September 22, 2015 at 6:12 am #362337
I’m seeing a lot of complaining about this year’s winners and how people want to go back to the old system, how tapes don’t matter now, etc. Am I the only one who thinks the Emmys did a pretty great job this year?
Let’s look at the main series winners first. Game of Thrones and Veep (two of my favorite shows of all time) had arguably their weakest seasons, yet they won for them. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Game of Thrones, even in its weakest season, gave us Hardhome, probably its best episode EVER, along with plenty of other iconic and well written moments (Daznak Pit, Walk of Shame, The Ends of Shireen and Stannis). While it was uneven (Dorne, Winterfell, and Brienne all stagnating or being not up to par), it was still appointment and amazing television. I’d take Game of Thrones worst season over crap like House of Cards any day. Plus, in its previous seasons (4 in particular) it didn’t win, despite being an even better quality than the one it did win in. Veep, while not reaching the comedic heights of Seasons 2 and 3, was still riotously funny. It was a pleasure and horror to watch Selina’s team strike back at her and disassemble or come back stronger. Plus, it toppled Modern Family, something I am extremely happy and proud of. Should shows that have done better, but are still really amazing, be penalized for that? It wasn’t their best year, but they both were fantastic nevertheless.
In Drama Actors and Actresses, Hamm and Davis won deserved Emmys. The may be some debate over if someone else deserved it more (I would have personally gone for Taraji over Davis), it is undeniable that they gave fantastic performances and should be rewarded. Uzo Aduba won in a very tough race, but she did do fantastic work that episode and that season. While it can be argued Headey and Hendricks did better, Uzo also put in a worthy performance and gave OINTB a major win, which I’m glad for. Dinklage’s win is a bit harder to explain. Banks had the best episode by far, Mendhelson was a force of nature the whole show, and this was by far Dinklage’s worst season. It’s fairly obvious he got by on GOT’s support, but to be fair, he has been a phenom the whole run of the show, yet only winning WAAAY back in Season 1. His great acting from Seasons 2-4 were neglected for the win (though to be fair he had to go against Aaron Paul those years, who was just as if not moreso fantastic). I felt this Emmy was more of a reward for his work on the show as a whole, as opposed to this specific season. I don’t find tooo much of a problem with that, even if it isn’t ideal.
The Comedy Actors winning were all deserving and great. Tambor got his first Emmy for a show that, while I didn’t personally love, he did a fantastic job in. Yes, it wasn’t a FUNNY comedy but I’m glad he won over guys like Anthony Anderson and Don Cheadle. JLD has won every year for the past four years, which sucks for her STACKED competition, but could you blame her. She gives a tour de force every season. It sucks that Poehler never won for Parks and Rec, it really does, but JLD isn’t undeserving by any means. Hale had a great episode, from a great show. I liked Tituss a little better this season, but Hale is still deserving. I will admit I don’t watch Mom, really not big of any of Chuck Lorre sitcoms, but according to all of you, Janney deserves it, so no problem there.
Limited Series almost all went to Olive Kitteridge, which admittedly was the only one nominated that I watched. I also thought it was fantastic so I don’t have many complaints about its near sweep….except Bill Murray. He was in for a very short time and it was very sweet performance but nothing that screamed Emmy the way you all make Finn Witrock or Damien Lewis sound (I wouldn’t know.)
So tell me, after all of that, was it really a bad year? Very few of the winners were egregious, and I would say almost all of them were deserving.