified on that front, I can’t see it performing much better next year, though it may earn as many nominations.
I think this year more than any makes an argument for tapes not mattering. At least not more than they actually do. People like to bring up the same cases each year of tapes prevailing (e.g., Kyra Sedgwick), but I think mostly voters just vote for whomever they want to win and if that person’s tape happened to be the best in his/her category it validates the importance of the tapes. I think this explains the victories of many victories this year: Jim Parsons, Ty Burrell (though in a weak field), Aaron Paul, Julianna Margulies, Kathy Bates, Martin Freeman, Benedict Cumberbatch, etc.
I really think it’s more of a correlation/not causation thing going on. I think any of the Breaking Bad actors could have won with lesser tapes. Perhaps voters made up their minds last September when “Ozymandias” aired.
Also the “fatigue” factor should now finally be put to bed as an important factor preventing someone from a win. These voters simply don’t care.
I’ve read a few articles about the Academy needing to reform the Emmy process in the wake of these repetitious winners. While I don’t agree with allowing everyone to vote or getting rid of submissions altogether, I think the panel size needs to increase to reduce the impact of any one voter.August 26, 2014 at 5:08 am #329910
The winners of course went from great to pretty bad, but that’s the Emmys. Awarding television will always result in repeat winners, I guess we just didn’t expect them to be this many. My biggest complaints would be Burrell (instead of Ferguson or Armisen who once again showed that the variety actors are not working out in that category), Lange (instead of Paulson or Wiig), Paul (instead of Charles), Janney (instead of Mulgrew although we know Janney was close to a lock).
And of course there’s the Modern Family curse we all have upon us, the show keeps winning and can still break that record next year. It makes me wonder if voters now how crazy it has gotten with this show (the directing win was very deserving) and if next year they will have the ability to say “wait, SIX TIMES???”, I think not. Pretty much the same nominees will be around next year and the one season elegible for next year that already aired (Orange’s second) won’t be able to beat it. So…get ready.
The show itself wasn’t very good. Meyers started out ok with the monologue but it was downhill from there, the jokes were just weak, he actually went to a David Caruso CSI joke, which was as bad and dated as Fallon with yet ANOTHER Kardashian joke from him (or anybody, those are way too easy people should stop it with the Kardashian jokes already) and Colbert was awful with his imaginary friend bit.
Gervais and Kimmel stole the comedian spotlight in just a few minutes from the host. And in Gervais case, it always happens. It was good of Meyers to call on other people who wouldn’t have been invited otherwise to help out but they didn’t add anything special (Hardwick, Key and Peele). The Billy Eichner clip was great. And I don’t think anybody will be able to explain that Sofia Vergara moment.
The show did go by very quickly, even with certain things that made zero sense like going to commercials with a Julia Roberts tribute that caught her by surprise or announcing out loud that McConaughey could be the first Oscar winner to win Lead Actor in the same year, the screen reminder that “In Memorian in 16 minutes”, “Julia Roberts in 10 minutes” and Roberts having her over the top “I love my life” moment again.
And what can one say about The Amazing Race? Yes it’s the most difficult of the nominees and will be the more deserving, but really? Can’t they just stop voting for it? Why is it so hard to say “enough”? This applies to Modern Family too. Do they not watch the other nominees regularly? Do they not have other favorites regardless of how deserving an 8, 9, 10 time winner can be?….
I was also surprised that they had so few presenters from new shows. I can only remember Messing, Walsh, Spencer and Davis. And when Hayden Panettiere gets invited to promote the third season of a show nobody cares about on a different network, you know something was up.August 26, 2014 at 5:13 am #329911
Oh, and please, can someone tell Julia Roberts 90s are over? Gurl, you’re yesterday’s news, get over yourself.
