Cusack, Martindale… Baranski, Poehler, Hamm?

Home // Forums // Television // Cusack, Martindale… Baranski, Poehler, Hamm?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
Created
2 years ago
Last Reply
2 years ago
22
replies
473
views
15
users
3
3
3
  • ThiagoGarcia
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 14th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360555

    “We love you and nominate you year after year, but you never amuse us with your submissions. Since this year we are not watching anything, just take your Emmy home.”

    Is this happening?

    Reply
    jf123
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 15th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360557

    I think Hamm will win, even if they do watch the tapes.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Ryan Showers
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 1st, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360558

    I was already predicting Hamm and Baranski, and I may be changing Poehler to my prediction too.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Emmyfan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 26th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360559

    I predict that Doris Roberts will win Supporting Actress in a Comedy.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Rooney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 2nd, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360560

    You can’t compare one of the smallest categories to one of the the biggest ones and make an assumption.
    Obviously not so much voter in the Acting branch didn’t care who would win Guest categories and didn’t even bother to click on those to see what’s it all about.(Or just clicked, saw the names, rolled their eyes, and exited.)
    And the ones that did care, voted for their friends. Period. Opening the voting of guest categories to the everyone was just the worst idea. You can defend this new voting system by saying that it allows more people to participate and not judge performers on only one episode of their work .This really is not true for guest categories, because they’re like Short categories at Oscar, they’re just there for arbitrary seasons, but no one is actually care or watch them, therefore winners are tend to be random as hell. They should go back to the old system for these categories. They are probably the only categories that should be judged solely on one episode, because these are ”Guests”.

    The real shocker to me was not to see them doing name-check, but was the fact that Martindale is the one who prevailed that name-check. Not Tyson, and not Rigg. It looks like she could have won that Emmy in 2011, even if it weren’t for her tape.

    People are so hypocrite. So you’re okay with Beau Bridges winning with only one episode out of whole season but you’re so mad that Reg E.Cathey won, because you didn’t see that coming? What’s the difference between these two? They both had good arcs last year in their show, but their screentimes and importances has been distinctly decreased this year.
    There is no excuse for Martindale’s win, because they apperantly don’t watch The Americans. But  House of Cards is very popular amongst the actors, and maybe they made up the wrong has been done by judging panels last year.(by their perspective.) And gave him the win for his performance in last season.
    Because seriously, in this category there wasn’t any other actor that we can say ”He nailed it. He totally deserved it.” this year.
    At least here, we can take a bright view of that; and assume that they have voted for the performance they have seen before. There is no way Reg E.Cathey has more friends in the Academy than Michael J.Fox, Alan Alda or Beau Bridges. So popularity argument is invalid on this particular case.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Halo_Insider
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360561

    I don’t really see what’s hypocritical for wanting Beau Bridges to win (or at least being very sure that he would) when he clearly had the best performance out of the group of nominees while Reg E. Cathey had comparatively little to do. I mean, I thought Beau Bridges’ performance in the Season 2 premiere was far more impactful than anything he did in the first seaosn of Masters of Sex, whereas Cathey was the opposite. I’m not mad that the latter won. Actually, I’m pretty happy that he got honored as a make-up for losing last year. But calling people hypocritical for commenting on how the Emmys chose the person with clearly one of the weakest submissions feels a little weird.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Rooney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 2nd, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360562

    ^But we should all have seen that coming. I mean the fact that ”episodes don’t matter” anymore in the Guest categories.
    It’s already a Cinderella story to believe that they would actually watch 96 tapes in order to vote, let alone the Guest ones. We were all aware that it’s not possible. So we knew more of them would want to vote for Lead and some supporting categories and not touch the rest.

    So in the end, if name-check is our only option for Guest categories, I’d rather have them to go with the performance they’re more familiar with than the name they’re more familiar with. And that’s what probably happened in this category. Cusack and Whitford could still be name-checks. Martindale definitely is.
    But people are acting like E.Cathey’s win is equivalent to Martindale’s win and as a clear result of name check which I don’t agree.

    And yes, with this system if Bridges had won, it probably would have been result of name-check. You and I know he has a good tape, the rest of the world doesn’t. So I’m glad he lost.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Rooney Moore
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 2nd, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360563

    ^^And, by the way considering Baranski has lost to Joan Cusack today, a woman from a show that no one in the Academy is aware of, I don’t really see a scenario she ends up winning next week ahead of SAG winner Uzo Aduba. She basically even failed on the popularity race. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    DingbatHauteur
    Member
    Joined:
    Aug 18th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360564

    Joan Cusack won for Shameless because she’s a fan favorite and was way overdue in this category, just like Baranski is in her category. After tonight, Baranski has a significantly larger chance of winning than she did before because of name-checking and the overdue factor. And she has a good tape. I’ll put her in front for now and see how things go. 

    I’m already predicting Hamm, but I don’t think I’ll switch to Poehler. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Lord Freddy Blackfyre
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360565

    I don’t see Baransky winning over any of the others nominee…And I don’t think OITNB is a factor at all in the Drama races simply because it itsn’t a Drama Series.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Anonymous
    Joined:
    Jan 1st, 1970
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360566

    I don’t see Baransky winning over any of the others nominee…And I don’t think OITNB is a factor at all in the Drama races simply because it itsn’t a Drama Series.

