July 12, 2015 at 4:53 pm #353065
I was just watching some TVLand special and remembered this.. Isn’t that shocking? Ally McBeal was the most talked about show of the time. She was even on the cover of time when it meant something.
What happened? Bad submissions?July 12, 2015 at 7:49 pm #353067
I’m sure others know far more than I do, but it seems like nothing could stop Helen Hunt from winning throughout the late 1990s.July 12, 2015 at 7:57 pm #353068
She was on the cover of time when it meant something but the article was not really flattering to her show or character. It was about how it was very divisive and controversial. Maybe some would say any publicity is good publicity but I’m not sure. Then anti mcbeal backlash combined with ally mcbeal is a bad show in 1999-2000 and even though the show recovered a lot in 2000-2001 and she returned I dot think she was strong enough. 2001-2002 season was a disaster.July 12, 2015 at 9:04 pm #353069
The problem with Flockhart was that Hunt’s performances were just as good, combining drama and comedy. I thought Flockhart would definitely have won in 1999, but Hunt submitted that superb finale of her show.July 13, 2015 at 3:59 am #353070
Favoritism. When they annoint an Emmy darling (in this case Hunt), they rubberstamp year after year and ignore everyone else.July 13, 2015 at 12:18 pm #353072
Well if that is your attitude I think you have come to the wrong site. We care about this stuff! We are Goldderby!!!!!!!July 13, 2015 at 5:24 pm #353073
Interesting. That IS pretty shocking to me. I would have assumed for sure she’d won at least one.July 14, 2015 at 6:48 am #353074
I remembered this as well. Its incredibly ridiculous, and by far one of the worst decisions the emmys ever made. Ally McBeal is an iconic character, and flockharts performance is unique. She deserved an emmys, if not 2, and the fact that Hunt has 4 for a just good performance (and her costar was much better btw), is outrageous.July 14, 2015 at 8:21 am #353075
I know submissions and all but what’s the point of giving the award to the same person 3 or 4 times when others don’t get at least one. Was Brad Garrett really light years better than Peter Boyle? Or Doris Roberts over her entire competition? Did Aaron Paul really had to get the third one for almost the same performance that won him the 2nd one? There are very few people who win 3-4 times and it feels entirely deserving, like Bryan Cranston, but even then if he would have lost to anyone in 2010, nobody would protest – that field was so strong.
I like what they did with supporting actor in 2000s – different winner every year. It was a wonderful, satisfying run of winners.