Julia Roberts should be banned from presenting competitive awards. Only honorary for her. She’s always awful whether she likes the winner (“I love my life” for Denzel Washington at the Oscars) or not (freezing when she had to announce Ang Lee as the Golden Globe winner instead of her director, Steven Soderbergh).August 26, 2014 at 5:27 am #329912
I still can NOT believe that Matt Bomer and Larry Kramer lost that Emmys LOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Roberts losing for Bates, pff (and stop complaining about her, bitch was fabulous)
The comedy side, a part from Louie, was ridiculous. I’m even think I don’t want JLD to win again, it’s already enough.
The BB love was unnecessary (especially for Paul), but I knew it was coming.
Jim freakin’ Parsons with 4 Emmys for Sheldon Cooper, give me a break!
Orange going home empty-handed was ridiculous, I can’t even think about it.
The whole show was good, but nothing especial, and with thoses winners… good lord, didn’t help anything.
At least next year we’ll have 3 new winners in the acting categories.August 26, 2014 at 5:42 am #329913
matt bomer and larry kramer should have won
i cant believe it.. this is an abomination!August 26, 2014 at 5:44 am #329914
I knew “Orange is the New Black” was in trouble when the line about “we have comedies that made you laugh and comedies that made you cry because they were dramas submitted as comedies” got so much laughter.
I absolutely love so many of the winners that posters seem to hate: Ty Burrell (unbelievable that he’s on Emmy #2, he deserves more), Jim Parsons (brilliant performance, iconic character, incredibly strong season), Jessica Lange (“Coven” is one of the best performances of her career), Gail Mancuso for directing “Modern Family” (“Las Vegas” is what comedy directing is all about).August 26, 2014 at 5:48 am #329915
And what about the “Billy on the Street” segment? It was hilarious.
(standing next to Seth Meyers) “Who’s this?”
“No, not Macfarlane. How dare you?”
Or running around like a lunatic screaming “Maslany was snubbed, The Good Wife was snubbed” and getting a “Who cares” answer.August 26, 2014 at 5:59 am #329916
It was a hit or miss night. Seth did a good job hosting with good moments, and I wouldn’t mind him returning when NBC has the Emmys in 2018. Winner wise? The Comedy categories mostly awarded the wrong people but got a couple right (CK, JLD), and don’t get me started on Jim Parsons winning a 4th Emmy. If Better Call Saul is on par with Breaking Bad, it’ll beat Modern Family and Parsons, there’s no way it could lose. The amount of love for Sherlock in Movie/Miniseries was the wrong year for it’s worst episode. I wouldn’t have minded Bates winning if Coven didn’t suck so much, but from what I saw of the category Lange was the most deserving. I think they nailed Drama, and I got every category but Actress right.August 26, 2014 at 6:41 am #329917
I’m a little surprised that there haven’t been calls to get rid of the “comedy bits” to make room for the guest acting awards.
Speaking of things nobody has mentioned yet (at least, not that I have noticed – there’s probably a thread dedicated to this that I missed), was anybody “left off” of the In Memoriam? The only other person I could associate with TV that died in the past year was Rik Mayall, and considering that his American TV appearances consist mainly of “The Young Ones” and a couple of episodes from the “Blackadder” series, leaving him off wasn’t a bad decision.
What was with the various amounts of time the winners were given before the piano player started playing them off? One got 90 seconds; another got 45. I understand why the last two were rushed – the show goes into fast-forward mode at the end to get it to fit in the three hour time slot – but it doesn’t make sense when one person gets the music after 45 seconds and the next is allowed to speak for almost twice as long.
Did Julia Roberts seem flustered? I think she misread the teleprompter (she left out the word “Lead” in the category name) and didn’t quite recover from that. And what’s the current penalty for saying “And the Winner Is,” so we know how long to wait before expecting to see Jay Leno involved with the Emmys again?August 26, 2014 at 6:47 am #329918
Stephen Colbert’s “imaginary friend” nonsense was shockingly bad. He’s usually so good. What happened there?August 26, 2014 at 6:49 am #329919
If Better Call Saul is on par with Breaking Bad, it’ll beat Modern Family and Parsons, are you saying that “Better Call Saul” will compete as a comedy? No offense I love the show but I laughed way more while watching “Breaking Bad” than I have while watching “Orange is the New Black”