    OITNB is a drama series but it is a mediocre one. Once they moved from the easier comedy categories to drama categories we saw the reality. The same thing would easily happen to Transparent if they decided to have 1 hour episodes.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    WaltEagle
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 10th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360567

    It’s possible, but it’s relevant that those three also had decent submissions and seasons. The Americans, I think, is a unique case. It’s the number one example on TV of high-acclaim, low-viewership. Combined with Martindale’s Emmy cred, it was a formula for people to assume she was worthy. It will be different when the acting nominees are in higher-prestige categories from some of the series nominees, which are so relevant to the Emmys that voters have likely seen chunks of most of them (some of which they probably just watch in general as fans).

    ReplyCopy URL
    Deniz Sisman
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 19th, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360568

    So in the end, if name-check is our only option for Guest categories, I’d rather have them to go with the performance they’re more familiar with than the name they’re more familiar with. And that’s what probably happened in this category. Cusack and Whitford could still be name-checks. Martindale definitely is.
    But people are acting like E.Cathey’s win is equivalent to Martindale’s win and as a clear result of name check which I don’t agree.

    You can’t just reckon as ”no one” in the Acting branch doesn’t watch Shameless and The Americans just because none of their other lesser known performers had ever gotten in the big categories.(Notably Emmy Rossum, and Matthew Rhys.) Guest categories are where that even the performers of little shows could more easily recognised because of the lack of competition.
    Joan Cusack and Margo Martindale are not the most popular actors in the world, or in the TV Academy, or on this years Emmy guest ballot. I’m sure there were many other examples but one recently; Joan Cusack have even gotten nominated last year ahead of Ellen Burstyn for Louie.(A show that has been nominated three times for Best Comedy, is clearly on the Emmys radar and a Performer who had been nominated for a 15-second cameo in the past.) So there is definitely awareness of that show and that character. A little, I admit, but there must have been some passion behind it to nominate her 5 consecutive times whether the name of the category she is competing is Comedy or Drama. No bland name-check don’t last this long.
    And Martindale and The Americans… It’s one of the most critically acclaimed shows on the air, so it wouldn’t surprise to me, to see that let’s say, 100 voters in the Acting branch does watch. That number may not be enough for them to sneak into Lead or Supporting categories, but it is enough for to let one recognizable Guest performers in. Martindale was very deserving in season 1. If some of the voters just started to binge-watch The Americans to see what all this buzz is about, or others who had been fans of that character from season 1 could very well be voted for just for her performance in that season. She couldn’t have won if all branch voted for that category, but appearntly that wasn’t the issue, considering both the popular names(Janney, Tyson) and characters from popular shows(Brosnahan, Rigg) didn’t win.

    I know these are all speculation, but what can we do, other than speculate things on this site? But I don’t find name-check answer is too satisfying. 
    Let’s just see that name-check is not always valid, and sometimes they also consider the work before vote for it.);

    Comedy-Supporting Actress;(This category harder to get in than the Guest one.)
    Allison Janney- Mom(Nominated twice for a show that is not on Emmy voters radar.)
    Margo Martindale-The Millers(Never nominated for a show that was not on Emmy voters radar.)

    Drama Guest Actress:
    Allison Janney-Masters of Sex.(Lost.)
    Margo Martindale-The Americans.(Won.)
     

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360569

    I do find that Janney/Martindale discrepancy curious.  I hope that Margo Martindale continues to submit for the burn-off episodes of The Millers next year.  Maybe third time will be the charm.

    Joan Cusack won for Shameless because she’s a fan favorite and was way overdue in this category, just like Baranski is in her category. After tonight, Baranski has a significantly larger chance of winning than she did before because of name-checking and the overdue factor.

    Please, the academy has no idea what Shameless is.  If they were really watching, would William H. Macy be a SAG winner while Emmy Rossum has zero Emmy nominations?  Joan Cusack won because she was the most popular actress of her group.  We knew that she would do better in a popular vote than Christine Baranski, Elizabeth Banks, Gaby Hoffmann and Pamela Adlon because she had done better in a popular vote just the year before when she was nominated and all four of them were snubbed for the same roles.  The only difference between the two years was the presence of Orange is the New Black.  The only one that she had to worry about was Tina Fey because she was untested.

    And she has a good tape. I’ll put her in front for now and see how things go.

    Tapes are irrelevant.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Marcus Snowden (The Artist Formerly Known as msnowden1)
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 18th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #360570

    I am still predicting Hamm, but I’m definitely not as confident as I was before the Creative Arts Emmys. Baranski isn’t winning, especially considering the competition she has in Headley and Hendricks. I’m gonna think about predicting Poehler. I have JLD as of now, but that could change.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
Reply To: Cusack, Martindale… Baranski, Poehler, Hamm?

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
kancov - Aug 17, 2017
Television
Tom O'Neil - Aug 17, 2017
Television