( +1 hidden )
September 14, 2016 at 9:31 pm #1201922653
Does anybody else think this is possible. Hear me out. Fans wanted RuPaul to win the most, but they believed he wouldn’t win. But he did win. Why, because the voters were paying attention. They listened, and they responded by voting for RuPaul. This is where one will inevitably say “if the Emmy voters were paying attention then how did Margo Martindale win again?” I kept thinking about this for a while, but I think it proves my point. They were not paying attention to her, they were paying attention to The Americans. I will easily admit, last year she won because she was a name check. But was she really a bigger name check than Ellen Burstyn? I really don’t think so. I believe the voters finally played attention to the Americans this year (as shown by all of it’s nominations), and gave her there votes that were designated for The Americans. My theory that the voters were paying attention is furthered through Peter Scolari’s win. He generated tons of headlines around the media. This got his name out there and the voters curious, so that is what lead him to winning, he got there attention. Most agree Amy and Tina were the best in there category, as well as the name checks/ curiosity votes, so nothing can really be proven by there win. But Hank Azaria, he proves my point more. Many people agree he gave the best performance, and won. This most likely means he won because they saw them, he somehow got there attention. So could the voters vote based on the most interesting/ best performance instead of their favorite? I think so. I believe RuPauls win foreshadows that Spacey will loose for best lead actor. Instead of the favorite, they will either go with the best or most unique, which is Rami Malek and Live Schreiber. Malek’s buzz is so loud that if the voters heard the buzz of RuPaul, they must’ve heard Malek’s buzz. However, many believe Schreiber had the best episode submission, So if he wins, that would prove they are paying attention to the performance over the buzz. So which ones are the voters paying attention to. Martindale win indicates they are paying attention to the buzz, as well does Scolari’s, but Azaria’s win indicates they are paying attention to the performance, and Amy and Tina’s win indicates both. So maybe they are paying attention to both. I believe that RuPauls win could also foreshadow Tatiana Maslaney upsetting, as her performance is considered the best and the buzziest. If I am right, this could also indicate wins for Louise Anderson, Anthony Anderson, Anna Chlumsky, Maura Tierney/ Constance Zimmer, Kit Harrington, and even possibly (but probably not) The Americans. So, I believe RuPauls win means the voters are paying attention. I just had to give this its own thread. What could my theory indicate and could it be true or am I a dreamer?September 14, 2016 at 9:46 pm #1201922667
I have commented on Azaria and Martindale in other threads, so I want to focus on the absurdity of RuPaul and Scolari, whose wins throw attempts at logic out the window.
Coming sixth in the nominations and first in the winner’s vote is nothing new. I can rationalize how that would happen with certain performances—ones that are kind of old news or that not everyone is watching, but are given by beloved actors who serve as a default choice. SAG winners Uzo Aduba and Maggie Smith fit this bill.
But Peter Scolari, really? This is like Ex Machina in visual effects at the Oscars where even if you posit that the vote must have been really evenly divided, it still does not make sense that he would have had a bigger pile of votes than anyone else. How would a sentimental vote favour a supporting actor from Newhart over Bob Newhart himself? And why is he getting his first nomination for Girls four years after he was recognized by Critics’ Choice and three years after Girls was a series nominee? It sometimes takes voters a while to discover something, but he was a past nominee in a major Emmy contender committing category fraud. Voters were well aware of him, but he still got snubbed.
And RuPaul? Snubbed seven times, then wins for the eighth season? Again, it can take voters time, but to go from zero to a hundred between years seven and eight? What the fuck.
I ultimately understand the logistics of how these two won. Everybody who voted for them had them in first place. (Plus Scolari picked up a few sympathy votes.) I get that. But how was that pool of die-hard voters ever substantial enough in the first place? Definitely wary of Louie Anderson now and I have moved him up to third.September 14, 2016 at 10:05 pm #1201922676
Martindale is so strong that she negates any argument that voters are paying attention to the tapes, but you could say that voters paid attention to the critical buzz for The Americans (and RuPaul).
I find Azaria pretty easy to explain without getting into conspiracy theories because vote-splitting and not wanting to vote for a tree immediately reduces the race to just Azaria versus Fox.
EDIT: Post that I was responding to is deleted. The original poster was just asking if my post meant that I agreed with the original post.
September 14, 2016 at 10:10 pm #1201922683
- This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by Riley.
I accidentally deleted it, and I see what you are saying but isn’t Ellen Burstyn stronger than Margo Martindale, that is why I think the voters voted on the buzz of The Americans over the voters love for her, because one would think they love Ellen Burstyn even more.September 14, 2016 at 10:23 pm #1201922689
RuPaul had passion behind his nomination and win. He was overdue for both and they shotgunned him his victory.September 14, 2016 at 10:27 pm #1201922691
I think that Ellen Burstyn and Michael J. Fox are in the same boat in that they are always beloved enough to fill out a nominating ballot, but they have been so reliable for so long that they really need to reinvent themselves in order for voters to get passionate about them to put them number one. Margo Martindale is still exciting to voters because she is a recent awards discovery. I mean, yes, Burstyn can get nominated for a fifteen-second role, but being in enough people’s top fives for a nomination is not the same as being many people’s number one.September 14, 2016 at 10:35 pm #1201922695
Aren’t there upsets every year? Why would this year be any different?September 14, 2016 at 10:39 pm #1201922699
The new voting system should make things more predictable. Look at how Game of Thrones, Veep, Olive Kitteridge and The Daily Show swept last year.September 14, 2016 at 10:42 pm #1201922703
If I am right, this could also indicate wins for Louise Anderson, Anthony Anderson, Anna Chlumsky, Maura Tierney/ Constance Zimmer, Kit Harrington, and even possibly (but probably not) The Americans.
