September 2, 2013 at 1:53 pm #295971
When it comes down to acting Emmy’s once you got the nomination, it all comes down to the episode submission.
If Michelle Fairley was nominated for Game of Thrones, she was going to win with ”The Rains of Castamere.” It’s just an unbeatable performance in that episode.
Did they NOT nominate her bacuse they knew she was winning it?September 2, 2013 at 1:58 pm #295973
Lordy. They’re not nominating people because they know they would win? That’s the theory now?
Out of the snubbed people in that category Potter had the best tape. Fairley had one great scene that could have turned off quite a few voters due to its grimness. She would have been competitive, but with Gunn and Smith I’m not sure she’d be the frontrunner yet alone be unbeatable.September 2, 2013 at 2:00 pm #295974
Just no.September 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm #295975
^That’s how I wanted to respond, but I’ve been overly curt and dismissive lately.September 2, 2013 at 2:10 pm #295976
Yeah, if she was nominated along with the current group, Gunn would still have it.September 2, 2013 at 2:12 pm #295977
She would still lose to Maggie Smith.September 2, 2013 at 2:13 pm #295978
To be honest, I’d rather see Michelle Fairley nominated this year, and Emilia Clarke nominated for what I’m sure is going to be a great season next year. Or better yet, both of them nominated this year in place of Christine Baranski.September 2, 2013 at 2:16 pm #295979
Don’t see why Baranski would be the one you’d push out when Hendricks and Baccarin are options.September 2, 2013 at 2:19 pm #295980
All three (Baranski, Hendricks, Baccarin) have 2% of Gold Derby’s vote, so they’re tied for last and pretty interchangable. I’d imagine that Fairley would have more like 10% of the vote… still nowhere near Gunn and Smith.September 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm #295981
Baranski didn’t submit well. That hardly means she didn’t deserve her slot. She’s the third most deserving of being there after Gunn and Smith.September 2, 2013 at 2:23 pm #295982
Icky, did you watch “The Seven Day Rule”?
Then again, at least Baranski is a good actress, which is more than you can say for Baccarin.
Either way, Hendricks should not be the first to go in this category.Marcus Snowden (The Artist Formerly Known as msnowden1)ParticipantSeptember 2, 2013 at 2:26 pm #295983
Yeah, Fairley wouldn’t win if she was nominated. I mean, yes, she would have a shot, and having arguably the best scene in the category wouldn’t have hurt, but no.September 2, 2013 at 2:28 pm #295984
Hendricks is quite good, so I’m happy for her nominations, but she really wasn’t given enough to warrant a nomination this season, though I wasn’t the biggest fan of Baccarin’s nomination.
But come on, what kind of a thread is this? This couldn’t have gone in the Supporting Acting comments? Fairley wasn’t even considered the actress with the best tape. And I wanted her to make it in, by the way.September 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm #295985
I’ve seen all of The Good Wife’s season, and it’s not a good submission for Baranski. But I don’t care whether an actor submits well or not. A nomination should be based on a season of work not potential submissions. Gunn is the only one of the women I would have definitely nominated. Clarke, Baccarin and Hendricks in that order are individuals I most certainly wouldn’t have nomianted. I’m not sure if Smith or Baranski would be in my personal top six, one of them probably but only barely. Still, they had enough good moments and a solid enough arc to justify their nominations.September 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm #295986
Michelle Fairley wouldn’t win even if nominated. Her one scene at the end, while good, probably wouldn’t affect voters who haven’t watched the show in the same way for those who have. And Fairley didn’t have the season to justify a nom, with only 1 scene in both episodes 2 and 3 for her to standout. The other lady besides Emilia Clarke who should’ve been nominated was Natalie Dormer, who had both the season and the episode (“Dark Wings, Dark Words”) to justify a nom.