August 13, 2015 at 2:19 pm #357578
At the Oscars, many awards pundits believed that Julianne Moore (“Still Alice”) won Best Actress because she was “overdue.” Does the same hold true for the Emmys? If so, who might benefit from the overdue factor this year?August 13, 2015 at 3:01 pm #357580
If it’s true, Jon Hamm and Amy Poehler. However, I don’t think Emmy voters care about the overdue factor whatsoever.August 13, 2015 at 3:03 pm #357581
I’m not too sure, maybe you could ask Steve Carell or Hugh Laurie.August 13, 2015 at 5:43 pm #357584
I’m not too sure, maybe you could ask Steve Carell or Hugh Laurie.
Plus, Jason Alexander or Jane Kaczmarek.
John Goodman, and to a lesser degree, Kim Catrall and Jane Krakowski.
And if you will, add Michael C.Hall in that list.August 13, 2015 at 8:59 pm #357585
Not at all. This is one awards show that couldn’t care less. They don’t bother with being overdue, they don’t bother with paying attention to precursors, and they don’t even bother with being sentimental to those who have passed away.
Just remember when Julianna Margulies won everything for the first season of The Good Wife then lost to Kyra Sedgwick for The Closer.
Or when Michael C. Hall won the Globe and SAG, plus was battling cancer, and lost a third time to Bryan Cranston.
Kathryn Joosten passes away, then gets nominated in Supporting for Desperate Housewives, then loses to Julie Bown, who’s winning a second year in a row. Poor Robin Williams doesn’t even land a nomination for The Crazy Ones (but John Ritter did for 8 Simple Rules, so there are exceptions).
Now-or-never for Steve Carell, who actually has the best submission? Nah. Lets give it to Jim Parsons again.
Heartbreaking Oscar worthy performance by Matt Bomer in The Normal Heart, but it goes to Martin Freeman instead.
Angela Lansbury gets an 18th nomination, but Emmy voters love Angels in America so so much that Mary-Louise Parker is the inevitable win (I’m okay with this; it was the better performance).
This year, buzz and precursors indicate that Jeffrey Tambor is a lock. But when I watch him in his submission then watch Will Forte in his, I wonder, “Why doesn’t everyone have Forte ranked number one?”
Kyle Chandler in “Part 12” of Bloodline blows away Jon Hamm in the finale of Mad Men; c’mon, we all know it! But Jon Hamm is already the category’s biggest loser, so if he loses again, he will beat his own record. Due-factor is huge! Heck, even I’m rooting for Hamm to win!
Of course, things could all change this year with the new ways of voting. Now more than ever, due factor + buzz + precursor support may play a bigger role in someone winning.August 13, 2015 at 9:20 pm #357586
Ask Martin Sheen this question.August 14, 2015 at 6:43 am #357587
The funny thing is, it is not completely ridiculous that Jon Hamm will go from ZERO Emmys to 3 this year. Series, Actor, Guest Actor – all of which he remains a favorite.August 14, 2015 at 7:21 am #357588
‘Mad Men’ is only a favorite if you ignore years of statistics about key nominations.August 14, 2015 at 7:39 am #357589
It’s plain and simple. It wouldn’t matter before, because of the juried tape system. The main purpose of tape system was to prevent voters from going for people they like/admire and focus on the performance only. I know there are lots of fans of that system here, so I’m surprised now that everyone is blaming them for being non-sentimental.
You can’t have them both in the same time.
Yes, it didn’t matter before but it will matter from now on with the new rule. Emmy voters are people you know, just like the other people who are giving out an award. And they all know this is the last season of Mad Men, Parks and Rec etc. Some of them will vote for Hamm, Poehler, Hendricks, Moss just for that reason. Will it be enough? We’ll see.August 14, 2015 at 11:08 am #357590
I think Sarah Paulson is overdue to win an Emmy, though it seems weird to call someone of her young age “overdue.”August 14, 2015 at 2:11 pm #357591
I think Sarah Paulson is overdue to win an Emmy, though it seems weird to call someone of her young age “overdue.”
A rare case, for sure. But she’s overdue for many reasons:
– Her body of work on AHS. The first season was a minor guest role, but then she killed it in season 2, did the best she could with what she had in season 3, and then the conjoined twins this past season.
– She was robbed of a win at least once. Ellen Burstyn winning for Political Animals over Paulson in AHS: Asylum was just heartbreaking. I could have handled a win from the true Supporting Actress MVP of Political Animals, Carla Gugino, but she wasn’t even nominated.
– She had great television work even before AHS. Notably, of course, is Game Change, which she rightfully lost to Jessica Lange. But Paulson was a solid second best. Then there’s her Globe-nominated role on Aaron Sorkin’s Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Plus American Gothic. Plus Deadwood. Plus one season of a series that I’ve still never watched, Cupid, opposite Bobby Cannavale.
– Even if she loses this year – and she really could to Mo’Nique, an equally deserving performance – she will still likely be back next year, perhaps as a double-nominee: Lead for AHS: Hotel and Supp. for American Crime Story: The People Vs. O.J. Simpson.
It’s time to give her a damn Emmy.August 15, 2015 at 1:15 am #357592
We could go on listing overdue performers and television shows for days. I think the better question to ask are the following; Does goodwill help an actor win after several losses and will people take advantage of the new voting system to help these individuals finally win? Another question we could ask are some performances deserving of a nomination but not a win?