How would those three be upsets? They’re all at least second or third in their category. GD as a whole is predicting Harrington to winSeptember 14, 2016 at 11:19 pm #1201922725
Newhart already won his career Emmy, so I didn’t really see the need for voters to pick him again, particularly for “The Big Bang Theory.” But Margo Martindaleeee? I know. I still didn’t pick her to win either time for either Emmy. I won’t make that same mistake next year. I thought the race was clearly between David and Morgan. The narratives were all right there with David dominating the season as Bernie!, and Morgan with his triumphant comeback to “SNL” post-tragedy. There was no reason on Earth to pick someone initially seventh place in the voting who by clerical minutiae and our very own Asperger Salad Riley led to the Academy revoking MacNicol’s nomination. For voters to use that media notoriety to pick Scolari is miraculous. I’m over the moon that “Girls” was recognized for its stellar fifth season somehow, and I knowingly placed him in sixth. It’s heartwarming to know that in the same weekend that Tom Hanks had the number 1 movie in the country, Peter Scolari was winning an Emmy. “Bosom Buddies” 4-EVA!
As for RuPaul, I had no idea that he campaigned for this win, or why this particular nomination happened now of all times when all involved have been worthy of Emmy recognition for years and years now. I’m more interested in seeing if “RuPaul’s Drag Race” can break into Reality/Competition next cycle. “American Ninja Warrior” can’t continue to be a thing, and the spot looks variable with “So You Think You Can Dance?” on the outs. There may be something to not ranking the nominees but picking winners that led to something interesting happening in the results. You didn’t have to do the “respectable” thing and rank for who you should, but vote with your heart. I think it’s a leap to say that this will signal numerous upsets Sunday night. Maybe a few, but it’s still a popular vote in play now, so where they can be predictable, they will be. Look to categories with first-time nominees for possible upsets instead of people they’ve had a chance to acknowledge and passed on. So names like Malek, Russell, and Anderson maybe. But I’m predicting almost all last year’s winners, so there you go.September 15, 2016 at 12:47 am #1201922747
The reason why I agree with the poster is because of Scolari winning. His win can only be explained with voters paying attention either to the tapes or to the general buzz (or a combination of both). And of course RuPaul winning (I predicted him!!) changes the whole game altogether.
It’s these two wins that make me confident in my predictions for Kate McKinnon, Kit Harrington, Courtney B. Vance and Louie Anderson.
Margo, despite not having the tape or the performance, had so much else going for her. The buzz for The Americans, voters wanting to reward The Americans, her stint on the Good Wife, her stint on BoJack, her just being such a warm and lovely person, her having worked with everyone, her being the returning winner.
I don’t buy the vote split argument for Hazaria’s win as the sole factor as I can’t imagine the HOC voters (those who saw the show) voting for anyone but Reg. E Cathy. And those not familiar with the show shouldn’t be voting for anyone here in the first place. Azaria’s win has more to do with support for Ray Donovan in general (which is why I have Voight at a close 2nd behind Harrington)
September 15, 2016 at 1:30 am #1201922758
- This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by AayaanUpadhyaya.
Neither Mahershala Ali nor Paul Sparks had contended in guest for their roles before, so we do not know that Reg E. Cathey is more popular just because he has been nominated before. Sparks had never even been submitted before for House of Cards at all. Ali has had the most to do in the series overall and Sparks had the most to do this season, so I could see voters preferring them. (Hell, I would vote for Sparks.) We know how much the Emmy voters love supporting actors in guest.September 15, 2016 at 7:29 am #1201922858
I said it could indicate wins for those people I did not say it could indicate upsets. I am well aware that some of them are front runners, but there are arguments that the voters are not paying attention and would vote for people like Dinklage instead of Harrington.September 15, 2016 at 7:59 am #1201922870
Its totally buzz that will probably give kit harington that award. If it wasn’t all the Jon Snow dead or alive hype for almost a year I doubt that would happen. Wish I was wrong and Banks or Voight would win.September 15, 2016 at 12:09 pm #1201922946
Neither Mahershala Ali nor Paul Sparks had contended in guest for their roles before, so we do not know that Reg E. Cathey is more popular just because he has been nominated before. Sparks had never even been submitted before for House of Cards at all. Ali has had the most to do in the series overall and Sparks had the most to do this season, so I could see voters preferring them. (Hell, I would vote for Sparks.) We know how much the Emmy voters love supporting actors in guest.
Okay now you’re making me question my prediction. I hate that.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.