September 11, 2016 at 1:55 pm #1201920502
Why she keeps winning? I only see bad arguments.
Obviously is not because of her tapes (although we saw that tapes do matter and were important for Azaria, Scolari, Fey nad Poehler), but is not her popularity either, because she is less popular than Ellen Burstyn (don’t forget that she beat Poulson for Asylum) or than Lauri Metcalf. The other really stupid argument is that she can win for drink coffee, etc… Well, she lost for the first two season of The Americans, in which she was amazing. And she lost to Carrie Preson, very less popular than her and with comedic role, and to Alisson Janey (she had great tape, but Martindale also had an amazing tape), and then Martindale beat her two times. Why?
I only have two ideas:
1. A lot of voters wanted Martindale to win for the first two seasons, but she lose, and they decided to compensate her.
2. A lot of voters adore The Americans, and wanted to award the show through her.
What do you think?September 11, 2016 at 2:11 pm #1201920514
I don’t know if I buy the second theory. If that many voters truly adored The Americans, why did it take so long for the show to finally get its due? That wouldn’t explain Martindale’s inexplicable win last year.September 11, 2016 at 7:10 pm #1201920731
The first theory is interesting. That might be the case for getting her one Emmy but two in a row? Nah, there’s something else at work here.
She happens to be one of the nicest people in the industry and everyone just loves her. She’s a very warm person and she’s pretty much acted with everyone throughout her career. So I guess that’s probably got something to do with her win.
Tapes did matter in the other 3 wins (Especially Scolari and Azaria’s) but they obviously weren’t a factor here.
And we also don’t know how the vote totals tallied up. Perhaps she just won by a few votes?
September 11, 2016 at 7:22 pm #1201920748
- This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by AayaanUpadhyaya.
She is very good no matter the screentime. Every win doesn’t have to be for an epic arc.September 11, 2016 at 7:53 pm #1201920766
I think it may be something as simple as voters genuinely like her and take the oppurtunity to award someone they actually respect when they get the chance. It could also be that sometimes voters check her name off because they are familiar with her past work and just figure she deserves another win.September 11, 2016 at 8:02 pm #1201920772
She is very good no matter the screentime. Every win doesn’t have to be for an epic arc.
BUT it should never be for a minute-and-a-half CAMEO.
Well it is the ‘Guest’ category after all. While it’s still not a deserved win, you’d consider screen time to least matter in these categories.September 11, 2016 at 8:42 pm #1201920786
Peeps adore Martindale. That explains it. Metcalf was no doubt hurt by barely anyone watching Horace and Pete.
OSCAR FLASHBACK: Best Original Song (2009) – Where the Wild Things Weren’tSeptember 11, 2016 at 8:48 pm #1201920790
Actors who do fine work in multiple projects often win for a nomination in just one performance. Martindale had not only The Americans, she had also appeared in both The Good Wife and Bojack Horseman.
Neither of those shows fared as expected in the Emmy nominations. A vote for Martindale could have been seen as recognition for her participation in those projects.September 11, 2016 at 9:14 pm #1201920801
Lol I just realized that Margo is the first actress this decade to snag 3 Drama wins.
(Others with 3 regardless of categorization: Aaron Paul, Jim Parsons, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Claire Danes, Allison Janney.)September 12, 2016 at 10:05 am #1201921018
So, all it takes is being adored, or a long list of credits? You just have to show up, basically, and you win? If that was all it took, why didn’t Ellen Burstyn win? Looking at her credits on IMDB (152, as long as we’re counting), her first TV credit goes back to 1958. So, number of screen credits cannot be the reason. It could not have come down to performance, either. Can anyone honestly say that Margo’s brief performance outshined Ellen’s? I sure can’t. I barely tolerate HoC, but I can’t help feeling that EB was robbed.September 12, 2016 at 12:24 pm #1201921085
Yeah, if we’re going by favoritism, Ellen Burstyn would’ve won. Laurie Metcalf might be adored, but she was on a show nobody saw. But Burstyn was in a show that had about 20 actors nominated, so clearly people saw it and loved it. So being fanboys of some actress can’t be all that mattered here.
I don’t watch The Americans, but I know Burstyn was great and on House of Cards for longer than a minute.September 12, 2016 at 1:35 pm #1201921126
I think is maybe a combination of several factors:
1-People who don’t wacth The Americans but read and hear that is a great show and want to recognize it and what better than do it with the most recognizable actor in that show.
2-Voters who actually like to award character actors with subtle performances
3-Voters who actually think she did the best performance even if only last 90 seconds.
-“did you see Margo Martindale last night in The Americans?”
-“oh yeah…in that scene with Frank Langella…drinking coffee”
-“yeah…nobody drinks coffe like Margo, I’m voting for her at the Emmys”
-“she won last year doing the same thing”
-“yes…but is not like is a real acting category…is a Guest category”September 12, 2016 at 3:37 pm #1201921151
There is no proof that the tapes still matter. All those guest wins could be based on name rec and recent buzz (Scolari). Tapes have always been a question mark in the guest categories as there have been plenty of times when people won with obviously lesser submissions than competition. However, it’s never been this extreme. So, I doubt Martindale would have two Emmys for this show under the old system.
Screen time is not the be all when it comes to a worthy winner. You can chew the hell out of the screen in five minutes. But Martindale has had literally a mere few lines in each of her winning submissions. There’s been no dramatics, no tension. She popped up randomly, uttered a few lines and dipped. They’ve barely been cameos. The odd part is that she would have been worthy of a win for season one. The only people I can imagine not thinking her wins are outrageous are folks who don’t watch The Americans or her submissions (which is probably the majority of the people who voted for her).
Martindale is a well respected industry vet who has a large network of industry friends due to her constant work load. The Americans is an acclaimed, “serious” show, the perfect venue to give a well liked vet their due. The problem is she isn’t due anything for this show. Her wins is also a way to reward a show that Emmys hadn’t fully embraced and obviously who most of whom still don’t watch.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.